Jump to content

CuriosOne

Senior Members
  • Posts

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CuriosOne

  1. 2 hours ago, studiot said:

     

    First you need to know that 0 and 1 are fractions themselves !


    0=01and1=11

    Although we don't usually write them like that.

    Mathematics recognises a series of 'number systems' that are nested like Russian dolls.

    The outer one is the most complicated and the number systems get simpler inside just as the outer doll is the biggest and the dolls get smaller inside.

    For number systems the more complicated (outer) system contains or includes all the simpler systems within it.

    The simplest system is called the natural numbers or counting numbers.  1,2,3,4,5......    There is no zero in these.

    Then we have the positive inetgers if we want the same thing but with a zero   0,1,2,3,4,5......

    The we have both positive and negative integers  ...-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5......      These are all the integers.

    The we have the rational numbers : ratios of two integers ie fractions


    12,2539etc


    We do not need another category for the ratios of decimal numbers since they can always be written as the ratio of two integers


    2.53.138isthesameas25003138

     

    Which is a number system as far as you have asked since it includes all the fractions lying between 0 and 1 that can be written.

    And it also answers you question about number bases.
    Simply it does not matter which base you choose as shown by the example of rewriting a decimal fraction as the ratio of two integers.

    But there are yet more important numbers that cannot be written this way. An example would be the reciprocal of the square root of 2, or the square root of 0.5.

    So we come to the what are called the real numbers as corresponding to our outer Russian doll, and includes all these numbers as well as all the fractional ones.

    I hope you can see nesting idea from this.

     

    There are yet more complicated layers of 'numbers' but I will leave it at that.

     

     

    Understood...But when this explanation involves "nature" we bump into issues..

     "A very big issue" with the base part..

    I will use Gravity for example:

    6.67 "times" base 10 to its -11 power

     .01× 667 = 6.67 

    Times a number between 0 and 1 as a fraction.

    As 1/0.1 = 10^2 or 100 cm for 1 meter "averge"

    It looks like the speed of light to me..

    Then we have Newton's units.

    Units of N m^2 / kg^2 

    1 newton meter is said to be the torque "of circular force."

    Base 10 "Sounds like a ratio, or frequency or derivitive for that matter" in relation to light...And maybe Base 10 proves the more "conventional" ???

    Looks like base 10 is very interesting..

    """My point is, "base 10" appears to be the most popular choice in our metric system..""" not to mention that when you see g itself 9.8 m/s^-2 it appears to be closer to base 10 than any other base..

    This is what has me "and so many others" confused.....

    Or maybe science and numbers are inconsistent with nature...

     

     

    3 hours ago, swansont said:

    For the same reason numbers between 1 and 2 can be fractions. Or rather, possibly can be expressed as fractions.

     

    """"Was This The Idea For Limits???""""

    f( x+ dx) - f(x)/ dx

    as x->0

  2. 3 hours ago, ALine said:

    I'm gonna go on a slight rant that may pertains to the subject matter more or less.

    I'm sorry but this pisses me of. Where  do you come off on pissing over the hard work of others who take the time out of their day to assist you with your "ground breaking" ideas. If it is so ground breaking then you should want to have it taken apart so that it can become more viable. If your idea is so "special" then prove it, if you think that ya got something amazing then bring it to the table. If you wanna sit on it then sit on it. 9 times out of 10 the idea is either some strange mix of religious nonsense or some fanciful delusions of people who cant understand what an atom is let alone time travel.

    I remember seeing this earlier but I will bring it here. A box cannot be thought out of if you do not even understand what the box is or its contents. 

    If ya hate it then come up with your own system, but I'm gonna promise ya that your not gonna achieve it in your life time. It took hundreds of thousands of years of dedicated and amazing people to get to the point where we are today in terms of our technology and our scientific achievements. 
     

    Got a little of track there but I keep seeing this on this website. These are human beings who are helping you, you should honored that these knowledge wizards even share a miniscule of there knowledge with you. 

