[ 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: 135 KB, 500x375, fractal-mathematics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1631417 No.1631417 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/
There is no absolute truth outside of mathematics.

>> No.1631428

>>1631417
So long your bias for the existence of mathematical truth allows.

>> No.1631432

Like 0.9999... = 1?

LOL, even the biblefags are less pathetic.

>> No.1631450

Being an axiomatic, deductive system, the mathematical system is true by definition unlike anything directly related to the physical world, but frankly any axiomatic system is equally true by definition.

>> No.1631463

"There is no absolute truth outside of mathematics."

What about this sentence?

>> No.1631465
File: 35 KB, 640x480, 128100992551.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1631465

>>1631463

>> No.1631469

>There is no absolute truth outside of a system built on assumptions.
if(x = true) x = true;
You would SUCK as a programmer...

>> No.1631472

>>1631432
No matter how many times we prove that, you come back and post it again. If you subtract .999... from 1, what's the difference? 0. If there's no difference between two numbers, they're the same number.

>>1631417
Math is derived from logic, which is the real absolute truth. But it's possible to define a system in which 1=2, which defies logic and has no physical implications. Logic remains pure, while math is only pure as long as it adheres to logic.

>> No.1631484

>>1631432
Hehehe, I came up with a good solution for this problem.

Any rational number can be represented by a fraction. A repeating decimal, such as .123123123..., can be represented by each digit over 9, such as 123/999=.123123123123... .

1/9=.11111...
2/9=.22222...
3/9=1/3=.33333...
4/9=.44444...
5/9=.55555...
6/9=2/3=.66666...
7/9=.77777...
8/9=.88888...
9/9=1/1=1

>> No.1631509

>>1631484
^
I like it.

Also, true math isn't about numbers; it's about the relationships between them.

>> No.1631510

>>1631472

Logic and reason are flawed tools. There are problems that cannot be solved by logic. Humans are not rational animals, we are rationalizing animals.

>> No.1631520

>>1631484
>I came up
That's a common solution to help people understand the concept. You didn't come up with it.

>> No.1631525

>If you subtract .999... from 1, what's the difference? 0. If there's no difference between two numbers, they're the same number.

No, it's 0.000000000000000000000...1

>> No.1631530

>>1631469
So would you, because
if (x = true)
will always evaluate to true.

>> No.1631532

>>1631520
We all solve problems which have been solved before, but without knowledge of that previous solution.

>> No.1631553

>>1631532
What you said led me down a train of thought that inexorably led me to the conclusion that the universe is a conscious entity. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

>> No.1631570

>>1631417
>implying mathematics aren't like money, only important because of asigned value

>> No.1631586

>the universe is a conscious entity
Holy shit man I get that too.

>> No.1631607

>>1631586
More like a computer, I guess

>> No.1631674

>>1631428
>>1631570

Math is only important because we assign it a value, like the anon in post 1631570 said.

>> No.1631682

>>1631525

This is incorrect. .999~ never terminates.

>> No.1631683

@OP; you are correct, but there are alot of discrepancies in the world of mathematics.
mathematics~logic; logic is not absolute, but defies all that we cannot prove.

>> No.1631685
File: 9 KB, 200x245, 200px-Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1631685

>>1631417

Uh uh! But lest me prerrezent you with my mom ami! Descartes!

>> No.1631690

>>1631525 you can't find the difference between infinity and a real number or irrational number because infinity isn't a number, it's a direction..
123123123...=999999999... why? their values cannot be defined. they are infinite.

>> No.1631694

>>1631685
Descartes was wrong and it was proved. The act of reasoning doesn't necesarily imply the existence of an object that reasons.

>> No.1631697

>>1631685 you know what they say about the dragon in the garage.

just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't there.

>> No.1631709

>>1631525
How is that a rational number?

>> No.1631716

>>1631520
I never saw it before I made it. I'm sure it was out there, though.

>> No.1631720

>>1631709
i didn't mention any rational numbers..i said;
123123123...=999999999...

>> No.1631726

>>1631690
If you try to represent those as fractions, both would have 0 in the denominator, and could be simplified to 1/0. They are, in fact, equal to infinity. However, they're not rational, because 1/0 or n/0 isn't a proper fraction.

>> No.1631737

>>1631726
i never said they were rational.
x/0≠infinity, no matter the value of x. any number, irrational, imaginary, or rational. x/o=undefined because you can't multiply 0 by any number to achieve a value unequal to zero.

>> No.1631742

Mathematicians are expert at telling us what their ZFC and PA entails.

Scientists are expert at telling us about physical phenomena.

The conceptions of truth, knowledge and justification, while mathematicians and scientists rely on them, are best explained by philosophers.

Look into epistemology.

