The Asylum - Home for Geeks and Nerds

Join

Mathematical geekout for discussion...

Options
gse313
gse313 Posts: 252 Member
in Social Groups
Can someone PLEASE prove me wrong on this?? I presented this to my High School math department back when I was a student and stumped them all!! Got some good Extra credit out of it, but still....

Basic Algebra -
Definition of a point = An area of space without dimension.
Definition of a line = An infinate number of points placed end to end.

Accepted beleifs -
1) Any particular section of a line will have the first dimension "Length"
2) Two intersecting lines create the measurable "Angle"

My Theory -
Since all objects are made up of a series of lines and angles (circles included as they are technically an infinate number of equal angles causing the segments to intersect eachother in an eternally repeated pattern) and it is IMPOSSIBLE to get something WITH dimension from something WITHOUT dimension. I propose that NOTHING exists, including time as it is the 4th dimension...

Now discuss...

and you all thought I was NORMAL?!?!?! LOL

Replies

  • Mr_Cape219
    Mr_Cape219 Posts: 1,345 Member
    Options
    41783_273784857464_2156929_n.jpg


    Math.
  • drmerc
    drmerc Posts: 2,603 Member
    Options
    Because a line is between two points not a infinite number of points laid end to end
  • gse313
    gse313 Posts: 252 Member
    Options
    Because a line is between two points not a infinite number of points laid end to end

    Even if this were true, you are still attempting to get somrthing with dimension from something without... so my point is still viable
  • drmerc
    drmerc Posts: 2,603 Member
    Options
    It has length, the length between 2 points
  • Ezada
    Ezada Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    funny-math-problem-confusing.jpg
  • eecruzmd
    eecruzmd Posts: 119 Member
    Options
    I got two words for you G... you nerd lol
  • gse313
    gse313 Posts: 252 Member
    Options
    I got two words for you G... you nerd lol

    Luv ya too!! :kiss: lol
  • m0pp3t
    m0pp3t Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    all objects are made up of a series of lines and angles

    no. All objects are made up of atoms and molecules. lines and angles have no mass.

    edited to add:

    All objects can be REPRESENTED by lines and angles, but that is not the same as saying they are 'made up of them'.
  • jpe71
    jpe71 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    I think my argument would be more physical in nature - simply because we accept these mathematical definitions for point, line, and angle, does not mean they have physical validity. We know things exist, or else nobody would be there to ask the question. So I'd say you have to add that to your postulates, or you're working with an incomplete system.

    My argument would be just the reverse - that because we exist, points and infinitely thin lines cannot, because you cannot construct nothing out of something. Nothing doesn't exist.

    I could also construct arguments based on quantum mechanics, wave functions, probability distributions and such, but I don't have the time right now to make them intelligent (or intelligible). Besides, quantum physics and computational physics were the two courses that very nearly stood between me and a physics degree. I conquered both subjects, but it wasn't a decisive victory, so I'm not sure my reasoning would be sound.
  • gse313
    gse313 Posts: 252 Member
    Options
    See... and this is why I posed the question here!! lol
  • Ivy_leaves
    Ivy_leaves Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    Answer : algebra is wrong. /nod
  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    Options
    All objects can be REPRESENTED by lines and angles, but that is not the same as saying they are 'made up of them'.

    Nailed it.
  • Devild0ll
    Devild0ll Posts: 29
    Options

    My Theory -
    ...I propose that NOTHING exists, including time as it is the 4th dimension...

    And you just disappeared in a puff of logic!
  • Fnarkk
    Fnarkk Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    Ex nihilo nihil fit, 'out of nothing Nothing comes' Nothing can exist but only as defined by nothing. But shouldn't we first define what nothing is? Nothing might be defined as empty space, devoid of mass or energy—including the absence of space itself (even the absence of physical laws) however in modern theory (General Relativity somewhat, and String theory comes to mind.... a few others which I cannot seem to remember but have vague notions of), “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics REQUIRE that to occure (err... Kraus perhaps? I know I read an article on it a few weeks ago). Nothing is now a boiling mass of unstable .... something....virtual energy and virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly and are defined by laws of physics that arise without there being laws of physics to describe them---maby. Therefore Nothing can be defined, sort of, and because it is defineable, it can be used to define other things, kinda. See, don't you love how physics and mathmatics can answer all questions?

    Yes, I just worked all night; No I haven't slept in 41 something hours. Peace.
  • Taimarra
    Taimarra Posts: 60
    Options
    and you all thought I was NORMAL?!?!?! LOL

    I have not had nearly enough coffee to go on a math binge. But. I had to comment on this. I don't actually believe any of us thought you were "normal" sweets.
  • gse313
    gse313 Posts: 252 Member
    Options
    Well thank you dear!! I appreciate it!!! ;-)

Categories