Division by zero. Go ahead and laugh.

Discussion in 'Undergraduate Math' started by Lefty, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. Lefty

    Lefty Guest


    If I have one marble in my hand, then I have exactly one marble. This is
    exact. It is precise. If I have lost my marble [ : )] then I have none, I
    have zero marbles. There is no margin of error here.


    Agreed completely. And this is a problem which must be fixed.


    Exactly. It is the study of nature and space/time items. Thus far, they have
    used abstract tools to describe things in the real world. I think that there
    is a little bit of a disconnect because your jamming a round peg into a
    square hole. The abstract world and the physical universe are two separate
    worlds.

    It may be possibly to construct a physics which is in fact the real world
    mirror image of mathematics. It would require a whole different approach and
    philosophy. I am not sure even how it would be done or what it would look
    like. All I've got so far is my (axiom of uniqueness) for real objects in
    the physical universe.


    OK, it's wrong. But I never met a physicist who would not admit the same.


    When one learns, he does not create a physical object. He creates an
    abstract one. You are adding something to the abstract world when you invent
    things in your head.

    An exact physics would look very different from the "engineering" type of
    models we are always using. One can never abandon these models because they
    work quite nicely. But they are not exact. As a mathematician, surely you
    could appreciate why an exact physics would be interesting.


    Yet, it is believed that singularities exist in space/time. Are they the
    result of a sloppy God ?

    Plato was Jewish ? I'm going to check that with one of my orthodox freinds.
    : )
     
    Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lefty

    Lefty Guest

    I dont want to see any of these things going away, except perhaps the

    If I have one marble in my hand then I have "exactly" and "precisely" one
    marble.

    If I have no marbles in my hand then I have "exactly" and "precisely" zero
    marbles.

    This is the number system of existentialism. Ones and zeros. It exists, or
    it does not. I do not know what can be made of 1's and 0's in space/time,
    but programmers seem to have taken it pretty far.


    I want to construct a simple system which exactly describes a physical
    object. And if it can achieve this, then you have something which is not
    quite an abstraction.


    You are absolutely correct.
     
    Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Quite improbable. There are probably no more than 10^200 things in heaven
    and earth, and a very small part of our philosophy (elementary arithmetic)
    can dream of 10^10^10^10 (100 times) , not to mention Graham number...
     
    Denis Feldmann, Oct 9, 2004
  4. In sci.math, Lefty
    <>
    wrote
    If you drop the marble, shattering it...but there's a better example,
    at least in physics: the double-slit electron experiment.
    Good luck; for starters there's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. :)
    QM is a very weird beast for determinists. :)
     
    The Ghost In The Machine, Oct 9, 2004
  5. Lefty

    Lefty Guest


    I dont believe in fundamental particles. It's a great model, but still it is
    stick-figure mathematical modelling of space/time. To believe in a
    fundamental particle, you must believe that there is such a thing as a
    particle in the first place. The notion of "particle" is an abstraction,
    which is being superimposed upon nature. There is no particle. Just waves in
    space/time. You have a wave, or you do not. There is either 1, or there is
    none (0).

    Physicists just cant live without a terra firma.
     
    Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
  6. The science of physics is less real than physical reality. Physics is
    our cleverest way of making good guesses about how the world works.

    Bob Kolker
     
    robert j. kolker, Oct 9, 2004
  7. Lefty

    Lefty Guest


    Agreed. The models which are used to describe the natural world are mostly
    algebraic and abstract. The natural world, however, is non-abstract. These
    two worlds do not mesh precisely.

    Yet, in the physical universe, there must be a thing known as "truth". And
    this truth is (by definition) as precise and exact as mathematical precision
    in the abstract world. Mathematical exactness "is" manifest in the physical
    universe by virtue of truth.

    I think that using the naturals to describe physical objects introduces
    error, because no two objects are identical. This implies a number system
    for the physical universe, one which is precise and exact. I really do not
    like it, but it seems logical. If I had my way, the naturals would describe
    things perfectly. But if I said that I had 5 marbles, then by definition of
    what 5 implies, these marbles must be exactly identical to each other. I
    cant believe that this is possible.

    The amazing thing is that even if there is an error introduced into the
    model of physics because we allow all naturals, all the basic operations
    still seem valid. I'm perplexed by this, but I still see this as a flaw in
    the current model of physics.

