How do Platonists deal with irrational numbers? If math is the harmonious language of the universe like they claim shouldn't things like pi be expressible by a whole number? Seems pretty discordant. Almost like humans made it up and there's nothing intrinsically enumerable about anything in the universe. If the universe has a "coding" it certainly isn't digital.

>If math is the harmonious language of the universe

then whatever the frick a human thinks it should be like shouldn't really supercede what math is actually like, i think, im not a platonist, but i'd figure it'd go a bit along those lines, yes i know in ancient times they killed a guy for discovering irrationals or something like that, but id say that was them imposing their standards on what math should be instead f them letting math be math(or in other words, letting it be what it itself already is), ya know?

>pi be expressible by a whole number?

>π

They did.

Your measurement in base-10 forces it into an infinite decimal.

>Your measurement in base-10 forces it into an infinite decimal.

Pi is irrational in an base

how bout base-pi

Yes, still irrational. The inherent property of the number doesn't change when the base is changed.

>Yes, still irrational

how so?

measurement is inherently irrational for they just picked shit arbitrary.

the foundation was control by comparin two things and deciding one of those should be the Base

picking a pi wouldn't make it less rational than picking an apple tgen expressing them in terms of 1

>how so?

Because properties of integers don't change across bases. An integer is still an integer. Irrational is still an irrational.

Keeping counts using irrational bases does not suddenly make the irrational base an integer just because you are counting multiples of it

Correct, it converts what would be rational into irrational.

Klown World Math.

1+1=3 it a Unidimensional Triangle on a single vector, so can also mean 1+1=1. Dimensional Analysis out the fricking ass to make it work, but it do be like that that (in my reality, and why 2+2=5 and shit pops up in your's, except I have Math work to back it up and ir doesnt come down to "approximation" bullahit.)

Oh my fricking god you are annoying. Please listen to the voices in your head and blow your brains out, schizo.

Deal with the fact youre not a Mathematician, youre a Mathematics Technician.

Breakfast, the strain is Banana-something, match chocolate pastry, is the tropics.

I don't have any education in mathematics beyond high school pre-calculus. I just looked at this thread and saw you saying shizo shit that belongs on /x/.

Its a bot, it always spams nonsense.

>I don't have any education in mathematics beyond high school pre-calculus

Cool, this is Number Theory in league with Euler.

Oh, and Cognition (M.D.)....because Im not a lazy "highschool moron", I was expelled out of middle school because school made you stupid.

>I was expelled out of middle school

So absolutely nothing you say has any kind of value whatsoever. You are a moron who couldn't even finish middle school.

You should be euthanized.

LMFAO THE GOVERENT INSTITUTION SUPPORTER HAS AN "OPINION"?!?

HAHAHAHHAHAA

You were fabricated in a deep state back room, dumbass....Im gunna smoke a joint and marvel at the demented creation called "Hue-Man".

You are schizophrenic. have a nice day.

Youre so moronic I can even see you as the same species as me, literally...

My soul doesnt recognize you as a non-animal-kin.

Souls don't exist, schizo.

Exactlt, youre a vessal, waiting for respawn whwre your parents werent moronic shitbags like you, but then thats where shitbags come from.

;^)

Actually I take this back. It's all an epistimological question of "what is an integer"... If we define an integer as "any number that can be written without fractional components" them yes, base pi makes pi an integer. If we define an integer of "multiples of whole singles", eg counting fingers, then 1 in base pi is still irrational.

I guess the former definition is more accepted, so I concede that in base pi, pi is an integer

>base pi

So if pi can actually be used as the base of a numeral system, count from 1 to 10 in pi steps or list the pi number of unique symbols used to represent all the values in the system.

Not a thing since a base-x means you can count from 1 to 10 in exactly x steps and there is no way to take exactly pi steps since pi is irrational.

>Not a thing

It very much is.

1 becomes reverse engineered from it and the 1 in base-10 becomes an infinite DECimal.

Nope, you can't count from 1 to 10 in pi steps and you never will since pi is not a rational number of steps and is not conducive to being a numerical base for a number system.

Also you obviously can't count backwards from 10 to 1 in pi steps either as you seem to be implying.

I LITERALLY POSTED EXACTLY HOW ONE DOES THAT.

WAKE THE FRICK UP, moron, YOURE NOT A DOCTOR.

No, just do it if its so easy, no need to "post exactly how" without actually doing it when counting should be the simplest task your numbers system is capable of accomplishing since it is how base systems are defined.

