existence of numbers in mathematics #629 Correcting Math
in [Logic]
|
Prev: appending the new axiom to the Peano Axioms that precision defines finite versus infinite #629 Correcting Math
Next: Work at Home - Earn $9,000 Weekly With Affiliate Job
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 4 Jul 2010 03:24 Alot of mathematicians and most laypersons think that because you can imagine a number larger than 10^500 that it immediately exists just as 1 or 2 exists. But existence is not a mathematical provence. Existence comes from physics and existence in physics comes from the duality of particle versus wave. Another way of stating this, is that existence comes from the interaction between one material matter versus a second material matter. The largest number in physics is 10^500 or thereabouts as the number of Coulomb interactions inside a atom of element 109. So you have every coulomb interaction represented in 10^500. But to a mathematician who thinks about 10^900, and because he can think it or write it down or talk about it, does not constitute the existence of 10^900, just as when someone thinks about fire breathing dragons or witches flying on brooms does not mean they are real and have existence. Existence of math and for math numbers comes from Physics in that numbers represent physical interactions of matter. In my other book, I discuss how the numbers pi and "e" come into existence as the fact that in physics, plutonium of the Plutonium Atom Totality has 22 subshells in 7 shells and for with 19 subshells are occupied, which translates in rational number form of 22/7 and 19/7. So here we see directly how Physics creates numbers as a reflection of physical interaction of matter. So numbers have reality and this reality is a reflection of physical interaction of matter. Mathematics is not a thought excercise of just mere imagination and math is not something that exists independent of the physical universe. Math is a result of the interactions of the matter in the physical universe. We will never see a electron individually, nor see a 0 kelvin, nor see a north pole, nor a negative charge. Just as we will never see a number 1 or 3 or 85 come knocking on our door. But all of those exist as interactions between matter. A fire breathing dragon does not exist because it is not in biology but only in an errant imagination of the mind. Likewise the number 10^500 exists because it is a physics measurable amount in element 109, but the number 10^600 does not exist except in an errant imagination of the mind. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: Transfer Principle on 22 Jul 2010 18:56 On Jul 4, 12:24 am, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In my other book, I discuss how the numbers piand "e" come into > existence as the fact that in physics, plutonium of the Plutonium > Atom Totality has 22 subshells in 7 shells and for with 19 > subshells are occupied, which translates in rational number form > of 22/7 and 19/7. So here we see directly how Physics creates > numbers as a reflection of physical interaction of matter. I usually don't like to bump up threads that are this old, but I just remembered that today is Pi Approximation Day, and so I bump up one of the few recent threads that mentions the particular approximation of pi, namely 22/7, that inspired this day. I notice that AP tries to find a way to connect the approximation 22/7 to his Plutonium Atom Totality theory. Remember that I'm not an Atom Totalitarian, and so I don't agree that the promixity of 22/7 to pi proves that the universe is a Plutonium atom. But Happy Pi Approximation Day anyway, AP. Meanwhile, since I'm here in this thread anyway, let me respond to some old discussions. Jeffries: "I await the outcry about the double standard of Mr Plutonium's being allowed to invoke fabulous entities like a walking virus but forbidding others from talking about finite numbers larger than 10^500" From context, common sense implies that AP really intended to say that the _ratio_ of the circumference of the universe to the length of a virus is less than 10^500, _not_ that viruses can walk. Hence no double standard. Jesse Hughes: "Yeah, but AP is right: rumdummy math is so lyrical that someone is just *bound* to use it in a song." Speaking of names of theories, the poster Inverse19 Mathematics has given the name "Fermatists" to those who believe that Wiles's proof of FLT is valid. Notice that AP agrees with I19 in rejecting the validity of the proof. So I wonder whether "Fermatism" is a better name for the mainstream theory, with "Fermatists" being the name for the adherents of the mainstream theory.