/sci/ - Science & Math

>your face when a straight line is an infinitely big circumference

Let us assume OP is not a faggot
But if OP is not a faggot, how could he make such a shitty thread?
Thus, OP is a faggot, QED.

>>4500342
holy god

Pi has infinite digits after the dot.
That's not the same as infinite.
L2MATH!!

Why do people think pi is infinite?
Do Americans get taught this in school or something?

I know people joke about it on here, but I've heard people say pi is infinite without a hint of irony.

if there are an infinite number of points between 0 and 1, why isn't 1 = infinity

>>4500354
I've taken down this comment in my notebook and will ask my pre-alegbra teacher it on monday.

>>4500354

>>4500354
science can't answer that

>>4500367
are you saying there aren't an infinite number of points between 0 and 1?

o boy

>>4500373
Not in the natural numbers. "Between 0 and 1" has no meaning, unless you explicitly state the context.

>>4500366
post answer here

>>4500369
>hurr durr logically right.

>>4500377
oh no the rigor nazi's arrived

>>4500377
>0
>natural numbers

herpity derpity

>>4500397
That's another point. He has to specify what "between" means. Does it mean an open or a closed interval?

>>4500332

Pi = Ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

>>4500401
see >>4500395

>>4500377
>Implying infinity is not just a mathematical convention
>Implying thre's anything in the empirical world which is infinite

>>4500408
Your post is unrelated to mine.

>>4500397
0 is a natural number according to, oh, about half the worlds mathematicians.

why didn't the kantian idealist fall for my 0 is/is not a member of N trap

i know he loves definitional ambiguities in math

IF NUMBERS ARE REAL, WHY DOESN'T ZERO EXIST

>>4500416
i know. see >>4500417

iq fundie's head explodes if he find that maths isn't aspie level unambiguous

>>4500332
Pi isn't infinite, it's just infinitely long. Like 0.0 recurring.

>>4500401

Stop being a faggot. The guy was mocking you for saying 'natural numbers' insofar as 0 and 1 are concerned. 0 isn't a natural number.

Secondly, (0,1) is infinitely uncountable on the Reals. You damn well know what he meant and you're just trying to pester him/troll/look smart. Everyone knew the context.

>>4500429
yeah. 3 is infinite as it is 3.000...

OH NOW I USED DOTS. NO ONE WILL UNDERSTAND MY POST

>>4500430
DON'T TALK TO HIM, HE IS GENUINELY INSANE. YOU WILL HAVE AN ENDLESS CONVERSATION ABOUT CONTEXT AND DEFINITIONS. HIS SOPHISTRY WILL TIE YOU IN KNOTS.

DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON.

>>4500431
... is ambiguous, I could say x(n+2n+...+60n) and that would not mean a recurring sequence, just one that repeated to some degree.

>>4500430
0 is a natural number according to one reasonably popular definition. i was trying to tempt him with my ambiguity vagina

>>4500438
it is ambiguous. but we can with a 99.999999999999999999% certainty infer what is meant.

as this is much less likely than us going mad and having delusions about what we are reading, we need not worry.

>>4500415
It means context or no context, infinity is basically a mathematical convention.
You don't need a context to understand that. If convention says that there's an infinity of real numbers between two natural numbers, then there is. So you're debating whether a statement fits with a mathematic convention.

>>4500445
hahahah no

they are deduced rigorously from axioms. the axioms are convention to a certain extent.

>>4500444
In that example, yes; I deliberately made it clear

But if I were to say "0.00...01 is a number" you would have no way of knowing whether I was asserting that it was an irrational non-zero number or not.

>>4500430
Not everyone knows the context. It has to be explicitly specified. Remember that /sci/ has a very heterogeneous user base. Some of the posters here don't even know what real numbers are.

>>4500445
The lacking context is not about the definition of infinity but about the meaning of "between 0 and 1". There are finitely many natural numbers between 0 and 1.

>>4500455
of course. so we can safely use dots where the meaning is clear. my block caps were directed at a certain trip in this thread who is a rigor nazi and won't credit anyone with figuring out ambiguities so minor they are barely ambiguities at all.

DO NOT TALK TO HIM. HE WILL MAKE YOU RAGE.

