Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: I'm taking this here because no one else understands what I am saying.

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    90

    I'm taking this here because no one else understands what I am saying.

    OK, so I have stated this on 3 different forums and pretty much no one really knows what I am saying. So consider this a test of my sanity.

    The idea is that an unknown quantity could be literally anything. Anything includes things that either change or are a representative of infinity in some way.

    I got this idea going over some old math skills in algebra. I had also previously watched 2 math documentaries titled "Dangerous Knowledge" (pt. 1 & 2) and "Einstein's big idea."

    The idea is basically that you don't get to manipulate an equation for free. There is a cost to everything. So if you have to multiply X by 3 (3X) then if X is a quantity that is dynamic, changes, or is assigned random values at random, then in having X + X + X all three X's could potentially be different values.

    Naturally, if this is assumed, someone would have to prove that there are integers that are in fact dynamic, change, or assign random numbers. It could very well be assumed that these have to be irrational numbers, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Take for example that we cannot predict the movement of an electron going around a group of protons and electrons, for example. That is an example of what could be theorized as one of these dynamic integers.

    Going back to the idea that manipulating an equation isn't free, if you were to take one of these unknown variables that do have a dynamic, non-repeating range (in other words a fruition of some sort of infinite dimension) then this means that time within the equation actually passes while manipulating the equation (at least the parts where the unknown variable is involved). This idea comes from Einstein's first theory of relativity in that his calculation assumed things would remain a constant speed instead of accounting for changing speeds of a particular thing. Einstein ofc later rectified this theory which is the theory of relativity we have today.

    What are people's thoughts on this? Is it a sign that my mental illness is a variable that I am not considering? Is what I am saying make any sense at all? If I am being irrational, I would appreciate some evidence as to why I am wrong.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    90

    Calculating for unknown quantities.

    OK. So I had previously come up with a rather unintelligible word salad of a problem that I don't see on the forum. (don't know if it never went through or mods thought it was spam or what.)

    I have tried to work out this problem into more concrete terms.

    This would be the question:

    What is the quantity of x when x is an undefined quantity that has a covariance with a known equation of .5.

    How I have tied to figure this out:

    I just picked a random equation I thought of to give a concrete example.

    x=4y+3

    Don't know how to add the covariance. Just assumed it was:

    .5x=4y+3
    x=(4y+3)/.5
    x=8y+6

    The original inquiry I had was that when solving for a completely unknown quantity that the quantity could be literally anything. It could be the number 27 or a pineapple or an airplane. I was trying to figure out why we assume that when we are dealing with an unknown why we assume that the variable is static and not dynamic. In other words I was wondering why we didn't use clarification that the unknown quantity was a static real number.

    This was brought about after I was doing some studying of simple algebra on Khan Academy and had previously (a day or two before) watched two math documentaries titled "Dangerous Knowledge" and "Einstein's Big Idea" I am trying to brush up on math skills because I want to go to college but don't want to have to pay for really basic math classes that I could figure out how to do on my own.

  3. #3
    Elite Member mmm4444bot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    9,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Quick View Post
    … don't know if [my other post] never went through or mods thought it was spam or what …
    I just approved your posts. Do you want them merged into a single thread? I'm not sure whether you're asking two different questions.

    New member's first three posts need to wait for approval (SPAM control). You were supposed to have been informed of this policy (twice) when you registered -- by e-mail and by private message. Did you receive these notices?
    "English is the most ambiguous language in the world." ~ Yours Truly, 1969

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    90
    When I made the second post, I did see a pop up when I made my second post about my posts having to be confirmed by a moderator for SPAM control. Sorry for being redundant if I was. I tried to find the rules for this site and the contract I agreed to to be apart of this site, but couldn't figure out where it was.

    I wouldn't mind my two posts to be combined because they both try to tackle the same thing. They go about it in different ways, however. The second time is where I try to put it more concretely and give an actual example to work off of.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,031
    I think you may just be missing the fact that when we use variables, it is assumed that each variable stands for one fixed value. The word "variable" may give the impression that the value may "vary" even while you are using it, but it really just means that on any given occasion, the variable might stand for a different number -- but still the same number each place it is used in a problem. So x+x+x means we are adding three of the very same number, and we can indeed call it 3x. Nothing here is "dynamic", "random", or "infinite".

    If we did want to apply math to a situation where quantities are not fixed, we would use a different kind of math! For instance, there is something very different, called "random variables", which represent values that actually vary randomly (according to a particular "probability distribution"). We work with these in entirely different ways than algebraic variables.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,031
    To make sense of this, you'll have to explain what you mean by "covariance with a known equation".

