Can 'All' Be Quantified with Fibonacci Numbers?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Imparcticle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers Quantification
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the quantification of the term "all" in relation to mathematical properties, particularly in the context of Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio. Participants explore the implications of claiming something is true for all numbers or subsets of infinite sets, touching on both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the golden ratio has a unique property related to its square, suggesting it could apply to "all numbers," which prompts a challenge from another participant.
  • Another participant questions the validity of using "all" to quantify infinite sets, emphasizing the need for caution in such statements.
  • A mathematical equation is presented, exploring the roots of a quadratic equation related to the golden ratio, which seems to lead to further contemplation on the properties of numbers.
  • A participant acknowledges the phrasing of the initial claim as problematic but defends the idea that statements can be made about infinite sets, provided they are correctly formulated.
  • There is a discussion about the conditions under which something can be said to be true for all elements in a set, referencing the concept of negation in logic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the use of "all" in mathematical statements, with some arguing it can be applied to infinite sets and others cautioning against such claims. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of quantifying infinite sets.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity of the term "all" in mathematical contexts and the potential for misinterpretation in spoken language. The discussion also highlights the need for precise definitions when dealing with infinite sets.

Imparcticle
Messages
572
Reaction score
4
Yesterday I was enlightening a friend of mine concerning the many wonders of Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio (let this friend be represented as X). As I was speaking with X, I learned that another friend of mine (let him be represented as V) was listening very attentively. Here is our conversation, as it will make things easier for explanation:

Me: As you can see, X, phi (in the form 1.6...) is the only number whose
square is (phi - 1). No other number, as far as I know, has this quality. Apparently, this is supposed to be true for all numbers...

Friend V: No. You can't say "for all numbers".

Me: Ah, because by saying "all" I am quantifying an infinite set of numbers?

Friend V: Yes.


Unfortunately, we were unable to continue this conversation on that day. We are scheduled to continue a few days from now.
I actually disagree with V's assertion. This is because of a simple fact: there are certain properties of numbers that have been proved to be true for all numbers (right? :rolleyes: ). So I could say "all numbers".
But can I say "all of the subsets of an infinite set are such that x is always true for all of the subsets"?
is my usage of the word "all" quantifying my subject? What does the word "all" do in terms of how it quantifies?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
x^2 = x + 1
x^2 - x - 1 = 0
(1 +- sqr(1 - 4*1*=1))/2*1 = 1/2 +- sqr(5)/2 = 1/2 +- sqr(5/4)
= 1.618 or -.618

(-.618)^2 =~ .381
-.618 + 1 =~ .382

Hmmm
 
Last edited:
wow. thanks for the clarification.
 
Well, what you said is badly phrased, but that's what happens with spoken English, and as alkatran shows incorrect, but it is perfectly possible to make a statement about something being true for an infinite set.

x^2>x for all x in (the infinite set) (1,infinity)

something is true for all elements in some set if the negation, that there is *an* element for which it is false, is false.

Something is true for all the quantified members to which it applies if it is, erm, true for them all.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K