>>4500458
>There are finitely many natural numbers between

Nope, there are an uncountably infinite number of numbers.

for every 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 etc there's also a 0.02, a 0.03, a 0.04, etc. An uncountable number of zeroes can be placed in front of an irrational number to make a new irrational number

>>4500461
Do you have a therapist?

>>4500458
DON';T TALK TO THIS TRIP ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF RIGOR, DEFINITION AND AMBIGUITIES.

IT IS HIJACKING EVERY THREAD AND HE IS MENTALLY ILL THOUGH PRETTY SMART.

>>4500464
NOT YET. IQ FUNDIE HAS MADE ME GO MAD. HAHAHAHAHA. KEEP AWAY UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO MAD TOO. ONLY SAFE FOR ASPIES

>>4500464
he said natural numbers derp

>>4500466
Why does being right make me mentally ill?
If someone makes a mistake, it is the best thing to correct him.

>>4500478
imagine someone that pointed out every truth ever.

non stop.

every inanity.

they would be right, but mad.

>>4500473
Cool story bro.
>>4500475
uh, good job. Just testing you there. You passed.

There are infinitely many real numbers between 0 and 1. There are not infinitely many natural numbers in this interval... the natural numbers being {1, 2, 3, ... }

He specified natural numbers.

>>4500481
No, lol. Making mistakes and then refusing to move on when corrected would make you mentally ill. Correcting a mistake and then standing your ground when someone fucks around because they have ego problems would make you sane.

>>4500485
Yeah, I cannot into reading today.

>>4500478
>If someone makes a mistake, it is the best thing to correct him.

you keep doing that brother. don't forget grammar and spelling too.

>>4500359
>Do Americans get taught this in school or something?
No. OP's just retarded.

>>4500486
that's not what occurs with IQ Fundie. he corrects things like the dots on 3.333...

the correction takes the form of that's ambiguous, please express as an infinite sum using limit notation.

you should make freinds, you'll have a lot in common.

>>4500491
I'm fine with that, it's a valid question. People have used the fact they disagreed with what 0.999... meant in the past to explain why they disagreed, don't fuck around with your ellipsis.

Use "Recurring" or r. better still, learn LaTeX

>>4500481
I ignore many mistakes others make, for example spelling errors. But when it comes to science and math, the truth has highest priority.

pi is a ratio derp derp

>>4500492
oh god, another one

i'm doing a PhD in maths at a world class university. and you both make me sad about what people think maths requires.

i recommended this essay to IQ Fundie about rigour, but he refused tor read it, perhaps you will

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/there%E2%80%99s-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proo
fs/

>>4500493
the mistakes you seem to focus on are the math equivalent of typos and spelling mistakes.

if you found a statement where the rigour couldn't be filled in by the reader, just as spelling can be corrected by the reader, that would be great, but i've not seen much of that yet.

>>4500500
Dude. Fuck off.

Making an argument from authority doesn't mean shit. That you have attended a university doesn't mean shit. That I have *already* seen an objection to your notation in this context and that there is *already* a widely accepted alternative, if not two, does.

Am I going to read it? Of course not, you're being hopelessly semantic and a stubborn asshole. I have no reason to believe you're listening to anything I say, because you're clearly ignoring all of it if you are.

>>4500504
If I read a math book and the author made a non-rigorous context-dependent statement, I wouldn't complain.
Here on /sci/ the situation is different. Vague and ambiguous statements are often intentionally used by so called "trolls", who aim to incite confusion. The more important it is to point out the ambiguity and to find consensus on how to interpret the statement.

test

>>4500505
u mad?

>>4500513


i am planning to make lots of mathematical ambiguous statements just to make you respond. it's my way of trolling sci and ruining it's signal to noise ratio

>>4500524
>implying there is a signal

>>4500505
It's a great essay. Tao is one of the smartest young mathematicians there is. Shame if you blamed the message because the messenger is being a douche.

>>4500529
if you really believe that, why are you getting on your high horse about ambiguities?

>>4500524
Good luck wasting your time. One thing is for sure: You are not trolling anyone but yourself.

>>4500531
I might read it some time, just not now out of spite. That guy can take pride in making people want to be less well informed

>>4500533
>implying you know what a joke is

>>4500535
that makes me even sadder, if my sincere attempt to get people not to fuss over trivialities has also lead to people being wilfully ignorant.

Why is every tripfag invariably an aspie shitposter?

