Is math the language of nature or just a human construct?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
On this we agree. Pi is nothing more than a defining feature of a circle. It is the ONLY thing that CAN happen when you arrange points equidistant from a central point. There is nothing "magical" about it. It simply defines a circle.
Like 2 can be defined as 1 and 1
Sorry you don't understand even jr. high level math.
Tell us what fraction pi is?
I remember your dumb ass from grade school. Just don't get math.
double digit IQ buffoon. Sorry for picking on you. OK not really.
Who the fuck said anything about pi being magical?
It's an irrational number, not a fraction.
The dipshit has no idea what that is.
Probably incapable of learning even if you explained it repeatedly.
They can't review what they never learned. That's 8th grade now most schools.
Litmus
Verified User
it's a fraction.
You can't represent pi as a fraction, because pi is an irrational number.
Let's see you represent the actual true value of pi as a fraction, using integers for numerator and denominator.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
This is a Cypress post so you are right to call booooolsch't. Let's break it down.
All he had to do was use the correct words. Anything so represented is a human concept. It's not an interpretation of anything. Quantity is one such concept, along with position, velocity (or momentum), orientation, color, odor, and other measurable properties.
Yes, there are other unmeasurable properties as well, but they are beyond our human senses.
Cypress is trying way too hard to appear thmart! If what Cypress wishes to express is that there are objective truths to reality, that's great, but he's talking about the science and math representations of those supposed truths, and confusing open and closed functional systems in the process.
Nothing about any closed functional system is absolutely true outside its closed functional system. There is no "pi" without the concept of a circumference. No closed functional system can comprehensively capture all the absolute truths of reality (re: Goedell's Incompleteness Theorem).
No open functional system is considered complete, or TRUE, and could be shown to be false tomorrow with the input of new information.
Also, there can be no gravitational constant without specific units of measure. To what specific units of measure was Cypress referring when he mentioned "billions of years ago", i.e. before there were any units of measure?
No change in anything discovers anything.
What is the unambiguous definition of "our conciousness"?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Cypress, you should take the time to learn the material rather than just copy paste.
Notice that pi is defined as a fraction/ratio, i.e. Circumference / Diameter. What you mean to say is that no irrational number can be expressed as a ratio of rational numbers. Just stick with pi being an irrational number.
Its DEFINITION! YAY! Circumference divided by Diameter.
... you're a little late to be throwing this in. Anyway, you shouldn't get hung up on such trivial points. You've already strayed from your main point which is rather vague in the first place.