Jesus is the windshield fluid. To sit at the Father's right side..
(Hey, that metaphor actually worked)
How do you get the number pi.
- Thread starter cubsfan6506
- Start date
Jesus is the windshield fluid. To sit at the Father's right side..
(Hey, that metaphor actually worked)
Theologically speaking, the Son is made of the same substance as the Father, so your analogy fails.
Yeah, I'll be sure to do that - but only because you say so. So in closing,
^That's really all I was trying to say. From my admittedly meager math education (relative to present company), seeing this -above- was was enough for me to interject a little comment (with no 'criminal intent'), which naturally was pounced upon. And the only reason I kept replying, was because the above poster did so to me, in a reasonable & respectable manner. More than can be said for the world of pain and torment that transmits through... your posts for example. If becoming like you is true wisdom, then indeed, ignorance is bliss.
Now I'm certainly done, except to say that the God would be the engine, the Holy Sprit would be the oil pan & oil pump, and Jesus would be oil filter. We, of course, are the contents of the regularly scheduled oil changes.
Not really. Emotions are only a weakness when striving for the ultimate goal of humanity - knowledge.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Don't lie. That's not it. If all you wanted to convey was "flawed", you would not have used such adjectives as "indecisive", "confused", and then went on to pass judgment on all mathematics and then deduce your own delusional ontology based on that. You are settling for that because you realized that's the best you can do.
But then even the "flawed" case doesn't stand that well, because there is a unique decimal representation of Pi.
It's quite amusing to see you accuse me of being rude, as the first post you made in this thread is in fact a direct attempt to insult all mathematics and mathematicians:
You contend that I wasn't "reasonable and respectable", but I don't see any reason or respect from any of your posts. Though I admit that I certainly don't have the utmost respect for you, I contend that none of my replies to your posts are unreasonable. You were bullsh*tting, and I called you out for it. Maybe ignorance is bliss, but laughing at the ignorant is quite enjoyable too.
Lotus49, as nihilistic said rather forcefully, you are mistaken. Insults galore have clouded the actual topic of conversation, so I feel like reiterating the problem here. Now, mind you, I'm not nearly as educated in math as some of the others here in this thread.
You're operating under the assumption that the symbols "0," "1," "2," "3," "4," "5," "6," "7," "8," and "9" are the end-all, be-all of mathematics. BUT NO, THEY ARE NOT---this is the point that you don't seem to be willing to recognize. Most people are so effectively programmed by their kindergarten teachers into thinking that way that they never get out of it (and therefore perform horribly in advanced mathematics), but no, that set of symbols is not what mathematics is founded on, at all.
You are right when you call that set of symbols "flawed" or "imperfect" (limited is probably the most appropriate word). But then you erroneously jump to the conclusion that mathematics itself is flawed, imperfect, confused, etc.. No, mathematics is not any of those things. Sure, math probably doesn't encompass the universe (and when pboily said that God must be a mathematician he was obviously speaking at least partly in jest, as you yourself recognized), but what it does cover (yes, even "the simple shape of a circle") it does so damn well---perfectly, you could say.
You're operating under the assumption that the symbols "0," "1," "2," "3," "4," "5," "6," "7," "8," and "9" are the end-all, be-all of mathematics. BUT NO, THEY ARE NOT---this is the point that you don't seem to be willing to recognize. Most people are so effectively programmed by their kindergarten teachers into thinking that way that they never get out of it (and therefore perform horribly in advanced mathematics), but no, that set of symbols is not what mathematics is founded on, at all.
You are right when you call that set of symbols "flawed" or "imperfect" (limited is probably the most appropriate word). But then you erroneously jump to the conclusion that mathematics itself is flawed, imperfect, confused, etc.. No, mathematics is not any of those things. Sure, math probably doesn't encompass the universe (and when pboily said that God must be a mathematician he was obviously speaking at least partly in jest, as you yourself recognized), but what it does cover (yes, even "the simple shape of a circle") it does so damn well---perfectly, you could say.