    The naturals cannot be exact, precise representations of physical objects.
     
    Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
  8. We are able to count objects that our seperated or seperable in our
    perceptual field. The do not have to be identical, they just have to be
    individually discernable. You have five fingers on each hand (unless you
    are unfortunate). No two are alike yet you can count them. And nothing
    we can formulate can describe anything perfectly. The thing and its
    description are distinct and descriptions perforce must omit properties
    otherwise we would never get done writing down or saying or description.
    In order for us to comprehend we must abstract which means leaving out
    stuff.

    Bob Kolker
     
    robert j. kolker, Oct 9, 2004
  9. Lefty

    Lefty Guest


    Unless the universe really is ergodic, in which case one will be correct,
    eventually, regardless of what one says !

    (Thats a joke.)
     
    Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
  10. Lefty

    Lefty Guest



    Agreed. And for even the most simple physical object there is probably an
    infinite amount of truth or facts which can be enumerated with words or
    numbers. The only way to describe it _concisely_ is to give it a name and to
    say that it either exists or does not. This is a numerically exact
    description. There is 1 of something, or there is 0 of that thing.

    I am absolutely perplexed that people can count things higher than 1, and
    all the algebra seems to hang together very well. Everything works. Calculus
    works. Statistics works. Engineering works. It seems that if there is any
    error introduced by using naturals higher than 1, the math is so robust that
    such error is not even observable until you try to unify physics.
     
    Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
  11. Lefty

    ZZBunker Guest

    Yes, yes, sure. We'll have to note the brilliant
    QMer's have said *models*, rather than model.
    So the "essentials" of QM are quite obviously
    mererly the Central Limit Theorem, a light show,
    and a clock that decays exponentially with rod-time,
    rather than moves.

    So the decaying clock is obviously
    to be held only the astronomers,
    and others well-quizzed in the
    subject of mirrors, and the conservation
    of mirrors.

    So this space is hereby christened as
    Flat space, for the mathematicians and politicians
    to frolic in, with their Euclid of infinity fame.

    And predictions made in this are logically,
    equivalently confined to space-filling curves
    of flat space. Which we would should
    give a name, called volume.

    And predicitions made of volume
    are not predictions, since they
    are space-filling curves.

    So they curves should be called pressure,
    rather than predictions. Since a
    prediction of pressure, is not a
    predicition, it's is just more pressure.

    And where their theory of pressure
    collapses, this should be called
    the origin.

    And when their theory pressure of collapses,
    this should, this should be called
    a twin of where the pressure collapses.



    That would be useful if physics was a complex system.
    But since most of physics can be computerized,
    it is hardly what one would call a complex system.

    Since it only has four known "laws".
     
    ZZBunker, Oct 9, 2004
  12. Lefty

    Lefty Guest



    That was really beautiful.

    Unfortunately I cant tell if you are talking over my head or making a pun.



    Physics should be a mathematics in it's own right.
     
    Lefty, Oct 10, 2004
  13. Why do you insist on confusing the description with the thing described.
    The map is NOT the territory. The word is NOT the thing.

    Physics has to be about the physical world, not just a gossimer pattern
    of abstraction.

    Bob Kolker
     
    robert j. kolker, Oct 10, 2004
  14. Start with the definition of "paradox" and "inconsistency". Part of the
    frustration you are observing is your persistent misuse of words. If
    you want to have a philosophical argument, there are plenty of places to
    take it. As it stands, those words have a defined meaning that doesn't
    change to meet your desires.
    In some ways I am lazy, in others not. The trick is to know *when* you
    can afford to be lazy.
    Ok, fair enough.
    The doctors tried to transplant one into me at birth, but my body
    rejected it. I've been forced to live without one or risk my health.
    I don't have a problem with that, it's your explanations of *why* that I
    take issue with.
    This presumes there *is* something external that can affect it. The
    mathematical model is outside everything else.
    Or perhaps math has nothing to do with reality and attempts to make the
    two mesh is pointless.
     
    Will Twentyman, Oct 12, 2004
  15. Lefty

    Lefty Guest

    Physics should be a mathematics in it's own right.

    Physics shall be built upon axioms which have, as a foundation, the solid
    bedrock of reality to rest upon.

