Mathematical proof is better than the scientific method for establishing fact?

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87

A mathematical proof is a solid proof by deduction. And a deductible proof is the only way we can know if a statement is true or not with 100% certainty.

The scientific method is a form of methodology which is to do with how we go about doing something to find out about a question we have pondered.

So I don't think we can say that either a math or other deductible proof is better than the scientific method considering these are two different things that do different jobs. However, math and other logical proofs might be used as part of the scientific method.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Math and Infinite sets

Math can be used to prove concrete things, or applied to abstract concepts, but just because math works for something abstract does not necessarily mean that it exists.  An example is infinite sets.  Many math calculations with infinite sets just don't work.  If you have an infinite number of rooms in a motel and you move everyone into the room number that is double what they are in and then you add an infinite number more of guests you can represent it as infinity + infinity equals infinity.  But then the next day all the people who checked in the day before leave, but the infinite number of guests there before them stay.  That can be represented as infinity minus infinity leaves infinity.  So infinite sets can give gibberish answers and in other circumstances answers that make sense.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
So I don't think we can say that either a math or other deductible proof is better than the scientific method considering these are two different things that do different jobs. However, math and other logical proofs might be used as part of the scientific method.
I am not say I am proving...
There are two different lists...
List A
List B
When all things described in list (A) cannot be in list (B)
When all things in List (A) are mathmatically precise.
When all things in List(B) are not mathmatically precise.
The science method will not change the mathmatic constructive proof...

John_C_87

@just_sayin

I am being as nice as I can please do not take it personal when I say you being act the as there are no scientific hotel rooms with infinite sets of rooms. Is there? There needs to be a scientific method of validation to what you suggest…there is not… There are two list to which a number is part of or is not part of and the extent of any degree approximation is not a precise mathematical outcome. List 
(B)

just_sayin

@John_C_87
The Hilberts Grand Hotel paradox dealing with infinite sets is a well known example of the problem with math and infinite sets.  It does not originate with me.  Infinity is a scientifically theorized state - which was once popular in the steady state theory of the universe, or with theories of  eternal inflation which create an infinite number of universes.

Nomenclature

You're basically talking about the difference between deductive (i.e. math) and inductive (i.e. science) logic. Deductive logic is stronger, but it doesn't necessarily have to be mathematic. Tautologies are another form of deductive logic.

John_C_87

just_sayin said:

@John_C_87
The Hilberts Grand Hotel paradox dealing with infinite sets is a well know example of the problem with math and infinite sets.  It does not originate with me.  Infinity is a scientifically theorized state - which was once popular in the steady state theory of the universe, or with theories of  eternal inflation which create an infinite number of universes.

Is it a scientific method thought?
But...
I made this clear just_sayin there are two list.
List (A)
List (B)

There is no infinite statement of numbers the guest Pi is already in list (B) the approximation of Pi simply places Pi in competition with only other approximations like itself in any attempt at accuracy. List (A) always subdivides list (B) by its status as perfect precise ratio.

Thank you for contributing...

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

There is no infinite statement of numbers

just_sayin

@John_C_87
Some people just aren't good at math.  Again, the two sets in the Hilbert's Hotel are really different sets of infinity.  Let the first set be those that went to the even numbered rooms [2,4,6,8,10...] the other set filled the empty rooms [1.3.5.7.9...].  The two sets never overlap but are both infinite.  

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

There is no infinite statement of numbers

The number  are in List (A) or in List (B) All infinite is in (B) to which Pi is either < or > not  =

John_C_87

@just_sayin

The truth though is wrong analogy there is only one set of infinite and there is a limited number of rooms not guests.

List (B) is the infinte numbers in a relationship with each other is a state of precise pefection proportionally.

John_C_87

sorry it is list (A)John_C_87 said:

@just_sayin

The truth though is wrong analogy there is only one set of infinite and there is a limited number of rooms not guests.

List (B) is the infinte numbers in a relationship with each other is a state of precise pefection proportionally.

Not (B)

just_sayin

@John_C_87
Then tell me which number overlapped?  The Hilbert Hotel has an infinite number of rooms.  So which number from the odd numbers over laps with the infinite list of numbers in the even number list?  Both lists go on for infinity.  