    Now I am unsure about this "scheme" you have mentioned and whether or not it has happend to you personally. If it has happend to you personally then I am sorry, however that does not mean it is happening here. Meet the people, re-read what they write, and learn something new.

    This is a science forum, it is just to share SCIENCE related ideas. Or to just hang with other fellow science enthusiasts. 

    Your warning makes sense in terms of having some story/writing related idea or even a business related idea where people are searching to make a quick buck, however this is where knowledge is shared freely for the betterment of mankind.

    ok, that's all my three cents.

     

    Very well put and contributions are very appreciative on my end, but no one in the universe knows 100% sure the lagitamacy of "knowledge" as discoveries contradict "knowledge" as "changes" in fact if I were to make an educated assumption, I'd say knowledge is a variable....

    And becuase it changes through knowledge it can be subject of thievery, miss-use and other forms of "political correctness."

    This is planet earth here not agartha, heaven or any other reality where honesty love and unity overide material and "profit."

    3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    Or the systems are designed to encourage meaningful science that can be discussed with peers, as opposed to guesswork and lazy reasoning. I'm sorry "dumb and worthless" is all you're getting out of this. 

    You know, there are less rigorous science discussion forums out there. We're like #2 or #3 when it comes to strict scientific methodology. Why don't you join  a site where they like WAGing and don't correct your mistakes?

    Dumb and Worthless are abstract emotional analogies used to express mental manipulations of all sorts, there are many trust me, the point is "it happens" in "All Social Media" platforms..

    The primary reason is to keep the site from getting "boring." 

     

    3 hours ago, MigL said:

    Most of us don't do this for 'fame and fortune'.
    Others have their own reasons; I do it because I enjoy discussion with like-minded people.

    ( I don't even belong to any social media, and a couple of times it has 'scared' me when googling some science topic, that a link to MigL@Science Forums.net come up in the search. )

    I know how you feel, this is why I think it's important to use kind words with others when dealing with public post on social media.

     You never know who's reading it, or taking knowledge from it..Atleast give the OP credit for an idea or offer them a job..

     

    2 hours ago, zapatos said:

    Was someone mean to you in school? Made fun of you because of how you dressed? Refuse to go to prom with you?

    Whatever it is, please get over it. You sound like such a whiney child.

    This "scenario" is a typical one dealing with the most famous people whom ever walked the face of this world..."Mr perfect."🙂

    It's easy to say, "Get Over Your Ideas" that have been robbed, sit back in poverty and watch your millions go down the drain, while someonelse basks in the sun from your idea...."chuckles" nice one..🤣

    4 hours ago, iNow said:

    Damnit! You’ve found me out!!

     

    eaaf03376e1de065a2f3768eea0f629d.jpg

    Nice one..😎

  3. Has anyone ever felt the need to address this question in a public forum "crawling" with thinkers whom desire for their research to be published in the Hope's of Fame and Gain??

    Think twice please!

    You should always have your work copyrighted "published and dated" eleswhere and never share your science model or its description until you do so..

    I know Youtube does a great job "publishing your work" and its best to keep the date in your records to show you had the idea first!

    Many science forums have "systems" that is systematically" engineered to make you feel "dumb and worthless" thus making you "submissive" or hopeless to share your out of the box thinking that allows others to take bits and pieces of your unique ideas and integrate it with theirs..

    So when you arrive to public social forums be aware of this scheme, otherwise you will see your ideas in other's work when they receive that noble piece prize...

    Good Luck Out There!

  4. 3 hours ago, zapatos said:

    Trolling will get you banned...

    How can a user Troll on their own post??

     

    3 hours ago, swansont said:

    I’m not sure where this comes from, seeing as how none of these topics had been under discussion. And the topic was math, rather than applications of the math.

     

    Here would be where I disagree; despite the fact that do have some artistic accomplishments on my resumé, I don’t see how you “need” to be an artist for this.

