Gravity.. not a poser

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Mathematically you can deal with perfect circles. In real life, in nature, there are nothing such as perfect circles.

And that's the part you should be pay attention to. Math is for the mind, sometimes (most times) we can find applications of it in the real world, but we should never forget that mathematical laws are for objects that don't come by in our everyday life.
If you coould do better and better circles you would see that the ratio of it's circumference to it's diamater get's closer and closer to the accepted value of Pi.
Read "The mathematical experience" from reuben fine and ... hersh if you want to start to know something about this and similar subjects.

Originally posted by joe shmo
No matter what you say math can not measure the circumference of a perfect circle because a perfect circle doesn't exist, at least on all scales.

Incorrect. A perfect circle exists when a mathematician draws one and says, "That's a perfect circle." Diagrams do not need to be drawn to scale, shape or any other parameter to have a mathematical description, which describes it perfectly.

Originally posted by adam warlock
And that's the part you should be pay attention to. Math is for the mind, sometimes (most times) we can find applications of it in the real world, but we should never forget that mathematical laws are for objects that don't come by in our everyday life.
If you coould do better and better circles you would see that the ratio of it's circumference ...[text shortened]... ine and ... hersh if you want to start to know something about this and similar subjects.

So your saying perfect circles exist in the natural world, the would have to be the objects with extreme density in space? how could you be sure.

I think I may have understood you.

Originally posted by joe shmo
So your saying perfect circles exist in the natural world, the would have to be the objects with extreme density in space? how could you be sure.

i'm saying that even though most of the times is about pure objects we can apply it in our world. For instance mathematical triangles, the ones with lines with zero thickness, are the most stable geometric figures. And what do you know?! Real triangles with all of its imperfections are very stable too. Perfect circles do not exist in the natural world as far as I know, but that's not an issue here cause math still works.
Don't try to complicate what is simple, and try to understand. It seems to me that you already have a natural view on math and that's not going to help you understand it propperly. Try to read the book I told you about.

Originally posted by adam warlock
i'm saying that even though most of the times is about pure objects we can apply it in our world. For instance mathematical triangles, the ones with lines with zero thickness, are the most stable geometric figures. And what do you know?! Real triangles with all of its imperfections are very stable too. Perfect circles do not exist in the natural world a ...[text shortened]... that's not going to help you understand it propperly. Try to read the book I told you about.

I'll go pick it up, thanks

Originally posted by joe shmo
I'll go pick it up, thanks

the book is about the job of matematicians and how they see it. how it evolved and it touches a lot of inportant questions. it's technical of course but very informative and very well written. if you do pick it up tell me what you thought about it.

Originally posted by adam warlock
i'm saying that even though most of the times is about pure objects we can apply it in our world.

Show me a perfect 4-dimensional hyperspere in nature?
Those are easily dealt with in mathematics but there are no such things anywhere in universe.

But on the other hand, you said "most of the times", so I'm satisfied with that.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Show me a perfect 4-dimensional hyperspere in nature?
Those are easily dealt with in mathematics but there are no such things anywhere in universe.

But on the other hand, you said "most of the times", so I'm satisfied with that.

nature is three dimensional, spacially talking, so i couldn't show you that. and when i talked about aplications and i didn't meant that the objects in our world are perfect replicas of the objects in mathematical theorems, I meant that even though the objects we face daily are poor replicas of the ones mentioned in a mathematician's work we can still apply their knowledge in our gain.

I've messed up the authors name of the book, sorry. On this page you have the correct information.

http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Experience-Phillip-J-Davis/dp/0395929687

Originally posted by adam warlock
nature is three dimensional, spacially talking, so i couldn't show you that. and when i talked about aplications and i didn't meant that the objects in our world are perfect replicas of the objects in mathematical theorems, I meant that even though the objects we face daily are poor replicas of the ones mentioned in a mathematician's work we can still apply their knowledge in our gain.

I think we agree more than we think.
Perhaps we just express the same thing in different way.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think we agree more than we think.
Perhaps we just express the same thing in different way.

i think we agree a lot too.i was just trying to make myself clear and try to avoid miscomunication. between us or any other reader. are you a math fiend too?