Can somebody help me re-write this with traditional notation ?

[Isaacsname]

I apologize if this is the wrong section

This is an integral written with the first 7 digits of pi, reversed, I think...

Can somebody write this out with traditional notation ?

I am still learning the basics of integrals, so I am completely unsure of how to write it out.

(ln(2951413)^-1 / 10^8) +1 = 1.000000000671…

10^((6*86400)/66600) * (666+(1/2000))^-2 * (1+(671/10^11))^-1 = 137.0359990826...

This is within error limits for the 2010 CODATA value for the FSC

Thanks again,

Isaac

 

[Simon Bridge]

(ln(2951413)^-1 / 10^8) +1 = 1.000000000671…

Do you mean [ln(2951413)^-1] / [10^8]
$$\frac{1}{10^8\ln(2951413)}$$ or [ln(2951413)]^[-1 / 10^8] $$\frac{1}{\big[\ln(2951413)\big]^{10^{-8}}}$$ ?

10^((6*86400)/66600) * (666+(1/2000))^-2 * (1+(671/10^11))^-1 = 137.0359990826...

... this one says:$$10^{(6\times 86400)/66600}\big(666+(1/2000)\big)^{-2} \big(1+(671/10^{11})\big)^{-1} = 137.0359990826
\cdots$$

But I don't see any integrations here.

"$\ln$" indicates the natural logarithm, so that $\ln(e^x)=x$

The calculations look like somebody trying to make the fine structure constant have some relationship to mystical numbers. Where did you find these calculations?

Note:
Put that last calculation as X=10^ABC where:
A=6(86400)/(66600)=864/111 ... nearly 8
B=(666+1/2000)^2=(666.0005)^2=443556.66600025 ... nearly 444000
C=(1+(671/10^11))^-1 = 1/(1+672x10^-11)=(10^11+672)/(10^11)=100000000672/100000000000 ... very nearly 1.

then X is about 100000000x444000=44400000000000 and not 137 point whatever.

 

[Mark44]

isaacsname,
Is there some reason you're doing this calculation? As Simon noted, this is not an integral.

 

[Isaacsname]

Do you mean [ln(2951413)^-1] / [10^8]
$$\frac{1}{10^8\ln(2951413)}$$ or [ln(2951413)]^[-1 / 10^8] $$\frac{1}{\big[\ln(2951413)\big]^{10^{-8}}}$$ ?

... this one says:$$10^{(6\times 86400)/66600}\big(666+(1/2000)\big)^{-2} \big(1+(671/10^{11})\big)^{-1} = 137.0359990826
\cdots$$

But I don't see any integrations here.

"$\ln$" indicates the natural logarithm, so that $\ln(e^x)=x$

The calculations look like somebody trying to make the fine structure constant have some relationship to mystical numbers. Where did you find these calculations?

Note:
Put that last calculation as X=10^ABC where:
A=6(86400)/(66600)=864/111 ... nearly 8
B=(666+1/2000)^2=(666.0005)^2=443556.66600025 ... nearly 444000
C=(1+(671/10^11))^-1 = 1/(1+672x10^-11)=(10^11+672)/(10^11)=100000000672/100000000000 ... very nearly 1.

then X is about 100000000x444000=44400000000000 and not 137 point whatever.

excellent, thanks for taking the time to explain this to me.

I thought it was bs, that's why I came here to make sure, lol

To answer the other poster, I am currently studying ancient languages and the history of encryption, for a book I am writing, which takes me through all sorts of obscure topics, and naturally where there are obscure topics pertaining to things like history, math and languages, there is plenty of folderol, which I encounter commonly in conversations with sophists who practice sesquipedalianism in many forms, sometimes with math.

Since I am still quite a dolt with math, I have to check these things out.

Thanks again,

Isaac

 

[Simon Bridge]

JIC:
folderol: trivial or nonsensical fuss
Sesquipedalianism (re Horace) is a linguistic style that involves the use of long words.

Arithmetic can be used to confuse people all too easily:
I was once challenged, in a bar, to a difficult maths problem to do in my head ... the challenger came up with 427 times "a-hundred-million" and the crowd was most impressed when I instantly came up with 427-hundred-million. Having won the bet I suppressed my disgust - which was increased by the number of people using a calculator to check my answer.

The "grey elephant from Denmark" trick also exploits math-blindness.

Then there are a lot of crackpots and outright fraudsters using the tricks to raise money and support various cults and conspiracy theories.

I thought it was bs, that's why I came here to make sure, lol

... so you thought it was blatantly silly eh?

You don't need to waste time checking them out mathematically, just apply the crackpot tests.
i.e. A bunch of equations that just look like the ones you posted can be safely assumed crackpot unless trhe author is prepared to put them in a simpler form.

More generally:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

[Isaacsname]

JIC:
folderol: trivial or nonsensical fuss
Sesquipedalianism (re Horace) is a linguistic style that involves the use of long words.