If you have "explained" it, follow your directions and count from 1 to 10 or count down from 10 to 10 in exactly pi steps.

* count from 1 to 10 or count down from 10 to 1 in exactly pi steps

Or in otherwords;

I calculated Pi to define the Number 1 and have a sense of its origins in Organic Mathematics.

Bases have to be whole numbers. You can have fractional dimensions though.

>Bases have to be whole numbers

Wrong. Your defintions are arbitrary and human made.

>You can have fractional dimensions though.

What do you know of poly-dimensional base systems?..........

They might be human made, but they are not arbitrary since bases are defined as the radix of a number system which are the number of unique symbols used to count which have to be whole since a unique symbol is by definition a whole unit.

I know you are talking out of your ass and you can't actually count from 1 to 10 in pi steps despite claiming you have explained exactly how even though that explanation doesn't actually lead to any coherent count using pi steps from 1 to 10.

I just had a couple cups of exotic bean'd coffee and need to buy butter and weed.

Good day, sir.

Yes everyone can tell you are always just moronic and high since you can never back up the nonsense you claim and just move onto other nonsense when you forget to get high.

>Your defintions are arbitrary and human made.

Yes. As are bases. And how they've been arbitrarily defined and constructed disallows anything but whole numbers. And there is no way to graft on an extension that would be consistent with the current definition and construction.

>And how they've been arbitrarily defined and constructed disallows anything but whole numbers.

Then where did the first 1 in Fibonacci come from?

Youre compressing hyper-dimensional measures into a Uni-Dimensional measure (NUMERALS).

STOP LARPing AT ME.

>incommensurablyBTFO.jpg

I WOULD DRILL THIS homosexual LIKE A DRILL INSTRUCTOR ABOUT NUMBER THEORY.

YOUR PROFESSORS FAILED YOU, BOY.

>NUMBER

There's that word again.

no u

1/sqrt(2) is also an irrational number.

>1/sqrt(2) is also an irrational number.

Then MAKE it rational.

Hint: -1.

no u can't, sqrt(2) doesn't appear in that formula and inverting the values to make the diagonal the unit didn't help either.

>didn't help

Dunce, I already solved it....this wasnt to "help you" solve it, it was an explaination of this thread.....youre filtered, Im out....

No you didn't, you just implied you did without providing an actual proof only moronic "hints" that only tell use you have no clue what you are talking about.

>without providing an actual proof

I did...YOU IGNORED IT BECAUSE YOURE FILTERED AND ARROGANT.

HUBRIS, DELUSION, LARP....

No, I didn't ignore anything, you didn't provide a proof, you only provided a hint and if you did provide a proof, you could just restate it or link to it instead of coping and seething like a dipshit

>Then where did the first 1 in Fibonacci come from?

The Fibonacci sequence extends infinitely in both directions. There isn't a 1st 1.

Sub-integer?

In which base system is reality, good sir? Do you look for breaks in reality...or do you just "say the words some man or men said first"?

There are two ones as a way of blatantly telling you it is self evident. It's also another reason the greeks did not refer to 1 as a number.

>It's also another reason the greeks did not refer to 1 as a number.

I would lecture them it is the ONLY number.

That we define everything FROM the 1, into Phi/Pi/i/whatever, but as I posted above...it is possible to view this from the opposite direction, BASE-PI.

Your "Arith-Metic" nonsense is irrelevent, there is a reason Wildberger and I worked on it, it breaks down if you run Infinity through it (and we both said this has nothing to do with Applied, this was a Pure Maths definitional alteration.)

Base-pi still isn't valid since you still can't count from 1 to 10 in pi steps no matter how much weed butter you shove into your moronic face.

>Your "Arith-Metic"

You failed TWICE in two posts....

YOU ARE NOT A PROFESSOR OF ARITHMATIC OR NUMBER THEORY.

No I am not a professor, but I know enough to be able to tell that you are moronic, you have failed half a dozen times in a row since you have never and will never be able to count from 1 to 10 in pi steps since base-pi isn't a valid numerical base.

>That we define everything FROM the 1

Which is why it isn't a number. It's the principle of number.

>into Phi/Pi/

Those aren't number because they're incommensurate. You cannot express them using math.

>You cannot express them using math.

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiFormulas.html

There are literally dozens of mathematical formulas and infinite series you can use to express pi.

>"mathematical formulas"

>pipipipi

>express

I said "number" you fricking schizo.

No, you said express them using math.

Oh my bad, apparently math has nothing to do with numbers anymore

Numbers aren't necessary for math and the way you defined numbers just didn't result in the outcome you expected since you implied numbers are things that can be expressed using math and pi is able to be express with math despite not cleanly fitting into a single digit other than π.

