Prev: where is the factorial value 1/2 of the exponent value in 10^500 #4.08 Correcting Math
Next: WORK FROM YOUR HOME AWESOME EARNINGS NO INVESTMENT
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 23 Jul 2010 02:38


Transfer Principle wrote:
> On Jul 22, 5:04 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes:
> > > I notice that AP tries to find a way to connect the approximation
> > > 22/7 to his Plutonium Atom Totality theory. Remember that I'm not
> > > an Atom Totalitarian, and so I don't agree that the promixity of
> > > 22/7 to pi proves that the universe is a Plutonium atom.
> > I'm not positive, but I *think* that AP is claiming that pi is exactly
> > 22/7, not approximately.
>
> Is he? I decided to start a Google search for old AP posts to find
> out the answer. I found one interesting post all the way from 1993,
> where the OP claimed that he had found a proof of Fermat's Last
> Theorem (oh, and BTW, the OP's name was Andrew _Wiles_), and AP
> (still posting as Ludwig Plutonium) challenged him by giving the
> 10-adics (AP-adics) as a counterexample. Then he started discussing
> Atom Totality.
>
> Anyway, I found a relevant discussion from 24th August, 2007. I'm
> loath to bring up old posts since that leads to arguments, but this
> was the most recent that I could find:
>
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> Chapter: (pi) and (e) explained
> >> A theory of physics that explains everything has to explain why pi has
> >> a value of 3.14159.... [...]
> >> And since the Atom Totality has a Riemannian geometry of a shape like
> >> a sphere the Atom Totality has a circumference and an diameter. Since it is
> >> one big atom or 231Plutonium which is the 5f6 and has
> >> 22 subshells inside of 7 shells. Now that is the *Rational
> >> Approximation of the subshells and shells*. The actual number of subshells and
> >> shells yields the number (pi) precisely.
>
> Proginoskes wrote:
> > It looks like AP is saying that pi is exactly 22/7 here. Either that,
> > or the number of shells or subshells is an irrational number. AP
> > should know better, with him having been a math major a long time ago.
>
> Tribble wrote:
> He seems to be saying that 22/7 is a rational approximation
> to the "actual number [ratio] of subshells and shells", which
> is "pi precisely". So it seems that he's saying that pi is the
> ratio between the actual number of subshells and shells,
> which means that pi is a rational number.
> Either that or he's saying that the number of shells and
> subshells are not integers. It's hard to tell.
>
> In other words, inconclusive.
>
> Maybe I'll go and ask AP directly, in one of his more recent
> threads so that he'll notice.


With my newfound wisdom about 10^500 as boundary between finite and
infinite. Let me
close the debate over approx or exact 22/7 as 22 subshells in 7
shells.

Quantum Physics is duality logic, and things come in duals.
Mathematics is Aristotelian logic where everything is either yes or no
and nothing in between. In physics, you can have 22 subshells/ 7
shells as being both exactly and approximately. In other words,
Physics has a more comprehensive idea or theory of what it means to be
transcendental. If the wavefunction of physics is uncollapsed then the
electron is not a single ball but a bunch of dots scattered in space.
If the electron is collapsed and moving in the wire, it is a ball
object.

So the problem when mathematicians read AP's talk, is that they come
from a background of linear Aristotelian logic that either pi is exact
or is approx. A physicist coming to this discussion with a foundation
of quantum mechanics of duality logic, knows that a plutonium atom of
its 22subshells in 7 shells is both rational and irrational/
transcendental. It does not bother the physicist at all because he
knows that the electron is both particle and wave in
the Double Slit Experiment. It surely bugs the heck out of the
mathematician who expects everything to be either exact or approx.
Physics can have both, and does have both.

And this is another reason why Physics is above mathematics, in that
math is a subset of physics. For physics has both duality logic and
the Aristotelian logic for a confined range.

When we make a boundary of finite-number with infinite number at
10^500, we also are doing
mathematics a huge favor, by saying that Aristotelian Logic is only in
this range and beyond,
we cannot be certain that multiplication, addition or any other
mathematical operation is valid
or consistent. So when we mark the boundary at 10^500 we are saying
that mathematics can be that linear logic, that Aristotelian logic
confined to that range.

Does that clear things up? Physics is broader than math and in physics
pi and "e" are both
exactly 22/7 and 19/7 and also approx 22/7 and 19/7. Physics can have
both for it has, always, both particle and wave. But mathematics is
more narrow and a subset of physics and
can only have a yes or no.

Now this brings up the interesting question as to what physics deems
as the meaning of
"transcendental number" in mathematics. Apparently it has something to
do with the collapsed wavefunction or the uncollapsed wavefunction.
Whether the electron is a single ball, or is a dot-cloud. A
transcendental number would thus correspond geometrically to a
electron-dot-cloud. A algebraic number would thus correspond to the
collapsed wavefunction and thus a single ball. So out of this, we can
start seeing a better understanding of what it means to be a
transcendental number versus a algebraic number.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
 whole entire Universe is just one big atom
 where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: where is the factorial value 1/2 of the exponent value in 10^500 #4.08 Correcting Math
Next: WORK FROM YOUR HOME AWESOME EARNINGS NO INVESTMENT