/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15986188
Division is a crutch dont use it, the civilizations closer to the fall of atlantis understood this

>>15804646
A central theme in mmp is making the mystical metaphysical and making that physical. Take for example ybc 7289. It contains one of the earliest traces of pythagoras known to modernity (or a trace of math closest to atlantis)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1%2B24%2F60+%2B51%2F3600+%2B+%2810%2F60%5E3%29

Without mmp the scholars naively assume that they were able to acheive "a good approximation of the number" fools i tell you, like finding arbitrary levels of precision was something only us modernists can do with silicone wafers- plimption 322 was not only orders of manitude more precise, but there magnitudes possessed exactness!

In mmp every level of a precision of a metaphysical number tells a unique story, it dictates its conmensurability with another number. Ybc 7289 gave a very specific precision- it gave sqt 2 a repeating decimal, it brought order to the incommensurate portion of the magnitude

This is importamt for music
https://youtu.be/bCYcS57eCqs?feature=shared

Incommensurate coords lose the capacity to ring their harmpnic overtones resonance is lost, the music loses colour

Save music, use mmp to escape the not real r3al number system

Precision at iteration is not arbitrary. The . . . Notation obsures the fact inncomensurability is dissonant. You can hear many more harmonic overtones in the odd limit than in the equal temperament for this reason

Precicion should be chosen to bring commensurability to your calculations,
This us why ybc7289 has the precision it does, why plimpton322 cares so much about exact trigonometry

Embrace mmp, its schematic makes this clear

Save math, save music, save sanity

>>15784408

>>15653435

>>15506446
damn bros, imagine training your tots to be specialists in fixed point arithmetic in the babylonian sexigesimal system before they reach kindergarten

>>15286640
Well said, precision at iteration is note equivalent to exactness. There is a whole realm of unmeasurable numeric objects that lack a proper analysis due to the lack of appreciation between these two concepts. 1.4142135623730950488016887242096980785696718753769480731766797379...
and
1.4142129629629629629629629629629629629629629629629629629629629629...

obviously have a different informational character, yet approximate sqrt(2) to the 5th decimal place exactly the same. Whats behind the triple dot? Its alot cheaper to add 296 repeating than keep running a function to provide the next decimal place.

>>15274888
>You can define any number in a finite amount of digits by using a specific base.
This only holds true if you tolerate inncommensurate magnitudes as a base like [math]1_{\pi}[/math]. But this is just trying to bury the problem somewhere else and calling it a day.

In MMP the practice of turning an infinite decimal number to a finite decimal number using a different base is called physicalization. For example [math]\frac{1}{3} = 0.333_{ \cdots} => 0.4_{12} [/math] and highlights the futility trying to find a 3'rd of something by first subdividing it into 10 parts, physicalization reveals that it is best to divide the object into 12 and than take 4.

The roots of physicalization trace back to ancient babylon, where they didn't appear to see increased precision as explicitly increased accuracy, but instead opted for specific precisions to give physicalizable decimal expansions, such as in the sqrt(2) example in pic related. The reasons for doing so are a major focus of MMP, which hypothesizes a motivation in musical geometry

>>15076327
Babylonians seemed to have the highest depth of procedural, pre electronic, human driven computations

>>15033943
What I find fascinating is that not all approximations of Pi will recue a normal distribution.

Does this make some approximations of Pi, more legit than others?

>>15026654
I showcased your unhinged comments in relation to my mild mannered posts.

You need help, Anon...but you have to ask for it first.

>>14757584
based if true
based if false

pretty interesting

I wouldn't assume homogenaity for a given precision. Ie perhaps the first 10000 digits is spread uniformly between 0-9 but not 150000