[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 755 KB, 646x466, 1662362390488.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15309757 No.15309757 [Reply] [Original]

does anyone else get spooked out by irrational numbers? like how do these numbers even exist? Think about it, I can never give you exactly π dollars, its simply impossible because not matter how hard i try the sequence will never end. I could of course give you 3 dollars and 14 cents but that is an approximate value not exact.

I sometimes feel irrational numbers are the creation of satan to distract us mortals from fully appreciating our creators.

>> No.15309762

>>15309757
try giving me 1.1111111 dollars you fucking retard
ooooh rational numbas!! so spoopy!!!!

>> No.15310259

>>15309757
Crackpot schizo thinking incoming.
I have asked countless mathematician and asked on many academic boards whether there is so known reason why π is or sqrt 2 are irrational.
Here we have two fundamental quantities derived from our system of mathematics and yet we can never precisely evaluate either of them. Surely there must be some reason why this is so.

Yet I have never received an answer other than "that's just the way it is". This strikes me as very odd. Imagine asking why an apple falls from a tree and the answer you are given is "It just happens." Nobody knows and no one seems to care.
Two thoughts then arise. Either our system of mathematics, indeed our whole conceptual notion of mathematics, is flawed in some way. Much like how the cargo cultists completely misunderstand the nature of aviation. They build crude mock ups of airstrips, and wait patiently year after year for the planes to deliver cargo.

Or else the reality of the Universe is completely different from our perception of it. We think we perceive 3 dimensions of space and one of time, when we try to impose our mathematical structure of Cartesian geometry upon it we find that in some cases it doesn't work out exactly. An exact solution can not be found to the hypotenuse of two perpendicular lines of the same unit length. Perhaps the solution can not be exact because our notion of spatial dimensions is fundamentally wrong. Some animals can not pass the mirror test. They can not comprehend the image reflected is themselves. Perhaps this is the human's equivalent of a mirror test, perhaps we are incapable of the cognitive power to develop a better conceptual framework of reality.

Do I have some ideas of alternatives? Nope. No genius here. Which is why I normally keep my mouth shut. But here I can put out these musing in the safe knowledge that sooner or later someone will come along and tell me to take my meds.

>> No.15310328

>>15310259
>Or else the reality of the Universe is completely different from our perception of it.
My perception is that reality is fuzzy so our thinking tends to draw lines somewhat arbitrarily. Money is a product of thought and therefore more clearly defined than nature. It's more surprising to me that themind can think irrational numbers, perhaps because the modern mind is more machine-like.

>> No.15310341

>>15310259
>I have asked countless mathematician and asked on many academic boards whether there is so known reason why π is or sqrt 2 are irrational.
The known reason is because you can prove that they can't be expressed as a ratio of integers. That's literally the reason

>> No.15310344

>>15310259
The proof that sqrt 2 is irrational is something that a middle schooler can understand. I suppose this doesn't explain "why" it's irrational, but what does that question even mean?

>> No.15310358

>>15310259
This sounds a bit like some of the topics Wildberger covers in his approach to irrationals and distances in math

>> No.15310413

>>15309757
Some irrational numbers are still nice. Algebraic numbers have a lot of good algorithmic properties for instance and can be described finitely in an unique way.

Transcendental numbers, on the other hand, are much more eldritch to me. Even when they're computable.

>> No.15310414

>>15309762
not irrational, retard

>> No.15310492

>>15310414
>not irrational
ok, so where are my 1.1111111 dollars?

>> No.15310505

>>15309757
Theyre only irrational because of the base system you are using.

>Que square-root-2 Anon to come and get BTFO again...him AND his 2,000 year old Greek "hero", both BTFO.

>> No.15310508

>>15310492
Convert it into another currency (base system). I once had a coin worth like 12 thousandths of a penny.

>> No.15310575

>>15310505
>Theyre only irrational because of the base system you are using.
That's not how irrational numbers work.

>> No.15310580

>>15310575
>That's not how irrational numbers work.
lololol
....You are a Grand Master of Number Theory, too?

>> No.15310586

>>15310580
The real numbers are constructed from the rational numbers independent of any base...

>> No.15310588

Because mathematics is a creation of the mind? How hard is this for people to understand?