Well for my part I had no intentions to insult you, and while you were just making a comment, it's hard to pass it since it was based on false assumptions. It's like somebody would be saying between the lines that Berlin is the capital of France, you just have to correct him. Now you're welcome to suspect any part of maths, but usually the things people say are already considered, and if you don't devote so much time on these issues, you should pay attention when those who does answer you.
WillJ above explains it maybe the best way. Usual conception seems to be that the real numbers are equal to decimal representations. This has some truth in it, but isn't the whole truth, but isn't the whole truth. From school I remember that about everybody prefered decimals to fractions, and wanted to write 1/3=0,3333.... for example, thinking that the latter expression is the right one. The former looks like an unsolved exercice from the first years. But there's nothing wrong saying "1/3", it is just "the real number which multiplied by 3 equals 1". Now this example seems a little bit trivial, but it resembles the pi-thing in 3 important ways:
1. The fraction expression describes the number ("the number which multiplied...")
2. The decimal expression never ends
3. Even so, the decimal expression has some rule, which gives any wanted decimal.
Now if we say that pi is the ratio of circle's circumference and diameter, we have completly defined pi exactly the same way 1/3 is defined by saying it's the number which multiplied by 3 equals 1. Only thing requiered is that the number is unique (that follows from the triangle approximation I wrote before). And as pi's decimal expression never ends neither does 1/3's. The thing some people probably will oppose is the rule which gives the decimals. It's true that the decimals of pi never start to repeat some sequence, but the approximation of pi gives anyhow any decimal we want to, and therefore the approximation method is the rule for the decimals of pi.
The thing is that it's not any worse to define number by words than it is with numbers. Actually your conception about this thing is very common. It's about definition of number, which many people take very seriously. Greeks for example thought that numbers are lenghts of curves, and wishfully thought that every of them would be rational. For pythagoreans this became a religious dogma and they were very troubled when they found out that there is a line segment whose length isn't rational (namely the diagonal of square with side length 1). According to a legend they even tried to drown the man who leaked this information to outer world.
Maths being "the language of gods" or "God being a mathematician" is some kind of poetry I think. Actually many theologians think that God can't break the rules of logic and that would make maths something that is above god. This way thought Bill3000's conjecture of god being a physician would make sense (Personally I do not think that there is any god, nor do I think the question is important). To some people those may seem just too big words, but they're probably people who think maths is only those equations in school, which they thought doesn't represent anything. Still, if you read about the geometry of ancient Greeks or just think that somebody proved squareroot 2 irrational 2500 years ago when all the other forms of knowledge were in children's shoes, you just can't deny the greatness of maths (or if you do, you'll gonna infuriate many).
And about the knowledge, I go with Lotus49. If it makes your or others life pain, then it's better to know nothing.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
edit: hehehehe if you didn't see it you missed it
But essentially I disagreed with the above quote.
Theologically speaking, the Son is made of the same substance as the Father, so your analogy fails.
However, you could say yer god is the driving force while Jesus showed you the way.
newfangle
hates you.
I'd just like to add that Pi has a very nice decimal expansion in base pi.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
and for us math-tards, that means?
pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
1
.........................
.........................
pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
quite right
Mise
isle of lucy
nice.Regardless of how fundamentally sound, and completely 'perfect' Pi may actually be to a mathematician, the sentiment I was trying to express was merely that no invention (or instrument/tool/method) of man, is worthy of being compared or related to God. Obviously that is not going to be accepted, and I'll be called a liar, because your adamently insist upon getting into the technical side of things (a bunch of advanced formulae - making eyes roll), which is an area that I never had any intention of engaging. The intention, again, like I said 2 sentences ago, was to convey that it's dangerous to presume anything we wield is 'perfect', and comparable to the Creator of the universe (bear with me, if you are athiest, etc.)
