# Maths: Trustworthy Tool or Questionable Map?

• John Richard
In summary, a mathematical structure known as pi has an infinite number of bits, but this is offset by the fact that it must be approximated with a finite binary number. Despite this, the concept of an infinite universe is doubted due to the fact that there is a limit to smallness.
John Richard
One of the most powerful tools of investigative science is maths. Theories are often debunked simply because its associated mathematics failed in some practical way.

Yet math is full of mysteries:

We cannot state the ratio of a circle. Pi is a name given to a "transcendant irrational" that is really the unresolved question of, what is the ratio of a circles radius to its circumference? I am not questioning the practical value of what we do know, I have used it often when programming ratio relationships and cams on servo control systems. But I have to program in compensation for the accummulated "error" of using Pi. No matter what resolution of Pi, there will ultimately be an error to compensate for. This shows up in cyclic systems probably better than anywhere else.

Math predicts the infinite divisibility of a fixed length. But we know from quanta that this is not true, that there is a limit to smallness. Or at least that seems to be the conclusions from present physics.

Math predicts infinity, yet the concept of an infinite universe is doubted.

Math predicts more dimensions than the four we can whitness around us, and yet, as far as I am aware, no empirical eveidence of further dimensions exists.

My question is simply this, should we place our faith in the predictions of math, or not?

John Richard said:
We cannot state the ratio of a circle.
False. In fact, you just stated "the ratio of a circle". Of course, I suspect that was shorthand "the ratio of a circle's permiter to its diameter".

But I have to program in compensation for the accummulated "error" of using Pi.
No, you had to program in compensation for the accumulated error of using a finite binary approximation to pi.

No matter what resolution of Pi, there will ultimately be an error to compensate for.
Pi is an exact quantity.

Math predicts the infinite divisibility of a fixed length.
(Second-order) Euclidean geometry predicts the infinite divisibility of a fixed Euclidean line segment.

But we know from quanta that this is not true, that there is a limit to smallness. Or at least that seems to be the conclusions from present physics.
(1) No, that is not the conclusion from present physics.
(2) Even if we did, it would merely imply the universe is not a model of Euclidean geometry.

Math predicts infinity
Certain mathematical structures have infinite elements, or particular elements named "infinity".

yet the concept of an infinite universe is doubted.
Math says nothing about the universe. If the universe is not infinitely large, that simply means physicists should not assume it is a model of a mathematical structure of infinite size.

And the rest of your post just repeats the mistake made in the past two examples.

Last edited:
What is the exact quantity of pi?

I don't want the nubers to 50 or a 100 decimal places, I want the full ratio. I was under the clear impression, (happy as hell to be wrong though), that the ratio was unresolveable.

I know we can measure the length of the circumference and the diameter but then we get into the difficulties of resolution of construction and measurement, which although theoretically absolute, are not practically so.

The binary equivalent as a finite approximation is endless no matter how manny bits in the binary word unless a formula exists that succinctly defines the ratio of the circle.

I am on pins about your comment that Pi is an exact quantity?

I forgot to mention Hurkyl, as a mentor you have the ability to lock a thread or better still to delete it.

Given the sound rebuttal I would be grateful if you could save me any further embarrasement by doing so. Please?

John Richard

Er, I suppose there's no problem locking it. One of the philosophy forum mentors can unlock if it turns out I shouldn't have.

## 1. What is the purpose of this topic?

The purpose of this topic is to examine the trustworthiness of mathematics as a tool for understanding the world around us. It also aims to explore any potential limitations or biases that may exist within mathematical systems.

## 2. How is mathematics considered a trustworthy tool?

Mathematics is considered a trustworthy tool because it is based on logical and systematic reasoning, which allows for consistent and accurate results. It also has a strong track record of solving complex problems and predicting outcomes in various fields such as science, engineering, and economics.

## 3. What are some examples of questionable uses of mathematics?

Some examples of questionable uses of mathematics include the misuse or misinterpretation of statistical data, the use of biased algorithms in artificial intelligence, and the exclusion of certain perspectives or voices in mathematical research and education.

## 4. Can mathematics be improved to become a more reliable tool?

Yes, mathematics can always be improved to become a more reliable tool. This can be achieved through ongoing research, collaboration, and critical evaluation of mathematical theories and methods. Additionally, incorporating diverse perspectives and addressing any biases can also improve the reliability of mathematics.

## 5. How does the trustworthiness of mathematics affect our daily lives?

The trustworthiness of mathematics has a significant impact on our daily lives as it is used in various ways, such as in financial transactions, technological advancements, and decision-making processes. If mathematics is not considered a reliable tool, it can lead to incorrect conclusions and potentially harmful consequences.

• Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
2K
• Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
0
Views
1K
• Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
51
Views
8K
• General Math
Replies
33
Views
5K
• Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
67
Views
11K
• General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
• General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
• General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
911