Reply
Tue 4 May, 2004 05:38 pm
Just wondering how the science community thinks. It's my humble opinion that creative thinking is discouraged wilting away imagination.
Re PI: I believe there is a brilliant mind here that will get this clue: to solve PI, one must step OUTSIDE the circle. In a circle infinity never ends, nor should it.
My question is this, how do we step outside the circle mathematically to create a point in which infinity stops in relation to solving PI?
{I further believe the solution to this question shall bring forth the birth of a new computer where it would be in 3's opposed to the binary using the hidden and as-of-yet undiscovered magnetic anomoly we would find upon the solution of my question}
Re: A clue to solving PI
shaun.k wrote:{I further believe the solution to this question shall bring forth the birth of a new computer where it would be in 3's opposed to the binary using the hidden and as-of-yet undiscovered magnetic anomoly we would find upon the solution of my question}
I'm not to sure about your question on PI but I found this statement a little puzzling. Why do you think a base 3 system would be an advantage over a binary system? We've had the technology to store data as any of multiple values in a single bit for years (by varying the strength of the magnetic field and by controlling it's polarity you can store an almost unlimted array of values in a single bit instead of just 2 or 3.). These systems haven't proven to have any advantage over the much simpler and faster binary systems. The "holy grail" IMO, is in reducing the number of options to choose from - not increasing them. What would be the significance of a base 3 system?
I believe a system incorporating the abstract, hence a third, would add a dimension to the core. In other words, strengthening the anchor.
We already have nano technology. I'm not so sure that another dimension will necessarily "strengthen the anchor."
I'd have to check one of my college textbooks to see the forumla or the derivation, but I recall from college calculus that there are several infinite series, including a relatively easy Taylor series, that enable you to calculate pi to as many decimal places as you have the endurance for. Needless to say, you can't write it down exactly in decimal notation, since it's a non-terminating, non-repeating decimal.
Solving PI is the key. By stepping outside the circle. It's the abstract viewed in the sense that we understand the concept of infinity already, we know that the circle continues to infinity ... like nanotechnology, always decreasing size to infinity, with new discoveries showing that matter exists in minute sizes 20 years ago we thought impossible or better put, hypothesized, yet unknown then ... So instead of assuming we can mathematically solve PI thinking the answer is within the circle, to concentrate instead on the concept of stepping outside the circle ... the how is what interests me, and putting that to mathematical theory ... and those whom have complete background mathematically to take what it is I am attempting to visualize conceptually as a theorem which would then result in the answer ... You question regarding computing using binary and a new type of matter along the lines of on-off, binary along with ... say ... a (neutral?) third not on but not off ... with the answer to PI ... resulting in a system which at its core is predispositioned to the abstract providing thinking ...
I see binary systems as essentially stating there is exactly one right answer and one exactly wrong answer ... on-off switch ... yet take PI or any other prime number and you include the 'unknown', or as I like to visualize it, as dimensional thinking. I see this as allowing for the abstract, as we think (humanity) ...
Not sure what you mean by "solving pi." As I said, it can't be written down exactly, because it's a non-terminating, non-repeating decimal, but formulas from calculus to compute its value to any desired degree of precision have been known for centuries.
Exactly, because those formulas are focused on solving PI as it remains within the circle hoping somehow that it would stop, which so far it never does, nor should it. However, if a way to rethinking this solution came about whereas the spin of the circle abruptly stops, as if reaching some unknown 'core' ... this I believe is achieved by rechanneling the mind to realize the answer is not within but without ... 'stepping outside the circle'. I liken it to an idea where our universe is but a circle, self-contained within a forever spinning circle, forever evolving ... as if all energy within the universe is trapped and cannot escape the circle, but it can ... and the key is to step outside the circle ... conceptualizing it as dimensional path to the unknown ... visualize a 'black hole' with the current understanding that energy may go into this black hole, but as it is understood cannot escape and essentially swallowed ... further with the understanding energy cannot be destroyed ... so where does it go? >>> then visualize, if you will, that the universe is self-contained and circular, spinning forever, but as the size of a marble in a field of marbles (other universes) ... it is what is around the marbles, the 'air', is the point for which PI can be solved to cause the spinning to abruptly leave the traditional way of calculating PI for it is centered on the fact the decimals will end through supercomputing, yet it still has not, nor will it. But to cause the decimal to suddenly end the point must come to a definite end, and that may only be achieved by stepping outside the circle into the 'air outside the circle' ...
