# Pi - No Patterns, because Pi is the pattern

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Quantum Quack, Jul 23, 2013.

1. ### someguy1Registered Senior Member

Messages:
726
It's not nearly that bad. Manifolds are more advanced than general topology. Here's the basic overview ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_topology

But the concept of boundary is very simple. You have a set of points in the plane, let's say the closed unit disk defined by x^2 + y^2 <= 1.

Now for each point in the disk, imagine drawing a little circle around it. If a point has the property that x^2 + y^2 < 1, in other words the point is strictly inside the region bounded by the unit circle, you could find a tiny little circle around that point such that the entire circle is inside the region. We call that part the interior of the closed unit disk.

Now if a point happens to be exactly on the circle; that is, it satisfies x^2 + y^2 = 1, then any circle you draw around the point must necessarily contain points both inside the region and points outside it.

Any point of the region that has this property is called a boundary point.

You can play the same game with the outside region x^2 + y^2 > 1. Points exactly on the unit circle are boundary points; and points "outside" the circle are technically interior points of the outer region.

That's really everything there is to know about this ... the definition of the boundary of a set of points in the plane.

If you have a set of points in the plane S, a point b in the plane is called a boundary point of S if any circle around b must contain both points of S and points of the complement of S.

The set of all boundary points of S is called the boundary of S.

Note that the definition of boundary point does not require the boundary point to be a point of S. A boundary point may be an element of S; or it may be an element of the complement of S. Either way, as long as any circle around the point must contain points of S and points of the complement of S; then we call that point a boundary point of S.

It's a very clever definition, because it solves the circle problem!

Everything you need to know is in what I wrote, so feel free to ask questions. Definitely no need to deal with manifolds or anything else.

3. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
Pi > 3D > + time = ?

I think "the light" has blinded your cosmic abilities. Those boys had some "good vibrations" but the only way they approach cosmic anything, was if they were sent on that viking spacecraft, along with Chuck Berry and maybe Pi, into extraterrestrial space.

Again, I don't know how time is mathematically applied in physics. I'm open to ideas of associations that may exist that are more than just a cosmic coincidence.

Chaos and randomness is only humans inability to find/discern and underlying orderly pattern. I'm not mathematician but I was able to discover orderly patterns of prime numbers via doodling with pencil and paper.

Some years later I ventured into Pi and what I posted is what I discerned/gleened.

Circles are geodesic great planes of spheres/sphericals. Pi is inherently related to the conceptually perfect circle.

We approach perfectly conceptual circles spheres with higher and higher frequency polygons.

Pi's length = can be observed as the minimal triangle of three( rational ) equal length vectors, with one of the vectors extending beyond--- the irrational .314 ---to begin spin/motion of the whole. Conceptually speaking, a circle appears to represent spin, so the irrational part of Pi may represent the initiation of spin motion.

r6

5. ### eramSciengineerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,877
By "higher and higher frequency polygons" I guess you mean using an infinite number of segments to approximate a curve. Other than that I can't make out what you're saying.

7. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
Frequently reoccurring Angles and Lines-of-Relationship

Eram, a 2D triangle is the minimal 2D circle i.e. a triangle has the minimal componets neccessary to enclose a 2D space/area.

Your above is correct but not only frequency of lines of relationship--- your "segments" ---but also frequency of angles.

The perfect circle implies/infers infinite angles and infinite set of lines-of-relationship.

As for your not be able to understand anything else in my post, I reccommed you get a dictionary and start with the first word, 2nd etc.....I can help you with any words or word combinations you do not understand. An English dictionary would be best as all of my words are English.

Higher frequency within physics--- ex EMRadiation ---- means more waves peaks and valleys aka amplitude ---within the same time and distance period.

With 2D geometry we can have frequency subdivison of polygon in three differrent ways.

Here above were only disscussing frequency of your line "segments" and angle and notsubdivision of the area of 2D enclosure of space/area.

r6

8. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926
In a sense Pi is NOT just a mathematical number, it is not just an abstraction created by mathematics. It is a reality of a 3 dim. sphere in 4 dim. space that mathematics attempts to define logically using numbers. So in this sense I believe, Poster rr6 is correct in suggesting that Pi is a cosmological truth and not just a sequence of digits that we humans like to play around with. [in abstraction]

@rrj, I would suggest that it takes more than an infinite number of angles and lines to make a perfect circle.

For a perfect circle to exist Pi would have to eventually resolve with a zero [finite] and not the infinitesimal that it currently does. [I would contend]
As shown earlier it does indeed resolve to zero BUT ONLY if the circumference is a boundary between two areas. If not it would only resolve to an infinitesimal error factor.

9. ### eramSciengineerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,877
Who's the man in your avatar? Just curious.

A cosmological, or physical truth? Nope.

Plato addressed this in his Theory of Forms. Pi is a ratio based on our definition of a perfect circle, and is also calculated as such, all based on our existing mathematical definitions.

Why do you say that?

10. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926

The bit you failed to quote might help as well.

11. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926
me of course, who else?

12. ### eramSciengineerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,877
I thought it might be some actor from a popular sitcom or something like that.

You said "as shown earlier". Which post? I don't wanna trawl through 5 pages.

What do you mean by pi being a cosmological truth?

13. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926
well.... what does Pi represent other than a mathematical way of understanding a sphere?
Sphere-icality is the most common form in the universe, so therefore....

On page 3, I think, we were discussing the difference between

x= y+z+(<1/infinity)
and
x= y+z+0
and the conversation led to "Boundary topology"

14. ### eramSciengineerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,877
Dear me, you truly are a quack. It'll take years to correct your misunderstandings, and it can't be done in a forum.

15. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
Pi = Cosmological Truth? I dunno.

Hi QQ, I do not recall stating, that, Pi is a "cosmological truth" or infering/implying such. It may very well be that Pi is a cosmological truth, depending on how the how Pi is defined. I dunno as math does not lie. Also I'm not much of a mathmatician.
QQ, I find that statement not rationally logical for two reasons,

1) when I say "infinite number of angles" I'm inherenltl referencing a concept only becuse there cannot exist an infinite set of angles, related to any aspect of our finite physical/energy Universe,

2) your wanting to invoke and even more irrationally illogical concept by stateing "more than and infinite number of angles" i.e. we can not have and infinity of angles to begin with so for you to invoke more is non-sensical to me.

A perfect2D circle and/or a perfect 3D sphere, do not exist as any aspect of our finite physica;/energy Universe i.e such perfections exists only as concept of mind/intellience/intellect. imho.

The Epcot geodesic dome at Disney land is a 16 frequency spherical i.e. human can create a sphericity but never a true/perfect sphere.

The closet we have come are the cystal spheres used in gravity probe_b experiments to test for gravitational frame dragging. I forget but I think those spheres were withing 8 microns of being true likened to a true sphere, if I recall correctly. The highest known human created sphericity.

r6

16. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926
Do you often post opinion with out support?
mine is:
and
and
I could go on...

care to offer a contra?

17. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926
rr6,
Do you believe that at any time when someone disagrees or misunderstands you that they are being irrational or illogical?
[You have stated this in a number of threads - not just in this one]

That they can't read "Plain English"?

That it's their fault for not being able to comprehend you?

To me you have irrationally cited or accused me of an irrationality?

What say you?

Just because you can't understand me doesn't necessarily mean you are being irrational nor does it mean I am being irrational, it only means that we are having trouble communicating and that is all.
A failure to communicate, is a normal outcome for every one....Globally! And that's quite a rational outcome of what it means to be an individual.

18. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
QQ, you will need to reply to the specific statement by that suggests what you asking above.

Infinite is either;

1) non-occupied space, or,

2) a concept of mind/inteligence and when you want make statements as "more than infinity" or something like that if I did not recall it exactly, is appears as non-sense to me.

you can have more than two--- i..e two is a finite value ----but you cannot have more than infinity, which is what you suggested. Sorry QQ, if I'm misunderstanding a specific statement by you, then point that out. You havn't done that in regards to this infinity comments by you above and in previous post.

Please address specifics statements by your or me that you think I misunderstand. I think I know what you typed and have to repeat that it appears to make no sense what-so-ever to me to try a more value to and infinite value.......

If you cannot see that such a comment appears non-sensical to me adn I would think most rationally and logically thinking individuals.

It appears to me, that your avoiding actuall specifics because your in error ergo like many of the trolls in my past, you find it safer to generalize a non truth bout by stating things that may sound to me like what some trolls have done unfairly and with no valid evidence, i.e. to claim that since they disagree with me I put them in the troll catagory, NOT.

I put them in troll catagory for other reasons but they just find it easier to make some other generalize poppycock claim against me and hope that it sticks.

Here below QQ, your generalizing a lot of differrent stuff and others into a single oh r6 is just this way. Again, address the specific statements by directed at you, that is evidence that I'm being a specific way to you as it happens. PLease.

When you have the specific comments by me directed a specific comment by you, then we can address any issue that stems from the specific set of comments.

r6
[You have stated this in a number of threads - not just in this one]
That they can't read "Plain English"?
That it's their fault for not being able to comprehend you?
To me you have irrationally cited or accused me of an irrationality?
What say you?
Just because you can't understand me doesn't necessarily mean you are being irrational nor does it mean I am being irrational, it only means that we are having trouble communicating and that is all.
A failure to communicate, is a normal outcome for every one....Globally! And that's quite a rational outcome of what it means to be an individual.

19. ### eramSciengineerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,877
We do have a failure to communicate, and I believe that some of your ideas are irrational and/or you have some strong misconceptions.

20. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,853
It's certainly not rational to think that the irrationality of $\pi$ has fundamental implications in physics.

21. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926
Why do you say that? Can you offer any support for your opinion?

22. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926
I stated :
As far as Mathematics is concerned the nature of infinity is rendered pseudo finite with the use of the infinitesimal. [which I believe is merely an arbitrary construct of "mathematical convenience"]
And this is why a circle can never be perfect as to be perfect the error factor MUST be zero. [ not infinitesimal as is currently held using Pi]

Zero is smaller than the infinitesimal. and it is indeed a value of zero. Infinity as used in mathematics (I believe), does not include zero and that's the issue with this Boundary Topology [mentioned earlier]. regarding the difference between (<1/infinity) and zero

It is not surprising that you or others, may suggest this as the nature of the discussion is very much deeper than that you would normally encounter.
I wrote:
and as yet I have NOT been refuted....as zero is not included and zero is a value, and perfection of a circle, or sphere, requires an error factor of zero

Last edited: Aug 4, 2013
23. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,926
well... if you are unable to support your position then what good is it having a position?
You claimed that I was under severe misconception regarding what Mathematics is defined as , I supported my position and called you incorrect. Now you can only offer an unsupported call to authority and make unsupported claims regarding my rationality...
I am not sure why your being wrong some how makes ME irrational?
any ideas?
Perhaps attempting to discredit someone is the only way to defend the indefensible?

What is the reader supposed to think?
Who exactly is being irrational here... me or you?

Do you have a problem with Bertrand Russell's definition?
If so would you care to share with all the readers of this thread, why you have a problem rather than just claim fallacy and misconception with out support?