>> No.1631746

>>1631525
This number doesn't exist. You can't have an infinite amount of 0's after the decimal followed by a 1. You can't just stop somewhere and say "I'll put the 1 here" because you no longer have an infinite amount of 0's. The number you just described is in fact 0, the difference between .999999... and 1 is 0 thus they are the same number.

>> No.1631754

>>1631742
unfortunately, we're not here to view your posts regarding your regular oral sex sessions with philosophers. don't get me wrong, philosophers are intelligent people (assuming they have a degree), but the universe and everything in it is most acurately defined by the proven or logical values developed by mathematicians and scientists.

>> No.1631762

>>1631746
.00000...1 is an imaginary number; it exists, we just can't conceive it in any experiment.
.99999...-.99999...8=.00000...1

>> No.1631767

>>1631690
How is infinity a direction? Can you post a link to where you found that? It's bullshit, for starters, but I want to know where everyone keeps getting that.

There is an infinite number of integers following 0 on the number line. 0, 1, 2, ... infinity. Direction on the number line is indicated by the sign: you can have positive infinity or negative infinity. The + / - is the direction, not infinity.

1/2 is a magnitude.
1/1 is a magnitude.
1/.5 is a magnitude.
1/.1 is a magnitude.
1/x for any value of x is a magnitude, including the limit as x approaches zero.

>> No.1631772

>>1631762
NO. God dammit no.

>> No.1631777

>>1631762
trollface.jpg

>> No.1631781

>>1631754
>"proven or logical values"

It's obvious you know nothing about the foundations of mathematics and the scientific method.

>> No.1631795

>>1631767
i'm getting it from 2 years in college and counting, but here, let me show you.
infinity is a concept, a concept we cannot conceive in any experiment, and cannot achieve as the solution to an equation. there can be an infinite NUMBER of solutions, but infinity itself is not one of them.

that being said, take a look at number line or plane. infinity is not "left" or "right" or "+/-", rather it is a destination that cannot be reached, conceived, or calculated. 999.., 123123.., all irrational values equal to one another as they are infinite in value themselves. we cannot define them any other way.

if infinity is not an unreachable destination, then you can define it with a rational value. please point to infinity.

>> No.1631808

>>1631795
YOU point to infinity, if it's a direction! Better yet, explain how the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 magically becomes a direction instead of a magnitude like every other f(x).

>> No.1631819
File: 11 KB, 160x254, surreal_numbers_knuth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1631819

<--- Everyone read this book and don't come back and argue about infinities and infinitesimals until you have. You make the rest of /sci/ look retarded. Yes, even that guy who asked about the scientific reason for having a taint looks slightly more retarded because of you.

>> No.1631824

>>1631808
you can't; it's not a physical direction, which you would know if you read my post.
0 doesn't follow the same rules as other values. it has its own special properties. 1/0 isn't a magnitude.

>> No.1631831

>>1631824
Sum all real numbers. The result MUST be a direction. Naturally.

>> No.1631834

>>1631819
It blew my mind.

>> No.1631835

>>1631831
All positive numbers, I mean.

>> No.1631842

>>1631417
what about the truth, that truth is relative of perspective?

>> No.1631852

>>1631842
"On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme"

>> No.1631859

>>1631835
you're a complete dumbass. sum all positive real numbers obviously is a positive answer, but infinity itself is not a NUMBER. it's a CONCEPT, a DESTINATION. you can't point to the sum of all real numbers greater than 0.

>> No.1631861

>>1631859
> has never heard of Cantor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number

>> No.1631863

>>1631859
I give up, man. Go on believing.

>> No.1631874

>>1631863
believing what? the psychology of infinity isn't something to "believe"
i have heard of and studied knuth's work, and don't agree with most of it.

>> No.1631931

OP obviously never heard of Godel's incompleteness theorem
or is a very good troll

>> No.1631938

There's no way to absolutely prove a mathematical proof either.

>> No.1631952

>>1631874
>i have heard of and studied knuth's work, and don't agree with most of it.
>Implying your agreement with fucking mathematical proofs matters.

>> No.1631965

OP, related to your pic
http://vimeo.com/12185093

>> No.1631971

>>1631931
OP is obviously an idiot or a troll, but there's a high chance you don't understand Gödel's stuff if you think that presents a problem for OP's claim.

Gödel says in some axiomatic systems, such as peano arithmetic, there are statements that are true but you can't prove that they are.

Wait, true in what sense, then? They are true by virtue of being provable in a more powerful axiomatic system, namely ZFC, which is considered to be the standard model.

Are there unprovable true statements in ZFC? Well, there are unprovable statements which are provable in even more powerful systems, but true? We think ZFC is true, we don't necessarily think any axiomatic system is. (Some people don't agree with the axiom of choice, for instance)

The whole "which axioms" question is also why OP is pretty much wrong.