>> No.15310591
File: 47 KB, 1152x480, maxresdefault (20).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310591

>>15310586
>real numbers
https://youtu.be/J5Ug3Cr8RUE

You have already lost...hark, such sweet naivety.

>> No.15310597
File: 259 KB, 900x900, 1626672187241.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310597

>>15310588
>Because mathematics is a creation of the mind?
And the mind is wholly seperate from the Universe, it is know....yes...yes...

>> No.15310600

>>15310591
If you don't believe in real numbers, what do the 'irrational numbers' even mean?

>> No.15310604

>>15310259
>Yet I have never received an answer other than "that's just the way it is". This strikes me as very odd
The dawn of religion, 2013+10, colorized

>> No.15310610
File: 1.64 MB, 670x658, spin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310610

>>15310600
The numbers on the line you didnt even know existed...where those "Imaginary" numbers are borne and live...yes, THEY LIVE.

How many dimensions of numbers can you percieve? I assure you...I can percieve many more than you.

>> No.15310616

>>15310610
>The numbers on the line you didnt even know existed...
What line?

>> No.15310617
File: 577 KB, 250x250, DifficultBigheartedCaimanlizard-size_restricted.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310617

>>15310600
Oh...and good on you to not even watch the video.

ITS ABOUT BASE SYSTEMS AND TURNING IRRATIONS INTO ROUND INTEGERS.

*hrmph*...

>> No.15310621
File: 418 KB, 400x300, 3c43068a-56fd-4064-bd8a-089ac6481b4b_text.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310621

>>15310616

>> No.15310628

>>15310259
In base 2, a whole lot of short decimal numbers are impossible to write out. We chose to use base 10 because of our fingers, but if we were in base 2, you would have a whole heck of a lot more irrational numbers to worry about.
Conversely, if we happened to use a higher base, you would see less, and different ones.

If we move to "base pi", then pi is rational. It's value is 10.
If you wanted, you could construct a whole counting system where pi, e, and other irrationals are basic symbols.
0, 1, 2, e, 3, 4, 5, 6, t (tau), 7, 8, 9.

1t02 would be 100*2*pi + 1002

>> No.15310631

>>15310621
Why don't you answer the question?

>> No.15310639
File: 45 KB, 600x338, 62e7e06a77b42c97-600x338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310639

>>15310631
>The numbers on the line you didnt even know existed...
>"What line?"
THE ONE YOU CANNOT SEE.
>"Huh? Who?...I dont see anything!"

HE THINKS HE IS PEOPLE.
(He is a dead body talking...)

>> No.15310645

>>15310628
>If we move to "base pi", then pi is rational. It's value is 10.

This is still irrational because then '10' means pi^2 + 0 = pi^2, which is irrational.

>> No.15310648
File: 26 KB, 325x156, mpl_2conc1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310648

>>15310628
>We chose to use base 10 because of our fingers
No. If that was true then why did ancient civilizations like Egypt and Babylon use higher base systems like 60? Wouldnt more primitive people use...hands and fingers like some monkey?
>If we move to "base pi", then pi is rational. It's value is 10.
It's value is 1.

The rest of your post had good effort and sound reasoning.

>> No.15310656

>>15310645
10 doesn't mean pi^2 + 0, it equals exactly pi.
In base 16, 10 is our base 10 16.
In base 2, 10 is our base 10 2.
In base pi, 10 is our base 10 pi.
Every base is base 10, because in that base, you write your last symbol +1 as 10.

>>15310648
>If that was true then why did ancient civilizations like Egypt and Babylon use higher base systems like 60
I'm simplifying, because that's not relevant for the point I'm making. But yes, some people have used other bases, and I wasn't there when they decided on the digits.
Note though that different people having different ideas doesn't mean base 10 is unrelated to the fingers. People can simply have different ideas regardless.

>> No.15310657

>>15310628
>0, 1, 2, e, 3, 4, 5, 6, t (tau), 7, 8, 9.
In fact...you DID show base tau, but show (1 unit) of tau as "t". It only becomes irrational when converted into base-10.

>> No.15310667

>>15310657
Note that I also have e in there.
On the top of my head, I supposed you can express t in terms of e, so maybe they aren't irrational in each other's bases.

