Mathematics

[SubtleEnergies]

I was reading in the Wu Tang manual RZA's explanation of 9=Born. It got me thinking about something I was thinking about a while ago.

Pure mathematics deals with the actual qualities of numbers. But are these qualities the same depending on the base used.

For example 9*9 = 81 then 8+1 = 9. This is why it is born. But if we used base 2 (binary) or 3....would this work? No.

So do all the numbers loose their qualities? Like prime numbers. Would they still be primes in base 2?


I can't get my head around this. I can count in binary but that's it. Can anyone explain this and how to add and multiply etc?

ALSO why can't I even add two simple numbers mentally in binary? What's the deal? Is my mind so conditioned to base 10 I can't think in any other?

[Prolifical ENG]

to add in binary, 1 + 1 = 10 .....you can add this the same way as you learned in elementary school.

[TeknicelStylez]

binary is crazy shit, I learned alot about it in programming, than forgot it all....

[SubtleEnergies]

"to add in binary, 1 + 1 = 10 .....you can add this the same way as you learned in elementary school."

^^ I know but my head wont do it...I have to convert to base ten and back...

Also do the numbers lose their qualities is my mine point?

[Prolifical ENG]

The calculator on your computer you can caluculate some things in binary, hexadecimal, or whatever. I tries some properties, and some of them held....some others I tried, and the numbers on the pad were phased out when you convert to binary. But that doesnt necessarily mean that those properties wont hold....its hard to imagine that physically.

[LHX]

hmm

interesting


numerology is heavily based around creativity
which is why it falls apart when you switch to binary numbers



one of the best ways to learn about how numerology works is to look into something called
'the law of fives'

it is a good beginners course to how numerology really works


do a yahoo search
you should find something


PEACE

[SubtleEnergies]

"numerology is heavily based around creativity
which is why it falls apart when you switch to binary numbers"


This is what I mean. And like Eng said I can't imagine the shit physically. Numbers and quantitiies define so much of my thinking and they don't even seem to hold. Like the 9=born thing is out the window...numerology too.

Anyone know about primes?


Here's another thing that makes me feel uncofortable:

1/3 = 0.333333333.......

If we take 1/3 as x then 10x = 3.33333333...
therefore 9x = 3
so this shows that 1/3 does equal 0.3333333.... right but then

3*1/3 = 1
3*0.3333333.... = 0.99999....

I don't like it...

[Prolifical ENG]

^^^^^

hahaha but 0.99999... = 1

and then the proofs go.........

http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm

and then we go on this popular loop again.

[SubtleEnergies]

But 0.99999 does NOT equal one. Maths should be EXACT.

If you mutliply that by a big enough number it will eventually make a significant difference.

[SubtleEnergies]

Another thing that spins me out is that shit about self referencing.....I will post it up when I can be bothered.

[Os3y3ris]

Here's another thing that makes me feel uncofortable:

1/3 = 0.333333333.......

Decimals are not exact numbers. When the exact number is needed a decimal is NEVER used. Past Algebra 2, that shit just wont fly. Also note that in higher level math that they stop using the "=" sign for many decimals.

[SubtleEnergies]

Yeah I know. That's what freaks me out. The fact that there is an "amount" at the point but that the measurement of that amount requires an infinite amount of decimals? Know what I mean?

I will try and explain the self referencing thing...

[SubtleEnergies]

OK basically Bertrand Russell discovered a contradiction that would cause immense damage "to the dream of a mathematical system free from doubt, inconsistency and paradox."

They use this paradox of a librarian (which I don't think is the clearest way to explain it) to explain it.

"One day while wandering between the shelves, the librarian discovers a collection of catalogues. There are seperate catalogues for novels, reference, poetry, and so on. The librarian notices that some catalogues list themselves, while others do not.

In order to simplify the system the librarian makes two more catalogues, one of which lists all the catalogues which do list themselves, and more interestingly, one which lists all the catalogues which do not list themselves. Upon completing the task the librarian has a problem: should the catalogue which lists all the catalogues which do not list themselves, be listed in itself? If it is listed then by definition it should not be listed. However, if it is not listed, then by definition it should be listed. The librarian is in a no win situation."

This is similar to the sets or classes of numbers used to define numbers and so causes problems in the supposedly logical structure of mathematics.

Basically, he is saying its hard to use numbers to actually class anything. For a similar reason to my point about decimals. Drawing the line in marginal cases, I guess the line gets infinitely thin. So basically if there is not TWO of "something" there can't really be a two.

This was a big deal in mathematics. It meant that the number system may at some point (as I have shown small examples of) be inconsistent. Then this guy came along called Godel. And this guy upset all the maths dudes by saying that creating a complete and consistent mathematical system was an impossible task.

He put forth two statements summarizing this:
If axiomatic set theory is consistent, there exist theorems which can neither be proved or disproved (that is totally fucked up for a mathematician).

There is no constructive procedure which will prove axiomatic theory to be consistent

Another issue also with the completeness of mathematics is the use of computers nowadays to prove theories. Alot of mathematicians (I am inclined to agree) say that using a computer hasn't necessarily solved anything. If we don't know how the computer did it ( Which in most cases involving computers we can't) it hasn't truly been solved. If a computer spits out numbers we don't understand we have no real proof that these numbers are correct.

These are just a couple of things that bug me out about maths....

[SubtleEnergies]

I wouldn't mind going deeper on some stuff...can anyone build on eliptic equations and modular forms? (taniyama - shimura stuff).

[TeknicelStylez]

I found a gem at the book store not too long ago, "The Joy of Mathematics: Discovering Math All Around You" It's a good book, look for it.

It tells you about different theories, how artists use math in their art, basically like the title says just math all around you. It takes stuff in every day life and applies math to it.