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

I'm afraid I don't know what you're trying to say because your English is very poor, but the mathematical expression for infinite is 

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

I'm afraid I don't know what you're trying to say because your English is very poor, but the mathematical expression for infinite is 

It is not a scientific method you are trying to use a mathematical proof to prove a constructive mathematical proof is wrong..

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

There is little no doubt in my mind that you can prove Einstein wrong at home with little instruction for under $100.00 of cost to you for supplies to do so...To be completely honest most people can do it for as little as maybe $5.00.

Thank you for participating and you have been a help...

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

It is not a scientific method you are trying to use a mathematical proof

Of course I am. You were discussing a mathematical paradox:-

Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel is a mathematical paradox named after the German mathematician David Hilbert.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

It was a direct reply to your claim:-

There is no infinite statement of numbers

There is an infinite statement of numbers, represented by the symbol 

Are you aware that part of debate involves understanding when you're wrong about something?

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

There is an infinite statement of numbers, represented by the symbol 

Yes, there is a symbol for an infinite statement of numbers, agreed...it does not mean that the statement is true as a boolean and Hilbert's Parodox is part of what I describe as a corrupted algabra. Where is -3.14159 in the ∞ linear equation ? There are two lists of numbers to which comprise the statement of all numbers ∞. Why? The equal sign in all linear equations - 3.14159 is not in any list, not in list (B) not in list (A) and is not written as -3.14159 it is witten as something else...
Also, I would take Newton's work a step further and say that motion the subsitution for ∞. As any number above zero is a number in motion of mathmatics and is subject to Newtons laws of motion. But then I am replacing Newton's Law of gravity with a law of motion. Gravity is a force of movement in two directions of energy created by the three movments elastisity, modulation / Y / Young's Modulus, and reverberation / eco. G = E + Y + R

Are you aware that part of debate involves understanding when you're wrong about something?

We are not wrong....we are answering what is otherwise unanswered questions until we ourselves are left in a position of no longer having an answer to provide to others. For me, time does not live in the idea of A.D., B.C., B.C.E., C.E. only in the relm of Pi and in a relm after Pi for the resolution of linear time will only begin with the most basic correction of Pi as a math ratio from a mathematical approximation as fact / theory. I will die long before I aswer questions of mathmatics I have created myself with the resolution of ratio to cirlce circumference...

I am not wrong, I am dumb in an off the charts...........way!

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

By the way the reason behind the re-address / move of gravity as a law of motion is so it can be the direct link made in mathematics breaking down theoretical algebra and calculus. Pi is a staple of theoretical algebra.........Is it not?

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Yes, there is a symbol for an infinite statement of numbers, agreed...it does not mean that the statement is true

You claimed there is no infinite statement of numbers, which I showed is false. You then tried to deflect and pretend we are talking about "the scientific method", when in fact we are discussing a well-known mathematical paradox. Now you are continuing to derail the argument with a further deflection to a straw man fallacy. 

This is not debate, John. You are not debating. You are making false statements and then squirming all over the place when they are shown to be false. 

We are not wrong

Everything you have thus far written has been wrong and I have exemplified how and why. Even your use of the word "we" is wrong, because you represent yourself and only yourself. 

I am beginning to suspect that the problem might be that you are at least mildly delusional.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

By the way the reason behind the re-address / move of gravity as a law of motion is so it can be the direct link made in mathematics breaking down theoretical algebra and calculus.

This is gibberish, John. It makes no sense. Gravity isn't a law of motion. It's the curvature of four dimensional space-time, as theorised by Einstein, and is believed to be one of four fundamental forces present in the known universe. Newton's three laws of motion are not the same thing as his theory of gravity. You're getting extremely confused.

Pi is a staple of theoretical algebra.........Is it not?

It's the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle. It has nothing to do with gravity or motion. Please stop this gibberish and create a debate about something you understand. 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

You claimed there is no infinite statement of numbers, which I showed is false. You then tried to deflect and pretend we are talking about "the scientific method", when in fact we are discussing a well-known mathematical paradox. Now you are continuing to derail the argument with a further deflection to a straw man fallacy. 