But here I'm doing a very weird thing where symbols aren't exactly the last symbol + 1, so you can't just naively construct the whole things in terms of nested sets. You'd have to reinvent a whole bunch of math from the ground up to make my silly thing work.
But I thought it sounded interesting. No obvious contradiction at first glance if you're in the reals, you just have to reinvent all of algebra a bit.

>> No.15310671
File: 85 KB, 528x442, Ophiuchuspic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310671

>>15310656
>Note though that different people having different ideas doesn't mean base 10 is unrelated to the fingers
So they went from charting star dates to counting on fingers? I fully understand the point but you keep going back to "fingers" like some autist.

I get it, it alings, but given the field and how robust a study its been in human history? No...thats...not aspie. Thats autist.

>> No.15310672

>>15310648
>It's value is 1
>not 1/2
lol

>> No.15310673

>>15310656
>10 doesn't mean pi^2 + 0, it equals exactly pi.
Nonetheless it's still irrational in base pi

>> No.15310678

>>15310667
>You'd have to reinvent a whole bunch of math from the ground up to make my silly thing work.
Yurp...Number Theory. It only "works" if you through the whole thing out...including notions of "counting fingers". Thats too obvious, as if millenia of savants were stoned and looking at their hands or something...

>> No.15310682

>>15310672
>>It's value is 1
>>not 1/2
>lol
1 tau equals 1 in base tau.
>used base pi

Pfft...amature mistake.

>> No.15310685

>>15310671
>you keep going back to "fingers" like some autist.
>No...thats...not aspie. Thats autist.
You seem to care way more than I do about the whole finger thing. I'm starting to suspect it's a pet peeve you have, and you really want to correct me on it.

I simply don't care very much at all. Sure, let's say it's unrelated to fingers. I genuinely don't know, and it's not relevant to my point at all, actually.
Really, I suspect you could be prone to projection when you call me an autist over the finger issue. I want to remark that you seem to care a lot about a very niche issue, and maybe even get a little defensive about it.

>> No.15310687

>>15310657
>>15310672
Ah, wrong person. Haha oops

>> No.15310691

>>15310673
I don't think it is, if you define a rational as something that can be divided by multiple of your base digits (which I'm going to pretend is effectively what my 'integers' are in this weird scenario)

In base pi, pi is expressed as 10/1, which seems rational to me.

>> No.15310692

>>15310672
this;
>>15310657

>> No.15310702

>>15310685
>I'm starting to suspect it's a pet peeve you have, and you really want to correct me on it.
"Just shut up dude...I dont care if it was wrong, stop correcting me because I WILL NOT ACCEPT BEING WRONG."

...Im irritated by this mistake, F your's.
>>15310682
10 in base pi is 10 times pi...
>>15310672
...fucking....bullshit....

>> No.15310712

>>15310702
>"Just shut up dude...I dont care if it was wrong, stop correcting me because I WILL NOT ACCEPT BEING WRONG."
>...Im irritated by this mistake, F your's.
That's a really interesting response, anon!
I want to basically study you at this point, lmao.
Please correct me more, actually? You think in weird and interesting ways, I wasn't predicting to get a rise out of you. Sorry about that, by the way.
I love being corrected. I'm just kinda curious what you have, now

>> No.15310714

>>15310691
>I don't think it is, if you define a rational as something that can be divided by multiple of your base digits (which I'm going to pretend is effectively what my 'integers' are in this weird scenario)
That's not how irrational numbers are defined. Irrational numbers are simply the set of real numbers that aren't rational. Changing bases is simply the act relabeling numbers (pi becomes relabeled 10 etc.). Both labels still refer to the same real number - relabeling doesn't change any of the properties of the number the labels represent.

>> No.15310719
File: 1.61 MB, 300x304, itchy-butt-carpet.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310719

>>15310712
>pretend to be super interested in something to avoid your own mistakes

Transparent.

>> No.15310726

>>15310714
>That's not how irrational numbers are defined
Yeah, you might be right that I don't have the right definition. Just to clarify, I considered the base pi thing and the 1,2,e,3.. thing separately though. With a millisecond more thought, absolutely agree pi is still irrational in base pi. I was for some reason confused "irrational" and "can't be written in decimal form" like 2/3.

