3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

.... Outside of this universe... it probably is constant with a known fixed value, but inside this universe the number is always an approximation.

How long does the decimation of 1/3 go on for you asked... for as long as you have the space, the time, and the resource to do the calculation, each of which is finite.

I did not say 'our' universe.

Prove? Oh hell no. I'm perfectly content leaving it to the mathemagicians who have led you to believing that something here is infinite.

Namaste Cybernoninfinitepi,

You've gone a long way to explaining yourself here.

Inside this (but not our) universe it is an approximation and probably a constant outside...

You said this universe, I said our universe other than the possessive which I guess does not exist, what exactly is the difference, were you referring to a different universe than I was? And outside of this universe have you some insight as to the finite nonifinite math that exists and works there? I would think the 'someone' you refer to as G!d out there, would need and infinite something to stand on.

And your last response I am taking to mean you are basically alone in this finite theory of yours, and it applies to not this universe where our infinite math works perfectly welll and the finite lacks, but to this other universe where finite exists.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

You said this universe, I said our universe other than the possessive which I guess does not exist, what exactly is the difference, were you referring to a different universe than I was?

I refer to this finite universe. Finite size, finite energy, finite mass, finite time for interaction, finite velocity, in summary... a finite universe.

Originally Posted by wil

And outside of this universe have you some insight as to the finite noninfinite math that exists and works there?

While here the interactions are limited by resource, time, and neighbor, I can only imagine another world without the thermodynamics, where the interaction would become potentially infinite. It would be potentially dangerous. Something more everlasting could be heaven, and it could be hell. I see that 'could' as not a function of the universe itself, but of the will of the souls that reside in it.

Originally Posted by wil

I would think the 'someone' you refer to as G!d out there, would need and infinite something to stand on.

According to Jesus in (Matthew 5:35)... no.

Originally Posted by wil

And your last response I am taking to mean you are basically alone in this finite theory of yours, and it applies to not this universe where our infinite math works perfectly welll and the finite lacks, but to this other universe where finite exists.

I don't feel alone. As I read it, both the gospel and the qur'an say the same: this finite universe has a finite shelf life. Science agrees too that there is an arrow of time, and there is an arrow of energy. They go in one direction, and not forever. Per Einstein, infinite velocity is even curtailed against as a boundary. There are also boundaries against anything infinitesimal, discovered at the level of an atom in just the last century.

Math itself is very imperfect with infinity. If infinity shows up in an equation it is usually a mistake... a divide by zero error. The math operators: +,-,x,/, etc... become obsolete or ambiguous with infinity. A unique and very limited math is required to contend with something allegedly infinite. In engineering where math is applied, an infinite result in the calculation does not occur in reality: for example an underdamped oscillation that is increased without bounds will never make it... something blows up and the alleged math no longer applies. Kind of like this video: Image:Tacoma Narrows Bridge destruction.ogg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[cyberpi]

I should also add that the math of fractions is a generalization that does not necessarily apply to something within this real and finite universe. For instance any fraction of something that is composed of a prime number of particles, or a prime quantum amount of mass, or a prime quantum amount of volume, etc... is actually impossible to divide evenly.

This is similarly the reason for the .33333... in 1/3. It is impossible to divide 10 by 3 evenly, so a base 10 representation of 1/3 becomes an allegedly infinite and thus impossible decimation. For example when you get down to the atom, it may not have 10 parts but if it does then it still can't be divided into 3rds evenly. Every decimal place is an attempt to divide another 10th into 3rds, which never divides evenly. In base 3, or base 6, or base 9, or base 12, etc... then it works. So this infinite series of digits really reflects the fact that something can not really be done... 10 never divides by 3 evenly. Calculating a continuous string of decimal places is just a futile frustration against something designed here to be impossible.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Calculating a continuous string of decimal places is just a futile frustration against something designed here to be impossible.

Designed!! Ok provide your evidence that this is 'design'. As for futile frustration, perhaps, but even with the vast consecutive string of figures in that decimal no pattern emerges to predict subsequent digits and it has to be calculated conventionally. It is no .33333333 ad infinitum.
tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Designed!! Ok provide your evidence that this is 'design'. As for futile frustration, perhaps, but even with the vast consecutive string of figures in that decimal no pattern emerges to predict subsequent digits and it has to be calculated conventionally. It is no .33333333 ad infinitum.
tao

I wonder if you have considered the square root of (2),... or 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,... or ANY other positive number that is not a perfect square. There is allegedly an infinite number of calculations on an infinite number of numbers, resulting in an infinite number of irrational numbers... there are allegedly more irrational numbers than there are rational... but there are NONE of them in this Universe. None!