    But probably my answer to the first question applies here, as well. Variables DO represent only one value at a time. And the reason we assume this (that is, it is part of the definition of "variable") is that to do otherwise would make everything impossible.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Peterson View Post
    I think you may just be missing the fact that when we use variables, it is assumed that each variable stands for one fixed value. The word "variable" may give the impression that the value may "vary" even while you are using it, but it really just means that on any given occasion, the variable might stand for a different number -- but still the same number each place it is used in a problem. So x+x+x means we are adding three of the very same number, and we can indeed call it 3x. Nothing here is "dynamic", "random", or "infinite".

    If we did want to apply math to a situation where quantities are not fixed, we would use a different kind of math! For instance, there is something very different, called "random variables", which represent values that actually vary randomly (according to a particular "probability distribution"). We work with these in entirely different ways than algebraic variables.
    Thank you for treating me with respect. When I brought this to people on other forums, they had no idea what I was talking about and their answers didn't satisfy me.

    It makes perfect sense that what I was struggling with wasn't even algebra. It must have just been that I was looking at algebra equations when this idea came to me. If the mods want to move this thread to the correct subforum, then can.

    But yes, the problem really has more to do with random variables instead of algebra. In a way I feel I am biting off more than I can chew in that even if you were to explain it to me, I wouldn't be able to understand because the level of math I understand is extremely limited.

    I am still curious about this kind of math, however. So if there is a way to explain some of these things to me, I would appreciate that.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Peterson View Post
    To make sense of this, you'll have to explain what you mean by "covariance with a known equation".

    But probably my answer to the first question applies here, as well. Variables DO represent only one value at a time. And the reason we assume this (that is, it is part of the definition of "variable") is that to do otherwise would make everything impossible.
    OK. So I got the idea of having a covariance from a video I was watching of Jordan Peterson when he was talking about how there are correlating statistics for psychometrics of the Big 5 personality aspect scale. Basically, I was able to figure out that because there is a covariance between the trait Openness and IQ. These things are related, but its not a correlation coefficient (where there is a direct correlation). So what I was thinking is that lets say you were making a graph and trying to map the correlation between an equation (could be anything) and then say that there is a correlation of .5 (or 1/2) for each point with the unknown quantity. IDK if it would work as a range that X could be in relation to the equation or whether only half the points show up where the equation and the unknown quantity are the same.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    90
    Oh, and I did just read the email where it says that my posts would be reviewed before they are posted by the mods. I just didn't see the email at first.

  10. #10
    Elite Member mmm4444bot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    9,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Quick View Post
    previously watched 2 math documentaries titled "Dangerous Knowledge" (pt. 1 & 2) and "Einstein's big idea."
    I'm not familiar with those documentaries, but we can discuss algebra or we can discuss physics. If you're thinking about some sort of interrelation between the two, you're going to have to be more specific.


    if you have to multiply X by 3 (3X) then if X is a quantity that is dynamic, changes, or is assigned random values at random, then in having X + X + X all three X's could potentially be different values.
    In algebra, this is not correct. Whether X changes randomly to discrete values or X changes smoothly and continuously, X takes on only one value at a time.

    X could be 1. Then 3X is three times 1 (that is, 1+1+1). If X changes to 7, then 3X is three times 7 (that is, 7+7+7).

    If you had three different numbers added, then you would need three different symbols to represent the sum (that is, X+Y+Z).


    Naturally, if this is assumed, someone would have to prove that there are integers that are in fact dynamic, change, or assign random numbers. It could very well be assumed that these have to be irrational numbers, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Take for example that we cannot predict the movement of an electron going around a group of protons and electrons, for example. That is an example of what could be theorized as one of these dynamic integers.
    You've lost me, here.

    I googled keywords einstein "dynamic integers" and I don't understand the references. People have used the phrase "dynamic integers" to discuss quasi-physics (blend of physics and philosophy), to discuss computer science, and some other discussions that I cannot parse at all. Again, if you're referencing something in those documentaries, you'll need to define all terms and phrases and provide a thorough context for each. There may eventually be somebody in the forum who is familiar with the context; time will tell.

    Regarding the Bohr model of an atom (where electrons orbit the nucleus as particles), it's outdated. It still has use, as an introduction for beginning chemistry students, but the Quantum Mechanical model has replaced the Bohr model because we now know that electrons do not orbit the nucleus like little moons around their planet. Quantum physics and Schrödinger’s wave equations describe electrons more accurately as a waveform. We can't say where an electron is; the equations provide a probability of volume where electrons most likely are (forming energy shells). It's only when we use an instrument to detect an electron that this waveform collapses to a physical particle at a specific location. I'm not a physicist; I'm speaking from memory regarding what I read at Quora awhile back.

    You have some interesting thought experiments in your head, motivated by something you watched, but I cannot see inside your mind. I'm not sure what specifically you're thinking about.
    Last edited by mmm4444bot; 01-20-2018 at 01:09 AM.
    "English is the most ambiguous language in the world." ~ Yours Truly, 1969

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •