Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani
View Post
A Piece of Pi For Dessert During Covid Shutdown
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Stephen Humphreys View PostWhen I encounter things like that, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...eness_theorems
In mathematics you can't avoid paradoxes, and many of them involve infinity.
In chess the only truths are checkmate, stalemate or insufficient mating material. There are not infinite possibilities. Yet all theorems of play are incomplete, filled with exceptions to the "rules." We are emotionally attracted to natural looking moves, yet there may be unnatural ones that may lead to the truth. Bishops may employ a diagonal argument, rooks a straight forward one. Castling may be safe or may mean oh-oh. Patzers are attracted to the big pieces, while grandmasters can sense the pressure of the spaces around pawns. We can get stuck in an undecidable position with unanswerable questions.
One may believe any formal theory they want, and seek out to prove as many winning games as possible, yet they won't win them all. No one theory can consistently lead to the absolute truth in all games. One must let go of one's ego attachment to a theory to open up to the possibility of seeing the truth. We can take comfort in that even Magnus Carlsen doesn't have infinite knowledge and that we have to be a better player in some other parallel universe.
Last edited by Erik Malmsten; Wednesday, 17th June, 2020, 07:54 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View PostUnfortunately, the logic seems to break down when dealing with the concept of infinity...
Over 100 years ago Bertrand Russell attempted to write a treatise that placed all of mathematics - from set theory to arithmetic, to geometry to calculus - on a set of definitions and logical deductions. His goal was to have a system of logic that could be used to test any mathematical conjecture and rigorously prove whether the statement was true or false, given enough time.
Shortly afterwards Kurt Godel used Bertrand's own system to PROVE that either you CANNOT prove every mathematical statement true or false, or your math allows paradoxes like "This sentence is false". What's more the guy PROVED that you cannot come up with ANY mathematical system that avoids this dilemma. It's a mind-blowing example of creative thinking.
30 years ago I read the book "Godel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter. This massive book spent hundreds of pages showing how Godel was able to prove this, while somehow being entertaining to read (well at least to me :-)).
By the way, this also has applications in computer science, with what is called a Turing Engine. In theory, any computer system, including Alphazero (See how I brought it back to chess there?) can be described in a Turing engine. The question with Turing engines are "Can you predict if a program will eventually halt, or run on forever, simply by reading the code?" Godel's theorem proves that programs exist that you can never prove will halt or not.
Well I blathered on this topic long enough. Suffice to say, mathematics is fascinating and full of paradoxes like this, and are all well worth exploring.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
Also, if you wish to eliminate infinities, please tell me what the largest integer is...Last edited by Fred Harvey; Wednesday, 17th June, 2020, 06:03 PM.Fred Harvey
Comment
-
This thread is actually becoming interesting! As a physicist, I tend to lean to reality. With a major in math, i believe math is merely an attempt to codify the continuum we live in, and can never totally represent that continuum, hence the fact that the concept of infinity is unproveable. IMHO to continue to debate this becomes meaningless mumbling full of sound and.....well you know the rest. I look forward to Ed Snidehouse proving me a total fraud, but have a sneaking feeling he is lost somewhere in infinity......Fred Harvey
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fred Harvey View PostI believe math is merely an attempt to codify the continuum we live in, and can never totally represent that continuum, hence the fact that the concept of infinity is unproveable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Garland Best View Post
I think you are stating that you cannot prove or discover that there exists an infinite quantity in nature. Otherwise your statement is nonsensical. Infinity is a concept. It's defined. There is nothing to prove. These are constructs. There may not be an infinite quantity of anything in the universe, that does not make the concept itself any less real. The set of integers is infinite. There is no disputing that. If you are going to try, don't bother. You may as well dispute the existence of the square root of two, or the square root of negative one.
If mathematics is all wrong then physics is too, since it thinks we live in a four dimensional universe. But no one can see this fourth dimension so it cannot exist and therefore physics must be wrong. At least according to Freud Smarmy.
Comment
-
The notion of things (like the points on a line) being infinitesimally small (with their inverse being infinite), is no longer popular, as the quantum nature of reality postulates that at a certain level of smallness, you cannot further divide stuff!
On the other side (the largeness side), while the set of integers is 'potentially' infinite, each number within it is finite, and the 'potential' infiniteness is something we can dream about, but never realize in reality...especially as our space-time will end at some point with a universal black hole...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View PostThe notion of things (like the points on a line) being infinitesimally small (with their inverse being infinite), is no longer popular, as the quantum nature of reality postulates that at a certain level of smallness, you cannot further divide stuff!
On the other side (the largeness side), while the set of integers is 'potentially' infinite, each number within it is finite, and the 'potential' infiniteness is something we can dream about, but never realize in reality...especially as our space-time will end at some point with a universal black hole...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
There will be no universal black hole but even if there would it won't be the end as black holes all eventually evaporate due to Hawking radiation. In the end all that will be left are photons and other massless particles. Penrose has postulated that this will result in a new "big bang" or actually an infinite series of big bangs since there is nothing to stop the process repeating endlessly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View PostThe notion of things (like the points on a line) being infinitesimally small (with their inverse being infinite), is no longer popular, as the quantum nature of reality postulates that at a certain level of smallness, you cannot further divide stuff!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Close enough to what I have been postulating: INFINITE cycles of universal big bangs and black holes...each cycle with its own space-time...
Comment
Comment