     

    That doesn’t explain anything. You could replace it with “When I say floobengarb, I mean just that” 

    It provides no illumination 

     

    Again, that’s not math, as such, even though math is used in quantifying descriptions of these phenomena.

    I will point out once more that you have failed to answer the question of who “we” refers to in your earlier comment. You said you were very glad I asked, but then you dodged the question. Again.

    You have also failed to say which scientists are famous for their political correctness 

     

    What makes this post unique in it's own right, is not the flow of predictable outcomes ie a standard scientific conversion "on some 300 year old theory" but rather random contributions of scientific and artistic thinking, after all nature is synchronized rather we agree or disagree...

    On a side note, their is no such thing as proving a theory or scientist from the past or present wrong or right because...Nobody was their to see the legitimacy of their work, the atom has never been seen and theories are "math instructions" of 0 and 1..

     

    I do respect ""noble research"" however and it's a highly respected area...

  5. 21 minutes ago, HallsofIvy said:

    Velocity and acceleration are "difference quotients"!

     

    Understood...

    "But" isn't velocity a direction?? or a "variable?"

    And acceleration "gravity" influenced?

    Meaning a ball falling or "orbiting" around a "circular" object??

    "Or atleast the ones in solar systems are circular."

     

    How does 2 points connect all this together?

  6. 14 hours ago, swansont said:

    I was hoping for something specific. Otherwise this accusation is a slur on scientists in general, which is poor form.

     

    What does that have to do with math as “an "exotic" mixture of unknown dimensions” and you said “we” understood this. Who has this rather bizarre understanding? I ask that you clarify, and back up your claims.

    I guess you never heard of electron configuration and color or temporary dipoles "rainbows" ""again scientist think they know everything""

    You need to be an "artist" to understand, thats why i said "I'm Glad You Asked The Question"  nature is creative and secretive about it, discoveries proove this.

    When I say higher dimensions, I mean just that, nothing needs to be backed up because it's only obvious nature is unique, just look at the stars, go to a sun set with friends, listen to music or enjoy art of coarse all of which use the "human senses." 

     

     

    13 hours ago, iNow said:

    That’s my exact question to you, the one you keep evading. 

    The only mechanisms I have are the same promiscuous techniques often used in science, but I'm learning how to manipulate these to my personal likings and being very efficient at doing so..

  7. 5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    ...undeservedly, since often times scientific rigor is misunderstood as being hidebound, didactic, pompous, politically correct, over-zealous, and excessively meticulous, when in reality science is uber complex and words don't do the maths justice, so it's important to use the exact right ones. It has zero to do with politics, and EVERYTHING to do with being accurate.

    Understood and very well said.

    But ""nothing"" is "never" accurate nor absolute, I really hope we understand that math and a theoretically described "model" is "set up" to work within "instructions" and or guidlines from its discoverer, they are never random "unless" your using a calculator that exibits diverse precessions.

    Something to truly think about when dealing with scientific assertion.

    5 hours ago, iNow said:

    You've moved the goalposts, though. That is about influencing what people think, not about having a mechanism to allow or disallow said thoughts. 

    And what would that mechanism be??

    I hope it's a theory and very fancy calculus to back it up, otherwise its gibberish------->right??

    5 hours ago, swansont said:

    Which scientists?

     

    Who is “we”?

     

     

    Which scientist?

    those whom right off anything out of scientific evidence as gibberish nonsense that has no place in science..Mainly the closed minded ones..

     

    Whos We???

    Im "Very Glad You Asked"

    As a drummer I've known that speed, tension and pressure are 3 major components used for great drum sound.

    Ironically the same goes for piano, as I'm a jazz player...Ironically still the same applies for singing as im a singer as well..

    All of these areas of discipline use "forces" but not everyone possesses these great skills.. 

     However in our standard model, "nature" does seem """unique""" as well.

     

     

  8. On 12/5/2020 at 11:05 PM, iNow said:

    How does one “let” some other one think?

    The profound arrogance embedded in and oozing out from this statement is staggering.