>Numbers aren't necessary for math

>and the way you defined numbers

I can't define "incommensurable magnitude" no matter what, that's the point. Even if I used math or any of it's fancy coping mechanism/ "numbers" it still doesn't make it definable, let alone "number". Babbling "maths" over it doesn't help either (because it's not definable in the first place). It gives me another fancy word to call something I don't even know exists.

And yes they are. Math is the language of numbers, I understand it's been bastardized by foreign stooges over the years but so has every other language. It doesn't change the original meaning of it no matter how many times you parrot the learned psychosis taught to you by mulatto morons.

He killed him for calling them "number" in the first place and being an insufferable c**t who parroted the misconstrued "discovery" he had made to the public like a charlatan. As a result we now have people like

arguing "math" over shit they don't even know. Hope they tied a millstone to his fricking head when they threw him over.

>He killed him for calling them "number" in the first place and being an insufferable c**t who parroted the misconstrued "discovery" he had made to the public like a charlatan

Do not defend Pythagoras. He was an anti-inellectual mystic homosexual. Deserves 0 respect from anyone.

Shut the frick up, student.

>"incommensurable magnitude"

Literally my thesis in Vortex Mathematics/Number Theory, Geometric Mathematical Theoretical Physics.

>Even if I used math

Get rekt you midwit, your "Master's degree" or whatever is WORTHLESS around me...

I smoked three joints and relaxed in my condo in Asia where I "who parroted the misconstrued "discovery" he had made to the public".

>Literally my thesis in Vortex Mathematics/Number Theory, Geometric Mathematical Theoretical Physics.

>my

LOL okay Descartes

>Even if I used math

>Get rekt

I'll say. Math can't explain the universe.

If Pythagoras/Parmenides didn't travel to egypt to bring back all those discoveries you wouldn't even be here right now. This board might not even exist.

>Math can't explain the universe.

You confuse your ignorance with faith in your ego...

...because you dont KNOW Mathematics.

Counting and theorizing about counting doesn't explain how what's being counted works.

>doesn't explain how what's being counted works.

Yes, that would be under Mathematical Physics, Number Theory is a tool making sub-field for novel applications in Phyiscs/Biology/Cognition.

"Organic Mathematics", or how Nature sees Mathematics.

>Yes, that would be under Mathematical Physics

But wait, is the universe "physical"?

>how Nature sees Mathematics.

Unfortunately it uses "itself/self-similarity" and not "math". Which would explain why you see nothing but incommensurable magntudes in nature. She's a fricking b***h isn't she?

>never completes.

>So it's never a number

The word itself literally means "you cannot compare/measure". Define lack with whatever fullness you want, it's just a pointless discussion to have (especially in terms of math).

>"itself/self-similarity" and not "math"

1:2=

1÷2=

You've confused "shut up and calculate" woth Mathematics...

>The word itself literally means "you cannot compare/measure".

And I corrected you with the authority of a Cognitive Scientist, Psychologost, Evolutionary Biologist, Theoretical Physicist and Mathematician.

Theyre connected, you dont have the PhD to say otherwise, THIS ISNT YOUR FIELD!

(You say Math, wrong, its the study of Emergent Cognition and Physics....END OF STORY.)

>END OF STORY

...except for Pure Math, but then its not about rules but what rules could...

....if a rule would could and should.

>1:2=

Now what happens when you start with 1.618..oh wait you can't even fricking start proper. You literally can't even begin properly without contradicting math.

>You've confused "shut up and calculate" woth Mathematics...

There is literally no difference ever since they've given up the original definition and no longer look for properties of numbers. They just calculate for the sake of doing it.

>And I corrected you with the authority

>authority

>over "no common standard"

You have no fricking idea what it means, book mulcher.

>Correct, each is a vector of perceptible reality that follows patterns

It follows itself, which is why it's self similar. One does not "follow" a pattern they themselves fricking create in the first place.

>Now what happens when you start with 1.618..oh wait you can't even fricking start proper.

Φ

You do not understand this, you need to be try and learn...not LARP youre some peer reviewer of my work as your "contrarian counter-point when you have no frame of reference for any of this" means Im interacting wirh a soulless construct you fabricated and LARP as (You) to the world.

...get a Job.

>you see nothing but incommensurable magntudes in nature

Correct, each is a vector of perceptible reality that follows patterns. It is the Alphabet to its full Language, using the Math/Physics overlap as foundation for communication.

