/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10113039
"lol i trol u"

>>10113039
Space is discrete

>>10113048
what does that mean

>>10113048
that doesn't solve the porblem

>>10113060
It actually does. In a finitism setting ylu cannot construct sqrt(2)

>>10113039
>they kill me for this

>>10113050
>>10113060
Irrationality suggests a non-correspondence to reality. Pi is irrational because circles do not exist, and the diagonal of the unit squared is irrational because such a distance is meaningless. It can be only be approximated when you enlarge your scale, and the diagonal is composed of the zig-zagging units approximating the diagonal. But if you just had a square unit, and nothing else, that diagonal does not exist, because it cannot be traversed. This is nothing new. We see discrete 2d simulations simulating 3D space and motion every day.

>>10113050
>>10113060
Irrationality suggests a non-correspondence to reality. Pi is irrational because circles do not exist, and the diagonal of the unit squared is irrational because such a distance is meaningless. It can be only be approximated when you enlarge your scale, and the diagonal is composed of the zig-zagging units approximating the diagonal. But if you just had a square unit, and nothing else, that diagonal does not exist, because it cannot be traversed. This is nothing new. We see discrete 2d simulations simulating smooth 3D space and motion every day, when in fact their movement operates as information moves in one dimension at a time.

>>10113048
so space is like this?

>>10113048
Ahahahahah, oh my god. Can't even calculate the square root of two and somehow space can be "discrete". This is why they killed Hippasus.

>>10113088
Something like that, yes. Another way to think about the problem is to remember which numbers have rational roots: perfect squares. Why are these numbers perfect? Well, they are squares formed by the squared unit. Four is a perfect square because it is a square composed of four square units. However, if you only have 2 squared units, you can only form a rectangle. The area must be approximated by using many squared units (1.414...).

>>10113064
>Thinks a perfect triangle is real
>Thinks he's not a brainlet

>>10113130
>hurr durr im smart

>>10113048
Discrete space implies the universe has a preferred direction which is absurd

>>10113209
Why is it absurd? The effect is so small at the macro level that it goes unnoticed. There is a preferred direction in video game simulations, why are you not proclaiming the absurdity of that?

>>10113087
>>10113048
>mathfags trying to into metaphysics
Please, no, go on. This is the funniest shit i've read all day.

The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides.

>>10113236
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/09/28/cosmology-continues-to-lack-a-sense-of-direction/#25c94295700e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation
No Lorentz symmetry violations. NONE.

>>10113709
give a better explanation

>>10113039
That we have transparent pictures but not foreground to adjust to background automatically? I meant they mean: Don't pay for windows and do some work instead.

>>10114079
It already has it's own definition retard. It basically means "mathfags need not apply because you can't fucking calculate it".

>>10114396
What a shitty explanation. You can’t refute others and you can’t even support your own claims

>>10113088
doesn't quantum theory propose that space is quantized, to a planck scale grid? An infinitely fractal universe seems...irrationally complex.

>>10113044
I will destroy you and I will raze what you have built.

>>10114683
>doesn't quantum theory propose that space is quantized, to a planck scale grid?
No it fucking doesn't. Stop reading popsci

>>10114705
ok thanks i think i made that up and assumed i read it i'll take your word anon

>>10113048
fucking delete this

>>10113039
1 + 0.4472135955

>>10113087
that's just a whole universe adapted to rational numbers
it may or may not be like that

>>10114742
wtf how did you get this?!

>>10114705
No one knows the answer to that. “Both” is also a possibility.

>>10114793
Whatever space is, quantum mechanics definitely doesn't propose that it's discrete

>>10114683
>>10114705
>>10114793
I think there's a decent case to be made that quantum theory does imply discretized space because anything in the position space reprepresentation is derived in terms of position "all of space between x and dx" where that segment of space is one discrete unit of space. However, because of the calculus, you can still form the continuum from the discrete pieces and it is not say plain a statement as "space is quantized." However, the QM description of space is different than then classical one, and the classical one uses "position x" rather than "that discrete region between x and dx." Since the region vanished in the limit of small dx one might say, "it is not discretized" but in practice when using the theory, except in certain harmonic oscillator problems, one will not take the limit of small dx.

>>10113209
>Why is it absurd? The effect is so small at the macro level that it goes unnoticed. There is a preferred direction in video game simulations, why are you not proclaiming the absurdity of that?

a bag of sand is a discrete space, but it has no sense of directionality

>>10114817
>but it has no sense of directionality
yes it does. the packing of the grains of sand imply an orientation, implies directionality

>>10113201
Finitism is a mathematical doctrine you retard.

>>10114079
The explanation is that no matter how well math can explain the world, it does not dictate it. You can use infinities, irrationals, etc. to make accurate predictions, but these, like any other mathematical concepts, do not actually exist as anything other than a concept.

>>10114396
isn't me btw

>>10113039

Can anyone explain why a triangle with sides of 3 and 4 has an perfectly exact hypotenuse of 5, while a triangle like OP's has an irrational hypotenuse? Is there some underlying principle, or feature of math/geometry, which results in triangles with perfectly exact ratios? Or is the whole phenomena simply just not understood?

Also, just to clarify, when you guys say "discrete" you mean something which can not be divided? Is that right?