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 22 Jul 2010 20:04 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > On Jul 4, 12:24 am, Archimedes Plutonium > <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> In my other book, I discuss how the numbers piand "e" come into >> existence as the fact that in physics, plutonium of the Plutonium >> Atom Totality has 22 subshells in 7 shells and for with 19 >> subshells are occupied, which translates in rational number form >> of 22/7 and 19/7. So here we see directly how Physics creates >> numbers as a reflection of physical interaction of matter. > > I usually don't like to bump up threads that are this old, but I > just remembered that today is Pi Approximation Day, and so I bump > up one of the few recent threads that mentions the particular > approximation of pi, namely 22/7, that inspired this day. > > I notice that AP tries to find a way to connect the approximation > 22/7 to his Plutonium Atom Totality theory. Remember that I'm not > an Atom Totalitarian, and so I don't agree that the promixity of > 22/7 to pi proves that the universe is a Plutonium atom. I'm not positive, but I *think* that AP is claiming that pi is exactly 22/7, not approximately. -- "To solve this problem, we define a security flag, known as the 'evil' bit, in the IPv4 [RFC791] header. Benign packets have this bit set to 0; those that are used for an attack will have the bit set to 1." -- RFC 3514
From: Transfer Principle on 22 Jul 2010 22:45 On Jul 22, 5:04 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > I notice that AP tries to find a way to connect the approximation > > 22/7 to his Plutonium Atom Totality theory. Remember that I'm not > > an Atom Totalitarian, and so I don't agree that the promixity of > > 22/7 to pi proves that the universe is a Plutonium atom. > I'm not positive, but I *think* that AP is claiming that pi is exactly > 22/7, not approximately. Is he? I decided to start a Google search for old AP posts to find out the answer. I found one interesting post all the way from 1993, where the OP claimed that he had found a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (oh, and BTW, the OP's name was Andrew _Wiles_), and AP (still posting as Ludwig Plutonium) challenged him by giving the 10-adics (AP-adics) as a counterexample. Then he started discussing Atom Totality. Anyway, I found a relevant discussion from 24th August, 2007. I'm loath to bring up old posts since that leads to arguments, but this was the most recent that I could find: Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >> Chapter: (pi) and (e) explained >> A theory of physics that explains everything has to explain why pi has >> a value of 3.14159.... [...] >> And since the Atom Totality has a Riemannian geometry of a shape like >> a sphere the Atom Totality has a circumference and an diameter. Since it is >> one big atom or 231Plutonium which is the 5f6 and has >> 22 subshells inside of 7 shells. Now that is the *Rational >> Approximation of the subshells and shells*. The actual number of subshells and >> shells yields the number (pi) precisely. Proginoskes wrote: > It looks like AP is saying that pi is exactly 22/7 here. Either that, > or the number of shells or subshells is an irrational number. AP > should know better, with him having been a math major a long time ago. Tribble wrote: He seems to be saying that 22/7 is a rational approximation to the "actual number [ratio] of subshells and shells", which is "pi precisely". So it seems that he's saying that pi is the ratio between the actual number of subshells and shells, which means that pi is a rational number. Either that or he's saying that the number of shells and subshells are not integers. It's hard to tell. In other words, inconclusive. Maybe I'll go and ask AP directly, in one of his more recent threads so that he'll notice.
From: FredJeffries on 24 Jul 2010 05:30
On Jul 22, 3:56 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > Jeffries: > "I await the outcry about the double standard of Mr Plutonium's being > allowed to invoke fabulous entities like a walking virus but > forbidding others from talking about finite numbers larger than > 10^500" > > From context, common sense implies Common sense? COMMON SENSE?! Examine the context?! What happened to your PRINCIPLES, man?! > that AP really intended to say > that the _ratio_ of the circumference of the universe to the length > of a virus is less than 10^500, _not_ that viruses can walk. Hence > no double standard. > Seems to me that what he said was that the existence of a walking virus would make a finite number greater than 10^500 absurd, therefore it is not the case that there is a finite number greater than 10^500. Using that logical pattern, why can't we say: the existence of a finite number greater than 10^500 would make the idea that "all finite numbers are smaller than 10^500" absurd, therefore it is not the case that all finite numbers are smaller than 10^500. |