Author Topic: Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time  (Read 14079 times)

jotabe1789

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2005, 12:52:32 pm »
Physics and maths are like love and marriage in Sinatra's song  :wink: "you can't have one without the o-ther"  :lol:

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2005, 04:29:11 pm »
Quote from: jotabe1789
Physics and maths are like love and marriage in Sinatra's song  :wink: "you can't have one without the o-ther"  :lol:


I mean abstract mathematics, and things such as deal with proof theorems and the like. I'm just fine when it comes to concrete calculation, and the calculus one uses in MecE. It is only the die-hard mathematics, the things we were going through in the latter part of 3rd year, that give me difficultry.

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2005, 05:41:45 pm »
Math is a thorn in my side as well.  Being a CS major, I'm gonna get a whole lot of it...

jotabe1789

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #48 on: July 16, 2005, 09:39:01 pm »
That's barely the beginning of the fun! :D

Diff equations (specially when you insert complex numbers algebra in it) are the very essence of Mechanics. Either Classic or Quantum... But QM has more, so much more...  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Thankfully, during the physics degree, even though they would show us the demonstrations and stuff, they wouldn't ask them in the exams  :wink:

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2005, 07:08:40 am »
Going for my interview with the deals in a few hours.  I got the AP credit that can get me out of doing the first level of calculus in college, as well as no fewer than three separate AP credits in English.  I'll try to finagle them out of making me take a philosophy course, too.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 02:09:22 am by Hadriel »

Sentenal

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1948
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #50 on: July 18, 2005, 07:39:36 pm »
Philosophy isn't too bad.  It teachs you to be really, really annoying, with asking 'how do you know' about every single little thing, once you get into Epstimology.  I know I butchered that word...

Shadow_Dragon

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #51 on: July 18, 2005, 09:32:10 pm »
DarkGizmo, that hotel money example is pretty flawed, since you thought the flaw was that 25+27=/=30, but the point was that 27-2=25, or 30-3-2=25

Infinity annoys me... 2xInfinity=Infinity, right?
Infinity + Infinity - Infinity - Infinity
2(Infinity) - (Infinity + Infinity)
Infinity - 2(Infinity)
-(Infinity)

Infinity + Infinity - Infinity - Infinity
2(Infinity) - (Infinity + Infinity)
2(Infinity) - 2(Infinity)
(2-2)(Infinity)
0

And, because multiples of Infinity also equal Infinity, -Infinity = Infinity
So Infinity = 0?
That seems to me to be the same kind of falsity that people reach by saying that 9.999 (continuing on so there're inifinty minus 1 digits after the decimal) is the same thing as 9.9999 (continuing on so ther're an infinite number of digits after the decimal)


Is there some kind of rule for how you can simplify infinite things?
Like with negative radicals, you have to simplify to i form before multiplying the radicals (root(-5)root(-5) = root(5)i x root(5)i = -5, not root(-5)root(-5) = root(25) = 5)


I don't really know that much about math (I just finished Alg.2) yet, but I have more of an interest in it than most people in my class, and if I do choose to teach in the future, it'd probably be in math... but standing up in front of people all day kind of scares me

DarkGizmo

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #52 on: July 18, 2005, 11:23:08 pm »
Quote from: Shadow_Dragon
DarkGizmo, that hotel money example is pretty flawed, since you thought the flaw was that 25+27=/=30, but the point was that 27-2=25, or 30-3-2=25


But why does it work only that way when it shoudl work both way? I think it's pretty wierd

Sir Frog

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #53 on: July 19, 2005, 12:14:31 am »
Quote from: DarkGizmo
and this one

Three guys goes to an hotel, the receptionist tells them it's 30 $ per room.
Each guy pay 10$ for a total of 30$ and rent one room for all
Then the boss come and tell the receptionist it's 25$ not 30$.
She walk to their room and knock, she tell them she made a mistake.
She decide to not tell the truth and steal from the so she give them 1 $ each andh keep 2 $.
Now eac guy paid 10-1 = 9 $ and the receptionist kept 2$

3*9 = 27 -----> $ paid by the 3 guys
27 + 2 = 29 --> $ kept by the receptionist

29$ there were orignaly 30$ where is the last $ ?



