Thus mathamatics assumes a finite universe. 0.9999, 1; they're close enough for government work. Conceptually, (and as far as mathamatics goes), the closest we can get is a pretty little infinite symbol. But that is all besides the point. It doesn't matter how many 9 you put behind the decimal, it will never accurately demonstrate a 1 to 1 ratio with the physical universe.

You are of course correct. Interestingly, it's also correct that a decimal point followed by an infinite number of nines is one. The distinction lies in knowing that the latter case is impossible physically yet conceptually true.

Oh okay I get what you're saying now.

Yeah a lot of weird things could happen in a completely continuous universe, not the least of which is the Banach-Tarski paradox

There isn't a psyduck big enough for the mind-blowingness of that.

Well, the interesting thing is that both mathamatics and the physical universe exibit both aspects of Finite and Infinite...they're just inversely proportional to each other due to the design of the numerical concept (and mathamatics being built off of it). So, the best descriptive explaination I can give is that:

Mathamatics (numbers) are Infinitly Finite and
the Physical Universe is Finitely Infinite

In mathamatics, you can go on to infinity placing finite numbers behind a decimel.

In the physical universe, it exists outside the realm of our conceptual knowledge/application of numbers making it infinite, yet it is non-the-less "more-or-less" stable and defined in a limited finite way (the universe is only so big, there is a finite amount of energy, etc).

Thus is why a 1 to 1 ratio can never exist (at least, not without a change in the concept of numbers and mathamatics to fit the description above...but that is so mind-boggling to me at the moment I'm not even sure where to start).

But the more interesting question is...

If you devoted every single particle in the universe to forming as many 9's as you could after a decimal point, how many 9's would you have?

See, that's where the break-down is and why mathamatical fiddles have become increasingly common.

There is no way to answer your question as it stands. There's no description of what you're counting. Obviously, particles would be a finite whole number. Energy, on the other hand would be one of those situations where you can take the 9's on for ever (or one of those wierd 254825482548 paterns) and never actually represent it in a 1 to 1 ratio. So, obviously, you couldn't ever describe energy (or something similar) in terms of particles.

Now, the question to that is, is it pratical (even though it's beyond the scope of the discussion)?

You don't understand math.

Then, by all means, please enlighten me 'oh Admiral of Awesome!'

Seems to me that you're just trying to bait me into an arguement. I don't feed trolls...

You don't understand how to not feed trolls.

Your entry-level college calculus teacher should have done that. But you wouldn't know about real college, would you? How much did your diploma cost again?

Here's a whole list of proofs.

Yes, but by entry-level college calculus teacher I would have said high school precalculus teacher.

You know, high school precalc? The prerequisite to taking any calculus course, which is also the prerequisite to taking any physics course? But these are rules for actual universities, I don't know what the fake rules are for the fake university where friend14 got his fake degree.

Hint: Drop the act, nobody believes you, friend14.

Is it true that by assigning a letter to each number in Pi (base 26 most likely), one would have the contents of every book that could ever possibly be written?

-What with being a normal number and all. Infinite digits, no pattern.

No.

Even your wiki "proof" admits:

"There are even systems in which a number which can reasonably be called "0.999…" is strictly less than 1."

Of course, this only really proves that you don't fully understand the scope of the discussion. A 1 to 1 ratio between math and the physical universe does not exist (in other words, something that isn't real can not accurately describe something that is). No concept can ever be applied accurately enough to completely describe the physical universe (despite how close we can get to it).

I don't think you guys understand what captbevvil is saying, but it's accurate. You're just looking to bash him because he's him. I think he cleared it up well enough in his last paragraph for you.

Having read Flatland and its unofficial sequel Flatterland I shall try and explain the whole seeing in 3D things in a straightforward way.

Imagine a 2D universe, it exists entirely on a plane, objects are made out of lines. Everything in this universe except for lines themselves (which exist for the sake of narrative) are 2D. We are spatially aware of 3 dimensions, so we can look at this universe and see not just the 2D objects, but the INSIDES of the 2D objects, at a glance we can see where everything in this universe is positioned because we have the advantage of being able to see it from a perpendicular dimension.

If we were living in this 2D universe we'd only be able to see it in 1 dimension, we'd see a line. We'd be able to perceive depth using various tricks to judge distances but no matter how many eyes we possessed we'd still only be able to make a partial 2D representation in our minds at best.

Now zoom back to our 3D universe and apply the same thinking. A viewer in a 4th spatial dimension would be able to look at our universe and as far as his eyes could see he would know the exact position and internal structure of EVERYTHING in the universe. He'd be able to see our internal organs and everything. If we had lots of eyes and imaging methods at best we'd only manage a partial 3d representation, we might be able to perceive where everything is in 3d but we wouldn't SEE it.

Likewise a 2d dude looking at a 1D world would experience the same thing, he'd know where everything is on that line relative to each other but the people living in that world would only know about the first object in front and the first object behind. As far as the 1D dude is concerned there are only 3 objects in that universe; himself, the guy in front and the guy behind (hopefully one of them is a lady point or he's gonna be lonely). An observer could see an infinite number.

[QUOTE=Albert Einstein]As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.[/QUOTE]

the 'stein pretty much settles that debate


i can visualize 3 dimensions: X,Y, and time
all i have to do is think about all the things i did today





strikes words of wisdom:
A black hole is where God divided by zero.

Or a missing texture...

Or God is punishing the universe because he allowed your birth.

im flattered that you believe my existance has a veritable impact on the well-being of the universe

I think it was directed at me, but whatever.

oh lol. well i never claimed to be very bright

So you're saying black holes are the universe's dflt.mat?

Is his theory any less possible than it being black?

How do you know what it looks like? You ever BEEN THERE? :p