    You cannot even control your own thoughts, Bart. It’s time for you to take a pause from suggesting that you ought to control the content of others thoughts and to instead amplify awareness of your own copious opportunities to minimize the heavy burden of ignorance. 

    How does one let some other one think??

    By "constant" persuassion many people can fall into belief systems of all sorts "including" political correctness, something scientist are famous for..

    For example the base 10 and base 8 "comment" is a "great" example for the use of number theory when dealing with sequencing..

    10^2 and 10^8 are so obvious a mixture of time and distance..

    See how simple rules can be emerged?

    However, the science community has proven number theory is not an acceptable contribution of science "Hence The OP."

     But we all know mathimatics is an "exotic" mixture of unknown dimensions, the physics of sound and music is one example, color and light is another, and abstract forms of forces"sculpting' is another...I even want to say 2 parents that give off their genetic traits to their off spring..

    The OP obviously does not mean "every" scientist but it truly means "most" scientist "are closed minded" and in denial of where information originates from as our foundation of science is an ancient one..

     

     

    On 12/6/2020 at 12:56 AM, Saiyan300Warrior said:

    I think people in general at times think they know everything because to them they have a set of rules or ideas that they seem to think the world is governed by. For example if someone who identifies as a scientists thought they knew everything in some way it could be because they firmly believe in things that makes sense to them and is generally accepted by everyone because that is a part of scientific methods. I like to say this a lot but to me it is true, we know nothing other than our own existence. Everything at times can seem so fake yet so real. I think having a set of rules and ideas to live by is what makes people sane and grow in this structured world we created together but can also lead some people to think they "know everything".

    Very well said, for "us" negative reputations members ..🤣😂🤣

    On 12/7/2020 at 5:51 AM, Phi for All said:

    Here's the inherent problem with this outlook. Being capable of judging when something is complex enough requires that you understand it, and how can you understand it if you reject it right off? 

    I think that's the "point" of the OP🙂

  9. 1 hour ago, MigL said:

    Mine says I do not have permission to open ( my own file ).

    Anyway study it it well and if anything confuses, ask questions about it.
    We will gladly answer.

    Better learn how to use that tool.

    Oh yes I will, trust me..Your PDF is already doing that, thnks again..

     

     

    Screenshot_20201202-165956_Drive.jpg

  10. 47 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    Nobody else has explained  this
     

    because you just made it up.

    Why not try to explain what you mean by it?

    If I explained it, it would diverge the OP and be considered off topic...

    I just wanted to make note of it becuase people tend to forget including myself all the time..

     

    y = x^2 or 2x "algeabraically" forgets to tell us, "By the way when you see x its implied that x has a base of 1..x^1

    The base could be 10,  2, 3, 12 etc 

     

  11. 3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

    Not even remotely close.  You're a lost ball in high weeds, when it comes to math.

    -0.1÷24-5= -5.0041^2 * 4  = 100.16...

    Make sure to use the entire -0.1÷24-5 in your calculator otherwise you get.

    -0.1/19=-0.005263^2 *4 =1.1e-4

    Yea, i'm pretty lost alright..🤣🤣🤣

    2 hours ago, MigL said:

    The following is an easy to understand overview of derivatives.
    Read it very carefully …

    calculus_note_intro_derivative.pdf 377.68 kB · 15 downloads

    Come back and ask questions when you're done ...

    Don't seem to be able to attach this file ??

    calculus_note_intro_derivative.pdf 377.68 kB · 15 downloads

    Haven't done this for a long time. Can anyone offer advice ?

    It downloaded.

    I will spend hours studying this...Thnx..

     

     

  12. 3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    He certainly didn't make a successful attempt.

    Neither has anyone else in the "history" of science, some refer to it as the conservation of energy, the positive of its anti, yin and yang, good and evil, """Alice and Bob"""" male and female, 0 binary 1 binary, black or white, day and nite etc etc..

    5 hours ago, swansont said:

    None of the numbers you mentioned are 24.999... so why do you think this is relevant? Do you understand what is meant by the ellipses at the end of the number?