(1) Three men pay $10 each so now the men have $30 less and the hotel has $30 more.  No money has vanished and none has been created.

(2) The receptionist takes the hotel's $30, and gives $1 to each of the men.   Now the men are out only $27 and the hotel is now ahead by just $27.  As you can see, still no money has vanished and none has been created.

(3) The receptionist pockets $2 of the hotel's remaining $27.  The receptionist is now up $2, the hotel's profit has fallen to $25, and the three men are down $27. Cleatly, the net wealth of the three participants (the men, the receptionist, and the hotel) has not changed, as 2 + 25 - 27 = 0.  Therefore, no money has vanished and none has been created.

SUMMARY: Of the $30 the men originally paid to the hotel, the men now have $3 back, the receptionist has $2, and the hotel has $25.  3 + 2 + 25 =30.  No lost money.

Sir Frog

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #54 on: July 19, 2005, 12:40:53 am »
Quote from: Shadow_Dragon
DarkGizmo, that hotel money example is pretty flawed, since you thought the flaw was that 25+27=/=30, but the point was that 27-2=25, or 30-3-2=25

Infinity annoys me... 2xInfinity=Infinity, right?
Infinity + Infinity - Infinity - Infinity
2(Infinity) - (Infinity + Infinity)
Infinity - 2(Infinity)
-(Infinity)

Infinity + Infinity - Infinity - Infinity
2(Infinity) - (Infinity + Infinity)
2(Infinity) - 2(Infinity)
(2-2)(Infinity)
0

And, because multiples of Infinity also equal Infinity, -Infinity = Infinity
So Infinity = 0?
That seems to me to be the same kind of falsity that people reach by saying that 9.999 (continuing on so there're inifinty minus 1 digits after the decimal) is the same thing as 9.9999 (continuing on so ther're an infinite number of digits after the decimal)


Is there some kind of rule for how you can simplify infinite things?
Like with negative radicals, you have to simplify to i form before multiplying the radicals (root(-5)root(-5) = root(5)i x root(5)i = -5, not root(-5)root(-5) = root(25) = 5)


I don't really know that much about math (I just finished Alg.2) yet, but I have more of an interest in it than most people in my class, and if I do choose to teach in the future, it'd probably be in math... but standing up in front of people all day kind of scares me

There are no rules to simplify arithmetic that involves infinity because you cannot do arithmetic that involves infinity. Quite simply, infinity is not a number.  Infinity cannot be expressed as a number or variable, nor can it be manipulated in any way.  Indeed, nothing can even equal infinity.  Of course, we get around this by using limits and saying that a number, x, approaches infinity.  

So...if you desperately wanted to "multiply" infinity by itself, you could just mess around with limits like this:

lim (x-->inf) x^2  = inf

What this is essentially saying is that, when x approaches infinity, x^2 approaches infinity.  (Note that it is possible to show that x^2 appraches infinity "faster" than x does.)  This is, of course, mathematically trivial, but it does "prove" that infinty time infinity almost-sorta equals infinity.

I guess my point--if I have one--is that while you technically cannot play around with infinity, you can do the next best thing, if you will, and play around with numbers that approach infinity. In an abstract sense, there really is no difference between my limits and the arithmetic you were doing in your post.  Just don't claim that in front of a mathematician!

DarkGizmo

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #55 on: July 19, 2005, 12:56:20 am »
Quote from: Sir Frog
Quote from: DarkGizmo
and this one

Three guys goes to an hotel, the receptionist tells them it's 30 $ per room.
Each guy pay 10$ for a total of 30$ and rent one room for all
Then the boss come and tell the receptionist it's 25$ not 30$.
She walk to their room and knock, she tell them she made a mistake.
She decide to not tell the truth and steal from the so she give them 1 $ each andh keep 2 $.
Now eac guy paid 10-1 = 9 $ and the receptionist kept 2$

3*9 = 27 -----> $ paid by the 3 guys
27 + 2 = 29 --> $ kept by the receptionist

29$ there were orignaly 30$ where is the last $ ?



(1) Three men pay $10 each so now the men have $30 less and the hotel has $30 more.  No money has vanished and none has been created.

(2) The receptionist takes the hotel's $30, and gives $1 to each of the men.   Now the men are out only $27 and the hotel is now ahead by just $27.  As you can see, still no money has vanished and none has been created.

