physical measurements can have irrational lengths

Replies

A

Anon09/02/26, 13:47No.17045775

>midwit mistakes the platonic world with the real one many (finite) such cases

4

A

Anon09/02/26, 14:15No.17045784

I think computers exposed the necessisty of distinguishing exactness from precison at iteration. Prior to calculators it was alot easier to hand wave over equations, now if they console.log(1.3-1.1) and dont receive 0.2 back but 0.1999999999997 they immediately see the charade. Float point errors make ai non deterministic even when temperature is removed, division in hot path errors have formed the basis of many billions in crypto hacks.New technology, new demands of math

0

A

Anon09/02/26, 14:44No.17045795

That is a lot of words to realize that things are made out of atoms and as such every "circle" is actually at best an irregular polygon made of an incomprehensibly large number of atoms, and even that is incorrect. However, space is for all intents and purposes continuous down to QM length scales, so you won't get rid of irrational prefactors so easily. When you rotate an object in a space that is not curved it retains its lengths exactly. So if rotation is continuous what lengths are and are not irrational becomes a matter of your choice of coordinate system. >All shapes will "leak" if they have irrational side lengths which is retarded. I think your thinking has yet to catch up with, let's be charitable, 200 years of physics

3

A

Anon09/02/26, 15:04No.17045799

>You're just stupid not a rebuttal. OP hasn't been debunked

1

A

Anon09/02/26, 15:34No.17045807

>length will end, proving its side length genuinely terminates. Wrong.After about 15 decimals the length of the digit is about the size of a proton, soon after that its entering Planck lengths and then even smaller...in fact, infinitely smaller because the precision never ends.Irrationals are that way because theyre ratioed from 1, but from the perspective of the irrationals themselves they become whole integers and the 1 becomes an irrational approximation that goes on forever.

1

A

Anon09/02/26, 15:37No.17045809

Just buy a 1.412… scale ruler. D’uh.

0

A

Anon09/02/26, 15:44No.17045813

there's no such thing as 1.0, irrational numbers are just a way for reality to remind us we have no idea what we are doing while assigning natural numbers to measurements

2

A

Anon09/02/26, 19:38No.17045917

Yes, the underlying foundations of mathematics are false and so lead to absurdities like this. Its a shock when you first realize that the most simple constructions are logically inconsistent. Its a bigger shock when you think how the entire system is like a house of cards. The biggest bigger shock when you see the monkeys rush to brush your objections aside. Monkeys? No, actually more like trained dogs.

1

A

Anon09/02/26, 22:11No.17045989

>Physical measurements can have irrational lengths oh no, he thinks math has to have a basis in reality, he's retarded

0

A

Anon09/02/26, 22:18No.17045992

Irrational numbers are finite. We just can't measure sqrt(2) to infinite precision. Rest of your post is nonsense.

0

A

Anon09/02/26, 23:03No.17046009

Physical measurements can’t even have integer lengths.

3

A

Anon09/03/26, 11:41No.17046206

Wait a minute, doesn't this all prove that math is indeed an abstract construct that doesn't map 1:1 on the natural world? Why is there even a debate?

0

A

Anon09/03/26, 19:28No.17046407

>Physical measurements can have exact lengths is it genetic or what happened to your head?

1

A

Anon09/05/26, 07:13No.17047110

It is a topic of much debate by mathematicians today. Likely it will be for a long time to come. But you will not get much in the way of sensible answers here. In fact the questions around it invoke a surprising and bizarre amount of hostility on mainstream forums. My own observations are that people behind the hostility are of the same low mentality as those who derided people like Ignaz Semmelweis, Charles Darwin, and Alfred Wegener. To name just three. This link may be relevant to your interests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeaT2mWj6Y

2

A

Anon09/05/26, 11:34No.17047172

>I'm just supposed to accept that a calculated shape has a length that never ends. No, brainlet. You're just supposed to accept that if you pick a never-ending representation for that length (for example, by using the bottom of the triangle as your yardstick) then the representation will never end.

0

A

Anon09/05/26, 14:55No.17047242

The only thing that doesn't end is the decimal representation of the length of the hypotenuse. The length of the hypotenuse is obviously finite. Don't get too hung up on the number we use to represent distance, numbers are just a tool in the world of geometry. Also I don't really see where these "gaps" you are talking about are coming from. I think you're making the mistaken assumption that measurements need to get rounded to the relative positions of atoms, but this isn't really the case. There are no gaps in the perfect idealized triangle/circle, and there are also no gaps in the physical objects they represent. There are different reasons why this is the case at the atomic scale. At the macro-scale, classical geometry is a good enough approximation of the physical world to be used as a tool, as evidenced by the many things we have built using geometric methods.

0

A

Anon09/06/26, 01:06No.17047658

No

0

A

Anon09/06/26, 20:27No.17048090

Would you prefer to make an object and count the atoms along the imperfect edge? Would you prefer to measure the number of wavelengths of a known frequency, of which the result is likely neither a whole number nor a whole number with a clean fraction?Empiricism is very strong, do not discount it. Measure.

0

A

Anon09/08/26, 07:56No.17048838

>An opening in a shape no matter how small it is, is still an opening. But its opening so tiny that not even a quark can leak out. So for all intents and purposes it is shut.

1

A

Anon09/08/26, 10:17No.17048877

>nooo everything has to be a neat fraction of two base-10 numbers why are rationalfags like this? >Are you also saying that the circumference of a circle is never truly ever closed because Pi is irrational? You are extremely confused and quite possibly retarded.

1

A

Anon09/10/26, 09:10No.17050915

Buy an ad Norman.

0