    And I can’t even tell if you attempted to explain what you meant by “To say x is to imply it has a base of +1”

    3.45...<----- The three dots imply the numbers go on forever, some numbers can repeat or never terminate..

    ""But I have no idea if that's true.""

    I hope we understand I'm talking about 2 points....Y2-Y1/X1-X2.

    Distance, where order of operations does not matter..

    But as the ""difference quotient""of instantaneous change, differntiation dirivitives.

    """"""This is what the OP is asking"""""

    The x->0 is saying the variable x is already a "fraction" of y, from some other whole number or "region" "time domain" within the function f(x) itself..

    I assume that's why scientist bother with this concept in the first place...

     

    To say 1/4 = 0.25 would mean 1 =100

    Why not just say 100/4

    This is why x^1 of x^2 or f of (f)x  is "obviously saying" and I think we all know this 1 = 100 the centi meter unit 10^-2

     

  13. 24 minutes ago, swansont said:

    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean 

    24.999 is not the same as 24.999...

     

    Basically the root of 24.999999999

    with 8 "nines" 

    Is 4.999999999

    With 9 "nines"

    As far as my T1-84 Plus CE

    A root is x^1/2 as 25^1/2 = 5

    As with 24.999 and 25

    And as with 24^1/1+2 = the root of 8

    The 9 and 8 "Are To, Not The Same Number"

    Unless of coarse +24.99 and -24.99 cancell to 0...Then were back to square one, the x^1 thing going on here.

     

  14. 10 hours ago, HallsofIvy said:

    Frankly it appears that you do not know what "limits" are!   If you did, you would know that "24.999....." IS exactly  25.

    Taking a limit does NOT "involve two points", it involves infinitely many points.  Taking "the limit as x goes to a"  involves all the points between [tex]a- \delta[/tex] and [tex]a+ \delta[/tex] and, no matter how small [tex]\delta[/tex] is, there are infinitely many points between those points.

    No, i meant 2 things, ""a derivitive"" ""needs 2 points"" and I meant that if a limit is 5, then approaching it "getting close to it" can only be a maximum value of 4.99999, i gave the backwards example...Here is a table..

    Also, there needs to be a "span" inbetween say 0.001 for a total of 5,000 points "only" not an infinite amount that's crazy.

    24.999 is "not the same" as 25

    received_1523187644735439.jpeg

    10 hours ago, swansont said:

    Limits involve the behavior of a function that might diverge (e.g. it can depend on the value and the slope of the function). Setting a variable equal to a value only involves evaluating the function at one point. You wouldn’t bother with a limit if you could just do the arithmetic of evaluating the function. e.g. you don’t need to look at a limit for x^2 for any finite value of x. 

     

    I thought "all limits" involved 4 points..

    Maybe Derivitves, Difference Quotient or delta h can get my point across here..

    F(x) = F(x-dx)^2 - F(x)^2/ delta h

    Becuase y2-y1/x2-x1 is linear is 4 points..

    I also just wanted to note:

    To say x is to imply it has a base of +1

    ie x^1 it's simple things like this that cause "much" confusion..

  15. 8 hours ago, swansont said:

    Taking lim x->0 is not the same as setting x = 0

     

    Im totally confused...

    Is this becuase taking a limit uses 2 points on the cartessian cooridinent system??

    7 hours ago, HallsofIvy said:

     

    image.png

    image.png

    Great explanation, but in this case and is in all cases dealing with limits its not exactly 25 its x = 24.999...

    So what happens then??

    Does this explain the difference between setting x=0 and taking a limit as x->0 ??

    I think this is very important stuff...

  16. 5 hours ago, MigL said:

    In the equation
    Y=3x2+25

    setting  x=0  means considering what happens to that function when x=0

    You get

    y=3(0)2+25
    y=0+25
    y=25

    IOW, the function crosses the Y axis at 25 when x=0 ( origin of x axis )

    Understood, but I think I forgot to mention setting x->0 for limits, changes in dx/dy 

    Such as, Lim x->0

    x^2-25/x-5

    Plugging 5 into x

    In this case does 0 still refference (origin of x axis)?