The second thing is more interesting though. I'm not sure the whole edifice is even self-consistent in the first place, there might be no meaningful definition under the second thing where you take 1...9,e,pi as your base 'digits'. Not just symbols that stand in for integers, but a counting system where e and pi are 'generators' of your group.
Then, pi is trivially "an integer", whatever that now means?

>> No.15310734

>>15310719
Kill yourself

>> No.15310735

>>15310719
I'm wrong all the time! I make tons of mistake.
I could be mistaken about the whole fingers thing, I genuinely don't know one way or the other.
Since you seem more invested in the topic than I am, you would probably know better, so in a bayesian sense where nothing is known for sure blablabla, basically you're right and I'm wrong in expectations.

But I can't pin down what exactly makes you react like that, over basically nothing.
You care SO MUCH about such a narrow thing!
Like your focus is some kind of laser beam, instead of balanced.

>> No.15310748
File: 88 KB, 720x720, 2022-09-29_03.26.34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310748

>>15310734
Mr."The mind is detached from all of reality."

That is an inversion of the 20th century fundementalist Christian...the Neo-Scientist.

>>15310735
I admit, I only read the first sentence...when it starts with a focus on me instead of the topic I usually just drop it and post back a "no u" because thats how I read them.

Now my hackles are too hogh up...I jsut want to "teach" Mr.Learn how he hasnt learned a damn thing.

>> No.15310753

>>15310735
>I'm wrong all the time! I make tons of mistake.
This is the first them to becoming the Master.

>> No.15310758
File: 657 KB, 720x1480, Screenshot_20230330-030320_Photos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310758

>>15310753
>first them
first step*

Now...its tea time for me. Fancy Chinese Pearl tea.

>> No.15310765

>>15310748
>I admit, I only read the first sentence...when it starts with a focus on me instead of the topic I usually just drop it and post back a "no u" because thats how I read them.
That's fair. I'll note the first sentence was about _me being wrong_, thought.
So it seems like you actually read all the way to the 4th sentence, but it's almost like you focused so much of it that it's all you saw? Idk!
As a hobby Goldwater-rule violator, I clearly need to study more psychiatry, because I've actually no idea what I would want to armchair-diagnose you

>> No.15310788
File: 2.11 MB, 1550x2171, 2022-11-24_21.00.15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310788

>>15310735
>You care SO MUCH about such a narrow thing!
Number Theory is a crux of language itself (that connection is beyond all humans, I will not detail here, requires FAR too much background knowledge from Cognition, Phenomenology/Perception, Biology(which relates to Genetics and Evolution...you see where this is going. To Infinity.) and is related to the Bible verse about "In those days they all spoke the same langauge."

>But I can't pin down what exactly makes you react like that, over basically nothing.
Fundemental perspective of numbers and math dictates perspectives of language...and that dictates concepts and understanding. The human mind literally cannot see what it does not know exists. Meaning...you say "there is nothing"...but it was the diamond in the rough. "Just a rock."...but no, a Diamond.

No, Anon...it is the most important topic in human history.

>> No.15310792

>>15310765
>psychiatry
As the world's foremost expert on Schizophenia...no. That is a sooth-sayer field.

t.Phenomenologist

>> No.15310800
File: 51 KB, 720x720, 2021-04-24_01.25.09.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310800

>>15310788
>Fundemental perspective of numbers and math dictates perspectives of language
Teaching English in Korea showed me how Koreans viewed English in comparison to Korean. They had whole sections on Time and its Perspectives in language that no school in America teach, because its so inate to how we speak and write that we dont even notice it.
>Fish: Water? What water?

This picture is from a middle school in Africa, studying base systems. Very advanced compared to what I leanred in middle school (didnt at all, learned in detention in the library.)

>> No.15310803

>>15310788
>Number Theory is a crux of language itself
Number theory is interesting, but I wonder if there's confusion.
Do you define the fingers/base 10 thing being wrong as within the field of Number Theory?
I agree number theory is very interesting on its own, though. I'm reading math books at the moment. (Dover has some high quality books for reasonable prices)

>Fundemental perspective of numbers and math dictates perspectives of language...and that dictates concepts and understanding.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think you could find examples of animals/humans that know so little math that we might as well call it zero math, yet have a perspective of language.
It seems like you're making a sort of Whorf hypothesis parallel out of mumbers and math, instead of words?

