[ 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: 14 KB, 225x128, piversustau.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610600 No.8610600 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.8610609

>>8610600
TAU! TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU TAU

TAU !

>> No.8610630

>>8610609
be rational :3

>> No.8610632

>>8610600
I prefer numbers that actually exist, e.g. numbers that can be represented as a quotient of integers.

>> No.8610644

>>8610632
aka BORING

>> No.8610651

>>8610644
aka real math. Sorry, your word games don't mean much when the set of "Reals" have been thoroughly proven to be very much the opposite of real numbers.

>> No.8610656

>>8610632
whats with complex

>> No.8610658

>>8610656
Complex numbers are useful tools. The difference is a complex number like 3i can be written down, whereas sqrt(2) cannot. Every atom in the universe could be used and you still could not write down sqrt(2), therefore it is nonsensical.

>> No.8610712

>>8610658
1/3 cannot be written as a decimal even with every atom in the universe, therefore it is nonsensical.

That's seriously how dumb you sound lol

>> No.8610716

>>8610712
Sure it can! 1/3 Easy!

>> No.8610720

>>8610712
or [math]0.\overline{3}[/math]

>> No.8610721

>>8610658
>whereas sqrt(2) cannot.

[math] \sqrt{2} [/math]

done

>> No.8610734

>>8610716
In that case, pi isn't nonsensical either because I can express it like this: "pi."

Easy!

>> No.8610737

>>8610720
See
>>8610734

>> No.8610738

>>8610600
Literally nobody except for high school teachers and autistic high schoolers care about tau.

>> No.8610740

>>8610721
That's nonsensical though. It's like saying [math] \int \sin{x}dx = \int \sin{x}dx [/math]

>> No.8610743

>>8610734
Now evaluate that as a finite decimal (protip: you can't)

see >>8610720

>> No.8610745

>>8610740
Are you trolling? That's not nonsensical, that's a valid equality.

>> No.8610748

>>8610743
Well no shit, the expression is necessarily infinite in 3's. Of course it's non expressable as a finite decimal.

>> No.8610750

>>8610658
>3i can be written down
what is the value of 3i represented as a quotient of integers?

>> No.8610754

>>8610745
I'm saying that you haven't evaluated anything. It's like if your professor gave you that integral and you wrote the answer was the integral. Yeah no shit, but he wants you evaluate.

Also yes, I am taking the position of the Wildberger fags who spam his shit on here.

>> No.8610757

>>8610750
3i/1

>> No.8610758
File: 10 KB, 320x240, res-18-006f10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610758

Fuck.
Can't have a single thread without trolls pulling out wildeburger's autistic reconstruction of mathematics. It's like rolling in shit and trying to offend people with the smell, you are still the one covered in shit.

>> No.8610759

>>8610757
>i is an integer

>> No.8610761

>>8610759
>implying it isn't
sqrt of 1 is 1 is an integer
sqrt of -1 is i is an integer in the set of complex numbers.

>> No.8610766

>>8610754
There's nothing to "evaluate" about sqrt(2). It's a fucking number.

Sqrt(2) is the number that when multiplied by itself gives 2. There ya go.

You just find it impossible to imagine because you are unable to understand the limitations of constantly trying to express every quantity as some quotient of whole numbers.

>> No.8610768

>>8610761
you are free to bait someone else now, I concede

>> No.8610770

>>8610766
sqrt(2) doesn't exist. There is no number which when squared equals 2. Bingo, it's not real. Is this hard for you? Really?

>> No.8610771

>>8610766
Sqrt(2) is not a number, it is a function evaluated at a certain input. You cannot write the output down without infinite atoms

>> No.8610773

>>8610770
sqrt(2)2 = 2. there is a difference between irrational and imaginary

>> No.8610774

>>8610771
Yeah I can, watch:
Sqrt(2)

>> No.8610775

>>8610770
no number except
[math]\sqrt2[/math]

>> No.8610777

>>8610771
Isn't 1/3 the same? 1/3 is a function. You can't write down the output in finite terms.

>captcha Decimal first

>> No.8610778

>>8610773
you mean sqrt(2)×sqrt(2), but yeah. just because something is irrational, doesn't mean it isn't real

>> No.8610779

>>8610770
>sqrt(2) doesn't exist
What is the length of a diagonal in a square of side length 1?

