Can 'All' Be Quantified with Fibonacci Numbers?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of quantifying numbers, particularly in relation to Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio. One participant argues that certain properties can be true for "all numbers," while another counters that this implies an infinite set, which complicates the assertion. The conversation explores the implications of using the term "all" in mathematical contexts, especially regarding subsets of infinite sets. It is noted that a statement can be made about something being true for an infinite set, provided the negation is false. The dialogue highlights the nuances of mathematical language and the challenges of verbal communication in conveying precise concepts.
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:
Mathematics 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.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...

Similar threads

Back
Top