As PI is unsolveable, I say let it ride into infinity and enjoy some real pie. Anyone up for cherry? You may have no clue what I am saying, but believe me, I'm right.
shaun.k wrote:Exactly, because those formulas are focused on solving PI as it remains within the circle hoping somehow that it would stop, which so far it never does, nor should it....is the point for which PI can be solved to cause the spinning to abruptly leave the traditional way of calculating PI for it is centered on the fact the decimals will end through supercomputing, yet it still has not, nor will it. But to cause the decimal to suddenly end the point must come to a definite end, and that may only be achieved by stepping outside the circle into the 'air outside the circle' ...
Not sure what you're after here. Pi can be computed to any desired accuracy. The power or nature of the computer used to calculate pi is irrelevant to the fact that it cannot, even in theory, be expressed as an exact decimal value. No one in mathematics is "hoping somehow that it would stop." This is a completely solved problem, and has been for centuries. What sort of improvement in its calculation are you contemplating? Is this series of posts a joke?
"Is this series of posts a joke?"
... per Brandon9000 ...
No. This is not a joke. My question stands ... how to do this based on my best way of providing the visualization ... if I knew the answer it would not have been posted to begin with. And I am completely aware of the fact that PI and solving PI does not appear to be of much interest in the scientific community as you pointed out. What I want to know is the why and the how, and by honestly asking this and doing my best to conceptualize what I am after ... perhaps, just perhaps ... this will pave the way to a new discovery.
I might add that pie is not only circular, but easily divided into 6 pieces, 3 times 3. Shaun may have a valid theory here.
cavfancier wrote:I might add that pie is not only circular, but easily divided into 6 pieces, 3 times 3. Shaun may have a valid theory here.
I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but 6 cannot be factored into 3 x 3. When you say that pie can be "easily divided," you are making the unwarranted assumption that pie is well-cooked, not frozen, etc. Assumptions about the consistency and material properties of pie are unwarranted. Resistance is futile. Your culture will adapt to serve us pie.
Shaun,
Pi has been solved -- some 3,000 years ago by Archimedes (a brilliant mind by the way). "Stepping out of the circle" describes Archimedes' genius I suppose.
We now can express Pi as a irrational number, and the concept (which is very well defined) is adequately represented by the symbol pi. We can also get a precise mathematical presentation of the value using a series.
You are going to have to define exactly what you are trying to solve if this conversation is to be continued with any intelligence.
But pi has been solved for thousands of years.
Thank you, in that you stated PI has been solved as a series of numbers, however the number never stops as it decreases to infinity and it never replicates itself ... which is what I am getting at here. What was interesting to me was your lack of thought towards the universe being a marble, and finding a way mathematically to represent the point in which PI is solved by stepping outside the circle into whatever it is we could mathematically represent as the void outside the marble ... you must open your mind and allow for some radical free-thinking ... for it was that type of thinking that Einstein and Aristotle used ... and history is laughing at their naysayers when these men were originally denounced by their peers.
I wish to also state my thanks so far to the responses.
shaun.k wrote:Thank you, in that you stated PI has been solved as a series of numbers, however the number never stops as it decreases to infinity and it never replicates itself ... which is what I am getting at here. What was interesting to me was your lack of thought towards the universe being a marble, and finding a way mathematically to represent the point in which PI is solved by stepping outside the circle....
What do you mean by "pi is solved?" Pi is an element of the set of irrational numbers, which means it cannot be written exactly as a decimal. Formulas have been known for centuries for calculating it as accurately as one desires. This is a completely solved problem. What is it that you are trying to accomplish? You seem to be trying to present your lack of comprehension of the subject as though it were some kind of special knowledge, which it is not.
Shaun.k - I'm afraid I haven't understood any of the pseudo-scientific, bordering on the paranormal, gobbeldygook you've said in this thread.
Could you possibly be a little more obvious ?
Brandon9000 wrote:cavfancier wrote:I might add that pie is not only circular, but easily divided into 6 pieces, 3 times 3. Shaun may have a valid theory here.
I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but 6 cannot be factored into 3 x 3. When you say that pie can be "easily divided," you are making the unwarranted assumption that pie is well-cooked, not frozen, etc. Assumptions about the consistency and material properties of pie are unwarranted. Resistance is futile. Your culture will adapt to serve us pie.
Okay, I meant plus. I never could do math.
I do make a good pie though.
shaun, when you say "solved", what do you mean? Are you trying to find a way to show that pi (either terminates or repeats) and is thus rational?
Using base 3 instead of binary or base 10 won't be particularly useful. Different bases are just different methods of expressing numbers. A number which is irrational in one base is irrational in all of them. Base 3 is not a dimension above base 2.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace