Prev: As the length of the list of computable reals->oo, the length of all possible digit sequences on the list->oo.
Next: missing mass with its solid-body-rotation conundrum solved Chapt 4 #214; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 2 Jul 2010 01:50


Transfer Principle wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:56 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Theorem: In old-math, geometry had well-defined finite-line versus
> > infinite-line but Algebra or Number theory was ill-defined with
> > its finite-number versus infinite-number and that is why
> > mathematics could never prove Twin Primes, Perfect Numbers,
> > Goldbach C. , Fermat's Last Theorem, Riemann Hypothesis and thousands
> > of number theory conjectures.
>
> I haven't posted in the AP threads in a while, since I usually
> avoid the Atom Totality threads. But now that AP has returned
> to Correcting Math, I will return to participating.
>
> > However, if a precision definition is given in
> > mathematics for geometry or algebra saying that finite-number means
> > all numbers less than 10^500 and 10^500 and beyond are infinite-
> > numbers.
>
> So obviously, AP has returned to his 10^500-infinity idea.
>

So now, have you ever questioned yourself as to why you would need any
number larger than 10^500 to frame infinity? A virus, if it could
walk, and walk
across the entire circumference of the Universe would be far less than
10^200
virus steps. Our current Cosmos of best estimate is less than 10^100
meters
circumference. Our smallest lengths are measured in 10^-15 as the
diameter of
the proton, so why would anyone need 10^-500?

What I am saying is, why step into any mathematics class and waffle on
about
everlasting distance as infinity, or nonstop as infinity. When Physics
already gave
out at about 10^200, much less than 10^500.

Trouble with most people that end up studying mathematics, is that
they bury their
heads in sand of complexity, whilst all around them they lose the
commonsense
that a 10 year old has more commonsense.

The axiom in mathematics that one and only one line is parallel to a
given line, drawn
from a point not on the line, is seen by every mathematician as a line
that goes to infinity
and is parallel and never meets the given line. But why in the world
do they all imagine
this parallel line as something that is beyond where Physics ends? Why
do they
think it must be larger than a metric of 10^500? Is it because people
stepped out of
church, before they learned Euclid's Geometry and that Infinity to
them is something of a God's distance, as a parallel line is eternal
and everlasting? When they should have stepped
out of Physics class knowing that there is no physical meaning beyond
10^500.

I am the first mathematician that recognized full well that Physics is
above Math, and that
Math is a tiny part of Physics. That is the biggest problem as to why
mathematicians
still think that infinity is something special, when it is nothing
special. Infinity is where
Physics no longer has measuring or where Physics no longer needs
numbers. Physics
is good up to 10^500 because that is the number of Coulomb
interactions inside element
109. That is infinity for mathematics.

For mathematicians to waffle on about numbers larger than 10^500, when
those numbers
have no physical meaning, is no different than writing a dime fiction
novel and thinking the
story was true.

> > It is the reason why Mathematics has never been able to prove
> > the oldest conjecture on record-- Perfect Numbers Conjecture and the
> > second oldest conjecture-- Twin Primes.
>
> The "Perfect Numbers Conjecture"? Is this the conjecture that
> all perfect numbers are even, or the conjecture that there
> exist infinitely many even perfect numbers? I would guess the
> latter, since I fail to see how the former has anything to do
> with the 10^500-infinity theory, and the latter is analogous
> to the Twin Primes Conjecture.
>

I meant both of those Perfect Number conjectures, and I differ with
you on the
description of the first, for I take it that 1 is the only odd perfect
number conjecture.
So I have to go through all the numbers from 2 to 10^500 to see if any
other odd number
is a perfect number.


> Actually, I take that back. I suppose that one could include
> 10^500 by stating, "if no odd perfect number less than 10^500
> exists, then no odd perfect number exists." As of now, it's
> proved that no odd perfect number less than 10^300 exists, so
> we still have 200 orders of magnitude left to go before we
> reach AP's limit.
>

How far has the Riemann Hypothesis been checked out for? Is it 10^20?

How far has FLT been checked out? Is it 10^10?

How far has Goldbach been checked out? Is it 10^15?



> > Our best computers can never verify Goldbach or FLT or Riemann
> > Hypothesis out to 10^500.
>
> AP appears to be saying here that if a conjecture states that
> infinitely many natural numbers satisfy some property, then
> we only need to check to see whether 10^500 naturals satisfy it
> before declaring the conjecture true, and if the conjecture is
> that no natural numbers satisfy some property, then we only
> need to check to up 10^500.
>

That is correct. Another way of saying it is that the largest
meaningful
number in Physics is the number that is infinity for mathematics. That
the
infinity in mathematics is no larger than the largest number in
Physics.


> Obviously, this claim fails in standard theory ("Old Math.") Let
> me chew on this for a while...

Say, LWalk, can you help me out on public relations? I have used the
term
"old-math" but such a moniker has been used throughout history. So I
need a new
moniker. Should I call it the "ill-defined math", or how about "sloth-
math" since the
community knows they never defined finite number versus infinite
number? Or
how about "rumdummy math" which has that poetic ring and someone can
use it
in a song. Can you help me out on this, because math is supposed to be
the
science of precision but noone seems to care to do their jobs of
defining finite-number
versus infinite-number. Should I call it rumdummy-math? I like the
ring of that.

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 2 Jul 2010 03:59
On Jul 1, 10:50 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Transfer Principle wrote:
> > Actually, I take that back. I suppose that one could include
> > 10^500 by stating, "if no odd perfect number less than 10^500
> > exists, then no odd perfect number exists." As of now, it's
> > proved that no odd perfect number less than 10^300 exists, so
> > we still have 200 orders of magnitude left to go before we
> > reach AP's limit.
> How far has the Riemann Hypothesis been checked out for? Is it 10^20?

So far, about 10^13 nontrivial zeros of zeta have been confirmed
to have real part 1/2. The imaginary part of the last known
zero is also within an order of magnitude of 10^13.

> How far has FLT been checked out? Is it 10^10?

FLT has been completely proved. Therefore, it works for all
natural exponents, 10^500 and beyond.

> How far has Goldbach been checked out? Is it 10^15?

Thereabouts.

> Say, LWalk, can you help me out on public relations? I have used the
> term "old-math" but such a moniker has been used throughout history.
> So I need a new moniker. Should I call it the "ill-defined math", or
> how about "sloth-math" since the community knows they never defined
> finite number versus infinite number? Or how about "rumdummy math"
> which has that poetic ring and someone can use it in a song. Can you
> help me out on this, because math is supposed to be the science of
> precision but noone seems to care to do their jobs of defining
> finite-number versus infinite-number. Should I call it rumdummy-
> math? I like the ring of that.

For some reason, I doubt that the the users of "rundummy-math" would
like the ring of that name.

I just prefer to call it "standard math," since, as of today, it is
the standard theory.
From: FredJeffries on 3 Jul 2010 10:17
On Jul 1, 10:50 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Transfer Principle wrote:
>
> > So obviously, AP has returned to his 10^500-infinity idea.
>
> So now, have you ever questioned yourself as to why you would need any
> number larger than 10^500 to frame infinity? A virus, if it could
> walk, and walk
> across the entire circumference of the Universe would be far less than
> 10^200
> virus steps.

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
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: As the length of the list of computable reals->oo, the length of all possible digit sequences on the list->oo.
Next: missing mass with its solid-body-rotation conundrum solved Chapt 4 #214; ATOM TOTALITY