What do you think about pi - should it exist?

[Gottservant]

Once again, ascribing boolean truth values to a number is nonsensicle. Numbers are just numbers, and they can't be true or false any more than a tube of Bonjela can be true or false.

I guess this is where we differ. To me, the truth value of a number is of paramount importance. Like, it has to be true that there is one computer in front of me before I will think about equations with that computer.

If anything, I dequate value with numberable things that are not true first.

As for your formulas for calculating pi, am I to understand that there is a way to work it out that does not result in an infinite answer? That was not made clear. Yes, it is true, I do not know every detail of man made things.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I guess this is where we differ. To me, the truth value of a number is of paramount importance. Like, it has to be true that there is one computer in front of me before I will think about equations with that computer.

By that logic, you should be sitting where you were born, not moving. You cannot prove that there is a computer in front of you, merely evidence it based on various epistemological assumptions (e.g., that your percieved reality is at least a close approximation of the 'real' reality).
But in any case, my point is not that the truth value of a number is unimportant, but rather that it doesn't exist.

If anything, I dequate value with numberable things that are not true first.

Did you mean 'do not equate'?

As for your formulas for calculating pi, am I to understand that there is a way to work it out that does not result in an infinite answer?

No. It has been rather famously proven that pi has an infinite number of digits trailing the decimal point. Nevertheless, if one were to completely evaluate the equations, they would be numerically equal to pi. Which was the point.

That was not made clear.

My apologies.

Yes, it is true, I do not know every detail of man made things.

I'd be surprised if anyone did.

 

[elcapitan]

I guess this is where we differ. To me, the truth value of a number is of paramount importance.

Like, it has to be true that there is one computer in front of me before I will think about equations with that computer.

If anything, I dequate value with numberable things that are not true first.

As for your formulas for calculating pi, am I to understand that there is a way to work it out that does not result in an infinite answer? That was not made clear. Yes, it is true, I do not know every detail of man made things.

This is ridiculous. So what if you can't know all the digits of pi?

I don't know the exact length of my waistline (measuring it, as with any measurement, involves uncertainty and error) but that doesn't keep me from wearing pants that fit. Just because its impossible to know the exact length doesn't mean that the length isn't "true". The length of my waistline exists as a finite number whether I choose to "believe" it or not.

Or to adapt your analogy, there is no question whether there is a computer in front of you (there is a computer, you can see it). In the same way, pi exists. It's a simple ratio of circumference to diameter.

You don't have to know the location of every electron in a computer in order to assume it exists or to use the computer. Just because you can't know all the digits of pi doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Or to adapt your analogy, there is no question whether there is a computer in front of you (there is a computer, you can see it).

Just to nit-pick, you don't know the computer is there. You have to first assume that your eyes and other sense organs (brain included) aren't decieving you in a very clever way (e.g., making a computer appear to be there when, in fact, no computer exists). In fact, we know very little (our own existance, for instance). Do I know you exist? No. Do I (rather reasonably) assume you exist? Yes.
Turing tests aside, of course.
But you're right that pi exists (and has been proven to exist) irrespective of whether we can completely evaluate it or not.

 

[Gottservant]

This is ridiculous. So what if you can't know all the digits of pi?

[...]

Just because you can't know all the digits of pi doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

While I agree that, at first, what I am saying may sound incredulous, you overlook one important fact:

Numbers are not real objects, they are derivative from real objects.

As derivative, a number that is elevated above the value of that which it represents is a) logically, a failed representation, b) intuitively, a nuiscance, c) providentally, incomplete despite all proof (proof of pi while it is incomplete is, in a very clear sense, a dead proof).

 

[Gottservant]

Just to prolong your agony over what you assumed to be true (when it clearly is not), here's a test (which is analogous to the problem of pi):

1. Think of a word
2. Begin to speak that word, but as you do so imagine dividing the word by a letter within that word, while continuing to attempt to say it.

You will find that your brain automatically comes to the conclusion that you are either not attempting to speak the word you have in mind OR the word you have in mind is not actually a word AND you have to decide between the two or stop.

 

[quatona]

Just to prolong your agony over what you assumed to be true (when it clearly is not), here's a test (which is analogous to the problem of pi):

1. Think of a word
2. Begin to speak that word, but as you do so imagine dividing the word by a letter within that word, while continuing to attempt to say it.

You will find that your brain automatically comes to the conclusion that you are either not attempting to speak the word you have in mind OR the word you have in mind is not actually a word AND you have to decide between the two or stop.

And the conclusion is what?
That thinking of words is sin?
That words are sin?
That dividing a word by a letter within that word is sin?

Let alone that the analogy of your example to pi seems to escape me completely, anyways.

Here´s another proof that pi is sin:
Try to move your right hand in a vertical circle in front of your belly, and simultaneously your left hand in a square above your head. At the same time tap the rhythm of the main riff from "smoke on the water" with your left foot and whistle the melody of "star spangled banner".
I predict that you will fail miserably.

 

[Nathan Poe]

While I agree that, at first, what I am saying may sound incredulous, you overlook one important fact:

Numbers are not real objects, they are derivative from real objects.