This is not debate, John. You are not debating. You are making false statements and then squirming all over the place when they are shown to be false. 

You didn't show it as false you simply displaid a symbol other describe as a symbol fo ifinity....However, to preserve my point I still argue there are only as scientic method nine numbers to which a sequence of values are then equated. My piont is unorthidox...

Everything you have thus far written has been wrong and I have exemplified how and why. Even your use of the word "we" is wrong, because you represent yourself and only yourself. 

Correction myself and numbers......are wrong.......numbers do not lie.....

I am beginning to suspect that the problem might be that you are at least mildly delusional.

I am not the one laughing at Pi as the staple of theoretical agabra.....

psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained desepit indisputable evidence to the contrary

Delusion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
It is you not me acting delusionable.....You blinked by laughing at a question that no matter how dumb it sounded only had a yes and no asnwer as boolean.

This is not debate, John. You are not debating. You are making false statements and then squirming all over the place when they are shown to be false. 

This is a debate the prize however is not seen by you for it is to make mathematics better...I do not care if I am wrong......and that is the reason why..........

There is no squirming...List (A) is derived by proportion which establishes a period of rest in the motion of all numbers....List (A)  is also derived by the use of chords which describes a diameter abused by the fabrication of ∞ expansion set by Pi, not me. I am making true statements and am treating you with a handicap as it serves my best interests as you are emotionally struggling with over 6,000 years of inconsistent mathematics developed by theoretical applications of a ratio written as 3.14159 etc.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

You didn't show it as false

Yes I did. 

 you simply displaid a symbol 

A symbol which showed your claim was false. And the word you're looking for is displayed, not displaid.

You're writing absolute gibberish and haven't made a single legible point. 

Correction myself and numbers......are wrong.......numbers do not lie

Numbers do not support anything you have said and, even if they did, would still not make your claim grammatically accurate. Claiming to be supported by abstract concepts or inanimate objects does not change "I" into "we". 

Stop writing utter gibberish please.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

A symbol which showed your claim was false. And the word you're looking for is displayed, not displaid.

Show me one number past 10 that does not have a 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 in it repeatedly, I would concede to your corruption........there is not a infinite set of numbers... there is a presumed mass ∞ that you and others equate wrongly to what is to be some vast set of numerical values....believing what someone tells us in school ,without quesiton. We agree to lie and call  this  "∞ " infinity.....that is all....

Numbers do not support anything you have said and, even if they did, would still not make your claim grammatically accurate. Claiming to be supported by abstract concepts or inanimate objects does not change "I" into "we". 

All nine numbers support the claim there is not an infinite amount of numbers...

and a zero.......I think you have a issue with literal context of mathematics........just how set it really, really, really is….

So again, as a Boolean of false I agree that a value of number ∞ exists...... as a literal fact being true as Boolean there are only nine numbers, zero, and a list of letters.......your choice tell the truth or do we both lie? Tell me?

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Stop writing utter gibberish please.

No, you want me to lie more..........

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Show me one number past 10 that does not have a 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 in it repeatedly

Stop wasting my time. Stop wasting your own time. Your claim was wrong and I demonstrated that it was wrong. 

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

Show me one number past 10 that does not have a 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 in it repeatedly

Stop wasting my time. Stop wasting your own time. Your claim was wrong and I demonstrated that it was wrong. 

Your wasting our time........
I have detail of fact.
1. A Diameter is a chord.
2.There is a list of chords that make up a circles circumference ratio.
3. The diameter of every circle is not one of those chords.
4. Pi is wrong when described in mathmatics as a ratio it is an approximation.

This is gibberish, John. It makes no sense. Gravity isn't a law of motion. It's the curvature of four dimensional space-time, as theorised by Einstein, and is believed to be one of four fundamental forces present in the known universe. Newton's three laws of motion are not the same thing as his theory of gravity. You're getting extremely confused.