I built a polydirectional language made up of Numerals, and decode reality with it, others do too (even if they don fully know what it is);

War lines are drawn on these hyper-dimensional lines, Wars of Heaven, and is why I am welcomed in places you are not.

>So it's never a number

Hence incommensurable.

Wrong. Read the thread.

Incommensurable only applies when you try to compare it to 1...not to itself.

(You people keep converting it into base-10 without even noticing that and presenting the wrong answer, stop taking double steps like youre ahead and looking bacl, it just makes you all wrong )

Wrong. Stop writing nonsense. Nobody ever compared something to itself, you don't compare something to itself, something is itself.

>Counting

It more so relays, in a similar way of telomeres, a kind of molecular clock.

Time perception and delayed signal squencing is of particular interest to me, as it has connections to emergent properties to physics, which should interest everyone.

How to send signals into the future when you have to "start marchin" at the right time without being able to verify if it actually is the right time.

Related to semding messages across time, lanuage or translations cannot be relied on, so other forms of meta-communication are need to are not effected by time (Mathematics).

We started there, then decoded the known world, then the soul...no one else in the world is thinking about this problem.

>I can't define "incommensurable magnitude" no matter what

I can easily. An incommensurable magnitude is the same as a boundless count that never completes.

>How do Platonists deal with irrational numbers?

Geometry

>Expressions are numbers

Lol. Lmao.

>Your measurement in base-10

What happens when it doesn't work in base-anything?

>Expressions

Definitions*.

>What happens when it doesn't work in base-anything?

Dont worry, it works perfect in base-π.

>Definitions

>pi

>defined

>Dont worry, it works perfect in base-π.

>"itself" is the base

Which isn't a number.

>>"itself" is the base

10 is 1 ten, itself of 1 in 10 sections for a magnitudutinal bifurcation.

Youre clearly not a professor of Mathematics, why are you LARPing in Number Theory?

>10 is 1 ten,

You are now using numbers. Well technically "1" isn't a number because it's "the principle of numbers". When you say "pi" or use an expression as a placeholder for number, that's not proof it is one. You are calling "undefined" a number and then attempting to use it as a base, which is something you do with numbers. It's a complicated coping mechanism that ultimately reveals you're basically just a buffoon. You haven't discovered or alluded to anything of use, let alone something original.

>Youre clearly not a professor of Mathematics, why are you LARPing in Number Theory?

See this kind of shit is why they really drowned Hippasus.

>Geometry

This.

Indo-Arabic numerals were a mistake.

Al-gebra was also a mistake.

Western Civilization has been letting Muslims and Indians destroy everything for a long time now.

>Indo-Arabic numerals were a mistake.

Not for Metrology.

>Al-gebra was also a mistake.

Not for when Metrology hasnt been non-arbitrarily attributed (discovered).

>This.

Not for when notation has approached beyond human capacity for application.

[slam, Slam]

>notation has approached beyond human capacity

Meaning a second trillion digits of Pi will have zero application to reality outside of passing curiosity.

pi is not an infinite decimal in base 10. it can't be expressed in base 10. same as 1/3 can't be expressed in base 10. that's why limits are needed and notation which looks like decimal expansions, but which actually are not.

>pi is not an infinite decimal in base 10.

Then how many decimals are in pi when expressed in base-10?

>it can't be expressed in base 10.

Then what is 3.1415...?

>1/3 can't be expressed in base 10

Then what is .333...?

Platonists don't say anything about maths being the harmonious language of the universe

It just says that it exists, in parrelel to the physical world, and that it has an inhrent truth to it

In fact, the fact that we cannot draw a perfect circle, or construct some irrational numbers with ruler & compass, is proof that this world of Ideas is fuller, truther, and contains more than the Physical one, and that any attempt at comparison is just imperfect analogy, much like the shadows of the cavern

Everything else is derived or personal interpretation. The main thesis alone is very powerful, and it does motivate a search for some echoes of this perfect world in the real one

Platonism is a vague umbrella term. (In the context of math) it would entail believing that math exists somewhere very real but outside of our world. See:

More generally, Platonism entails an incorporeal world of forms that are perfect. One could look to the cave analogy and see our world as warped imperfect reflections of the real forms. I suppose if you want to apply this interpretation of platoinsm, perhaps our world is just imperfect, somehow in the Math World you could represent all irrational numbers the best way possible, but here, the Demiurge fricked up and so we can't. I don't know.

>the Demiurge

drop that pinko-gnostic shit

There are a number of ways to prove the demiurge exists. I will tell you them, but first you must draw a circle.

