Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The problem with alowing a logical construct (math) to become a religion/way of life is that the world is not a logical place and interpreting the world through a strictly logical viewpoint will only doom us to disappointment at best and war at worst.
See now this is interesting...
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Medicine, the calendar, our economy, our power grids, our water supplies... etc. are all controlled and governed by the math. The one language all humans across the globe can speak in unity.
Math is simply an organized system by which we can systematically address and handle everyday tasks in life using logic and reason. It seems to be one of the staples of what separates us from the beasts.
So my question is what are the limitations of our mathematical systems? They are all man made, and thus seem to inherit some of our deficiencies, or our limitations. We like to think that we have it all mapped out on paper, but inevitably, something happens or comes along to prove our theories wrong.
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity. Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together. Besides a flawed system of units and measures, we live in a world that is not constant, and not suitable for environmentally controlled application of these already flawed units and measures.
Just thinking out loud today..
I guess you have never heard of fractions and significant digit? First of all, the world is analogue, so no finite measuring system will work to the infini-th precision. That is your whole argument? What exactly are you looking for?
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The problem with alowing a logical construct (math) to become a religion/way of life is that the world is not a logical place and interpreting the world through a strictly logical viewpoint will only doom us to disappointment at best and war at worst.
See now this is interesting...
That is interesting
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Medicine, the calendar, our economy, our power grids, our water supplies... etc. are all controlled and governed by the math. The one language all humans across the globe can speak in unity.
Math is simply an organized system by which we can systematically address and handle everyday tasks in life using logic and reason. It seems to be one of the staples of what separates us from the beasts.
So my question is what are the limitations of our mathematical systems? They are all man made, and thus seem to inherit some of our deficiencies, or our limitations. We like to think that we have it all mapped out on paper, but inevitably, something happens or comes along to prove our theories wrong.
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity. Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together. Besides a flawed system of units and measures, we live in a world that is not constant, and not suitable for environmentally controlled application of these already flawed units and measures.
Just thinking out loud today..
I guess you have never heard of fractions and significant digit? First of all, the world is analogue, so no finite measuring system will work to the infini-th precision. That is your whole argument? What exactly are you looking for?
Thanks,
That does bring up an interesting point. Analogue vs. digital could be helpful to folks who are having a hard time grasping the limitations of a math-centered world. The benefit of digital systems are that they are 100% reproducible while analogue systems are always unique. Kind of like people.
I do understand the value and use of significant digits, although more trouble came in civil engineering (English) when we had to throw everything we had learned about sig-digs for metric physics out the window.
I do understand the concept though and I know the machine work "for example" only needs to be accurate within the constraints of the material/system that it's intended for.
I am not saying that math is useless. I'm just asking the question, "is there a better way?"
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Medicine, the calendar, our economy, our power grids, our water supplies... etc. are all controlled and governed by the math. The one language all humans across the globe can speak in unity.
Math is simply an organized system by which we can systematically address and handle everyday tasks in life using logic and reason. It seems to be one of the staples of what separates us from the beasts.
So my question is what are the limitations of our mathematical systems? They are all man made, and thus seem to inherit some of our deficiencies, or our limitations. We like to think that we have it all mapped out on paper, but inevitably, something happens or comes along to prove our theories wrong.
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity. Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together. Besides a flawed system of units and measures, we live in a world that is not constant, and not suitable for environmentally controlled application of these already flawed units and measures.
Just thinking out loud today..
I guess you have never heard of fractions and significant digit? First of all, the world is analogue, so no finite measuring system will work to the infini-th precision. That is your whole argument? What exactly are you looking for?
Thanks,
That does bring up an interesting point. Analogue vs. digital could be helpful to folks who are having a hard time grasping the limitations of a math-centered world. The benefit of digital systems are that they are 100% reproducible while analogue systems are always unique. Kind of like people.
I do understand the value and use of significant digits, although more trouble came in civil engineering (English) when we had to throw everything we had learned about sig-digs for metric physics out the window.
I do understand the concept though and I know the machine work "for example" only needs to be accurate within the constraints of the material/system that it's intended for.
I am not saying that math is useless. I'm just asking the question, "is there a better way?"
You seem to be obsessed with the common use decimal (base 10) system. Just because the math you are familiar with seems "coarse" doesn't mean that math is inaccurate, just that you lack education.
Originally posted by: Anubis
Here you go
Originally posted by: dullard
His "logic":Originally posted by: DougK62
WTF are you talking about with infinity? What you said is completely wrong.
A) 1 divided by 2 = 0.500000000000 with infinite repeating zeros.
B) The number, 0.500000000000 with infinite repeating zeros, doesn't exist.
