the math poll

[LMNO]

So, to put that in Roger Prime:


"Who cares what you call it?  I just want to know if it will tell me how to blow shit up."

[Payne]

Yes.

[Golden Applesauce]

Pi is one-half the period of the sine and cosine functions, for starters.

The period of a sine or cosine function is based on the percentage of a circle traveled.  pi related because pi is 1/4th of the circumference of a circle of radius one *by definition*.  (even then its kindof artificial, I can use 90 degrees instead of pi just as easily)

You can get pi out of the other equation you described because thats also related to a circle.

Sine and cosine don't have to be defined as relating to a circle at all (and in rigorous math usually isn't) - you can define them by their Taylor series, for instance, or a number of other things.

You can interpret the other equation as related to a circle, or not.  That's the Lo5 bit - whether you see it as connected to a hemicircle, or just an arbitrary function of x.  Regardless, it shows that there is something exactly equal to pi without any notion of geometry being presupposed.

[LMNO]

But that "something" exists purely in the framework of your rules.  It doesn't exist in nature.

[Golden Applesauce]

And GA, you can't really measure those formulas, can you?

IMO, all irrational numbers are made-up bullshit. Useful for approximating real things, but don't get it the wrong way around, those numbers are the approximations, a reasonable guess of a real world measurement, assuming ideal conditions. "Ideal conditions" of course means "never gonna happen".

1.  Measurement doesn't happen in Math.

2.  Of course it's made up bullshit.  Math is made up bullshit.  Sometimes it is useful bullshit.  Most of the time, not so much.

[Golden Applesauce]

But that "something" exists purely in the framework of your rules.  It doesn't exist in nature.

Yes.

ETA: I was just showing that pi wasn't an approximation.  It is itself.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But those relationships wouldn't exist without the rules.

Vedic mathematicians may disagree.

Vedic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Bharati_Krishna_Tirtha%27s_Vedic_mathematics

Haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure what to think

I just browsed it, and it's absolute bullshit.  Fucking drek on the same scale as that bullshit back in the 70s where everyone tried to turn physics into Eastern mysticism.

ATTN, FICTIONPUSS:  WE ARE DISCUSSING MATHEMATICS, NOT HIPPIE BULLSHIT.

I can't speak for the wiki-page. But the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZKOPKIHsrc ) isn't exactly hippie bullshit - I couldn't find any other material which describes it in the same way, so here's a still:



It works by drawing lines, with the different angles representing the different numbers, and using the groupings for whatever base you want. You count the intersections to arrive at the result.

The argument I was trying to make was along the lines of - if two different rulesets come up with the same relationship, then the relationship exists without either rule set and hence cannot be an invention.

So, basically, it's the Trachtenberg system with hippie shit glued to it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

if the aliens land on earth, they will have a "math language" the symbols will be different from ours but the relationships they express or have to the other symbols should be the same...



so... its a language, within the language discovery's can be made, what the language describes is universal,  two independently developed math languages would be identical in substance

or

      

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Golden Applesauce]

if the aliens land on earth, they will have a "math language" the symbols will be different from ours but the relationships they express or have to the other symbols should be the same...



so... its a language, within the language discovery's can be made, what the language describes is universal,  two independently developed math languages would be identical in substance

or

      

What TGRR said.

If the two independently developed math systems are identical in substance, all that means is that the two groups chose the same axioms (or the axioms chosen can be shown to be logically equivalent.)

Two independently developed math systems need not be identical in substance - even on Earth this is true.

[Cain]

Plus, you know, no aliens as of yet have landed to show us their awesome maths skills.

[Cramulus]

[fomenter]

the    was to indicate that i don't know, more of a question than statement...

i was under the impression that all math was math (higher math compared to other higher math i am lost) but if i used hash marks and squiggles to determine the ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference it would be equal to PI regardless of where it was developed or what symbols were used?? or am i wrong?

[Golden Applesauce]

the    was to indicate that i don't know, more of a question than statement...

i was under the impression that all math was math (higher math compared to other higher math i am lost) but if i used hash marks and squiggles to determine the ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference it would be equal to PI regardless of where it was developed or what symbols were used?? or am i wrong?

Another culture wouldn't necessarily measure lines, saying that a circle is composed of an infinite number of points ans leaving it at that.  They might not define the distance in "all the points a distance R from point 0" the same way, or even have a Cartesian coordinate system.

[fomenter]

you have lost me a bit (my math is not great so type slow)  those ideas seem to be alternative ways of looking at things using the language of math they don't seem to be outside the language of math only a different part of math, if you saw enough of what they did you could take it it apart and understand what it described, and if you showed them pi they would be able to do the same and understand what it meant?

my  description  "identical in substance" is just to sloppy to convey what the universality of math means (i don't really have my head around it well enough to do better)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Another culture's math will be similar, because they are describing the same universe we live in.