As derivative, a number that is elevated above the value of that which it represents is a) logically, a failed representation, b) intuitively, a nuiscance, c) providentally, incomplete despite all proof (proof of pi while it is incomplete is, in a very clear sense, a dead proof).

Except that pi is not elevated above anything. "Pi" is a mathematical symbol so precise that our current base-10 number system cannot accurately represent it, so the "pi" symbol is used in its place.

You'd have better luck proving that God shouldn't be allowed to exist, because the word "God" in no way, shape, or form accurately represents the concept of God.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Just to prolong your agony over what you assumed to be true (when it clearly is not), here's a test (which is analogous to the problem of pi):

1. Think of a word
2. Begin to speak that word, but as you do so imagine dividing the word by a letter within that word, while continuing to attempt to say it.

You will find that your brain automatically comes to the conclusion that you are either not attempting to speak the word you have in mind OR the word you have in mind is not actually a word AND you have to decide between the two or stop.

Do you constantly divide letters in your mind, Gott?

Clearly, mathematics is not the field for you.

 

[AnimalMother]

Pi is but a single number.
What about the infinite number of other infinite numbers? Do they also bother you?

Though, doesn't the Bible put Pi = 3 ?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Pi is but a single number.
What about the infinite number of other infinite numbers? Do they also bother you?

Though, doesn't the Bible put Pi = 3 ?

The verses in question are vague enough to allow an ad hoc interpretation that yields the standard π.
But then that's on par with the "Adam and Eve died a spiritual death when they ate the fruit" type of explanations. Bleh.

 

[Washington]

Pi is but a single number.


Though, doesn't the Bible put Pi = 3 ?

This was covered quite extensively in another thread, My Pi Challenge, a couple of months ago.

 

[Washington]

Pi is but a single number.


Though, doesn't the Bible put Pi = 3 ?

This was covered quite extensively in another thread, My Pi Challenge, a couple of months ago.

 

[AnimalMother]

Still can't decide if or if not Pi should exist.... it just exists, that's all. So, sorry, I can't vote here.

If one really wanted to have an easy Pi, abolish the decimal system, use a number system based on Pi, and you could have Pi = 1.

Makes it hard though to imagine numbers while counting with your fingers

 

[Washington]

Still can't decide if or if not Pi should exist.... it just exists, that's all. So, sorry, I can't vote here.

If one really wanted to have an easy Pi, abolish the decimal system, use a number system based on Pi, and you could have Pi = 1.

Makes it hard though to imagine numbers while counting with your fingers

Interesting idea. However, if π = 1 then C = πD would always result in C = D. And because π would then be superfluous, one would have to acknowledge the ratio "cak" Ξ or 3.14159 . . .

Your choice, Pi or Cak.

 

[AnimalMother]

Interesting idea. However, if π = 1 then C = πD would always result in C = D. And because π would then be superfluous, one would have to acknowledge the ratio "cak" Ξ or 3.14159 . . .

Your choice, Pi or Cak.

You had me have some reading up here. And I figured how much maths I actually forgot.

shamelessly stole this from wikipedia,

In a positional base-b numeral system (with b a positive natural number known as the radix), b basic symbols (or digits) corresponding to the first b natural numbers including zero are used. To generate the rest of the numerals, the position of the symbol in the figure is used. The symbol in the last position has its own value, and as it moves to the left its value is multiplied by b.

I'm quite sure though one could put up a numeral system based on irrational numbers though. Not a useful system, maybe unlogical also, but possible. And if you'd base it on, say, Pi, Pi would look less scary to some.

 

[phoenixgw]

The word for measuring line is usually

(q+w), while in 1 Ki 7:23 it's

(q+w+h). Now establish the numerical value of each word: q+w = 100+6 = 106; q+w+h = 100+6+5 = 111. Divide 111 by 106, multiply by 3 and you get: 3.1415094339622641509433962264151 This was about as accurate as one could expect in this time.

 

[Wednesday]

I'm sorry, I need to understand the point of this thread.

Did you think that pi shouldn't exist because the bible says that it equals 3, but it actually equals 3.14...
So, if pi was say banned, it would be easier for you to say that the bible is inerrant.

Forget that it is impossible to ban something that just exists.

 

[Washington]

The word for measuring line is usually

(q+w), while in 1 Ki 7:23 it's

(q+w+h). Now establish the numerical value of each word: q+w = 100+6 = 106; q+w+h = 100+6+5 = 111. Divide 111 by 106, multiply by 3 and you get: 3.1415094339622641509433962264151 This was about as accurate as one could expect in this time.

So just how often are you going to keep posting your plagiarized quote here on CF? The least you could do is not pass it off as your own.

 

[Washington]

I'm sorry, I need to understand the point of this thread.

Did you think that pi shouldn't exist because the bible says that it equals 3, but it actually equals 3.14...
So, if pi was say banned, it would be easier for you to say that the bible is inerrant.

Forget that it is impossible to ban something that just exists.

More often than not Gottservant, the thread's originator, is impossible to understand. So when he asked "What are your intuitions, should a number such as that exist?" it's anyones guess what the exact point is. As it now stands, 180 posts later, the"point" has shifted quite a bit, so you can do whatever you want with the subject. As far as your question goes, I wish you luck in getting a clear explanation, if any, from Gottservant