>> No.8610781

ITT: anons on the brick of abandoning wildeburger and concluding only natural numbers exist

>> No.8610784

>>8610777
1/3 is not a function it is a fraction, go back to 3rd grade

>> No.8610787

>>8610779
Such a square does not exist, because it's diagonal does not exist, therefore it is clear that you cannot produce a square with sides of length 1. This is proven through empirical observation.

>> No.8610792

>>8610784
You are using the mathematical operation of division! If you evaluate the operation you should get a result. For 1/3 that result happens to be an "infinitely" repeating decimal.

>> No.8610794
File: 2 KB, 382x303, rectangle6.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610794

>>8610787

>> No.8610799

>>8610794
The sides are not equal to 1, they are just close to 1. Your graphic representation is an approximation. Try again.

>> No.8610804

Riddle me this /sci/:

Pythogoras theorem:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2
suppose a = b (such as in the case where a = b = 1)

then 2a^2 = c^2
by division: 2 = (c/a)^2
Therefore 2 is the square of a rational number (c/a)

But we know that there is no such rational number.

>> No.8610810

>>8610792
It is not division, it just happens to share the same symbol. 1/3 is a fraction. Confusingly, it looks just like 1/3 which is 1 divided by 3 which is an operation

>> No.8610816
File: 24 KB, 600x600, 1464355436661.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610816

>>8610810
fractions are divisions

>> No.8610819

>>8610804
the only way for (c/a)^2 to equal 2 is for c to equal sqrt(2), and a to equal 1. so (sqrt(2)/1)^2=(sqrt(2))^2=2. but this, we already know. thus the hypotenuse of a length-1 square is sqrt2

>> No.8610826 [DELETED] 

>>8610804
>Therefore 2 is the square of a rational number (c/a)
This would be true if c were a rational number.

>> No.8610828

>>8610804
>Therefore 2 is the square of a rational number (c/a)

No, 2 is the square of a number (c/a). You didn't show that this number is rational.

>> No.8610829

>>8610819
So the only way for sqrt(2) to exist if you write sqrt(2). You realize this is paradoxical right? The logical conclusion is that the number does not exist.

>> No.8610830

>>8610828
No, I supposed it was rational. This proves that there is no rational root of 2. Which means that the root of 2 does not exist!

>> No.8610832

>>8610829
you could write it as 2^(1/2) as well

>> No.8610833

>>8610830
If you start from wrong assumptions you'll get the wrong results. Let's assume that 1 = 0 then 2 = 1 + 1 = 0 + 0 = 0. Oh my god, 2 is equal to 0!

>> No.8610837

I just want the people ITT to admit that the only way of writing sqrt(2) is to write sqrt(2), much like sqrt(-1) can only be written sqrt(-1), or as i. In many ways Sqrt(2) is sort of "imaginary" like sqrt(-1) is, namely that we simply define a symbol to have the property that when squared it equals two. But it is not rational, nor real (it does not exist in nature).

>> No.8610839

>>8610829
No. Sqrt(2) exists whether i write it sqrt(2) or 1.41421... we write it sqrt(2) because it would take forever to write the full number. because its irrational. it exists like how 1/3 exists and how π exists. we cant write either of those numbers because they go on forever, so we use their unsimplified version as to keep accuracy. that is assuming you agree that 1/3 and π are real numbers. if not, go study art history

>> No.8610840

>>8610839
In the real, actual world, exactly 1/3 and exactly pi do not exist. If you believe otherwise then you believe that there is such a thing as a perfect circle or a perfect division of 1 into 3 equal parts. I am telling you, you cannot find a real world example of this. You can only get approximations that are close. Just like with Sqrt(2)

>> No.8610844

>>8610840
by that logic, negative numbers don't exist either. you can't have -2 melons. even if you owe someone 2 melons, and you don't have any. you still have zero melons

>> No.8610845

>>8610837
And we define the symbol 2 to have the property 2 = 1 + 1. It doesn't exist in nature either.

>> No.8610847

>>8610833
P implies not Q is equivalent to Q implies not P

This is called contraposition

>> No.8610855

>>8610845
We have these things called atoms that actually are equal though. So 1 hydrogen atom + 1 hydrogen atom = 2 hydrogen atoms. So your hypothesis that 2 does not exist in nature just fell apart.