If you think that PI of an alleged 'perfect circle' is proof of an allegedly infinite non-repeating decimal... perhaps you have not realized that the circumference to diagonal of every alleged 'square', and most (not all) alleged 'rectangles' is also allegedly with an infinite non-repeating decimal. The math is trying to describe something that is NOT physically real or possible. It is an approximation at best.

The 'root' error is that any number can be divided infinitesimally. A scientist, physicicst or a chemist can realize this by seeing the limits at the small level, yet the mathemagician does not. I wonder why that is. The numbers are 'irrational' for a reason... I wonder if a mathemagician wishes to be rational or irrational. No computer and no brain in this Universe will ever contain or utilize an irrational number... ever. They are all rational numbers... approximations at best of the allegedly irrational. If every single particle or least amount of quantum energy in this galaxy could be used to calculate an irrational number... it would fail. The result would still be rational.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

The result would still be rational.

Once upon a time rational men believed the world was flat, and that the Gods rode in fiery chariots across the heavens. That such an 'irrational' as Pi keeps cropping up in nature surely suggests that this irrationality is a dynamic? Perhaps we will never get the rational behind irrational equations but I am confident that they will in time reveal hidden gems amongst them that are clues to the many mysteries we ponder today and those that will arise in the future. In the meantime.... What does happen when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

Tao

[greymare]

its called rugby league.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Once upon a time rational men believed the world was flat

According to the Book of General Ignorance (so it must be true!):

“Since around the fourth century BC, almost no-one, anywhere, has believed that the earth is flat.

Belief in a flat earth may not even have actually originated until the nineteenth century. The guilty text was Washington Irving’s semi-fictional The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828) which, incorrectly, suggests that Columbus’s voyage was made to prove the world was round.”

For more details buy the book; it’s really good (it’s a QI spin off).

s.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Once upon a time rational men believed the world was flat

Good to see you holding out for the possibility of something that you have yet to witness.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

According to the Book of General Ignorance (so it must be true!):

“Since around the fourth century BC, almost no-one, anywhere, has believed that the earth is flat.

Belief in a flat earth may not even have actually originated until the nineteenth century. The guilty text was Washington Irving’s semi-fictional The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828) which, incorrectly, suggests that Columbus’s voyage was made to prove the world was round.”

For more details buy the book; it’s really good (it’s a QI spin off).

s.

I'l keep my eye open, love QI ...and Fry's intellect. Thanks

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Good to see you holding out for the possibility of something that you have yet to witness.

Am I dim or are you declaring you believe the world is flat?

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Am I dim or are you declaring you believe the world is flat?

Tao

No, I declared this world is finite. But it is good to see you holding out belief in something that you have yet to witness, such as the value of an infinitely decimated irrational number. You are not too far off from those who believe in God whether or not they've witnessed his presence.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

No, I declared this world is finite. But it is good to see you holding out belief in something that you have yet to witness, such as the value of an infinitely decimated irrational number. You are not too far off from those who believe in God whether or not they've witnessed his presence.

One step can make all the difference in the world. One discovery, realisation, experiment, even with a number, can change the face of human knowledge. Note Einstein. But there is a gulf of difference between the discovery of a repeatable observable that can be tested and wishful thinking that cannot.

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

One step can make all the difference in the world. One discovery, realisation, experiment, even with a number, can change the face of human knowledge. Note Einstein. But there is a gulf of difference between the discovery of a repeatable observable that can be tested and wishful thinking that cannot.

Tao

Good point... God is repeatably available whereas nobody has ever seen an infinitely decimated irrational number and the physics here simply do not permit such an observation. Still, I admired your wishful thinking.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Good point... God is repeatably available whereas nobody has ever seen an infinitely decimated irrational number and the physics here simply do not permit such an observation. Still, I admired your wishful thinking.

lol, no.. you can infinitely repeat that he is available but cannot once produce him for independent verification. You have faith, not evidence, no matter which way you try to spin it.
Tao