Serious .

brightobject

there like moonlight
is a Top Artistis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Really? Oh, I suppose that means you can tell me what the googleplexth decimal digit of pi is?

We have a limit. Just because we don't know precisely where it is, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
your example doesn't make any sense wtf lol

obviously run a super computer for a while and it would be able to give you the answer

nor does your reasoning make any sense --> 'we have a limit.' Limit on what? How do you know?

not saying what ohmachi said makes any sense either though. Even if we were not real irrational numbers could still exist within some confounded 'false' reality
 

Mowtom

I'm truly still meta, enjoy this acronym!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
your example doesn't make any sense wtf lol

obviously run a super computer for a while and it would be able to give you the answer

nor does your reasoning make any sense --> 'we have a limit.' Limit on what? How do you know?
No it will not. There is not enough space in the universe to contain the number 1 google, let alone 1 googleplex. No computer in this universe will EVER be able to answer that question.

Thus, there is a limit to the amount of irrational numbers we are able to hold. We can only create rationals - the true irrationality of numbers like pi and e are not representable in this universe, only rational approximations of them are. So his argument is completely invalid:
There would be at some point have to be a limit if we were not real.
There already is such a limit!
 

brightobject

there like moonlight
is a Top Artistis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
No it will not. There is not enough space in the universe to contain the number 1 google, let alone 1 googleplex. No computer in this universe will EVER be able to answer that question.

Thus, there is a limit to the amount of irrational numbers we are able to hold. We can only create rationals - the true irrationality of numbers like pi and e are not representable in this universe, only rational approximations of them are. So his argument is completely invalid: There already is such a limit!
you simply have a computer
formula for finding nth digit of pi from n-1th digit
leave it to run for a long time
you'll get there eventually
 

Mowtom

I'm truly still meta, enjoy this acronym!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
you simply have a computer
formula for finding nth digit of pi from n-1th digit
leave it to run for a long time
you'll get there eventually
No you won't. The universe will END before you can make any notable progress. That is how mind-bogglingly huge 1 googleplex is.
 

Mowtom

I'm truly still meta, enjoy this acronym!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
true. I guess we could try using this forrmula though (which doesnt require n-1 to compute n)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe_formula
1) I specified DECIMAL digits. That only gives bases that are a power of 2.

2) Finding the nth digit involves "multiplying by 16^n so that the hexadecimal point (the divide between fractional and integer parts of the number) is in the nth place." You cannot multiply anything by 16^(10^(10^100)) and write out the answer - that number is too large to ever fit in our universe.
 

brightobject

there like moonlight
is a Top Artistis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
1) I specified DECIMAL digits. That only gives bases that are a power of 2.

2) Finding the nth digit involves "multiplying by 16^n so that the hexadecimal point (the divide between fractional and integer parts of the number) is in the nth place." You cannot multiply anything by 16^(10^(10^100)) and write out the answer - that number is too large to ever fit in our universe.
I concede your point on binary digits, sorry I didn't really read up forgive me :[

But you already are representing 16^googleplex quite well using that expression. It still contains all the information that defines the actual value of 16^googleplex, so aren't they necessarily equivalent?
 

Mowtom

I'm truly still meta, enjoy this acronym!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
But you already are representing 16^googleplex quite well using that expression. It still contains all the information that defines the actual value of 16^googleplex, so aren't they necessarily equivalent?
Ok, sure. But I can replace that number by a number so large there is absolutely no way to express it at all and present the same argument.
 

brightobject

there like moonlight
is a Top Artistis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Ok, sure. But I can replace that number by a number so large there is absolutely no way to express it at all and present the same argument.
But I don't see why an inability to express something in exact terms means it doesn't exist. By definition we know that since the formula that defines the next digit of pi can be applied indefinitely, that in itself indicates the existence of the googleplexth digit. We know that it exists, just because it is too 'large' to express 'directly' does not mean it does not 'exist' in my opinion.


I think I understand what you are saying in that googleplex outnumbers the number of elementary particles in the universe, so it would be difficult to express googleplex in counts of 1, but what about in counts of two? ten? one hundred? one nonillion?