>>15310792
Ah. Schizophrenia.
The post above about trying to link number theory and language could possibly hint at a bit of apophenia, but it's a really mild signal. As the world's foremost ignorant on schizophrenia, even I can't suspect you of schizophrenia without more evidence.

Maybe it is that some people have a weird mix of things, and so it's hard to pin down any single cause for the way they think. Myself, I'm probably all sorts of a hot mess and a linear combination of many problems. I'm sure someone external could find plenty to sooth-say from just my posts.

>> No.15310817

>>15310259
Have you really never seen the sqrt(2) irrationality proof?
assume integers a,b exist so that a/b = sqrt(2) and you can't reduce a/b. AKA a rational number
a^2 = 2b^2
a^2 is an even number
a is an even number
a = 2k where k is integer
(2k)^2 = 2b^2
4k^2 = 2b^2
2k^2 = b^2
b^2 is an even number
b is an even number
a/b is even/even, so you can reduce it
Meaning it's impossible to have 2 integers that don't reduce that equal sqrt 2
Meaning you can have a rational number that equals sqrt 2

>> No.15310821
File: 561 KB, 1480x720, Screenshot_20230309-213230_Photos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310821

>>15310803
>Do you define the fingers/base 10 thing being wrong as within the field of Number Theory?
I think the fact all are using the same one is the key part. "In those days...all One Language."

All base systems are base 10. Base 7 counts 1 to 6...then the next number is 10(7).

>I'm not sure what you mean by this.
And you wont. This is the most cutting edge of human understanding of language, perception and reality itself. The correlation of mathematical perspectives and language.

Hot---Cold
Cool...a number line.

...but what else can we add from reality?

Pressure and Vacuum. That effects hot and cold but can also be independent. So lets add another Cartesian line, vertex if you will, an voila...We Buildin Matrix Now.

Keep adding reality, the Maxtrix grows...until its the size of a book.

>> No.15310827

>>15310821
>And you wont. This is the most cutting edge of human understanding of language, perception and reality itself. The correlation of mathematical perspectives and language.
>Hot---Cold
>Cool...a number line.
>...but what else can we add from reality?
Ah well.. that is a lot more apophenic, drawing lots of connections between different things that are not obviously non-illusory, and a not very lucid explanation?
I think we can easily explain the fact that people are all using the 'same one' in different, simpler ways. Without needing to come up with complicated esoteric theories that you think I won't understand.

>Pressure and Vacuum. That effects hot and cold but can also be independent. So lets add another Cartesian line, vertex if you will, an voila...We Buildin Matrix Now.
Dimensions. You're adding dimensions, and going from a line to a multiple dimension graph.
That's alright, however it hints at deepness without ever being able to predict something concrete about the world.

That's a good way to tell illusions from theories. Good theories can predict concrete things. Illusions are by nature elusive, and always remain unclear to every observer.
If an illusion were clear, it would simply dissipate.

>> No.15310848

>>15310803
>I think you could find examples of animals/humans that know so little math that we might as well call it zero math
SEE; >>15310597
Lesser beings can count higher than you, my son...but in systems and values without means to fully express.

>Whorf hypothesis
Yes, to a degree, but the "need to express" remains...but the confusion of language csn obfuscate this.
(This is why altering the definitionsnof words over time can alter people percieved perceptions (made to think its something it isnt becauee its labeled right but in relaity is wrong.)

1984

>apophenia
SEE; >>15310748
No, self induced Synthesia. Feel geometry, easily construct hyperdimensional objects. Visualize sounds, constructed geometrically, which is easily translated into mathematics.

>even I can't suspect you of schizophrenia without more evidence.
Not even the doctors can, for I analyzed it and reduced it into Phenomenological properties. Meaning I beat it by deducing WHAT it is...not simply "experience" it.

I lecture doctors on it, never the other way around. (Standford Professor, Jesus...hearing him talk about it like some asshat pulling bullshit out of his ass...he nedds a beatin'!)