The Demiurge isn't an exclusively gnostic idea and as far as I remember first features in The Timeaus so is well within the realm of Platonism. With that in mind, I don't remember Plato's Demiurge being evil, just imperfect.

>and contains more than the Physical one

that violates the laws of thermodynamics

you cannot have more info than what a universe allows

futhermore

>the fact that we cannot have a UNICORN is proof that this world of Ideas is [...]

the so called word of ideas you talk about requires a language, which also allows these constructions. because of entropy, we could argue that the perfect circle and the unicorn are possible and could happen. ever hear of Boltzmann Brains? like imagine one brain popping out of nowhere with the memory that the Platonist Theory was proved. kek

Those laws only apply to closed systems.

the realm of Ideas isn't bound by your petty laws of thermodynamics

>How do Platonists deal with irrational numbers

irrationals dont exist and arent possible to use in any way.

That dumbshit chart implies the existence of real numbers which are neither rational nor irrational.

>shouldn't things like pi be expressible by a whole number?

Why?

That's doesn't make any sense?

It have nothing to do with hippy dippy harmony you stupid fricking moron

True any attempt to describe the universe is futile. The universe is just what it is.

Some irrational numbers are alright. Add the algebraic and computable numbers to the Venn diagram. The real bullshit border begins at the uncomputable numbers.

Some irrational numbers like pi and e can be computed from the rational terms of an infinite series. But most transcendental numbers are incomputable so idk lol

>shouldn't things like pi be expressible by a whole number

No because it's infinitely reducible to a finer boundary

>No because it's infinitely reducible to a finer boundary

This, because you CAN construct it, even internally (though thats more indepth).

This turtle/hare thing, a logic puzzle thats only solved by reversing the whole thing and find 1, instead of going from 1 to Pi...because they have a trillion digits and a trillion more.

"Normalization" in Physics, just say "round it iut to 1" instead of "Infinity".

Similar idea, I did it a lot and use it to find "side length 1" of things, or center, depending on situation.

Or, you already have the answer, youre looking for the problem that fits it.

"Mathematical Physics" is where these concepts overlap into reality.

The same way IQfy mods deal with irrational posters.

Pythagoras killed the man who discovered irrational numbers.

Math is fake and gay

>math is the harmonious language of the universe like they claim

Holy strawman

Math is a human construct. It doesn't exist.

Platonic ideals are dumb as an epistomology, but it's internally consistent and your 'paradox' doesn't apply. A Platonist would say that an infinite sequence of numbers is still a perfect form. The Forms are not bound by material constraints, like needing to be written out.

Become Numeral.

Be Defined.

[infinite DECimal pthhggg!]

The amount of apophenia, delusions of grandeur, and possibly outright schizophrenic sockpuppeting, in this thread... is genuinely impressive.

Just trying to read this kind of material is surreal. It's as if schizophrenia was somehow contagious.

Just look at the name on the posts and realize 90% of what you are complaining about came from the same bot that shits all over other threads and tends to post multiple consecutive nonsensical posts to derail and bump limit threads that might actually lead to interesting discussions.

Let me guess...armchair Psychologist, you got PhDs out the ass, huh?

Without 1 you are not worthy of debate, punk...get an education before LARPing youre the "Peer Reviewer".

How did you complete a PhD in 'Vortex Mathematics/Number Theory, Geometric Mathematical Theoretical Physics', without graduating from middle school?

I only could BECAUSE I didnt go to school.

Otherwise I would say the same shit you people do; 1+1=2, the thing babies are shown....

Dimensional Amalysis, learn it, Base-Systems when Applied become more like Dimensions than Applied Mathematics.

Its rooted Physics, thats why you cant understand it, *not Pure Mathematics*.

Shit be real on the other side, everything is right and wrong at the same time until you figure it out.

Your final assinent in Number Theory is to answer the question (1+1= ) with as many answers as you can, showing work.

https://x.com/ThebestFigen/status/1778068791852728766?s=09

Why do people get their panties in a knot over irrational numbers? It just means you can't write that number as a ratio of integers.

Do people get upset about 1/2 because it can't be written as a difference of naturals?

Why should all numbers be ratios of integers if it's ok for some numbers to not be differences of naturals?

>Do people get upset about 1/2 because it can't be written as a difference of naturals?

i think that you mean -1/2, but those that do don't even think that negatives are numbers, it's best to ignore them and try your best to live a life that's good, despite you(and i) knowing that filth of that caliber is capable of voting