>> No.8610857

>>8610855
But they're just atoms. There's not a number.

>> No.8610861

>>8610857
*They're not a number

>> No.8610882

>>8610847
I don't understand what are you even trying to do at this point. Let start from the beginning.
In >>8610804 you assumed that c is rational and then showed that c/a is rational. But it doesn't actually say anything about sqrt(2). Your "proof" is basically "IF sqrt(2) is rational then it's rational".

>> No.8610883

>>8610855
1H + 1H = 2H, sure, but the number 2 is really just abstraction. 2 is really just 2 ones. 1H + 1H = 1H + 1H. we just use the abstraction of higher numbers to make it easier on ourselves. itd be hard to say "give me 1 bushel + 1 bushel + 1 bushel + 1 bushel....." its much easier to say "give me 300 bushels" but in reality, 300 really represents 1+1+1+1....

even when your 1H + 1H ((1P+1E)+(1P+1E)) is fused together to make helium, they might be together, but fundamentally, they're still 1P + 1E + 1P + 1E. its not like they're all of a sudden one thing now. even

>> No.8610885

>>8610770
This is the brightest thing I heard on this thread so far.

However, there "could" be a number that when squared equals 2. Reasonably speaking, however, there likely is not one.

>> No.8610886

>>8610882
It was a proof that squares do not exist because their diagonals cannot exist.

>> No.8610888

>>8610883
didnt mean for the last "even"

>> No.8610895

>>8610804
It represents things that do not exist in the world. Square, rectangles and circles: all are imperfect, except in theory, but we use these perfect systems in an imperfect world.

>> No.8610899

>>8610844
They're for borrowing money people do not have to live above and beyond the means in which they are entitled. Negative numbers are also a way people tell other people they owe them money, or things.

>> No.8610903

>>8610794
>Taking the bait

>> No.8610905

>>8610895
Please prove that a rectangle with sides 3 and 4 doesn't exist in the world.

>> No.8610908

>>8610885
consider:

Suppose a and b are integers with no common factor.
2 = (a/b)^2
2b^2 = a^2
but then a is an even integer, since the squareroot of an even number is always an even number
you could write a = 2c, where c is an integer
so 2b^2 = 4c^2
b^2 = 2c^2
so b is an even integer.

But this is a contradiction of what we supposed originally, since a and b were supposed to have no common factors, but both are even and therefore share a common factor of 2.

This proves that there is no rational root of 2. Therefore the root of 2 does not exist unless we arbitarily define a "number" to have the property that when squared it equals 2. Much like we arbitrarily define the number i to have the property that when squared it equals -1. Both are nonsense. Both are essentially imaginary. Useful, sure, but imaginary.

>> No.8610911

>>8610855
They would be "one unit" of two hydrogen atoms.
I think atoms share electrons as they collide so it'd be impossible to ever capture and define only one hydrogen atom. Only in theory and in the moment might they be thought of as distinct.

>> No.8610914

>>8610908
all numbers are imaginary. your point being?

>> No.8610915

>>8610908
sorry, c does not necessarily have to be an integer. The proof holds regardless though.

>> No.8610917

>>8610908
Rationals are imaginary too.

>> No.8610919

>>8610914
>>8610917
False. Logical sense can be made of numbers like 1, 2,3, etc. without invoking the imaginary concept of infinity. Try again.

>> No.8610923
File: 4 KB, 200x200, Square_root_of_2_triangle.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610923

>>8610919
>>8610919

>> No.8610924

>>8610919
You can't have rational fractions not equal to integers without infinitely precise division, your statement is incorrect.

>> No.8610928

>>8610919
Property of being imaginary has nothing to do with infinity or logical sense. I can imagine fucking dragons.

>> No.8610931

Every argument for the "realness" of Sqrt(2) ITT is readily refuted by Wildeberg in full detail and depth. Watch the fucking videos people, this is pathetic!

>> No.8610932

Neither.

1^4/3

>> No.8610937
File: 202 KB, 685x550, EverybodyOut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610937

>> No.8610938
File: 232 KB, 300x189, #swag.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610938

>> No.8610939
File: 3 KB, 143x96, cured my cancer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610939

>>8610937

>> No.8610942
File: 28 KB, 500x358, gryffindor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610942

>> No.8610944
File: 31 KB, 500x375, bitch had kids.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610944

>> No.8610945

>>8610939
143x96 picture of Spider-Man? More like Ant-Man, am I right.

