[ 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, 610x406, Number Sets.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
954082 No.954082 [Reply] [Original]

There cannot be any irrational numbers in reality.
The universe cannot have enough energy to contain the representative of a number, like pi, or e, or sqrt(2), that never ends.
The universe must instead use an approximation for constants that can be expressed with only a few quadrillion decimal places or so which can be expressed with a finite amount of energy.
Therefore, there is no such thing as rational numbers.

>> No.954097

lol

>> No.954106

>>954082


> Your reasoning

What the fuck. Enough "energy"? Get the fuck out of here.

Also, you are now aware that any group in that bubble has an infinite amount of numbers. Thus all groups have an equal amount of numbers.

>> No.954126

but they do
you are wrong

>> No.954122

when you say energy, you mean space?

Then yeah, maybe. Still, numbers are an useful fiction.

>> No.954127

>>954082
>Implying infinity doesn't exist
herp derp

>> No.954130
File: 76 KB, 519x600, batman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
954130

>>954082
>energy to contain the representative of a number
>my face

>> No.954134

>>954127
>implying it does

>> No.954142

But the formula for approximating pi for ANY digit exists, so we could figure out any individual digit regardless of all previous digits and where the digit is (even the 10^22th digit).

>> No.954145
File: 9 KB, 247x248, Brock from Pokemon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
954145

>>954134
>Implying you didn't just get trolled
>My face

>> No.954146

only proves that reality is not a simulation.

>> No.954153

>>954082

On a different topic

In OP's pic, is the red sector an empty set? Or do you think there are numbers which are not represented in either the real or complex plane?

>> No.954157

>>954082
So you implying that Grahm's Number doesn't "exist" just because it can never be represented fully in our universe?

First you have to define existence, anyways.

>> No.954162

>>954142

what about a formula so big that can't be contained on the universe?

>> No.954176

All real numbers are complex numbers as well.

A next generalization of this diagram would be to include the quaternions.

Another one would be grassmann numbers.

>> No.954190

>>954153
I think it's irrational numbers

>> No.954202

>>954190

Nah irrationals are the Blue set minus the Purple Set.

>> No.954211

>>>/phil/ is that way
oh wait
4chan doesn't hace a philosophy board
try 420chan

>> No.954213

>>954082
your pic is wrong,
ALL numbers are complex numbers, and not all complex numbers are real numbers.

>> No.954217

>>954146
Our simulations don't use irrational numbers.

>> No.954220

>>954162
D'oh my god...A formula with Grahm's Number digits/operators...

>> No.954224

>implying energy is required to maintain a thought.

also,
http://www.razerzone.com/getimba-share-n-win/uc1yded

>> No.954230

OP is confusing the map with the territory. The infinitely long sequences of decimals in irrational numbers can't be written out or decisively measured, but still exist in reality.

What if we had a number system based on pi not ten. 1.. There I just expressed an irrational number without infinite decimal places.

>> No.954234

You raise an interesting point. I will remember to ask my fundie family if they think that God sat around before he created the universe 6000 years ago calculating PI.

>> No.954255

I haven't seen such a violently stupid troll in a long time.
AND FOR FUCKS SAKE, this is the magnets/creationism troll board after all.

>> No.954259

>>954142
10^22 isn't really very large.

>> No.954260

I think OP said it backwards. More like, there's nothing in the universe large enough to require a number infinitely long to describe it.

>> No.954264

The universe is a pattern of vibrations/energy. Physical laws are just representations or patterns we observe that behave in a consistent way, which we have codified in some sort of language (usually maths). There are no "real" laws of physics, just abstract representations of observable phenomena. Some do a better job of representation than others.

Nature doesn't "use" pi or e to do calculations. These symbols are just part of our codification of consistent patterns which we have abstracted and aren't real outside our heads. Nothing "calculates" the physical world, rather, we calculate how parts of it will behave. In other words physics and maths MIMIC the universe; the universe is certainly NOT based on maths or physics. What will calculate the calculator. Don't confuse abstractions with reality.

>> No.954268

it doesnt. pi is all numbers at once.
until it is observed

>> No.954278

>What if we had a number system based on pi not ten
lulz, thy retardation knows no bounds.

>> No.954303

Integers, whole numbers, and natural numbers are all the same.

Also you are wrong. Pi is infinite in base 10, that doesn't mean anything. The ratio between circumference and diameter is a constant value transcending number systems.

>> No.954314

some numbers are irrational but all are logical

>> No.954335

>>954278
You're an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio_base

Non-integer bases exist.

>> No.954340

>>954234
THE DEVIL INVENTEED IRRATIONAL NUMBERS TO DECIEVE US

>> No.954346

>>954335
lulz, of fucking course they do. Every real numbers which isn't 0 is a base of the vector space of real numbers over the field of real numbers, duh!
(Like you learned back in linear algebra)

>> No.954362

>>954340
no. religious love irrationality. in fact they exist cause of it

>> No.954381

How would a circle look different if π were equal to 9?

>> No.954392

>>954381
Space would have to be bent a ton. It would look really warped.

>> No.954402

>>954381
Don't feed it

>> No.954413

>>954381
area of a circle would = 18r^2

>> No.954423
File: 70 KB, 450x338, 1270673538704.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
954423

>>954082
>energy
>representative of a number

YOU JUST SPOUTING BULLSHIT

>> No.954433

Decimals are not natural numbers. only Fractions exist in nature.

>> No.954453
File: 53 KB, 1000x1000, lol_venn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
954453

Improved OP's graph, but mine still has a glaring problem as well.

>> No.954466

Derp moment, I was about to say maybe OP meant that you could never have enough matter to represent an infinitely long number, nor have enough energy to arrange the matter in the right pattern, you'd have to use some sort of shortcut or symbol. Then derp.

>> No.954473
File: 46 KB, 251x251, 1272210479374.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
954473

>>954234

Don't bother, that will just be another prove of Gods greatness/omnipotence for them.

>>954082

Well obviously they do exist. It's is just your point of view that makes them so hard to understand. A number is already a human interpretation and there are other very similar interpretations that make more "sense" in this matter, like this dude said: >>954230


>>954346
>>954278

And as for you:
pic related
BEST BE JOKING NIGGA

>> No.954499

>>954453


what integers are not whole numbers?

which whole numbers aren't prime, composite or 1 ?

>> No.954572

>>954499

"Whole numbers" is sometimes used to refer to the set {0,1,2,3...}. So, integers that are not "whole numbers" are the negative integers, and a whole number that is not a natural number (if you're saying that the natural numbers are the set {1,2,3...} is 0.

I encountered this definition of whole numbers in high school, and the usage was discouraged in college. "Whenever you want to refer to the natural numbers, simply start out by stating whether you mean {0,1,2,3...}, or {1,2,3...}." I just left it in because it was in OP's figure.