>Maybe it is that some people have a weird mix of things,
Yes. Expert in the field and lecture Pros about it whenever I feel like it. Deconstructed Biology.
SEE; https://youtu.be/ZmRaIQOlxTY
https://youtu.be/41b254BcMJM

He does a lot of work that overlaps mine. Highly recommend.

>> No.15310851
File: 473 KB, 962x601, 2023-03-28_14.39.58.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310851

>>15310827
>apophenic
Dunce!...we are done here. You are far too proud and ego drive.

Belt. Only a belt will educate you.

>> No.15310853

>>15310851
>>15310848
It's like your two posts disagree with each other, anon!
You have an interesting habit of replying twice to the same post, have you noticed?
I

>> No.15310856

>>15310853
You're replying to a worthless schizophrenic thinking he's some academic or a scientist or whatever it is

>> No.15310860
File: 143 KB, 1000x563, 1675550674850239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310860

>>15310827
>complicated esoteric theories
STEM.

MOTHER FUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?

>> No.15310863
File: 2.56 MB, 3208x1560, 2023-03-12_12.04.52.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310863

>>15310853
No....youre an idiot.

Go to class. Youre not worthy.

>> No.15310864

>>15310856
Yeah, but almost all schizophrenics do that, it's fine. It's just a quirk people have sometimes.
This guy doesn't fit the descriptions I've read of schizophrenia exactly (or at least he didn't at the start), so I'm having an interest in the conversation, that's all.
I don't think I'll learn some academic facts here. I'm curious on the meta level, not the object level.

>> No.15310867
File: 559 KB, 720x1480, Screenshot_20230330-034527_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310867

>>15310856
>thinking he's some academic or a scientist or whatever it is
Cool. My reswarch is backed up by;


DO SCIENCE.

GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE LAB.

>> No.15310873
File: 121 KB, 906x510, 1679778776772388.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310873

>>15310864
>I don't think I'll learn some academic facts here.
You didnt learn anything there anyway...
SEE; >>15310867

Ego.

Lazy.

Arrogant.

FAILURES.

>> No.15310876
File: 420 KB, 839x718, 2023-03-09_01.28.17.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15310876

deMOCKracy of science....

>> No.15310959

>>15309762
Bitcoin fixes this.

>> No.15311006

>>15309757

the so-called "irrational numbers" are the actual real numbers and the rest are actually irrational. put that in your pipe and smoke it.

>> No.15311016

>>15311006
the actual "poop" is actually food and the rest is actually irrational. I am very clever and contrarian, and my hot opinions are grounded in nothing remotely approaching a justification or an argument
what even are those??

>> No.15311035

>>15309757
>Worthless talentless midwit trash describes his fis first encounter woth high school math

>> No.15312067

>>15310817
>Meaning you can have a rational number that equals sqrt 2

Gentlemen, here is an example of pure retardation in action.

>> No.15312794

>>15312067
Just say you don't understand the proof.

>> No.15312827

>>15309757
Irrational numbers don’t exist. This is what is known as “intuitionism” in mathematics. There are famous mathematicians that did not believe in infinity

>> No.15312832

>>15312827
How can you not believe in infinity? Infinity just means "keeps going forever". It's a dead simple concept. It's like not believing in blue or some shit.

>> No.15313405

>>15309757
Consider that, while you can't physically hand over exactly π dollars, nothing prevents us from agreeing that you OWE me π dollars and proceeding accordingly. You could send me $3.14 and now you only owe me (π-3.14) dollars.
Or you could send me $3.15 and then I agree to buy something for you for the small price of $(3.15-π), thus clearing both our balances.

>> No.15313411

>>15313405
>can't physically hand over exactly π dollars
moreover there is nothing preventing a fiduciary to offer bonds or coins worth pi dollars, so long as those tailing balances are cleared with other notes or coins (or digital shares/crap) worth pi dollars. There is nothing preventing one euro from being worth pi dollars or me handing over some mutable trade good we both agree is worth exactly that much.

>> No.15313567

>>15313405
Hell, you can't hand over exactly ⅓ of a dollar either. Nothing magical about that.