>>10115496
God is an asshole.

>>10115496
see
>>10114396
>>10115310

It is "incommensurable" or, "it cannot be measured". The underlying principle is just that, that math and measurements are always arbitrary.

"discrete" basically means "distinct","individual" "separable", finite and calculable. Able to be quantified. You are mostly correct though in "can not be divided".

Can anyone explain why a triangle with sides of 3 and 4 has an perfectly exact hypotenuse of 5, while a triangle like OP's has an irrational hypotenuse?

The absolute fucking retardation of putting a square for a right angle.

>>10115569
It's the Pythagorean theorem. [math]3^2 + 4^2 = 25 = 5^2[/math], and [math]1^2 + 1^2 = 2 = (\sqrt{2})^2[/math]

>>10113048
Bit space isn't discrete.

because we divide everything into parts and 1 x 1 is 1 and not 2.

>>10115590

How does that explain the exactness of the hypotenuse of the 3, 4, 5 triangle as against the irrationality of the 1, 1, √2 triangle?

Protip. It doesn't.

>>10113039
>gods

لا إله إلا الله ويسوع هو ابن الله الوحيد.

>>10116506
Except it does.
If the hypotenuse is equal to the square root of the other two sides squares added, then if they add to a non square number, the hypotenuse won't be rational.

>>10113039
what *DID* they mean by this?

>>10116672
>implying ||i||^2 = i^2

>>10116672
>lightlike paths

>>10116718
>have to invent some illogical restrictions to math like magnitudes and being banned from dividing by zero so it doesn't fall apart

The absolute state of modern """""""""""""""math""""""""""""""""". My personal favorite part is where the absolute value of [math]i[/math] magically becomes 1 instead of what it should be, [math]\sqrt{i^2} = \sqrt{-1} = i[/math] . Oh and [math]|-i|[/math]? Don't worry too much bro that's 1 again lmao nevermind the fact that it would work flawlessly if we didn't pretend that it's 1 as it actually DOES uphold the rule and removes the negative sign since [math]-(i)^2 = -1[/math] and therefor [math]|-i| = i[/math] . But hey this breaks the rest of the flawed math and that's not cool so fuck it dude lmao *dab*

>>10116782
>implying there are no proofs

>>10113039
easy, right angles don't exist

The squareroot of 2 is the squareroot of 1+1 because 1+1 is 2. Easy. The triangle is a reference to the illuminati

>>10116672
imaginary numbers are supposed to transfer maths from 1d to 2d .... but we already draw 2d shapes with normal numbers.. and it works better
i have no idea

>>10116782
>"The absolute value of complex number is also a measure of its distance from zero."
>WhY dOeS iT eQuAl a Real valUE???!?!!

>>10116672
is this a proof that our imagination is literally valueless?

>>10114396
>Metaphysics class is actually just doing pop math level "proofs" and going WOAAAH DUDE

>>10113209

It's preferred direction is radiating out from your very Self.

>>10113209

Its preferred direction is radiating from your very Self. As is yours.

>>10119240

>When you are so ass blasted that the principles of a 2000+ year old triangle destroys an arbitrary language.

But it was arbitrary to begin with, why would you be mad?
"Incommensurability", fucking google it. It stands to reason that a modern day physicist (mathematician) can't understand the meaning, but luckily for you there aren't a group of people who are going to drown you for refusing to understand.

>>10113039
>>10113048

From the principle of Subjective Idealism where Phenomena are refractions of you and their distinction is correspondent to the distinction of your own states of mind, space, or the Element of Air, corresponds to Intuition. There is a lot to be said about the Dialectic thereof, Parmenidean vistas and oblivious outer space, iridescent mandalas and black on black porridge, Jesus as God and as a miserable criminal, etc. But for the question at hand, suffice to say that although Intuition embodies that which it intuits, it does not do so by force, nor does it hold it by force in any one embodiment.

>>10119574
Subjective idealism is sub-human tier ideological garbage please go back to /x/

>>10119611

Claiming categorical ignorance, by your own Epistemology, is ideological garbage.

>>10115521
>The underlying principle is just that, that math and measurements are always arbitrary.
What a load of horseshit. Just because you can imagine an immeasurable object doesn't mean it actually exists. If the universe possesses a fundamental length math and measurement are not arbitrary.
>>10119487
He's right though. Your postmodern blabbering is not some unquestionable truth, it's just fashionable pessimism. In order convince us that math is arbitrary you actually have to prove it. Hand-waving philosophy undergrads need not apply.

>>10119634
>Just because you can imagine an immeasurable object doesn't mean it actually exists.
Just because you can imagine a "measurable" object doesn't mean it actually exists because "measurements" are imaginative to begin with. Too much to handle for the quantifier, I don't expect you to understand that the universe doesn't calculate things.

>Your postmodern blabbering is not some unquestionable truth, it's just fashionable pessimism.
*Cynicism. Nature doesn't work on pessimism otherwise it would an hero itself.

>In order convince us that math is arbitrary you actually have to prove it
That is literally the whole fucking point of this goddamn triangle you massive brainlet. Go figure out what the square root of 2 is and when you do then I'll be happy to admit you were correct in that everything can be quantified.

>>10115582
>notation is bad
why

>>10116672
look at this dood