Arithmetic can be used to confuse people all too easily:
I was once challenged, in a bar, to a difficult maths problem to do in my head ... the challenger came up with 427 times "a-hundred-million" and the crowd was most impressed when I instantly came up with 427-hundred-million. Having won the bet I suppressed my disgust - which was increased by the number of people using a calculator to check my answer.

The "grey elephant from Denmark" trick also exploits math-blindness.

Then there are a lot of crackpots and outright fraudsters using the tricks to raise money and support various cults and conspiracy theories.

... so you thought it was blatantly silly eh?

You don't need to waste time checking them out mathematically, just apply the crackpot tests.
i.e. A bunch of equations that just look like the ones you posted can be safely assumed crackpot unless trhe author is prepared to put them in a simpler form.

More generally:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Yes, I suspected it was rather nonsensical.

Somebody was trying to convince me that magic squares were somehow related to the things I am studying, which happens to be centered on a set of tables used for calculating calendar cycles in the lunar, solar, and stellar calendars.

I may not be a math wiz, but I know that that deriving magic squares is a rather trivial matter, and this person had been trying to convince me that the " babylonian square of the sun " was part of what I am studying, lol.

But hey, it is the internet, lol.

Thanks again,

Isaac

 

[Simon Bridge]

Anything with the words "babylonian square of the sun" can be safely dismissed without checking.
I don't even think it has more than a name in common with actual Babylonian astronomy.

But it's fun.

 

[Isaacsname]

Anything with the words "babylonian square of the sun" can be safely dismissed without checking.
I don't even think it has more than a name in common with actual Babylonian astronomy.

But it's fun.

It is fun, that's true. I always enjoy the process of separating fact from fiction.

I think they were unnecessarily drawing a corollary between the various constants in the magic square and some of my studies into pi concerning a series of triple repunits, which may or may not form the basis for the calendar calculations, among other things.

Unfortunately, it's all but impossible to find a rational discussion of the topics without encountering serious Woo.

Thanks again,

Isaac

 

[Simon Bridge]

Yeah - just looking into possible sequences in the digits of pi is normally a big red flag for woo-ness.
But it also forms a serious mathematical study.

The way to avoid the woo is to stick with peer-reviewed literature.

i.e. Have you seen:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pi-random.html
... if these guys are right, then any sequences you find in the digits are random and fleeting: meaningless.

Off your other threads: you seem to be restricting your investigation into base 10.
Any special reason for this?

 

[Isaacsname]

Yeah - just looking into possible sequences in the digits of pi is normally a big red flag for woo-ness.
But it also forms a serious mathematical study.

The way to avoid the woo is to stick with peer-reviewed literature.

i.e. Have you seen:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pi-random.html
... if these guys are right, then any sequences you find in the digits are random and fleeting: meaningless.

Off your other threads: you seem to be restricting your investigation into base 10.
Any special reason for this?

I haven't seen that particular page before, but have seen plenty of other work on pi, as well as some very creative methods for data visualization regarding the distribution of integers in pi, in base 10. The professors from Nottingham U. in England have some great stuff regarding pi on the Numberphile channel ( Youtube ) mainly aimed at laypeople like myself.

I have not gotten into any other bases, merely because I have no solid grasp of counting in different bases, yet, lol.

I have seen a few discussions about pi in other bases, but until I have a better grasp on counting in different bases, I have no opinion, obviously.

There are methods for deriving pi that are just as counter-intuitive as the pin drop, or averaging the sinuosity of rivers ( currently debated ), and they are actually based on Luni-solar observations and enumerative combinatorics.

The unfortunate part, is that discovering them involves delving into ancient languages like Greek and Hebrew, which is where the woo is very prominent.

It's difficult enough to wade through topics like boustrophedon, isopsephy or chiastic structure, but once you add numbers into the mix, mixing letters and numbers suddenly becomes " numerology " ...which is a rather myopic stance considering the history of encryption and ciphers, etc, but it also makes it all but impossible to have a rational discussion, as the majority of folks who study Hebrew and Greek are religious, whereas, I am not ( atheist )

Add to that, the fact that none of them seem to know anything about the derivation/history of the calendars, and it becomes a pointless conversation.

Nevermind the 140 or so cognitive biases that one would possibly suffer from, all too apparent if you look at some random websites concerning Hebrew/Greek and math, lol.

That's why I came here in the first place, seeking rationality. I don't seek to apply some sort of mystical meaning to numbers, that's just pure foolishness.

As far as peer-reviewed work, I have not found much regarding my inquiries into pi, aside from a few blips about " looping " numbers in pi, which is also something I have spent time studying, so far only for the first 1000 integers.

That in itself makes for a very interesting study, and I consider myself lucky enough to have been able to enlist the help of a degree'd mathematician/programmer to help out once in a while.( not the person who wrote that gibberish at the top of the page )

That all being said, I do have some pretty convincing proof that a far more accurate value for pi was known, far earlier than what is taught.

Let me ask you this: What do you think Plato was referring to when he said, in the Republic

" And this entire geometrical number is determinative of this thing "

( btw, I sense an impending thread closure, understandably, but I really would like some sound minds to discuss this with, perhaps there is a more apropros area of the forum ? )

Thanks again,

Isaac