>> No.15313605
File: 352 KB, 1080x1500, plato and aristotle (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15313605

>>15309757
>Could a "perfect circle" even be possible in the World of Forms? All circles depend on π, an irrational, transcendental number - it has potentially infinite digits and to suggest that infinity could be actual anywhere just sounds insane. "Perfect circle" suggests "actually infinite pi", because a perfect circle is formed on the basis of perfect information, which includes "actually infinite pi". "Actually infinite pi" doesn't appear possible even in the World of Forms. Therefore "Perfect" circle also doesn't appear possible in the World of Forms.

>>Huh? Aren't forms literally perfect by definition?
>They should be. However we say that pi is an irrational yet transcendental number. That "irrationality" even subsists in the World of Forms goes against the Platonic spirit. Pi just appears to be the madman that just won't stop ranting and this is true in all possible worlds.

>To say "actually infinite pi is in the world of Forms" suggests there is such a thing as a perfectly rambling madman in a realm where there should be perfection. That makes the meaning of perfection meaningless.

>> No.15313653

>>15312832
>How can you not believe in Unicorns? Unicorns just means "horses with horns on their heads". It's a dead simple concept. It's like not believing in equality or some shit.

>> No.15313666

>>15313411
>>15313405
schizos always post twice in a row

>> No.15313673

>>15313605
wrong retard see>>15310817
>Meaning you can have a rational number that equals sqrt 2
>a rational number that equals sqrt 2
>rational

>> No.15313689

>>15313666
If I sell three eggs for a dollar how much is one worth? Can you pay me for that egg in pennies, or do we have to agree on some other denomination which has an integer ratio to the eggs?

>> No.15313693

>>15313666
Is this post an inversion of mirroring? Neat, progress!

>> No.15314250

>>15313605
Only in theory, or in abstract representation. The Universe has its own cap on resolution: the Planck Length. A perfect circle is theoretically possible down to this point (assuming no atomic business that funks the whole form up), but beyond that you would have to introduce a whole new physics to the universe to do better.

>> No.15314257

>>15314250
To correct myself, it would not even be possible in theory (to my knowledge), as that would recognize it *should* be possible given the resources and faculties necessary. However, again, beyond the Planck Length you can not get any more perfect. For all intents and purposes, though, a Planck Length accurate circle is pretty damn "perfect".

>> No.15314545

>>15309757
Math isn't perfect, is just a tool to interpret nature in a still flawed logic.

>> No.15314558

>>15309757
okay hear me out, but pi is a rational number. not in the classical sense, but it quite literally represents a geometric relation, in other words a kind of fraction. A fraction basically puts numbers in relation, so it tells you how many pieces of a number fits in another number how many times. Well that's exactly the same as pi. A circle's radius is always 2pi its circumference. To me this is very similar to a fraction. But maybe it's only the case with pi, as it's kinda defined in something very real, so it exists absolutely, it's a constant which is in relation to other fractions.

>> No.15314635
File: 160 KB, 499x427, 1679506635742154.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15314635

>>15309757
You're on the right path anon. I recommend you look into logic and topos theory. I think you'll find the answers you are looking for.

The short answer is that all symbolic systems are incomplete and irrational numbers are placeholders for that incompleteness

>> No.15314676

>>15310259
>known reason why π is or sqrt 2 are irrational.
It is basically defined the diagonal argument*.
When you set up a fixed point number system, that goes from 0 to 1 (no matter what metric you use), you basically have a graph for a square (or cube hypercube, etc) to represent multiple dimensions since both x and y (etc, etc) will evenly and unitarily go from 0 to 1 . When you use this type of number system, however, there is a diagonal length that can never be represented as an exact ratio of the length of that square because the Pythagorean theorem proves that the hypotenuse is actually a ratio related to the sum of both sides squared, so you end up with irrational numbers whose length can never some easily represented as some multiple or inverse of 1.
This doesn't apply only to square and straight lines to get sqrt(2), but it also applies to arcs and leads to pi/2.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

>> No.15314681

>>15310505
>Theyre only irrational because of the base system you are using.
Every base system starts with 0 and 1, every base system has a diagonal and therefore irrational numbers.
Its not actually possible to construct an irrational base system, you will never be able to have a pi length radix because you don't actually know the length of pi.

>> No.15314695

>>15310628
>>15310628
>If we move to "base pi", then pi is rational. It's value is 10.
Except you can't actually count from 1 to 10 in a "base pi" system because it would require pi different values between the two extremes and you have no idea how to make pi different numbers from 1 to 10 because you can't completely calculate pi in the first place.