Well, if it's your area of sublime expertise, I'll take your word for it. Indeed, I may be totally incapable of faulting mathematics whatsoever - but that doesn't mean it's actually perfect. Just because flaws are not visible to an imperfect mind (mine, as well as yours), does not mean they are not there. MY REASON for getting involved here, is to show disgust for a group of people, that were -indeed- getting way too full of themselves. I thought I'd inject a bit of humility... and while I knew it would not be 'well received', this has gone way too far. I honestly... really, don't care that much. At this point, it's only about clarification.
I rarely see your posts, when they're not similar to how you've responded to me in this thread (if not this, then simple sarcastic one-liners). Completely understandable, coming from an overall outlook on life, that you've expressed all too well in the past. All I say to you, is that while you may think you've found 'the Truth' in logical thought, mathematics (etc.), I say... you haven't. For surely the Truth would not yield such a DEstructive outlook, when it's obvious the universe is biased towards CONstruction.
You can out-calculate me with advanced mathematics, but you can't out-wit me. I'm not frustrated. And thinking as you do - you shouldn't be either. If you'd like to reply further, I'd be really interested to hear what kind of peace of mind, and wisdom you feel you've attained from your studies... for indeed I can respect the fact that the mind is more or less a muscle, and the more you exercise/train it, the better it can come to perform in all other areas. Thus, I'm not 'bad-mouthing' any of the studies here, I only see them as tools. But certainly not worthy of divinity. I don't regard them as the pentacle of all wisdom and understanding to be gained. But, they have their place - I can respect that.
You aren't that much different than the kid in 2nd grade, going around teasing everyone else because they didn't know what 9 multiplied by 8 was. Your clothes are larger... and the math is more advanced, but nothing else has really changed. And you're still missing/avoiding the real point. Humility. You are in it, but you can't face it - in fact you'll do anything to convince yourself you're master of the universe, with logic. It's the path to destruction, and death. Logic cannot save you from that, surely you can... reason. But, maybe some concepts really are 'too large to grasp', therefore keep it simple, as I mentioned earlier. Pure logic... what is more simple than that? That's a great place to go run and hide.
Get over Pi, btw. If see anything else about Pi, I'm going to know you're obsessed, and are incapable of anything else. I honestly couldn't care less how the Greeks managed to cut strings the length of a diameter, measure it's ratio to the circumference, and assign a symbol to it. There's bigger things in life...
Anyway, maybe this area really is the safehouse for the extreme left-brained. Here, you can hide, and master all the answers. Then, as I see, you become God-like in your own minds. I think that's pathetic, if you want the truth. Branch out. Let's make a deal... I'll take some math courses. I won't get anything out of it, except to further my own smart-assedness, but alas, we could find common ground. And make no mistake, that's all I was trying to do - reach out. But, I should have known that starting out by insinuating humility into a likely intellectually self-righteous crowd would be the less than ideal approach.
But, to err is human. Unless you are a mathematician, right? They "laugh" at the rest of us, and our "ignorance". If only they could see themselves... they're no different. They can't break out, away from 'this' - which we all want to advance out of. There's only one way higher, and they're on the completely wrong track. Some of them, anyway. You, for example.
Sorry, I can see how that might be confusing - when you're searching for replies. That post of mine you quoted, it was actually intended for 'nihilistic', in it's entirety. I merely quoted part of one of your posts, since you explained something better than I could - technically. I then said (to him) that it was you that responded to my post(s) with courtesy, thus drawing me back into the discussion, since he asked why I kept 'messing with you guys'. And now, it's A) all about clarification (as I said), and B) seeing how far deep into a speculative, abstract, out-witting discussion he wants to have, just for the sake of having the last word.
(
)
I personally prefer mathematics to God... I don't really see why God has the monopoly on perfection.
I think that's a matter of definition, nothing more.
If God's the only thing that can be perfect then why do we have the word?
Similar threads