If space time existed....which it didn't when Einstein made up the theory... it doesn't exist now as you defend it. To be clear, I am not confused I believe you are wrong in the idea that Newton understanding was limited to the world of physics as the law of motions was connected to mathematics and numbers themselves. Again, the devil in the details in mathematics space time / linear time, being the focus of what Einstein was trying to imply without complete grounding is calculus foundation. This is clear a understanding that Einstein would have been required to first establish a calculus theorem to describe Pi as a negative function which can be assigned to the opposite side of  all equal sign placed in linear equations.

The proposal is Newton's law of motion in truth, as boolean, meaning the law is connected to algabra and calculus funtions in such a way as to describe in short hand a truth over how instead of describing genderic mathmatic funtions over and over like plus, minus, multiple, devide adn all algabra and calculus funtions of the time he could simplify our work . He could to himself simple describe a series of algibra functions tested by mathmatic proof as an of the three law of motion.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Your wasting our time

You're. For God's sake man, you're making grammatical mistakes which should have been addressed in junior high and you're trying to have a debate with me about advanced math. What is your malfunction?

If space time existed....which it didn't when Einstein made up the theory

Oh, Einstein made up a theory about something which doesn't exist? That's awesome. Completely rational.

Everything you write is gibberish. 

To be clear, I am not confused 

You are more confused than a drunken rabbit at a disco for goats.

I believe you are wrong in the idea that Newton understanding was limited to the world of physics 

So you believe I'm wrong about something I never said, never implied, and don't believe? Again, that's awesome.

the law of motions was connected to mathematics and numbers themselves.

Buddy, you objectively confused the laws of motion with Newtonian gravity. Instead of flying off on a completely insane tangent which has nothing to do with what I criticised you for, simply acknowledge your mistake. 

Again, the devil in the details in mathematics space time / linear time, being the focus of what Einstein was trying to imply without complete grounding is calculus foundation.

More gibberish.

This is clear a understanding that Einstein would have been required to first establish a calculus theorem to describe Pi as a negative function

Roflmao. What are you talking about you complete nutter? Pi hasn't got anything to do with gravity, motion, and it isn't a negative function. It describes the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle, exactly like I told you last time.

John_C_87

Einstein’s first mistake is in general mathematics due to confusion between something as simple as ratio and approximation.

Einstein’s second mistake to which all of physics and you followed is in the failure to establish groundwork in calculus to support the use of Pi in algebra at all.

John_C_87

Roflmao. What are you talking about you complete nutter? Pi hasn't got anything to do with gravity, motion, and it isn't a negative function. It describes the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle, exactly like I told you last time.

What kind of raltionship pricise of appoximation?

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Einstein’s first mistake is in general mathematics due to confusion between something as simple as ratio and approximation.

You are the one making mistakes, not Einstein. It is impossible to confuse ratio and approximation. Ratio describes a specific mathematical relationship between variables and approximation describes the general act of guessing about something. You're continually writing gibberish, my friend.

Einstein’s second mistake to which all of physics and you followed is in the failure to establish groundwork in calculus to support the use of Pi in algebra

Einstein's work has nothing to do with geometry or pi and so you might as well accuse him of failing to establish a groundwork for measuring the annual precipitation in Cuba. The things you are writing are very literally nonsensical.

John_C_87

What kind of raltionship pricise or appoximation?

John_C_87

Unless Pi is precise every calculation ever calculated with it will be wrong.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Unless Pi is precise every calculation ever calculated with it will be wrong

John, listen to me.

Number one, pi is an irrational number. It's impossible to notate it precisely because it goes on forever.

Number two, neither Einstein or Newton's equations involve the use of pi.

John_C_87

So you believe I'm wrong about something I never said, never implied, and don't believe? 

Again, that's awesome. We all imply the law of motion is connected to physics and not numbers and somehow you never said it ..

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

We all imply the law of motion is connected to physics

There are three laws of motion and at no time did I ever say, hint or imply that Newton's understanding was limited to the world of physics. You're inventing nonsense and writing gibberish. Please stop it.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Number one, pi is an irrational number. It's impossible to notate it precisely because it goes on forever.

No, Pi only goes on between 3.12 and 3.122. It is irrational.
A precise ratio of a cirlces circumference goes on forever...

Number two, neither Einstein or Newton's equations involve the use of pi.