>>4500534
it can be a challenge. see if you spot my ambiguity as a troll. if you don't and correct it, i'll reveal myself after the usual silly appears

>>4500542
I was actually tested for having assburgers. Turns out I'm just awkward and good at math.

>>4500524
What signal? Honestly, the best threads I've seen in the last two weeks were probably people asking for help with their algebra homework. HOMEWORK is the signal at this point.

>>4500542
i know, but IQ Fundie is the king of them all

>>4500550
>>4500550
my fave threads at the moment too are just helping people out with their studies. i never see the aspies contribute. just "correct" shit like the rigour nazis they are.

>>4500557
If you can't handle being corrected, then science or math is probably not the right career for you.

>>4500342
holy fucking shit.

>>4500332
Because the circle has a finite circumference and a finite diameter. Ideally it would have a finite ratio between these too, but things don't always work out so well in the decimal system

The fact that the number goes on forever after the decimal point really doesn't mean that the number is infinite tho, that's crap

>>4500557
The thing that really gets me is that you're insisting that fundie is wrong to correct you. It's completely absurd.

>>4500560
Being corrected on actual mistakes is fine, just not on small informalities taken because you're on an imageboard.

But I've never actually been corrected by one of you aspies in any of those threads - you guys probably don't know enough college math to do so anyway.

>>4500569
How many times do I have to say that people have already mistaken ... for not meaning recurring until you shut up about it being semantic and a small informality? You used shitty notation, and instead of just moving on or using something else you decided your ego was too precious for that. Grow the fuck up.

>>4500573
Way to make tons of assumptions asshat. I didn't use ... for recurring, nor have I *ever* seen anyone confuse it for anything else (which you seem to be insisting happens). I have personally only made 3 posts in this thread.

But, way to make yourself look like an idiot.

>>4500569
Have you ever corrected anyone?
If the anwer is "no", then why?
If the anwer is "yes", then how did it feel and what was his response?

>>4500578
I correct people when their answer is wrong by pointing out the flaws in their logic. Usually this happens in putnam threads (where I don't go through the effort to solve it myself, but I skim through and see mistakes). Needless to say, as they made an ACTUAL MISTAKE they usually thank me for pointing it out.

>>4500577
And this would be why I namefag.

If you're going to randomly jump into discussions without differentiating yourself in any way, don't blame people for not realising that. I'm not paying attention to your exact vocabulary and working out after every post who I'm in disagreement with.

>>4500582
How would you react if they insulted you for correcting?

>>4500583
That's why I don't assume the person I'm responding to is the same person as some other anon unless it is fairly clear from their speech. I argue with their post specifically when I am responding to them. This should be common sense on an anonymous imageboard.

>mfw sage

>>4500590
As I have said, there's a difference between correcting an informality and correcting a logical mistake. Personally, I have never done the former, so I cannot speak for what would happen if I were to do so.

>>4500596
Please answer my question. If you someone insulted you for correcting what you thought was an actual mistake, how would you react?
If you're not an "aspie", you should be able to imagine such hypothetical scenario.

>>4500592
Because this conversation has all gone on in a single post, right?

I am arguing. To do that, I need to have something to argue against above some vague notion of the person I disagree with being bad. I don't know how you conduct yourself when debating, but common practice isn't to ignore everything the person against you has said up until the last few sentences out of their mouth.

>>4500599
Why should I answer your unrelated question? The situation is completely different from the one we disagree about.

>>4500604
If you want to argue against "everything so far" thats fine - but if you want to make personal insults, you better be damn sure you're responding to the right person. You weren't arguing.

>>4500607
There is no difference. It is exactly the same situation.
I see you are avoiding the answer. I'll ask you again: Please imagine the scenario and tell me how you would feel and react.
Since you are not an "aspie", it should be easy for you.

>>4500613
As you are not actually arguing, but instead are trying to bait me into a strawman, I will just ignore you and assume you have nothing worthwhile to say until you prove otherwise.

>>4500618
I was asking you a question. You avoid answering it. Do I have to assume that you are not capable of imagining a hypothetical scenario that involves human interaction? This would be an indicator for autism.

>>4500621
I think you got him. It's him who is the acutal aspie here. He desparately tries to project it, but now he can't hide anymore and wishes he could escape from the embarrassment.

>>4500629
That was my thought too. Thanks for confirming. Let's see if he manages to reply with more than another vague and/or personally attacking response.