This seems to boil down to an information issue. Isn't what you're indicating more of a result of the limitations of our systems for expressing numbers/obtaining them and not anything to do with the actual existence of the number?

I guess it works if you are a strict empiricist but the systems of mathematics we're binding ourselves to here allow us to understand that the googleplexth digit (and beyond) of pi, definitely does EXIST, we just don't have the power to find it.
 

Mowtom

I'm truly still meta, enjoy this acronym!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Oh, don't get me wrong. It very much exists.

However, the original statement that I responded to was
your real cause of irrational numbers. No computer program can hold all of the infinity long non repeating irrational numbers. There would be at some point have to be a limit if we were not real.
This is false. This universe cannot "hold all of the infinity long non repeating irrational numbers." The existence of irrationals says nothing about this universe being some form of computer program - we have this type of limit hard coded into the universe anyway!
 
No it will not. There is not enough space in the universe to contain the number 1 google, let alone 1 googleplex. No computer in this universe will EVER be able to answer that question.

Thus, there is a limit to the amount of irrational numbers we are able to hold. We can only create rationals - the true irrationality of numbers like pi and e are not representable in this universe, only rational approximations of them are. So his argument is completely invalid: There already is such a limit!
Sir Isaac Newton was said to be one of the most brilliant scientists ever to have existed. His findings said that if we ran fast enough, we, material objects, could catch up to and even outrun light beams. He was later proved wrong by James Clerk Maxwell, as he found that light behaved like a wave rather than like particles, and theorized that light was a complicated and peculiar wave, later called an electromagnetic wave. He also stated that you could never catch up to a light wave. Eventually, they were both proven wrong and right at the same time by Albert Einstein, IQ 160, who found that light behaved as a wave, but consisted of a stream of particles called "photons".
Einstein believed we lived in a relatively clock-like universe, where everything was predictable. This man, who unified the opposing theories of Newton and Maxwell, was proven entirely wrong in this statement of a clock-like world by quantum physicists, who discovered that the electron behaves in an entirely unpredictable pattern. Einstein couldn't leave his classical sense of logic, and refused to accept the idea of randomness in the universe, but when in the quantum levels it is too wrong to use our own intuition for the guidelines of the universe.
Einstein was proven wrong about his view of the universe that used the classical intuition that has guided us far in the universe. Maybe you are using classical intuition in giving the universe, and our technology, a limit, and saying that there would be no way to calculate the google plexth digit of pi, but why does this make much sense? And more importantly, why is the computer calculating something exact rather than randomness? Is there some concreteness in the existence of irrationality presented by this?

Let's look at a few facts.
http://www.numberworld.org/misc_runs/pi-5t/details.html
5 trillion digits of pi calculated by a computer in 90 days. That's honestly a lot of digits to calculate in 2160 hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
This type of computer can calculate EXTREMELY fast, as it has more states than 0 and 1. While development is in its infancy, it can quickly become something much more extraordinary than it already is. With our current model of the quantum computer, let's make a comparison (though an unlikely scenario will be compared to it; I haven't actually calculated anything).
Let's say that an ordinary man was calculating 9999999^10. It would take him hours to complete this by hand, especially since he has to keep track of every digit of every number while doing his calculations. The quantum man, however, does this in less than a minute. The ordinary man takes a very long time learning how to talk, but the quantum man says his first words the morning after birth and speaks proper english by the end of the day. The ordinary man takes years developing a precise calculation of the law of gravitation, while the quantum man takes just under a week to perform the same task.

With this in mind, how sure are you that you cannot calculate the google plexth digit of pi? You seem to be incredibly sure of pi being incalculable.

And, by the laws of physics, the quarks, electrons, and neutrinos that exist within an atom existed since the beginning of time - even before we discovered them. The Earth went around the Sun because of Einstein's law of gravitation ever since the Earth was formed. And, like the existence of subatomic particles and the law of gravity, the google plexth digit of pi, whatever it is, exists as we speak, despite the lack of it being calculated by us.

One final point to make. Is our universe itself even close to rational? Nothing within it is remotely logical or rational by the very definitions of the word. We calculate complex numbers like pi and the square root of two, and they are irrational. The laws of quantum physics themselves state that an electron can "borrow" energy and go through a solid object without damaging itself or the object it ghastly goes through. Does the universe itself even make enough sense to allow us to say that pi and e cannot be calculated to such a precise degree as the google plexth digit past the decimal?