Really? look closely.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

There are three laws of motion and at no time did I ever say, hint or imply that Newton's understanding was limited to the world of physics. You're inventing nonsense and writing gibberish. Please stop it.

Again, we all have implied the three laws of motion are physics related and we got this from translations, and you are not the worlds exception. 

John_C_87

Maybe this will help you remember where Pi is located in Newton's law of gravity....

How to Calculate the Mass of a Sphere: 13 Steps (with Pictures) (wikihow.com)

John_C_87

The four big red line are chords and they are if too scale the precise length of the circles circumference....
They are not the only chords in the circle either....
Einstien's wong.......and so are you....
Take a minute get your bearing 1.5702 is not 3.14159 I write it as cPi...

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

No, Pi only goes on between 3.12 and 3.122.

There are infinite digits between 3.12 and 3.122, which is why nobody has ever accurately notated pi. The most powerful computers in the entire world can't accurately notate pi, despite calculating it to tens of trillions of decimal places. 

Really? look closely.

OK. No problem. This is one of Einstein's field equations. The reason it includes pi is because fields are calculated as spheres, and the formula for calculating the area of a sphere is A = 4πr2. Newton's equations don't make use of pi, but you're right that some of Einstein's do -- namely those which deal with gravitational fields.

What you're getting confused about is that pi is a constant. Its value never changes. That means the accuracy of the equations it is used in can be verified both backwards and forwards. Hence, all Einstein needs to know is that a gravitational field is a sphere. He doesn't need to know the precise value of pi for his equations to work. 

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Maybe this will help you remember where Pi is located in Newton's law of gravity.

Pi isn't located anywhere in Newton's law of gravity. You've linked me to a site which shows how to calculate the mass of a sphere. 

Newton's law of gravity is expressed as fg = g(m1m2)r2. 

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

The four big red line are chords and they are if too scale the precise length of the circles circumference.

You're confused again. The circumference of a circle is the length of the perimeter. Pi is always equal to the circumference divided by the diameter.

Einstien's wong.......and so are you.

You're accusing math of being wrong. Pi is a mathematical constant, used in hundreds of mathematical proofs. Your claims are ridiculous and supported by nothing.

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Then tell me which number overlapped?  The Hilbert Hotel has an infinite number of rooms.  So which number from the odd numbers over laps with the infinite list of numbers in the even number list?  Both lists go on for infinity. 

To be in line with fact there will always be two almost Infinite lines of numbers as both lines are short all values to be infinite so neither is infinite though no number overlaps as fact. The glass is always full and the person asking if the glass is half empty or half full is running a mathematical scam.

Nomenclature

so neither is infinite

They are both countably infinite. 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

You're confused again. The circumference of a circle is the length of the perimeter. Pi is always equal to the circumference divided by the diameter.

You are still confused. The circumference of all circles are equal to the chord which is always proportional. 

You're accusing math of being wrong. Pi is a mathematical constant, used in hundreds of mathematical proofs. Your claims are ridiculous and supported by nothing.

No, sadly I am describing the human  instruction of some mathematics to be wrong and the cause of a extensive liability on a level of gross negligence due to the overall size of misrepresentation which was allowed to take place.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Newton's law of gravity is expressed as fg = g(m1m2)r2. 

The highlited values are spheres.......

John_C_87

You do see the r2?

Nomenclature

You are still confused. The circumference of all circles are equal to the chord which is always proportional. 

Your "chords" are drawn across arbitrary lines and even if this worked it would be a ridiculously impractical method of calculating the circumference of a circle, which is simply c = πd. Why would I draw 4 lines when I only need 1? You honestly just write the most utterly ridiculous and irrational things imaginable.

No, sadly I am describing the human  instruction of some mathematics to be wrong

No, you are accusing every mathematician who has ever used pi of being wrong, including Einstein, and you are doing so because you do not understand that the relevance of pi is the relationship it has to the other variables of a circle or a sphere, not its precise numerical value. As I just patiently tried to explain to you, there are many hundreds of mathematical proofs which rely on pi. 

You are continually writing absolute nonsense and I just don't see the point.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

The highlited values are spheres..

Oh, only masses which are spheres have gravity? Thanks for letting me know John. I don't know where I'd be without you.