This is why mathematics makes my head hurt... - by catbarf
OrbWeaver on 29/9/2007 at 20:27
Quote Posted by fett
And on the subject of the English language, why the does the word 'mathematics' have a fucking 'e' in the middle of it? HUH?
Because it's derived from a Greek word -
mathema - meaning study or learning.
"Math" and "maths" are just abbreviations; neither is technically correct. It just depends what part of the world you are from.
catbarf on 29/9/2007 at 20:55
Now THAT is a creative crack at creationism. Kudos for the link.
Quote:
I have it on good authority that the answer is 42 anyway.
Try entering 'answer to life the universe and everything' into google, and it will give you 42 as an answer from the Google Calculator.
Quote Posted by Thief13x
this is why you make my head hurt. Who says there is an infinte number of planets? even if the number is beyond comprehension, that doesn't mean it's infinite.
+ division by infininity isn't zero, although the limit of x/infinity is zero, not really sure what you're getting at here though, there are alot of holes in your reasoning, as usual
1. I never said this was my reasoning, nor do I stand behind this. I merely found it an entertaining and odd notion, and I know for a fact that there are other, similar situations in math.
2. If the universe is infinitely large, there is an infinite number of planets.
3. The point is that if you're finding the number of intelligent beings per planet, you divide the number of intelligent beings by the number of planets. If we are to assume that the number of planets harboring intelligent life is finite, being smaller than the total number of planets, we are dividing a finite number by an infinite number. That is where the '0' comes from.
demagogue on 29/9/2007 at 21:16
Quote Posted by catbarf
Now THAT is a creative crack at creationism. Kudos for the link.
What's funny about that site is that the theory of intellegent forces actually has a pretty long and distinguished pedigree. It was Aristotle's theory and it was the standard physical theory for about 2000 years until Galileo shot it down (when he noticed that falling objects arc in smooth parabolas, not discrete angles). But they never mention Aristotle's name on the whole site. It's like they just made it up. ;)
Quote Posted by Orb
Because it's derived from a Greek word - mathema - meaning study or learning.
"Math" and "maths" are just abbreviations; neither is technically correct. It just depends what part of the world you are from.
I don't even like the term "technically correct" for language use. Chomsky won the linguist wars. What's right is what your brain (up-bringing) tells you sounds right. Not whatever Greek won whatever battle a billion years ago. (That said, I love studying the origin and history of words, though ... always enlightening.)
R Soul on 29/9/2007 at 21:19
What I like is that if something is thrown upwards, it'll be travelling upwards, and some time later it'll be travelling downwards. So at some point it must be neither moving up nor down, in defiance of gravity.
It could be argued that the surrounding air molecules could prevent the descent for a tiny amount of time, but does that then mean that it couldn't happen in a vacuum? ;)
*Zaccheus* on 29/9/2007 at 21:23
Yes, it would happen in a vaccum, but it would actually be doing an extremely elliptical orbit, so it would never actually stop. Even if you manage to throw it 100% straight up, the time it would be standing still would be 'approching zero' as mathematicians like to say.
R Soul on 29/9/2007 at 21:26
Why would it be elliptical? I don't see why it can't be assumed that it's thrown straight up. How about 'launched' instead of 'thrown'? I didn't mean to imply that it was just hurled up by some dipstick who likes throwing things.
If it was travelling along an elliptical path, that then means it would be travelling perfectly horizontally. For an amount of time equal to 0 (in any units).
*Zaccheus* on 29/9/2007 at 21:29
Elliptical because it would be quite impossible to launch it upwards perfectly.
And yes, I think it would be travelling perfectly horizontally for a brief moment, again 'approaching zero' for time and distance.
In a perfect circular orbit a satellite is always travelling perfectly horizontally!
R Soul on 29/9/2007 at 21:42
Just so we're clear I'm not denying what you're saying. I just like the fact that if the vertical velocity can be measured, the instruments will never actually detect the 0 because it happens for 0.000... seconds. If a reading of 0 is obtained, it'll be because the instruments aren't precise enough.
catbarf on 29/9/2007 at 21:58
The Mandelbrot set? We learned about this in Computer Programming, here's a link to one you can explore:
(
http://math.hws.edu/javanotes/c12/s5.html)
At the bottom of the page. Pretty cool.
