#
What is your favorite number?

How can a number that never terminates, possibly exist in reality?

The irony is that not only do irrational numbers exist, they are majority of numbers. Its the rational numbers (integers, and fractions that have a terminus, or a repeating pattern in their digital form) that are the exceptions.

Sure, they exist in your mind, like vampires and werewolfs.

However, how can a number that never terminates represent a definite length in reality?

Get real.

ALL numbers "only exist in your mind like vampires".

What do you think most lengths are?

If you take a yardstick and just randomly hit it with an axe the axe will not likely cut the yardstick right at designated marking for a number of inches, nor right at a half inch, or a quarter inch, etc.

Most points on a yardstick are between the man made markings for the man made units of measurement on the yardstick. And they are not located at evenly divisible fractions of those manmade markings either (use your imagination and imaging you zeroing in on the yardstick down to the atomic level and beyond). Most atoms on a yardstick are at positions on the yardstick that can only be described as being at irrational number decimal units of the inches, or centimeters used on the ruler.

How can a number that never terminates, possibly exist in reality?

The irony is that not only do irrational numbers exist, they are majority of numbers. Its the rational numbers (integers, and fractions that have a terminus, or a repeating pattern in their digital form) that are the exceptions.

Sure, they exist in your mind, like vampires and werewolfs.

However, how can a number that never terminates represent a definite length in reality?

Get real.

ALL numbers "only exist in your mind like vampires".

What do you think most lengths are?

Whether math actually exists in reality is indeed a philosophical question. Math realism vs Math anti-realism (math fiction)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Most points on a yardstick are between the man made markings for the man made units of measurement on the yardstick. And they are not located at evenly divisible fractions of those manmade markings either (use your imagination and imaging you zeroing in on the yardstick down to the atomic level and beyond). Most atoms on a yardstick are at positions on the yardstick that can only be described as being at irrational number decimal units of the inches, or centimeters used on the ruler.

You're glossing over the indefiniteness of irrational numbers.

The SQR(2) never, ever ends. NEVER.

Yet, somehow that's suppose to represent some definite length in reality?

How? Search online if you must and see how math people try to explain it, a hard question, not to be dismissed so easily.

_________________

After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

Youre looking at it the wrong way around.

There is no reason that nature should conform to human measurement systems, or to human counting systems just to make things easy for humans.

Imagine a line, and then imagine the infinite points on a line between zero and one. Most of the points would HAVE to be at irrational numbers. Only a minority would be a nice well behaved numbers that end with rational strings of digits because those points happened to conform to easy to use ratios between integers.

There is no reason that nature should conform to human measurement systems, or to human counting systems just to make things easy for humans.

Imagine a line, and then imagine the infinite points on a line between zero and one. Most of the points would HAVE to be at irrational numbers. Only a minority would be a nice well behaved numbers that end with rational strings of digits because those points happened to conform to easy to use ratios between integers.

Ok.

However, irrational numbers don't seem like points, since they never terminate.

How can a never terminating number be a "point"?

_________________

After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

kokopelli

Veteran

Joined: 27 Nov 2017

Gender: Male

Posts: 3,191

Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

There is no reason that nature should conform to human measurement systems, or to human counting systems just to make things easy for humans.

Imagine a line, and then imagine the infinite points on a line between zero and one. Most of the points would HAVE to be at irrational numbers. Only a minority would be a nice well behaved numbers that end with rational strings of digits because those points happened to conform to easy to use ratios between integers.

Ok.

However, irrational numbers don't seem like points, since they never terminate.

How can a never terminating number be a "point"?

It's still a point. You just can't calculate the precise location of the point on the number line.

There is no reason that nature should conform to human measurement systems, or to human counting systems just to make things easy for humans.

Imagine a line, and then imagine the infinite points on a line between zero and one. Most of the points would HAVE to be at irrational numbers. Only a minority would be a nice well behaved numbers that end with rational strings of digits because those points happened to conform to easy to use ratios between integers.

Ok.

However, irrational numbers don't seem like points, since they never terminate.

How can a never terminating number be a "point"?

It's still a point. You just can't calculate the precise location of the point on the number line.

Ok. I can imagine that mentally.

However, is your position that this incalculable number point

**exists in reality**?

_________________

After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

kokopelli

Veteran

Joined: 27 Nov 2017

Gender: Male

Posts: 3,191

Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

There is no reason that nature should conform to human measurement systems, or to human counting systems just to make things easy for humans.

Imagine a line, and then imagine the infinite points on a line between zero and one. Most of the points would HAVE to be at irrational numbers. Only a minority would be a nice well behaved numbers that end with rational strings of digits because those points happened to conform to easy to use ratios between integers.

Ok.

However, irrational numbers don't seem like points, since they never terminate.

How can a never terminating number be a "point"?

It's still a point. You just can't calculate the precise location of the point on the number line.

Ok. I can imagine that mentally.

However, is your position that this incalculable number point

**exists in reality**?

It exists in the same manner as any other number. That is, it exists as a logical concept. There is no physical object that you can point to and say, "this is the number one".

DystopianShadows

Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2018

Age: 41

Gender: Female

Posts: 911

Location: At home, calling the Ghostbusters

The debate was whether irrational numbers like SQR(2) correctly represent a definite lengths in reality?

In other words, can an indefinite (irrational) number represent a definite length in reality?

_________________

After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

99 which represents the level I would train my FF RPG characters to.

999 and 9999 are close runners up.

_________________

The top gets higher the more that I climb...

Your neurodiverse score: 150 of 200

Your neurotypical score: 51 of 200

officially diagnosed with Asperger's as of 09/11/15

Reassessed 04/11/16

DSM-V: ASD level 2 with Social Communication Severity: level 2, Restrictive Repetitve Behaviour: level 2

ADOS-2 classification: Autism

Similar Topics | |
---|---|

What's your favorite number? |
10 Jan 2008, 2:46 am |

Favorite number? |
27 Aug 2011, 11:13 am |

Do you have a favorite number? |
31 Oct 2013, 5:57 pm |

favorite number ?
in Kids' Crater |
11 Jan 2016, 3:44 pm |