C) Thus, 0.500000000000 with infinite repeating zeros * 2 does not equal 1.
That is rock solid logic if only (B) was true.
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Medicine, the calendar, our economy, our power grids, our water supplies... etc. are all controlled and governed by the math. The one language all humans across the globe can speak in unity.
Math is simply an organized system by which we can systematically address and handle everyday tasks in life using logic and reason. It seems to be one of the staples of what separates us from the beasts.
So my question is what are the limitations of our mathematical systems? They are all man made, and thus seem to inherit some of our deficiencies, or our limitations. We like to think that we have it all mapped out on paper, but inevitably, something happens or comes along to prove our theories wrong.
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity. Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together. Besides a flawed system of units and measures, we live in a world that is not constant, and not suitable for environmentally controlled application of these already flawed units and measures.
Just thinking out loud today..
Originally posted by: jimmypage13
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Medicine, the calendar, our economy, our power grids, our water supplies... etc. are all controlled and governed by the math. The one language all humans across the globe can speak in unity.
Math is simply an organized system by which we can systematically address and handle everyday tasks in life using logic and reason. It seems to be one of the staples of what separates us from the beasts.
So my question is what are the limitations of our mathematical systems? They are all man made, and thus seem to inherit some of our deficiencies, or our limitations. We like to think that we have it all mapped out on paper, but inevitably, something happens or comes along to prove our theories wrong.
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity. Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together. Besides a flawed system of units and measures, we live in a world that is not constant, and not suitable for environmentally controlled application of these already flawed units and measures.
Just thinking out loud today..
its true its true, but, In Rock I Trust
No, we don't. We get 10/3, a fraction. We simply use 3.33 repeating as a more convenient decimal representation of the same number. If we know that the decimal is indeed repeating infinitely, then we know the fraction that it represents. This is 2nd or 3rd grade math.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity.
It certainly does exist, as shown above.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
It's not "close enough" it's exactly right. The map is not the territory.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together.
Machine work is limited by the precision capabilities of the machining process, not by any limitations of the mathematical system. It's related to the matter of being physically able to match a specification within a set of tolerences and not to the matter of being able to measure the original specification. It's a completely different scenario.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I do understand the concept though and I know that machine work "for example" only needs to be accurate within the constraints of the material/system that it's intended for.
The "better way" is to understand that math is not a prescriptive system. Rather, mathematics is a method of describing and communicating relationships and interdependencies. Mathematical formulae are discovered, not created. Mathematics is nothing more or less than the study of the underlying patterns that shape our world. As we learn more, we see more of these patterns and learn better how to describe them in the language of mathematics, but we (mankind) do NOT "invent" math. Math was, is, and forever will be.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I am not saying that math is useless. I'm just asking the question, "is there a better way?"
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
No, we don't. We get 10/3, a fraction. We simply use 3.33 repeating as a more convenient decimal representation of the same number. If we know that the decimal is indeed repeating infinitely, then we know the fraction that it represents. This is 2nd or 3rd grade math.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity.
It certainly does exist, as shown above.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
It's not "close enough" it's exactly right. The map is not the territory.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together.
When you write the letter "t", does it look _exactly_ the same as when your father writes that letter? No, it doesn't, but both symbols represent the same letter. Likewise, 3.33 repeating and 10/3 represent the same number. They are equal. Again, this is 2nd or 3rd grade math.
Machine work is limited by the precision capabilities of the machining process, not by any limitations of the mathematical system. It's related to the matter of being physically able to match a specification within a set of tolerences and not to the matter of being able to measure the original specification. It's a completely different scenario.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I do understand the concept though and I know that machine work "for example" only needs to be accurate within the constraints of the material/system that it's intended for.
The "better way" is to understand that math is not a prescriptive system. Rather, mathematics is a method of describing and communicating relationships and interdependencies. Mathematical formulae are discovered, not created. Mathematics is nothing more or less than the study of the underlying patterns that shape our world. As we learn more, we see more of these patterns and learn better how to describe them in the language of mathematics, but we (mankind) do NOT "invent" math. Math was, is, and forever will be.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I am not saying that math is useless. I'm just asking the question, "is there a better way?"
ZV
Originally posted by: fanerman91
2 + 2 never equals 5. Unless you listen to Radiohead.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
No, we don't. We get 10/3, a fraction. We simply use 3.33 repeating as a more convenient decimal representation of the same number. If we know that the decimal is indeed repeating infinitely, then we know the fraction that it represents. This is 2nd or 3rd grade math.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity.
It certainly does exist, as shown above.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
It's not "close enough" it's exactly right. The map is not the territory.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together.