    Not sure my example makes the point becuase their are many ways to express the same "concept."

    Correct me if I'm wrong..

    But in your example it discribes x "radiantly."

    Becuase the origin is space itself "cartessian space that is" x axis..

     

     

     

  17. Is there a way to describe how you set x=0 "in the classical phyiscal sense" or before QM came along??

    I'm just looking for a straight forward simple answer. 

     

    Example:

    Say we have 4 points ascending on a curve in the up direction in Cartessian Space.

    1 2 3 4 and we want to measure a change between 3 and 4

    Do we say x= 3 =0 and x= 4 = 1

    ???

     

  18. 26 minutes ago, studiot said:

    I think this was explained by someone it your last thread about infinity.

    I said there are many different types of infinity.

     

    Take the set of discrete (note the spelling) integers  0, 1, 2, ...

    This set is infinite because the sequence does not terminate.

    No member of the set is infinite, all the discrete integers are finite.

    The set does not 'contain' infinity ie does not have an infinite member.

    The set is not an integer, it is well .... a set.

    100% Understood...But this is quite different I assure..

    Are the non terminating numbers a frequency?? 

    I think I moved too fast on this one though...

    If "time" is linked to energy then shouldn't discrete amounts of energy "somehow" mysteriously intigrate itself in our current understanding of nature?? After all, quantum energy is circular, IE angular momentum...Is this correct?

     

    It's like you said, many types of infinities that lead to the same "conclusion."

  19. 8 hours ago, studiot said:

     

    I presume this was an answer to my question

     

    Well here is what I think about this :


    112439416525

     

    1. The top row is made up of the natural counting numbers.
      So the count of these numbers is the same as the largest number.
      In my example there are 5 numbers in the top row and the count of numbers is also 5.
       
    2. In the second row which are simply the squares of these numbers, there are also 5 numbers
      But the they are all larger than the corresponding number in the top row (except for the 1).
       
    3. So whatever might be the largest number in the top row as it is extended, there is always a larger number in the bottom row.
       
    4. This larger number is also a simple integer and so whatever number you propose as the 'end' number of of the top row is not the largest integer and not the end of the row.
      That is the process of counting has no end. This is called a non terminating infinity.
       
    5. It is also interesting to note that the bottom row does not include all the numbers in the top row; it does not contain 2,3 or 5 or other top row numbers if it is extended.
       
    6. Yet for every top row number there is an entry in the bottom row so the count is the same in both top and bottom rows. There is the same count of numbers of the bottom row as for the top row. This property is called the cardinality. Cardinality is very important in comparing infinities.
       
    7. This is a truly remarkable property of infinities.

     

    It is important to stay focused with this stuff and not mind-hop to many disparate subjects.

     

     

    That is quite "profound" and easy to understand...Thnx! 

    I literally "wrote" down specific notes from your reply, I will research Cardinality in extreme depth..

    "I can see now why it is important to stay focused with this stuff.

    There are other images along with the list of numbers i placed in this thread that id like to share in due time, for now i will learn Cardinalality and get back to this post ASAP.

  20. 6 hours ago, MigL said:

    That is correct.
    Infinity does NOT act like a number
    infinity + 1 = infinity
    Infinity - 1 = infinity
    And for that matter, infinity +/- ((((((10)^10)^10)^10)^10)^10) …  is still equal to infinity.
    What other number has those properties ??

    And again, I ask,
    What is the last number before infinity ?

    A number without + or minus - I suppose...I'm still pondering on the list question..

  21. 2 minutes ago, swansont said:

    You might observe that the moderator note does not say that you can’t post videos. You claim you were told that directly. You’ve claimed that repeatedly, but have yet to substantiate the claim. Perhaps you could retract it, and cease making it.

    This forum is very subjective and absolute with their rules, the numerolgy post is a good example......

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.