/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15273905
happy pi day

>>15273926
Does a line have infinite vertices?

>>15273905
It is 14/3 dumb amerimutt. The only valid pi day was on 31.4.15. I was there when it happened. Once in a timeline event.

>>15274025
lines don't exist.

>>15274047
Prove it.

>>15274244
prove they exist

>>15274248
Euclid says what?

>>15274029
>31.4
I'm sure you were there indeed, anon

>>15274252
that's an axiom, not a proof. axiom: you're a pedophile. well, golly gee! it's an axiom and as such it's irrefutably true. turn yourself in to your local police department. after all, you blindly believe all axioms are true, yes?

>>15274256
>axiom: you're a pedophile
Oh, no. Euclidbros, we got too cocky!

>>15274025
No, since you only need 1 dimension to draw it.
sqrt(2) on the other hand, definitely doesn't exist, by no means can it be consider a 'real' number

>>15274273
What is it with you decimal fetishists.

>>15274317
precision at iteration will never be equivalent to [math]\textbf{exactness}[/math]

>>15274331
There is no exact decimal expansion of root two. That doesn't mean root two isn't a perfectly good number.

>>15274374
an incommensurable magnitude such as [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] has no business on the number line. This isn't an inclusivity or diversity problem either, no matter how much you try to constrain it, it will try jumping from where you put it, no matter how deep you tunnel, no matter how deep you zoom

>>15274438
If you consider the interval between 1 and 2, root two is in there.

>>15274454
its not, it pretends to be, but it'll never sit on the line like a good boy, it'll keep conning you every 10x magnification you attempt

>>15273926
Holy shit school is a lie
What order of pi determines circumcision?

>>15274468
There's nothing magic about irrational numbers. They're just ordinary numbers.

>>15274025
No

>>15273905
fuck pi, tau is the real shit

>>15274489
>There's nothing magic about irrational numbers
By Lemma 0 of my own number system, all numbers possess a mystical quality, all numbers and magnitudes are magical.

Even Wildberger, while deriding the infinite, is content with the notion of the nothingness in his polynumber system, I have exposed them to be two sides of the same coin. It is the infinite-nothingness that deserves the axiomal primitive of set theory and the polynumber system

>>15274540
>my own number system

>>15274557
>HEY! I only suck other mens dicks. I dont get my dick sucked like everyone else.
>Why cant you just be normal like meeee!?!?

>>15274557
>>my own number system
complete with its own memes

>>15274610
It seems a generation worth of subconscious authority appealing will need undoing

>>15274540
You can define any number in a finite amount of digits by using a specific base.
The other definition doesn't even make any sense.

>>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

>>15274963
>inncommensurate magnitude
Define.

>>15274977
>>15274438 pic related (bottom corner)
https://www.academia.edu/49692206/A_quick_course_on_How_we_got_Numbers

Magnitude, a notion of length, size, magnitude, etc of something

>Borrowed from Late Latin Latin commensurabilis (“having a common measure”) in 1550s, from Latin com- (“with”) + mensurabilis (“measurable”). Equivalent to com- + mensurable.

Inncomensurate magnitudes
one or more notions of size, length, magnitude of something that lack a common measure

>>15274029
>31/04
Kek

>>15275019
more formally,, or in gabriels model, if your unit ratio cant handle both the antecedent and consequent- a lacking of quotientness

If ol' Berty Onestone's general/special relativity theory is correct and time is relative then how come he died like a bitch?

>>15273905
sup /reddit/

>>15275022
>numbers mean some tiny balls that occupy space
Was this written by an elementary schooler?

>>15275090
You have the wrong board, this isn't /pol/

>>15273905
'berger gem

>>15273905
>[math] \textup{But~what~about}~ \pi = \pi_\infty~??[/math]
[math] \infty[/math] is not an index number, Berger.

Man this board is filled with retards.

The Greeks avoided this entire clusterfuck by working entirely with constructable objects.

You can construct a circle of diameter one, the length of its circumference is (relatively) pi. End of story.

You can construct an isosceles right triangle. The ratio of its hypotenuse to either leg is the square root of 2. End of story. You have built the line segment with the correct length.

Trying to assign numbers to magnitudes is a mistake, and Descartes messed it all up. The ancient Greeks were right. It is very simple

>>15276404
>he just figured this out now