When you write the letter "t", does it look _exactly_ the same as when your father writes that letter? No, it doesn't, but both symbols represent the same letter. Likewise, 3.33 repeating and 10/3 represent the same number. They are equal. Again, this is 2nd or 3rd grade math.
Machine work is limited by the precision capabilities of the machining process, not by any limitations of the mathematical system. It's related to the matter of being physically able to match a specification within a set of tolerences and not to the matter of being able to measure the original specification. It's a completely different scenario.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I do understand the concept though and I know that machine work "for example" only needs to be accurate within the constraints of the material/system that it's intended for.
The "better way" is to understand that math is not a prescriptive system. Rather, mathematics is a method of describing and communicating relationships and interdependencies. Mathematical formulae are discovered, not created. Mathematics is nothing more or less than the study of the underlying patterns that shape our world. As we learn more, we see more of these patterns and learn better how to describe them in the language of mathematics, but we (mankind) do NOT "invent" math. Math was, is, and forever will be.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I am not saying that math is useless. I'm just asking the question, "is there a better way?"
ZV
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
No, we don't. We get 10/3, a fraction. We simply use 3.33 repeating as a more convenient decimal representation of the same number. If we know that the decimal is indeed repeating infinitely, then we know the fraction that it represents. This is 2nd or 3rd grade math.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
For example, the use of infinity in the case of dividing 10 into 3 parts. We end up with 3.33-infinity.
It certainly does exist, as shown above.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Even it we were allowed to use such a number (which doesn't exist) 3 parts of 3.33-infinity would still not equal 10.
It's not "close enough" it's exactly right. The map is not the territory.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I suppose we can just say it's "close enough", but maybe we are barking up the wrong tree all together.
When you write the letter "t", does it look _exactly_ the same as when your father writes that letter? No, it doesn't, but both symbols represent the same letter. Likewise, 3.33 repeating and 10/3 represent the same number. They are equal. Again, this is 2nd or 3rd grade math.
Machine work is limited by the precision capabilities of the machining process, not by any limitations of the mathematical system. It's related to the matter of being physically able to match a specification within a set of tolerences and not to the matter of being able to measure the original specification. It's a completely different scenario.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I do understand the concept though and I know that machine work "for example" only needs to be accurate within the constraints of the material/system that it's intended for.
The "better way" is to understand that math is not a prescriptive system. Rather, mathematics is a method of describing and communicating relationships and interdependencies. Mathematical formulae are discovered, not created. Mathematics is nothing more or less than the study of the underlying patterns that shape our world. As we learn more, we see more of these patterns and learn better how to describe them in the language of mathematics, but we (mankind) do NOT "invent" math. Math was, is, and forever will be.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I am not saying that math is useless. I'm just asking the question, "is there a better way?"
ZV
You left out the 'Amen.'
I say again, while no one is denying math is a useful tool, viewing the world strictly thru a mathmatical/logical perspective will doom you to disappointment and will almost certainly earn the derision and persecution of the world. The reason is simple, the world (indeed the guy two houses over) views the problem, not to mention the order of operations differently.
There is nothing inherently virtuous about proselitizing logic as the correct viewpoint for inteligent people everywhere. The short sightedness of such people viewing the world in black and white has given rise to as many conflicts as accepted religions ever have. You can 'prove' your viewpoint mathmatically/logically all you want but, it will not alter the fact that just as many people will vilify every thought and idea you present in such a manner.
I have noticed that anyone questioning the rightness/validity of a purely logical view of life and the cosmos is subjected to ridicule and rejection by the scientific sorts on a level which rivals the most rabid theologist. I wonder why the logical thinker is unable/unwilling to evaluate other world views by the rules/logic which are central to those differing beliefs?
Except that the fractional representation came first and the decimal approximation second. It's the 3.33 repeating that is the way of dealing with fractions. You have it backwards.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Yes, I understand that 3.33.... represents 3 and 1/3. Perfectly. I know this is elementary. I know that you can take a "pizza" and cut it into sixths, eighths.. whatever. Fractions are our way of dealing with a flaw in our system (yes this is my opinion), that I don't think is difficult to understand. We are finite creatures trying to deal with infinite numbers.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Except that the fractional representation came first and the decimal approximation second. It's the 3.33 repeating that is the way of dealing with fractions. You have it backwards.Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Yes, I understand that 3.33.... represents 3 and 1/3. Perfectly. I know this is elementary. I know that you can take a "pizza" and cut it into sixths, eighths.. whatever. Fractions are our way of dealing with a flaw in our system (yes this is my opinion), that I don't think is difficult to understand. We are finite creatures trying to deal with infinite numbers.
ZV