are we being lied to?

[Anonymous No.15060712]

If you have an isosceles right triangle with legs of length 1, the hypotenuse would have a length of root 2, an irrational number. However, if you were to construct such a triangle with beams in the real world, the hypotenuse would be a beam of a measurable length made up of a discrete number of atoms. Is math a scam?

[Anonymous No.15060717]

>>15060712
irrational lengths cannot exist in the real world. In conclusion, the triangle is built for bbc.

[Anonymous No.15060723]

>>15060712
more people need to comprehend etymology before they go about naming things like 'real numbers'

[Anonymous No.15060727]

>>15060723
wrong. etymology holds no sway over the discipline of math. i think OP may be misguided but he seems to be onto something with his original premise...

[Anonymous No.15060730]

>>15060723
MMP provides a codex to discern reality from fiction. By thinking in terms of length and precision one can categories fake numbers from true real numbers

[Anonymous No.15060732]

>>15060712
>if you were to construct such a triangle with beams in the real world, the hypotenuse would be a beam of a measurable length
The value of which would be root 2, which is a measurable length

[Anonymous No.15060736]

>>15060727
>etymology holds no sway over the discipline of math
indeed, they have neglected their grammar school, and have fallen into linguistic relativism, like an animal only uttering the sounds that 'feel good' instead of embracing syntax, even the soft science of biology, in the latin naming game is superior to the mathematician.

But, have no fear, we are setting the record straight

[Anonymous No.15060739]

>>15060732
Root 2 is an irrational number, which is impossible to perfectly approximate. You cannot measure an irrational length. The beam is comprised of a discrete number of atoms, which should lead to a rational length.

[Anonymous No.15060740]

>>15060712
Math and physics are approximations of reality. It would be good to have a system that is based on reality but most academics only seem interested in extending the approximation method as far as it will go, which will suck for them if some new system is found and they have to start all over again and wasted thousands of years

[Anonymous No.15060745]

>>15060740
Math is not an approximation of reality. Math should be composed of synthetic a priori statements in other words unable to be disproven. Modern math is based off of statements that are allowed to be true but that isn't real math.

[Anonymous No.15060746]

>>15060739
>Root 2 is an irrational number
Yes
>which is impossible to perfectly approximate.
It's precisely defined at root 2 and it can be approximated as root 2 as well or the hypotenuse of right triangle with sides of 1
>You cannot measure an irrational length.
Of course you can, you just described the process in the op, build a right triangle with sides of 1 and you got yourself a root 2, perfectly measured
>The beam is comprised of a discrete number of atoms
And? The distance between 2 points is arbitrary and not defined by the number of atoms. A triangle is made up off 3 discrete points.

[Anonymous No.15060758]

>>15060745
>synthetic a priori statements
no idea what that means. Math is an approximation of reality. In the mathematical realm it may not be, like purely mathematical concepts. But we use math in the real world. If there was no real world then we wouldn't need math. Math does not give the correct values when we use it to describe reality. Therefore math is an approximation of reality

[Anonymous No.15060772]

>>15060746
Root 2 is not a multiple of discretized quanta, so that length cannot exist in the real world.

[Anonymous No.15060774]

>>15060772
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.15060794]

>>15060712
yes, and here's why this is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.15060799]

>>15060746
Stop shitposting on /sci/, please, and go back to /b/ where you belong.

[Anonymous No.15060823]

>>15060712

[Anonymous No.15060843]

>>15060712
Bruh, do we measure anything by the number of atoms in length or width that something has?
No.
The problem is your not using your (((measuring stick)))

[Anonymous No.15060854]

If you fold this square to make an isosceles triangle, it would seem that the hypotenuse is four atoms long; equally long as the two legs. But you can see that along the diagonal the atoms are further apart from each other compared to the rows or columns. And they are just enough further apart to effectively create an irrational number of length.

Problem solved. Next question.