A small thing to finish with, but I have a 1 in 10 chance of correctly telling you what the google plexth digit of pi is, and there is nothing you can do to stop me :^)
 

Ohmachi

Sun✡Head
my point is that a a computer system cant hold an infinite amount of information. At some point it's memory will fill up. Thus based on our understanding that pi and e are infinitely long, it can be theorized that we are not in a simulation and our real. By theory I mean the scientific definition of not proven wrong.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
my point is that a a computer system cant hold an infinite amount of information. At some point it's memory will fill up. Thus based on our understanding that pi and e are infinitely long, it can be theorized that we are not in a simulation and our real. By theory I mean the scientific definition of not proven wrong.
Then why does pi work on your calculator? If a piece of technology that has not evolved in 30 years has a functional analog to pi, why do you think that an imaginary fantasy computer wouldn't?
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
Then why does pi work on your calculator? If a piece of technology that has not evolved in 30 years has a functional analog to pi, why do you think that an imaginary fantasy computer wouldn't?
ohmachi's statement is true, using our current understandings of pi and computing, if pi is truly irrational and non-terminating (or repeating), as it would mean that to contain pi would require infinite space. any estimation of pi, including the one in your calculator, is either not one or not the other. of course, the problem is we have no proof that pi is truly irrational and non-terminating, we just believe it to be right now. or, someone in the future could somehow invent some sort of computer that can hold infinite digits. but as of right now he's right, our current knowledge points toward us not being a simulation.
 
No computer can hold infinite digits.

Pi is irrational and non-terminating, and does not repeat.

I don't understand this discussion remotely. What is important about irrational numbers. 2/9 repeats infinitely, so no computer can provide a decimal approximation to infinite precision. How is that important?

How does any of this relate to being in a simulation?

What would being in a simulation even mean?
 

tehy

Banned deucer.
if Pi is really irrational and non-terminating

then how is it a thing

like, how could you use it in real calculations?
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
ohmachi's statement is true, using our current understandings of pi and computing, if pi is truly irrational and non-terminating (or repeating), as it would mean that to contain pi would require infinite space. any estimation of pi, including the one in your calculator, is either not one or not the other. of course, the problem is we have no proof that pi is truly irrational and non-terminating, we just believe it to be right now. or, someone in the future could somehow invent some sort of computer that can hold infinite digits. but as of right now he's right, our current knowledge points toward us not being a simulation.
But that version of pi works. Why would "a simulation" need more than that? Why would it need to be able to store a value that never gets used?
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
But that version of pi works. Why would "a simulation" need more than that? Why would it need to be able to store a value that never gets used?
it wouldn't. that's why i said it's only true on the as-yet unproven assumption that pi is actually infinite. for all we know, it is an estimation.

edit: this being as far as i understand. the fundamental nature of the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter is kind of hard to wrap my head around
 
No computer can hold infinite digits.
Again, back to the putting limits on physics and technology thing, though this argument is probably more accurate.
I don't understand this discussion remotely. What is important about irrational numbers. 2/9 repeats infinitely, so no computer can provide a decimal approximation to infinite precision. How is that important?
2/9 is rational lol, it's a fraction. No computer needs to hold an infinite number of 2's if there is a fraction form available.
How does any of this relate to being in a simulation?
This mostly was a tangent from the original topic, which was of course us being in a simulation. However, it's not scientifically possible to really know if we're in a simulation in the first place, so why even bother with the question? Does knowing that you're just a simulation magically make your life worse, or can you still enjoy it regardless of what the answer is?
 

tehy

Banned deucer.
so like

let's say you determine that the diameter of a square (or half-diameter, i don't recall the specifics of this shit), is 5

and you multiply pi by 5

and then you find the...circumference, was it

so is the circumference a semi-approximation?

and if it's not, how can 5 * infinitely repeating number not end in an infinitely repeating number?

and if it's a semi-approximation, how can you use that number for anything?
 