>> No.8610947
File: 10 KB, 259x194, fuckyou im spiderman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610947

>>8610945

>> No.8610948
File: 50 KB, 629x465, edthred.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610948

>> No.8610949
File: 6 KB, 175x175, funny spiderman thread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610949

>>8610948

>> No.8610952
File: 124 KB, 300x179, thriller.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610952

.>yfw spiderman saved this thread

>> No.8610959
File: 24 KB, 300x406, Tau_by_Numbers_Math_T_shirt_Product.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610959

Here to claim back my post

>> No.8610966
File: 254 KB, 282x200, thats a valid point but fuck you im spiderman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610966

>>8610959
that would be an irrational course of action

>> No.8610976
File: 522 KB, 586x718, tau.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8610976

>>8610600

>> No.8611487

I prefer the right one.

>> No.8611504

>>8610651
wildposting is a stale meme

>> No.8611716

>>8610787
What about the ratio of any square's sides to its diameter?

>> No.8611717

>>8610600
Tau but it will never be adopted.

>> No.8611726

>>8610779
>Euclid's 47th proposition is true
You are exploiting the fact that the axioms of our superior Mathematics are incompatible with yours.
That proposition applies to "triangles" having an "angle" of "pi/4" "radians".
Is it any wonder that massing together these intuitively false assumptions bearing no relation to reality
and applying the common sense of Our universe produces nonsense?
Do you really think that if "mathematicians" cared about the true Mathematics they would waste their
lives "rigorously constructing" such things as the sets of real and complex numbers -- and then double
the "dimensions" to produce such monstrosities as the quarternions, where there are at least "(5/2)""pi"
"radians" in a "circle", contradicting the earlier assumptions of the system they claim still to be working
in!

>> No.8611748

PV=nRT

>> No.8612039

>>8611726
This is an excellent point. Construct a square with sides of length 1. (Protip: You will never get the the sides perfectly perpendicular, as the angle would be the irrational (and thus unattainable) pi/2. Sorry guys, sqrt(2) doesn't exist, perfect squares don't exist, perfect circles don't exist, etc.

You are all working within an unrealistic number system, and thus you will be ultimately limited in the pursuit of knowledge. You must start at basic principles which make sense in the REAL world, i.e. the one we live in, not the one constructed by mathematicians to squirrel their way out of difficult problems.

>> No.8612054

>>8611748

whoa, V/nR just equals 2!! somebody tell the chemists!

>> No.8612063

>>8610600
I prefer L

L is Graham's number times pi.

It really simplifies some formulas.

>> No.8612836

>>8610600
tau

>> No.8612839

>>8610743
In base 3, I can write it as 0.1

>> No.8613735

>>8610632
>exists
>represented

>> No.8613762

>>8610632
>he cant into uncountable infinities

>> No.8613896

>>8610632
What's with big numbers, which you can't actually write?

>> No.8614232

>>8610740
But you didn't write the value for i, you just used the symbol i. At least "sqrt(2)" yields actual numbers.

>> No.8614242

So is tau TWO_PI?

>> No.8614258
File: 296 KB, 500x375, I REALLY hope you guys don't do this.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8614258

>>8611504

>> No.8614420

>>8610632
How about an infinite sum of rationals

>> No.8614469

>>8610632
t.Pythag

>> No.8615093

>>8614469
User was drowned for this post.

>> No.8615168

>>8610804
Let's take the a = 1, b = 1 example.

We have (c/a)^2 = 2.
c/a = sqrt(2).
But since a = 1, c = sqrt(2).

It doesn't prove sqrt(2) is a rational number.

The fault is that you assumed c was an integer or a rational itself.

>> No.8615288

>>8610600
Although Tau is the superior constant. I doubt others will be open minded enough to change it.

>> No.8615300
File: 182 KB, 288x430, tmp_9103-1483545040364-618456197.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8615300

>>8610773
>sqrt(2)2 = 2
[eqn]2\sqrt{2} = 2 = \sqrt{8}[/eqn]

>> No.8616105

Nobody cares about tau. It's been chosen--deal with it. There's plenty of things in science that are historical (spectroscopy), but it's easier to just keep the notation. Gay thread