[Guest]

There is an equation that is 1+1=Infinity. Can you explain how this works?

[Guest]

What do you mean what's the point? Math isn't a tool for scientists, math is greater than all science, just scientists use a small portion of it. Math isn't "for" anything, it's the only pure intellectual endeavor. If some physicist/biologist wants to come along and use our system then fine, but it wasn't derived for that, nor is it maintained or changed for that. Math is pure, perfect, and proven. It's not just some scientific model. Math pwns everything.

The Hierarchy of Knowledge.

Science ---> Math ---> Physics ---> Chemistry ---> Biology ----> etc.....

Scientia = Knowledge

Edited March 19, 2009 by Romulus064

[Izzy]

^I suppose the generalization 'science' would include all divisions of science, math apparently being among these. As long as we can agree math pwns the rest, I'm not too bothered.

[Prof. Templeton]

The Hierarchy of Knowledge.

Science ---> Math ---> Physics ---> Chemistry ---> Biology ----> etc.....

Scientia = Knowledge

I admit I haven't been reading this thread until some of the posts today, but since it's now in Others I'm going to weigh in. Science is a state of knowing. Mathematics is a science as are all the other catagories listed above and then some. They are all inter-connected. You can't have the other sciences without math and without the other sciences math would be pointless.

The reason there is a definition for infinity in math is because it is possible. On paper and in your mind, therefore it must defined. Do negative numbers exist in the real world or only on paper and in our heads? Science is the persuit to find explanations and definitions for everything around us even if it doesn't exist.

[Guest]

I admit I haven't been reading this thread until some of the posts today, but since it's now in Others I'm going to weigh in. Science is a state of knowing. Mathematics is a science as are all the other catagories listed above and then some. They are all inter-connected. You can't have the other sciences without math and without the other sciences math would be pointless.

The reason there is a definition for infinity in math is because it is possible. On paper and in your mind, therefore it must defined. Do negative numbers exist in the real world or only on paper and in our heads? Science is the persuit to find explanations and definitions for everything around us even if it doesn't exist.

Math is science, but it was created as a tool for science and has since become its own discipline much like stories once told to convey a history are now religions... things take on a life of their own outside of their original purpose. Math is only a tool for explaining the world, real or hypothetical. As such, you are correct in saying that infinity does exist, but not in practice. It is a concept and it exists only as such. It is when we practically apply the concept of infinity onto science is when it has real meaning, although it is in practice unachievable.

[Izzy]

Math is science, but it was created as a tool for science and has since become its own discipline much like stories once told to convey a history are now religions... things take on a life of their own outside of their original purpose. Math is only a tool for explaining the world, real or hypothetical. As such, you are correct in saying that infinity does exist, but not in practice. It is a concept and it exists only as such. It is when we practically apply the concept of infinity onto science is when it has real meaning, although it is in practice unachievable.

Math wasn't created for science! Math wasn't even created! Read my above post..

Exactly. The OP argued that cells could divide infinitely. This is clearly wrong. Therefore, I was right.

[Guest]

Math wasn't created for science! Math wasn't even created! Read my above post..

Exactly. The OP argued that cells could divide infinitely. This is clearly wrong. Therefore, I was right.

Math was created as a discipline, discovered as natural law. Math is a science which means it was created, or at least the study of math was, but that doesn't mean it would cease to exist if it were to stop being studied or we ceased to exist. The same is true as Biology, we created the science to discover the rules and happenings in life.

You are still missing the point! Cells could divide infinitely if they were allowed to, they have the potential to do so, and that is all the model requires. So as a thought experiment it is possible. This is a riddle, it only needs to be possible in mind.

This is demonstrated by the riddle I read on here before with the fly bouncing between two trains and eventually getting smashed between them. No fly could fly 150 miles at 75 miles per hour constant speed especially considering it will be changing directions more and more frequently as it bounces back and forth across a smaller distance. That doesn't matter, because as it is allowed in the riddle.

[Guest]

unestly it is not mathimatics

[Guest]

Newton didn't invent calculus, he discovered it. The same way pi, i, e, etc. were discovered. The math has always been here, we've just created a language out of it to make it more understandable.

Ah. From nihilism to Platonism...

'Only recently did it become its own entity' is like going back to when the electrons were discovered and blowing them off completely, because 'only recently did they become their own entity'.

You cannot compare electrons and mathematics. Physics maybe, but not electrons.

[Izzy]

Math was created as a discipline, discovered as natural law. Math is a science which means it was created, or at least the study of math was, but that doesn't mean it would cease to exist if it were to stop being studied or we ceased to exist. The same is true as Biology, we created the science to discover the rules and happenings in life.

You are still missing the point! Cells could divide infinitely if they were allowed to, they have the potential to do so, and that is all the model requires. So as a thought experiment it is possible. This is a riddle, it only needs to be possible in mind.

This is demonstrated by the riddle I read on here before with the fly bouncing between two trains and eventually getting smashed between them. No fly could fly 150 miles at 75 miles per hour constant speed especially considering it will be changing directions more and more frequently as it bounces back and forth across a smaller distance. That doesn't matter, because as it is allowed in the riddle.

The laws of nature are constant, and we didn't invent anything. We just studied those laws and split them up into different groups, each specific to certain laws. Math would generally be all these constants, expressed mathematically (we did make the numbers up, but not that values, so even if they were to be presented differently, they'd be the same), and applied to physics, biology, chemistry, etc. So basically physics etc. are the sciences, math is just the underlying framework. Math is the ultimate science, the rest are just little sub-sciences, using math to get along. For biology, we studied things related to each other, in this case all life, and gave it a name. As you said, the biology would remain the same whether studies or given a name or not. But yeah, basically, math wasn't created for science, all science just deal with math because they're math in other forms. Which is why math > everything, except maybe the universe itself.

I still don't think we've come to the agreement that math > everything, but let's pretend we have. Just because the math is possible, doesn't mean it'll work in the universe. The trees in my yard could grow infinitely tall if we were just looking at the math. But you have to take gravity, lack of resources, lack of space, etc. into account, which makes it impossible. According to the math, I could grow infinitely old. The math doesn't consider my death. If you look to the model to exclude the end, what's the point? It's like saying I'll live infinitely long, because once I die, who cares, the model held 'til the end.

Too be fair, this is more of a biology question than something I'd consider a riddle. It was merely put into riddle form. The answer was cell division, but the OP/answer ignored real-life constraints. Because these were not taken into account, I'm not going to accept the answer. This isn't just some mind game or thought experiment. Of course it could work in my head. I walk through space in jeans and a t-shirt in my head. The answer is fallacious, and therefore wrong.

[Izzy]

Ah. From nihilism to Platonism...

Not quite though. By 'always been here', I pretty much mean since the start of the universe. Math wasn't floating around in soul-form before we got here.

You cannot compare electrons and mathematics. Physics maybe, but not electrons.

Eh. In a figurative sense, it's really no different from comparing Bush to a clown, because they're both juggling stuff and making people laugh, while leading sad and depressive lives, both in too much denial to realize it.

[Guest]

Eh. In a figurative sense, it's really no different from comparing Bush to a clown, because they're both juggling stuff and making people laugh, while leading sad and depressive lives, both in too much denial to realize it.

Again, not at all. Bush is a clown, so no comparison needed...