The Maths Thread - Page 38

Spark · 20-09-2012, 03:32 AM

OK I've studied a fair bit of abstract algebra and some number theory and this is just ****ing scary. Looks nothing like anything I've ever seen.

EDIT: Oh OK I've gone a bit further into the paper and it's becoming quite clear why this is like nothing I've ever seen. Bloody general abstract nonsense and it's weird, weird way of thinking.

8ankitj · 20-09-2012, 07:16 AM

Do they have a point at the end?

Random question: Did prime numbers exist before humans evolved?

Spark · 20-09-2012, 07:19 AM

By "general abstract nonsense" I mean the hyper-abstract way of thinking which has led to stuff like category theory, which is actually one of the more interesting parts of modern maths (and it is actually called general abstract nonsense) as it makes certain proofs hilariously simple. But it is bizarre and extraordinarily abstract. I don't know whether this proof actually uses category theory in a big way, but it certainly seems to approach it from the same, hyper-abstract viewpoint.

silentstriker · 20-09-2012, 08:38 AM

http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...Theory%20I.pdf
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...heory%20II.pdf
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...eory%20III.pdf
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...heory%20IV.pdf

Started to read, then I realized I don't have seven years to devote to this.

silentstriker · 20-09-2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

Do they have a point at the end?

Random question: Did prime numbers exist before humans evolved?

Yes, because:

8ankitj · 21-09-2012, 11:06 AM

And before Big Bang?

What I am trying to say though (it's obvious but still) is how weird it is that laws of mathematics are independent of an observer and couldn't conceivably have been anything but what they are (it is conceivable however that laws of physical were different like the constant G could have had a different value). Yet those laws weren't known to anything till intelligent beings evolved. Who ordained them to exist then and for whom?

[/Useless little philosophical mussing]

silentstriker · 21-09-2012, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

And before Big Bang?

What I am trying to say though (it's obvious but still) is how weird it is that laws of mathematics are independent of an observer and couldn't conceivably have been anything but what they are (it is conceivable however that laws of physical were different like the constant G could have had a different value). Yet those laws weren't known to anything till intelligent beings evolved. Who ordained them to exist then and for whom?

[/Useless little philosophical mussing]

A man far wiser than us wrote a classic essay on that:

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

It's good reading.

silentstriker · 21-09-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentstriker

http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...Theory%20I.pdf
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...heory%20II.pdf
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...eory%20III.pdf
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...heory%20IV.pdf

Started to read, then I realized I don't have seven years to devote to this.

So I tried again and I started getting an idea and following it, but then I got lost again. So I not only do I have no time, but too little knowledge and far too few IQ points. I'll leave it to better men than I.

Spark · 21-09-2012, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

And before Big Bang?

What I am trying to say though (it's obvious but still) is how weird it is that laws of mathematics are independent of an observer and couldn't conceivably have been anything but what they are (it is conceivable however that laws of physical were different like the constant G could have had a different value). Yet those laws weren't known to anything till intelligent beings evolved. Who ordained them to exist then and for whom?

[/Useless little philosophical mussing]

This is basically called the Platonic view and it's very popular nowadays. It's hard not to see why when you see bizarre things like the Dirac equation popping up in places which have nothing to do with physics.

8ankitj · 01-10-2012, 10:44 AM

Sounds immense, but I didn't understand it.

The Emerging Revolution in Game Theory - Technology Review

Days of Grace · 27-10-2012, 07:36 PM

Apologies if this if I have asked this before, but...

How do I get microsoft excel to give a higher value to a bowling average of 20 than a bowling average of 30?

I want a linear progression, so a bowling average of 40 is worth 80 points, an average of 20 is worth 160 points, and an average of 10 would be worth 320 points, and so on.

Cheers.

Spark · 27-10-2012, 08:26 PM

that looks more exponential than linear to me.

try: x = average/10

weightedaverage = 10[2^(6-x)]

Days of Grace · 27-10-2012, 08:36 PM

How do I enter that into the formula input?

shankar · 27-10-2012, 08:37 PM

Isn't it just a simple 3200/x?

Spark · 27-10-2012, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shankar

Isn't it just a simple 3200/x?

or that lol

depends what kind of fit he wants, i guess

20-09-2012, 07:19 AM	#558 (permalink)
Spark Global Moderator Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: A Blood Rainbow Posts: 26,749	By "general abstract nonsense" I mean the hyper-abstract way of thinking which has led to stuff like category theory, which is actually one of the more interesting parts of modern maths (and it is actually called general abstract nonsense) as it makes certain proofs hilariously simple. But it is bizarre and extraordinarily abstract. I don't know whether this proof actually uses category theory in a big way, but it certainly seems to approach it from the same, hyper-abstract viewpoint. Last edited by Spark; 20-09-2012 at 07:35 AM.

27-10-2012, 07:36 PM	#566 (permalink)
Days of Grace International Regular Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Takasaki, Japan Posts: 3,853	Apologies if this if I have asked this before, but... How do I get microsoft excel to give a higher value to a bowling average of 20 than a bowling average of 30? I want a linear progression, so a bowling average of 40 is worth 80 points, an average of 20 is worth 160 points, and an average of 10 would be worth 320 points, and so on. Cheers. __________________ Greatest Ever Test XI (according to my ratings): Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman (c), Headley, Lara, Sobers, Gilchrist (wk), Hadlee, Marshall, Steyn, Muralitharan 12th man: Imran Khan Favorite XI: Grace (c), Trumper, Richards, Lara, Compton, Gilchrist (wk), Cairns, Jessop, Warne, Bond, Trueman

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tech Geeks Thread	SupaFreak2005	Off Topic	233	03-11-2012 03:15 PM
Nikhil Hearing Details Thread	lord_of_darkness	Cricket Web XI	329	17-12-2004 03:21 PM
Official South Africa in India Thread	Neil Pickup	Cricket Chat	453	08-12-2004 07:26 AM
Official India in Australia Thread	Craig	Cricket Chat	2652	08-01-2004 07:00 PM
Official West Indies in Zimbabwe Thread	Mr Mxyzptlk	Cricket Chat	554	01-12-2003 03:11 AM

20-09-2012, 07:16 AM	#557 (permalink)
8ankitj International Captain Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Hyderabad India Posts: 5,148	Do they have a point at the end? Random question: Did prime numbers exist before humans evolved?

21-09-2012, 11:06 AM	#561 (permalink)
8ankitj International Captain Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Hyderabad India Posts: 5,148	And before Big Bang? What I am trying to say though (it's obvious but still) is how weird it is that laws of mathematics are independent of an observer and couldn't conceivably have been anything but what they are (it is conceivable however that laws of physical were different like the constant G could have had a different value). Yet those laws weren't known to anything till intelligent beings evolved. Who ordained them to exist then and for whom? [/Useless little philosophical mussing]

01-10-2012, 10:44 AM	#565 (permalink)
8ankitj International Captain Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Hyderabad India Posts: 5,148	Sounds immense, but I didn't understand it. The Emerging Revolution in Game Theory - Technology Review

27-10-2012, 08:26 PM	#567 (permalink)
Spark Global Moderator Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: A Blood Rainbow Posts: 26,749	that looks more exponential than linear to me. try: x = average/10 weightedaverage = 10[2^(6-x)]

27-10-2012, 08:36 PM	#568 (permalink)
Days of Grace International Regular Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Takasaki, Japan Posts: 3,853	How do I enter that into the formula input?

27-10-2012, 08:37 PM	#569 (permalink)
shankar International Debutant Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Southampton Posts: 2,350	Isn't it just a simple 3200/x?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)