Not being a mathematician, I sought out the mathematical basis of your joke. Here it is for any other non-mathematicians who frequent the thread.
"In the infinite series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + …, note that the numbers we are adding together are getting smaller. In fact, they are getting smaller sufficiently quickly that there is a number that they will get infinitely close to, but never reach. That value is 2. That means that the series converges to the value 2. It will never actually reach it, but it will always get closer to 2, and will get really, really close (i.e., infinitely close)."
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/are-divergent-series-really-an-invention-of-the-devil/
Not being a mathematician, clever as I am, I did surmise the direction of the WIKI. However, please do explain where the 'humour' is.
Not that clever, we do have the delete function. I must admit you almost got me there, or should I say, introduced me.
ahem.. since you "sought out the basis of System's "joke", was it not appropriate to further define your analysis?
ahem.. since you "sought out the basis of System's "joke", was it not appropriate to further define your analysis?
What has the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people of Canada got to do with the price of bread?
Perhaps you could offer something constructive to the discussions rather than continually asking questions?
Attachments
You seemed to have overlooked the premise. Yours is a matter of opinion. Perhaps is definitely a question. Perhaps allowing others to speak for themselves could further promote an unobstructed discourse. Oops..?
Last edited:
I'm suggesting you speak for yourself instead of obstructing the discourse with irrelevant comments.
But carry on, I'm enjoying your vernacular! 😉
Yupp! 🙂
No, I really do mean "All math don't describe reality".
As in; every mathematical formula or model don't have a relation / don't describe, reality.
Don't / doesn't... Do not / Does not... is it a grammatical error by me?
//
No, I really do mean "All math don't describe reality".
As in; every mathematical formula or model don't have a relation / don't describe, reality.
Don't / doesn't... Do not / Does not... is it a grammatical error by me?
//
The correct form is "doesn't", TNT. 🙂
There is currently no single mathematical model capable of describing the reality of our universe. The cosmos lies far beyond our present embryonic ability to understand it.
Astrophysicists draw up mathematical models that try to align with their observations of the universe, e.g., the observation that it is expanding at an accelerating rate.
The power of mathematics is in its potential to predict more about the nature of the universe than we can currently observe and hence lead to new scientific investigations and a deeper understanding.
Anyone who thinks that any of our current mathematical models represent the reality of the universe is severely deluded.
There is currently no single mathematical model capable of describing the reality of our universe. The cosmos lies far beyond our present embryonic ability to understand it.
Astrophysicists draw up mathematical models that try to align with their observations of the universe, e.g., the observation that it is expanding at an accelerating rate.
The power of mathematics is in its potential to predict more about the nature of the universe than we can currently observe and hence lead to new scientific investigations and a deeper understanding.
Anyone who thinks that any of our current mathematical models represent the reality of the universe is severely deluded.
Aha - must have missed that particular class... ;-)
...checking a bit...
https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/vs/using-do-vs-does-properly-in-questions-and-sentences.html
- “Do” is used for plural subjects like “you,” “we,” “they,” “these,” “those,” or “John and I,” as well as with “I.”
Example: They do not like snakes. - “Does” is used for singular subjects like “he,” “she,” “it,” “this,” “that,” or “John.”
Example: John does not like snakes
... all that Math .... all these Math... ?
"All Math..." would be plural - right?
//
Last edited:
Mathematic, maths and math are uncountable nouns (we cannot count "maths", but we can count "maths books") which we usually treat as singular and which are used with a singular verb - like "does" or "is".
We don't say math "are" my best subject, we say math "is" my best subject.
I don't think "All math..." makes sense since math is not countable, but I'd use "doesn't" with it. However "All math books..." would make perfect sense and would be used with "don't".
Yes, I pieced the above together courtesy of an internet search! You may be able to google different interpretations - it's a jungle out there! 😀
Last edited:
Time for another excruciatingly funny Mathematical Joke:
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=5591&page=104
Mersenne forum ( a place interested in calculating very large Prime Numbers) is the only place I know where even Jokes are Peer-reviewed! 😀
The nature of infinity is some infinities are bigger than others. The Integers (1,2,3,4...) have a Cardinality of N(()) IIRC. The Reals which include Pi and e, have a higher order of infinity N(1), I think.
This is not my field, so don't ask me more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis
Tricky stuff IMO.
What we find on investigation is that our concepts including Conservation Laws of Energy, Mass and angular momentum are very badly defined. Nobody is quite sure what ANYTHING really is! It's a quagmire.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mass...t-ambiguous-by-einstein-get-defined-20220713/
The key is to be clear if we are looking at a system from the outside or the inside IMO. We are definitely on the inside of the Universe so must be extremely careful what we assume about experiments on what appears to be the surface of a 4D spacetime manifold.
I continue to be interested in the number system known as Octonions, in which Associativity breaks. It is hard to find a Physical example of non-associativity, but I am pondering it. I think it breaks the cross-product of horrible Vectors.
Cohl Furey has been considering a multiplication of Reals, Complex, Quaternions and Octonions, the 4 division algebras, and has derived a reasonable theory of Quark and Electro-weak Symmetries. The three generations of matter is unresolved, but it can't be too hard can it?
I like what I am seeing thus far.
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=5591&page=104
Mersenne forum ( a place interested in calculating very large Prime Numbers) is the only place I know where even Jokes are Peer-reviewed! 😀
The nature of infinity is some infinities are bigger than others. The Integers (1,2,3,4...) have a Cardinality of N(()) IIRC. The Reals which include Pi and e, have a higher order of infinity N(1), I think.
This is not my field, so don't ask me more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis
Tricky stuff IMO.
What we find on investigation is that our concepts including Conservation Laws of Energy, Mass and angular momentum are very badly defined. Nobody is quite sure what ANYTHING really is! It's a quagmire.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mass...t-ambiguous-by-einstein-get-defined-20220713/
The key is to be clear if we are looking at a system from the outside or the inside IMO. We are definitely on the inside of the Universe so must be extremely careful what we assume about experiments on what appears to be the surface of a 4D spacetime manifold.
I continue to be interested in the number system known as Octonions, in which Associativity breaks. It is hard to find a Physical example of non-associativity, but I am pondering it. I think it breaks the cross-product of horrible Vectors.
Cohl Furey has been considering a multiplication of Reals, Complex, Quaternions and Octonions, the 4 division algebras, and has derived a reasonable theory of Quark and Electro-weak Symmetries. The three generations of matter is unresolved, but it can't be too hard can it?
I like what I am seeing thus far.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.