An infinitely repeating number multiplied by itself can give an actual number. For instance, the square root of two times the square root of two will give you two.
The difference between the irrational*irrational and the rational*irrational is that rational*irrational rarely comes out as OK even in approximations, while rational*rational=rational. It is this that makes it more likely that pi is rational, as it multiplied by a rational number gives a rational number. We deem it irrational and never ending because none of it really seems to be repeating as of right now.

Approximations help very much. Let's use a small example to make this a bit easier to understand.
Einstein's theory of relativity gives us answers that are pretty much the same as Newton's universal law of gravitation does because of the speeds at which we are moving. Many of our numbers put into both equations are very, very unprecise. However, if we were to say that the objects which we were measuring were not 16 kg and 14 kg, but instead are 15.999982 kg and 14.00000034 kg, we see a slight difference in the calculations. If the distance between the two objects was not 30 feet but instead 29.9987 feet, there would be a slight difference in the calculations. The more precise we are, the more we can assert rationality and get rid of flaws in our beliefs.
 
2/9 is rational lol, it's a fraction. No computer needs to hold an infinite number of 2's if there is a fraction form available.
Why does it matter if there is a fraction form available. The computer doesn't use this.
It's going to use the same floating point binary arithmetic for 2/9 as it does for π.

What is your definition of rationality? You seem to be using it in a variety of contexts, trying to imply that it applies equally to each of them.
 

tehy

Banned deucer.
An infinitely repeating number multiplied by itself can give an actual number. For instance, the square root of two times the square root of two will give you two.
The difference between the irrational*irrational and the rational*irrational is that rational*irrational rarely comes out as OK even in approximations, while rational*rational=rational. It is this that makes it more likely that pi is rational, as it multiplied by a rational number gives a rational number. We deem it irrational and never ending because none of it really seems to be repeating as of right now.

Approximations help very much. Let's use a small example to make this a bit easier to understand.
Einstein's theory of relativity gives us answers that are pretty much the same as Newton's universal law of gravitation does because of the speeds at which we are moving. Many of our numbers put into both equations are very, very unprecise. However, if we were to say that the objects which we were measuring were not 16 kg and 14 kg, but instead are 15.999982 kg and 14.00000034 kg, we see a slight difference in the calculations. If the distance between the two objects was not 30 feet but instead 29.9987 feet, there would be a slight difference in the calculations. The more precise we are, the more we can assert rationality and get rid of flaws in our beliefs.
but isn't the square root of 2 times square root of 2 equals 2 more of a trick? like, again, if you actually multiplied the two numbers in decimal form, you run into the same problem. but since they're both imaginary numbers we all close our eyes and agree to pretend otherwise because apparently this is helpful in higher math i heard.

and yeah, approximations help, but ideally those things would be perfect, right? And by the way, the equation of diameter times pi equals circumference DOES work exactly, doesn't it?? although, i guess at very small measurements we can't tell even with the most powerful instruments, but...if it does work exactly that points to rationality. Then again this test is also worthless since irrationality would create infinitely tiny imperfections so, there's that.
 

Kink

it's a thug life ¨̮
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
There's actually an interesting episode of TOS Star Trek where Spock tries to stall the computer by having it calculate Pi to the last digit, in an attempt to buy some time to get the controls back. Cheesy clip, but a logically interesting one.
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
As a pretty big history buff, I can say that the Sanskrit writings of India are very interesting. They attribute four different ages of man over a 12,960 year span, half of one great cycle, that repeat infinitely. These ages are the Kali Yuga, Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga which match up with the Greek idea of the bronze, iron, silver, and gold ages. According to these ideas mankind is gradually cycling between dark and enlightened periods. During the Kali Yuga the dark ages happened, not so long ago, the majority of our ancient knowledge was destroyed. The Great Library of Alexandria was set on fire ushering in the dark ages. There isn't too many accounts of this period due to lack of people who were able to write. With archaeology, a lot of the time the older a dig site is the more advanced the things are that they dig up. A little bit of reading about the oldest structures that archeology has found reveals that these people who came long before us had great interest in mathematics (especially geometry) and astronomy.

So, basically what I'm saying is that we are limited in what we understand due to the misunderstood mechanics of our universe and with time we will surely be able to grasp these seemingly infinite ideals to have a greater understanding and purpose.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top