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

1. Originally Posted by Quick
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.
I'm not sure that I've seen covariance described as an equation. (The number 0.5 is surely not an equation.) I associate the topic of covariance with probability.

Are you talking about a correlation coefficient? The size of that indicates the strength of a linear relationship between a pair of different random variables.

I just don't understand what the "quantity of x" means, with respect to covariance. If you're not well-versed in the topic, you might be garbling the terminology.

Again, somebody with more experience in probability than I may have a better response for you, later.

2. I am almost certainly using terms that are messed up or non-existent (and by that I mean they are different terms).

I didn't really take any direct terms directly from the documentaries I watched. They are pretty much just terms that I have tried to think of that I think are reasonable, but that doesn't really mean much. I have trouble with words in general, but that's neither here nor there. I will say that I was going to school at ITT Tech for a CS degree which I didn't finish, and the school ended up going belly up anyways. So it's very strange that these terms come up as CS terms considering I am not really using terms that I am consciously aware of their meaning.

__________________________________________________ _________

OK so let's say that you have an equation that is represented on a graph. Then let's say based on that, the quantity of X has a correlation of 50% of whatever that equation is. The problem is that IDK how X would graph on top of the equation with a correlation of .5 (50%). It's a way to look at infinity in a way that is more structured. I did this because what I was talking about before wasn't getting me anywhere.

__________________________________________________ _________

To talk more about my idea, in the documentary "Dangerous Knowledge" it's about mathematicians who tried to tackle problems that ended up with them having dire consequences in one way or another, be it they went insane or committed suicide, but that these things that they proved have real consequences in how people (mostly educated mathematicians) see the world as a whole. One guy ended up getting bipolar and was working on the problem of infinity. Another guy made a proof that said physics is kinda unpredictable. Another basically proved that logic is illogical, and another guy made a proof that basically said that there were problems that humans would never be able to solve because we are basically computers and there are problems that computers can't solve. All these guys lived in the 1900's I think.

So what I did was try to apply some of the things that they proved (without knowing the math [God knows it's way above my head]) that I learned about and tried to apply it to some of the most fundamental things that we kinda take for granted. It actually came about spontaneously; I just basically had this thought and just decided to follow it. Hence, I came up with the idea that maybe when we say we are dealing with an unknown quantity that if what we know about that quantity is nothing that we don't know how that is going to affect other things within an equation in an almost metaphysical way. ―\_(ツ)_/―

3. Originally Posted by Quick
It's a way to look at infinity in a way that is more structured
More structured than what?

Infinity is not a number.

Infinity is a concept.

For example, there is no such thing as a smallest positive number. On the Real number line, we can get infinitely close to zero without reaching it, and, no matter how close to zero we think we are, there is always an infinite quantity of Real numbers between where we are and zero. Similarly, there's no such thing as two adjacent points, on the Real number line. No matter how close two points are, there is always an infinite number of additional points between them. These are examples of how we apply the idea of infinity.

How would more "structure" affect how we envision infinity, in such cases as these?

4. Originally Posted by mmm4444bot
More structured than what?

Infinity is not a number.

Infinity is a concept.

For example, there is no such thing as a smallest positive number. On the Real number line, we can get infinitely close to zero without reaching it, and, no matter how close to zero we think we are, there is always an infinite quantity of Real numbers between where we are and zero. Similarly, there's no such thing as two adjacent points, on the Real number line. No matter how close two points are, there is always an infinite number of additional points between them. These are examples of how we apply the idea of infinity.

How would more "structure" affect how we envision infinity, in such cases as these?
This is basically what drove this guy in "Dangerous Knowledge" crazy.

It talked about how if you draw a circle, and then you draw an infinite amount of lines through the middle of the circle then there will still be spaces in between lines around the circumference. The circle here represents infinity.

So what I tried to do is see how you could apply this idea of infinity inside infinity to any unknown quantity.

It's probably, just a big misunderstanding of things and that I am warping into some kind of contrived outlook on math because I don't know enough to really know what I am talking about. *scratches head*

5. Originally Posted by Quick
I tried to  see how you could apply this idea of infinity inside infinity to any unknown quantity.
I'm not sure what this phrase means, but my first thought is of an interval and that you're still thinking of infinity as though it's a number.

6. Originally Posted by mmm4444bot
I'm not sure what this phrase means, but my first thought is of an interval and that you're still thinking of infinity as though it's a number.
Hmm..

The way I was thinking about this was that if something is unknown, then it is really unknown, meaning you have no idea how it affects things connected to it. Think of it like the theory of relativity in that when the experiment was done to prove Einstein's theory was sound. In the experiment, the stars location around the sun was wrapped when looking at the eclipse. Like you wouldn't be able to tell that the spacetime of the sun has an effect that changes where the stars seem to be with the naked eye.

So if you were to talk about the previous equation:

X=4y+3

Then you can graph this equation. But then what would be a 50% correlation of this equation? I mean, you would be given a range of what could be possible, but you wouldn't actually know what the exact value would be.

But what I was envisioning isn't algebra because algebra assumes static values.

There is like this weird place I am in between probability, algebra, and random variables because I don't really know anything about any of it.

7. Originally Posted by Dr.Peterson
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.
This was what I was thinking about - Random Variables, specifically, Continuous Random variables. It's not exactly the same exact thing I was thinking, but it's close enough for me to know I am not crazy regarding this idea.

8. Originally Posted by Quick
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.
Below is more insight about the current model of electrons. (Quora sends me information daily, and questions about the nature of electrons, their "movement" and "position" seem to be the most common.) At the end, the author talks about a special situation wherein it seems like electrons may actually "orbit" sometimes!

Question: How do electrons revolve around the nucleus?

Response (01-14-2018), by James Freericks, Professor of Physics at Georgetown University:

They dont. At least not like planets revolving around the sun. When described by quantum mechanics, we find that the electrons are most often found in stationary states that have definite energy. When we describe these states, we do not know precisely where the electron is at any given moment, but if we measure its position at many different times, we find it is distributed in a pattern that can be calculated quite well using the theory of quantum mechanics. But in actuality, it is not easy at all to measure the position of the electron. What we can measure is the energy of the light emitted or absorbed as the electrons change their energy levels. The agreement between the experiment and theory is remarkably good. So good, in fact, we can use the wavelength of light measured to determine the mass of the nucleus, and we are nearly accurate enough that we could use it to measure the size of the nucleus. These stationary energy states have odd properties that we are not used to. The probability pattern associated with one of these states does not change with time, yet we know that the average kinetic energy of the electron is such that the electron acts as if it is moving faster than [one-hundredth] the speed of light (which is quite fast). Is it confusing. Yes, it is. But this is reality.

As a side note, there are special experiments in atoms called Rydberg atoms, which exist in highly, highly excited states of the atoms. And in these cases, recent experiments have been able to put the electron into orbits that resemble those of planets around the sun and were able to follow the orbit for a sizeable amount of time.

There is a lot of mystery in the reality of how electrons behave in atoms. We are still learning the details of how to understand all of this complex behavior.

Posting Permissions

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