gevo27 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 (edited) OK, i have been studying this matter for a while now, and keeps bugging me that after knowing this, we can still call math as "concrete" material as we think it is.. very very simple questions, that deals with a very complicated mess, 1. What is the closest number to 5? 2. what is the largest number you can think of? these questions seem childish, but these have to do which a much more abstract conepet then big or small numbers... If math is "concrete" then it is observable. And the fact that A is both concrete and A is abstract.. that doesnt fit... So,my point is, if math cant explain the fact that what infiniti is, and math argues that it is not neccessary to need to comprehend that matter.. then atleast we can call math more of a proven theory..with exceptions to the rules, thus the exceptions is what contributes to it name, "theory".. anyone can explain to me how math came to be so solid, when yet it has many abstract concepts...? if we see this in physics, then we point fingers and say, that theory has been negated... so why not in math? theories need to change, not stay the same and keep adding exceptions... Edited February 25, 2004 by gevo27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 #1 is really easy. The closest number to 5 is 5 itself. For #2, the answer to your question is unbounded. For such a case, in mathematics we have the definition of infinity. In mathematics, you have some basic postulates upon which everything else is proven. In order to prove, you must accept the "concreteness" of the postulates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastia Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Gevo jan, the first question is really hard to answer, but the second one is: a gazzilion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 #1 is really easy. The closest number to 5 is 5 itself. For #2, the answer to your question is unbounded. For such a case, in mathematics we have the definition of infinity. In mathematics, you have some basic postulates upon which everything else is proven. In order to prove, you must accept the "concreteness" of the postulates. yes thats what i am saying, we must accept that even though exceptions do occur, we still learna and think that way,, lol.. but thatsnot my problem.. why then should we call it "concrete" when there are subjects that can go 2 or more ways??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 yes thats what i am saying, we must accept that even though exceptions do occur, we still learna and think that way,, lol.. but thatsnot my problem.. why then should we call it "concrete" when there are subjects that can go 2 or more ways??? Gevo, provide me any example of such "subjects" which can go 2 or more ways. I think you are playing with too much notions and mixing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Gevo jan, the first question is really hard to answer, but the second one is: a gazzilion how about 2 gazilons ?? and Domino, i will clear my argument and show you what i mean, maybe i am mixing notions.. lol.. but i have to go for now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 #1 is really easy. The closest number to 5 is 5 itself. Only I would be an idiot enough to think it would be 4 or 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 (edited) Only I would be an idiot enough to think it would be 4 or 6 Actually, Sip simplified it for us... the closest number would be 5.(followed with periodical zeros), and then, by braking it to a sommation, and applying some basic differential notions, we end up with an equality which is 5.(periodical zeros) = 5, so therefore 5. There is another way to demonstrate that, but I won't, since Sasun will end up answering me with his broken Yerevantsi Armenian and tell me to shut the "..." off. Edited February 25, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Only I would be an idiot enough to think it would be 4 or 6 ok, i dont know if its sarcasm, or you guys are missing the point. lol.. but the closest number to 5 is not an integer, and its not 5.. it is the number "one moment" before 5, which isnt a number at all, because we can get infinitley close to 5, thus the whole notion of limits.. but the point was, in one direction you have infiniti numbers of number<> and on the other direction, your number can go reall really big, until you cant count them anymore.. but wait, ofcourse we can.. we can count over a gaziliion, infact how about a gazillion squared... or no, a gazilion to the gazilionthpower, and what keeps us from getting that quantity and contuing to take it to the gazilion power.. see.. the number gets big..and bigger and bigggggerrrr... lol.. my point being.. infiniti we allready know is an abstract concept, but then why can we know this, use it and still provide math as a perfectly solid theory.. im not saying its not.. dont get me wrong, i just have a little confusion.. And Domino, i havent got to your question yet.. lol. i need to go study now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 but the closest number to 5 is not an integer, and its not 5.. it is the number "one moment" before 5, which isnt a number at all, because we can get infinitley close to 5, thus the whole notion of limits.. Actually Sip is right, I don't know what you are studying right now, or where you are at the differential notions, but the closest number to 5 is really 5. Integers don't really exist, and there is even a demonstration in mathematic which "proves" it... OK! PROVES it, oh it feels so well to use the word "proves" without placing it in a quotation marks... The demonstration goes as this... if you take all R numbers and from them you substract the natural numbers, the numbers of numbers contained in R will be the same as before... as a consequences, "N" the natural numbers are virtual numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Actually Sip is right, I don't know what you are studying right now, or where you are at the differential notions, but the closest number to 5 is really 5. Integers don't really exist, and there is even a demonstration in mathematic which "proves" it... OK! PROVES it, oh it feels so well to use the word "proves" without placing it in a quotation marks... The demonstration goes as this... if you take all R numbers and from them you substract the natural numbers, the numbers of numbers contained in R will be the same as before... as a consequences, "N" the natural numbers are virtual numbers. OUPs! Just clarifying something before someone jump on me... there is a demonstration that "proves" the existance of intergers as well. It is not a contradiction with the above, but I am too tried to explain why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Gevo, let me ask you a simple question. I will explain later what the point is. Take these two finite line segments below. Which one has more points on it? Whatever answer you give, longer line, shorter line, or both have same number of points, then explain that answer. If you can't know or are unsure, then also say so. _________________________ ______________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Neither have points on them as far as I can see But if the lines are drawn with points, then the points must be very close to each other, and of the same size, in order to make lines out of them. In that case, I would say that the first has more points than the second. But if the points are connected by lines, then the second line could potentially have more points than the first. Or they could have the same amount of points -- the beginning and the end; hence two points for each. Can't wait to find out the point of this exercise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Neither have points on them as far as I can see But if the lines are drawn with points, then the points must be very close to each other, and of the same size, in order to make lines out of them. In that case, I would say that the first has more points than the second. But if the points are connected by lines, then the second line could potentially have more points than the first. Or they could have the same amount of points -- the beginning and the end; hence two points for each. Can't wait to find out the point of this exercise... Nairi, a line in mathematic is not something which is discontinue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Gevo, I think you might consider waiting a coupla years and then checking out if you'd bother to ask the same questions then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Gevo, you are raising an interesting question. But the fact that we cannot mathematically fathom infinity is not due to limitations or flaws of mathematics but limitations in our comprehension and perception of reality. Being limited on the physical plane we are only used to limited reality. For that reason we cannot imagine infinity. As to your question, I think what you are asking is "what is the closest number to 5 other than 5?" In that case both your questions are of the same nature, and the answer is undeterministic. As to Domino's answer, I believe he is more confusing you than clarifying things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 (edited) Gevo, you are raising an interesting question. But the fact that we cannot mathematically fathom infinity is not due to limitations or flaws of mathematics but limitations in our comprehension and perception of reality. Being limited on the physical plane we are only used to limited reality. For that reason we cannot imagine infinity. As to your question, I think what you are asking is "what is the closest number to 5 other than 5?" In that case both your questions are of the same nature, and the answer is undeterministic. As to Domino's answer, I believe he is more confusing you than clarifying things Confusing? Me? What about Sip, whom present the abstrait notion(the two lines) from a mathematician who was known to confuse everyone and that it is said that he ended up commiting suicide because he became mad lost in his own infinit notions? Edited February 25, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Another thing Sasun, the closest other than 5 is still 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Neither have points on them as far as I can see Here is the mathematical definition of a point from mathworld: Point A 0-dimensional mathematical object which can be specified in n-dimensional space using n coordinates. Although the notion of a point is intuitively rather clear, the mathematical machinery used to deal with points and point-like objects can be surprisingly slippery. This difficulty was encountered by none other than Euclid himself who, in his Elements, gave the vague definition of a point as "that which has no part." The basic geometric structures of higher dimensional geometry--the line, plane, space, and hyperspace--are all built up of infinite numbers of points arranged in particular ways. So given this definition, each of those lines I drew above has an infinite number of points on it. But how can one be longer than the other if both have an infinite number of points? That is the question I am posing. So after you see the answer, the concept of infinity will become more clear. And Sasun, here is an example where you can see infinity right there in front of you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Neither have points on them as far as I can see But if the lines are drawn with points, then the points must be very close to each other, and of the same size, in order to make lines out of them. In that case, I would say that the first has more points than the second. But if the points are connected by lines, then the second line could potentially have more points than the first. Or they could have the same amount of points -- the beginning and the end; hence two points for each. Can't wait to find out the point of this exercise... Nairi jan, something tells me you never were a big fan of math Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Nairi jan, something tells me you never were a big fan of math Hey! At least I gave it a try!!! Thanks for the explanation Sip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 And Sasun, here is an example where you can see infinity right there in front of you! Sip do you mean the line? Actually, we never see infinity, we only see a limited object (in this case a drawn line) and imagine a collection of very-very large number of very-very tiny dots. We never see infinity but we can try to get infinitely closer and closer to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Another thing Sasun, the closest other than 5 is still 5. I feel like you have some explaining to do here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastia Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE!!!!!!!! http://www.thegev.com/images/potd/letsnotjumptoconclusions.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Gevo, let me ask you a simple question. I will explain later what the point is. Take these two finite line segments below. Which one has more points on it? Whatever answer you give, longer line, shorter line, or both have same number of points, then explain that answer. If you can't know or are unsure, then also say so. _________________________ ______________ ok sip, here it is.. i learned long time ago a line is composed of an infinite number of points... and now what i am studying, and other math curses i have taken has prooved this to me.. That, a line, if it were to be devided into its fundamental portions would be devided into an infinit number of dots... so, the answer to your question would be irelevent, as i know it was what you were heading towards... Both lines have the same concept of dots, (concept because infiniti is not a number) thus the longer line makes no difference in how many more dots it has.. both lines have infini amount... is that good enough ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.