(3) The receptionist pockets $2 of the hotel's remaining $27.  The receptionist is now up $2, the hotel's profit has fallen to $25, and the three men are down $27. Cleatly, the net wealth of the three participants (the men, the receptionist, and the hotel) has not changed, as 2 + 25 - 27 = 0.  Therefore, no money has vanished and none has been created.

SUMMARY: Of the $30 the men originally paid to the hotel, the men now have $3 back, the receptionist has $2, and the hotel has $25.  3 + 2 + 25 =30.  No lost money.


Stop doing this >_< I know it works, I'm not reatrded, I'm just wondering why the hell it doesn't when you think about it some other way!

If you had some hell of a math equation and two different people would calcul and it has something like this, now the two scientist try their own way but finish completyl differently because they were ^x and stuff later...

this would mess thigns up

Sir Frog

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #56 on: July 19, 2005, 01:43:07 am »
Quote from: DarkGizmo
Stop doing this >_< I know it works, I'm not reatrded, I'm just wondering why the hell it doesn't when you think about it some other way!

Sorry!  I didn't mean to be patronizing.  I was just offering what I thought was the best way to approach the problem.

In your original post, you said:
Quote
3*9 = 27 -----> $ paid by the 3 guys
27 + 2 = 29 --> $ kept by the receptionist

29$ there were orignaly 30$ where is the last $ ?

The problem with that line of thought is that you are counting some of the money twice.  The "27" in your equation represents the net amount of cash that the men gave to the hotel. Those very same $27 were then split between the hotel and the receptionist (where the former got 25 and the latter got 2).  By adding the $2 that the receptionist stole to the $27 that the men paid, you are counting those $2 twice.  So, there isn't $29.  There's the $27 that are split between the hotel and the receptionist, plus the $3 that the men got back, for a total of $30.

DarkGizmo

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #57 on: July 19, 2005, 02:07:40 am »
I don't understand what you're saying, but is it just another way to calculate it? or did my caculation is wrong?

Man 1 have 1 $
Man 2 have 1 $
Man 3 have 1 $
Receptionist has 2 $
Hotel has 25$

total : 30$

OHHH I jsut amde a drawing and I see the point

Mans have paid 27 $ and have 3 $ left
and in that 27 $, 2$ was stolen by the receptionist
so

Man 1 have 1 $
Man 2 have 1 $
Man 3 have 1 $
Hotel have 25 $
receptionist have 2 $

total : 30$

That was confusing lol thank fro clearing that up!

jotabe1789

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #58 on: July 19, 2005, 03:26:07 am »
yeah, the problem always comes about knowing what to sum ^_^

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Time
« Reply #59 on: July 19, 2005, 12:57:02 pm »
Quote from: Sentenal
Philosophy isn't too bad.  It teachs you to be really, really annoying, with asking 'how do you know' about every single little thing, once you get into Epstimology.  I know I butchered that word...


Oh, lord, don't even get me started on epistemology...

...hey, where's that temporal framework we were promised?

But anyway, too late.

Theory of Knowledge is a class we had to take for the IB diploma.  It's basically an epistemology course.  And it was FUCKING ANNOYING.  Everyone always asks "how do you know?" about every damned little thing, obviously not realizing the meaning of a priori and the fact that you have to have some of it to get ANYWHERE.  One cannot produce clear answers unless one relies on certain self-evident facts as a base.  The basic a priori contains all of mathematics and logic, due to overwhelming consistency.  Beyond that, everything is left to faith.  For example, I assume that being a wanktard is within the capability of all human beings because it's backed up by overwhelming consistency; everyone in the world that's old enough to think critically has been a wanktard at one time or another.  I would have to say that my experience with epistemology so far has amounted to, as one of my friends referred to it the other day when I bought a starter Pirahna paintball marker from him, "bullshit 101."  Quite simply, people believe what they can either see or what uniformly consistent logic can demonstrate, and not without reason.  No progress is made under a solipsist view of reality.

Oh yeah, did I mention that my ToK teacher was such a relativist that she thought the Matrix had philosophical substance?  (Well, admittedly, it does have some, more than most of pop culture, but not nearly enough to warrant more than five minutes of class discussion.)