    Physics as we know it is an importation of of abstractions into the real
    physical universe. Why must you confuse these worlds ?

    Using traditional physics, I ask you this question. "Is space/time
    contuinuous ?"

    The tools you have at you rdisposal are INADEQUATE to answer this, because
    physics is not "a" math. It MUST be made "a math" unto itself.

    I have no axe to grind with engineers or accountants. But I will say this,
    they are all WRONG. Their usage of mathematics is NOT rigorous. I do not
    know if mathematics has ever been applied to solve a physical problem with
    rigor. Maybe combinatorics, I dont know.
     
    Lefty, Oct 13, 2004
  16. Lefty

    Lefty Guest

    I have read your reply, and again I find myself grateful that you would even
    consider discussing philosophical issues, especially that you have taken me
    1/2 seriously in a seemingly provocative discussion of sorts -

    - it is alway a pleasure to spar with folks who know how to fight so well.

    But I must abandon that pursuit for another.

    I am asking for your criticism of my ideas in the thread "Physics Upgrade".
    There is also a thread going in sci.physics.

    I am trying to do some new things, and desperately need some quality attacks
    on my ideas. All I'm getting from the physicists over in sci.physics is a
    bunch of ad hominem and srtawman attacks. They are skirting the facts.

    Please try to destroy my claims so that I can go back to my hole and not
    become a James Harris. I must be destroyed, hoisted on my own petard.
    Indulge me. Please.
     
    Lefty, Oct 13, 2004
  17. There is only one axiom: If it does not accurately describe/predict what
    we observe, it is wrong. Physics does not work the same way math does.
    It uses math as a tool, but it is not math.
    Could you provide an example? I've never seen a non-rigorous use of
    math in physics.
     
    Will Twentyman, Oct 13, 2004
  18. If you are throwing random ideas out for discussion, waiting to see
    which ones don't get destroyed, you will probably wait a long time and
    irritate a lot of people. You would probably have more success trying
    to understand how mathematicians/physicists think about their field.
    One of the things I've noticed is you approach these discussions with an
    attitude of confrontation, and frequently get shot down for simply not
    understanding how the material is thought about. I suggest you collect
    some information about how the material can be viewed and still
    communicate meaningfully with those can help you with your ideas.
     
    Will Twentyman, Oct 13, 2004
  19. Lefty

    Lefty Guest


    Thats the way it is. Not the way it needs to be.

    I go out on a limb to say this, but I have an imagination, and my
    imagination tells me that R3 is an abstraction, and the space in front of my
    own 2 eyes is something else, something real.

    You can do all the math you want in R3 to approximate reality, or you can
    try to find a way to fit the principles directly onto space/time fabric. I
    know it sounds crazy. But, I envision this happening. Maybe I'm a loon.
    Maybe I'm crazy. But I do know this, I provided a pretty good argument in
    favor of "uniqueness" of "all existing real physical objects".

    There is no abstraction stage in that argument. I skipped the abstraction. I
    want to do the same thing on space/time fabric.

    I could have just as easily said "consider all the points in R3, bla bla
    bla, all points in R3 are unique, therefore universe is X,Y,Z, bla bla bla".
    You dont need an abstraction to make a model work. But when you take the
    abstractions out, everything is different.

    I think I need to step back and look at it.

    Yet, there MUST be a way to show if space/time is continuous using some type
    of rigorous analysis !!!!!!!


    Yes. They count higher than 1. I dont think that they should do that
    neccesarily. They also use calculus while claiming that space is discrete,
    or grainy or something. Honestly, the math is absolutely the most rigorous
    thing which exists in either world. It is the linkage between math and
    physical world which is not rigorous. I want to fix this linkage.

    It is very crazy. Must understand space/time as if it were R3. Must think in
    reverse somehow. Going mad fast.

    Will K
     
    Lefty, Oct 16, 2004
  20. Lefty

    Garry Guest

    Just read some fuckin Ayn Rand. Save yourself the headache of of trying to
    prove things don't exist when they so clearly do. You exist, I exist, and
    that fuckin thing over there exists. Math is an abstraction, it is seperate
    from reality. Applied mathmatics is exactly that, the application of math
    to explain what exists in reality. Got it, Chico.

    Garry
    A Fuckin Genius
     
    Garry, Oct 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.