>> No.15314698

>>15310691
>In base pi, pi is expressed as 10/1, which seems rational to me.
If it is so rational, then feel free to count from 1 to 10 in equal ratios of 1/pi in that base.

>> No.15314748

>>15312827
>Irrational numbers don’t exist.
Then what two intergers is sqrt(2) or pi the ratio of?

>> No.15314750

>>15313405
>>15313411
Can I do this with x dollars, where x = 1 if the continuum hypothesis is true and 2 otherwise?

>> No.15314757

>>15313605
A perfect circle and a 0D point that makes up the basis of geometry are the same thing, they are everywhere all the time from a geometric world of forms perspective.

>> No.15314764

>>15314558
Yes, it is a fraction of something, but not anything that can be represented by a digital number system because reality is analog and continuous, not digital and discrete, so one second does switch to the next second, they flow together as direct extensions of each other with fuzzy beginning and end points which means that you can not always divide everything that has happened into equal ratios of seconds and you will always be left with some fraction when trying to divide reality into fractional metrics based on some digital number system.

>> No.15314785

>>15309757
>shift baseline such that pi=4
>give me 4 dollars
Wow, that was easy, congratulations, OP, I just taught you that numbers are not fundamental and are human-defined

>> No.15314823

>>15314785
That is not how it works, a circle doesn't magically have a different ratio of circumference to diameter just because you say so, your cute little attempt at a number system would be even more incomplete and inconsistent than the current one we have.

>> No.15315012

>>15314698
I would simply redefine the digits to have fractional values of pi

>> No.15315026

>>15315012
Ok then do it, I didn't ask you to tell me what you would do, I just said what was required and you simply paraphrased me, now actually do it and count from 1 to 10 in fractional increments of pi.

>> No.15315032

Why should expressing a number as a ratio of two integers be equivalent with finiteness?

>> No.15315040

>>15315032
If it is not a rational, the number of remainders will not terminate and you will keep having to divide forever if you expect to land on some final zero remainder.

>> No.15315078

>>15315040
yeah i know what not rational means
but what does that have to do with giving me "exactly pi dollars" as OP said.
you can give me exactly pi dollars if you make a gold coin with a radius of 1 and define 4 dollars to be a square coin with side length of 2.

>> No.15315094

>>15315078
Not judging by the question you asked where you didn't seem to realize it corresponds to finiteness because at some finite point you will simply stop dividing since you will reach a 0 remainder in a finite number of steps instead of dividing indefinitely.

>you can give me exactly pi dollars if you make a gold coin with a radius of 1 and define 4 dollars to be a square coin with side length of 2.
No, in that case you aren't even using a dollar exchange and you aren't exchanging pi coins, you are exchanging 1 coin and making up nonsense about how value is derived from the coin.

>> No.15315111

I’m probably wrong but this is how I see it
It’s just an attempeted measurement of a natural phenomena
Does a perfect circle exist in nature?
Is there an object in the universe that is perfectly spherical?
The circumstance and diameter of measuring an object in the real world will not have perfect accuracy
It will get as close as we possibly can
But the idea of a perfect circle is an idea and an abstraction, so that abstraction says the circumference / diameter is equal to pi
It honestly just shows to me than idea of infinite can exist
Maybe there is some perfectly spherical subatomic particle I dunno
But planets, suns, pebbles, machined bearings
They can look perfectly circular, but they are often not on closer inspection
Math is just an attempt to model the natural world, it is a model
It is not the natural world itself because that would imply humanity has a perfect comprehension of the natural world
Anyone decided yet on exactly what happens when you die, there a consensus yet? No lol
Everyone gets caught up in the model and abstraction not the realities

>> No.15315114 [DELETED] 

>>15309757
https://youtu.be/1sFyrfqTdcg

>> No.15315137

>>15315094
you're a fuckin retard

>> No.15315146

>>15315137
No, you are the dipshit who thinks cutting a coin into pieces means you can spend fractions of the coin like if you don't have a nickel, just rip a dime in half and now you have two nickels, idiot.

>> No.15315243

>>15315026
γ, η, ξ, κ, λ, ζ, χ, ψ, μ, ω