Math Is Fun Forum

Sure, take pictures of clouds and fuse them together on photoshop!

Definitions are not always pleasant.

Static or not, I am still against randomity.What is faulty with my "starting values" theory?If I'm so wrong, then correct me.
Common equations are too weak to express the mechanics of the universe.

What is so bitter about my definitions?Excuse me, I do not understrand the meaning of that word in context, do you mean bitter as in "pessimistic" or bitter as in "weak, bad,insufficient"?

Take the tangens(sp) of a corner.I am not so interested in what the tangens is at known values  (30 degrees root 3/3 and so on) but what really does intrigue me is: we all know that the tangens of 90 degrees is ∞, but if you subtract a number so small that it lies somewhere in the end of the endless PI tail of it, it would be a existing number, almost endlessly far but still existant.That is what truly intrigues me, what does TRULY happen at those edges where traditional maths says that it SUPPOSES something is like that.Those edges beyond all numbers and known defenitions.Perharps it's just my childish ignorance and curiosity playing in me.

I interpret chaos as it is, as I consider there is no order and chaos, only defined and undefined things according to mankind.Your apple is only for us 1 apple, it is in fact no more than a part of "1 ecosystem" which is a part of "1 galaxy" which, at the end, is a part of "1 plane of existance".
So to me, there isn't a difference between order and chaos,  they are for me as relative as random, up, beautiful....

In that case his sense of honor would be bigger than his wanting of sexual pleasure. Still no counterproof.

And what chaos? Where? According to who?

What you call chaos is chaos because it's chaotic to you.
What policemen call "chaos on the streets" is in fact an organized crime hierarchy better organized than any social structure known to men.

Ever noticed how our brain works?
It does not calculate with digits or binaries, but with "factors" and "factorial interactions".This intrigues me the most.If we could map this, and push this logic further than our brain can push it, we could "understand" many things.Einstein understood his theories because his brain could resonate up to those high factors, understand their integration, and allow enough room around it to explain it in plain words.

Could it be possible to construct a computer that would use the human brain code as operating module?
What is a brain-factor?Can it be defined (I hope no one will deny it's existence here)
Could it be mathematically noted?

Maths is difficult.
Therefore, maths is difficult to master.(1)

Morons are stupid.
Morons do not understand the fact that boring and difficult things can be useful (relate boring as subjective to moron).(2)

This is a maths forum. (3)

Regarding 1,2,3 this is a moron-free forum.(4) (a moron will not want-be able to master maths)

A moron thinks he knows everything.
Therefore, a non-moron can admit that he lacks knowledge/understanding about something.(1*)

The point of debating=convince someone in a logical, rational or practically efficient way about the superiority of a certain opinion.(2*)

Regarding 4 and 1*, people here will listen to debating, and as we do consider improving ones knowledge and common sense good, and debating will work on this forum, I can allow myself to pull the conclusion that....

Debating is good. (please do not tell me about semi- demi- and quasimorons.)

Debating is good.

However, as our brains are limited, we will never truly understand anything beyond it's limits.

Interesting points.But check this out:

Infinity is not a number, infinity could indeed be endlessly small.For example, Pi:

An endless number, yet every digit that comes is smaller than the former.0,1 is smaller than three, 0.4 is smaller than 1... This means, if Pi would be drawn on an axis (how is that called in english, that orthonormal thing with the (x,y) it's lenght would constantly grow into infinite smallness, meaning it could never grow past the previous digit (the 0.1 could never grow beyond the 3) but still it would grow forever.

"Standard" infinity is everything, 0 is nothing.How could we explain 1?

And about those negative numbers: imagine a axis set (or how it might be called).Imagine us living in the I quadrant of the goniometric circle (+,+), for us only the positive things (matter, one-way at one time movement, one-way at a time time course) is possible.
On the same goniometric circle (or ball, regarding our would is (x,y,z)) there is a II quadrant (-,+) a third being the complete opposite of ours and a forth (+,-).
0 is the nothing in the middle, and different everythings in every direction....

And sorry, I could not answer the UP question because I don't know what an UP is.
And please explain the last group of questions, don't really understand them.

And I worked with 2 or 3 dimensions.

This maths is the cornerstone of this universe, an entityless carcass which holds this world together.

The world is a mathemathic machine, running through it's complex mechanics powered by some unknown something that is time.We are a function of it, making our way following our endless parabola of the world field, determined by the terms "man" and the fractals of it.We do not just exist, we are "allowed" to exist by the model, and therefore we exist.

And who is god?Well, he's just the chief mechanic

There isn't anything spontaneus, randomity is relative to the starting values (ask me for more details I don't like annoying people with my theories)

You cannot divide by infinity as you cannot divide by 0. These two are each others opposite, and everything else is a compromiss between the two

What I've been thinking of is not a world simulator but rather a probability calculator.

For example: my current project: the Thief's Algorithm

A thief needs to sneak into a castle, steal a diamond and escape. The castle is guarded by 25 guards with spears and crossbows.
Conditions: visibility 60%, weather: rain .... (following a complete list of descriptions

In a on-paper "program language" it will look like this:

goal: retrieve [diamond] from [castle], (avoid) the [guards], use {rain} as cover

the words in [] brackets are local constants, described like: [door]: in earth-like conditions, mankind evolving process 35% (middle ages), {iron} or {wooden} structures with usually a keyhole .....

a door with no keyhole is written like: [door[no keyhole]

a completely undefined door, (when the thief sees a door but does not have the slightest idea about what kind of door it may be), is written as ]door[

(avoid): actions, described like: (here): not coming in contact with guards, by those and those means....

{rain]: constants, active for {plane of action}, here medieval Britain.

the more factors you add, it will get more and more precise (as to tell you NOT to wear shoes that make noise)
add all factors included in a theft, process those together, and you will get the way (and chance) of getting that diamond.
Algorithm possibly rewritten on banks, department stores ....
Or let's just change the factors and use it to improve people's lives (reverse and get a Police Algorithm)

And concerning world simulations.... also possible. Write a lot of interacting factors (like above, (avoid) interacts in a way with [guard], let those factors interact with themselves for time necessary (like people being born ...) give a course by which the interaction will take place (a world powered by Pi, someone?Pi is infinite!)

With the right balance of factors they will interact forever, if getting a starting push or being powered by something. Then, make it possible for yourself to manage that world by using "lever" factors that would change the cource of your world without disturbing it (for example, create a major fluctuacy that in real life would look like Hurricane Katrina)

Now you are God.

But guys, how do I get probability chances out of functions? For example, if I would draw the possibility of myself being eaten by wolves in a forest as a function, and then draw the "possibility that I will kill the wolf with my bare hands" as a function, where exactly would I be able to read my chance to survive?

I will keep you up to date with some models and algorithms (at least if someone is interested) so you could correct my mistakes (like the one with the stupidity factor).I really have the idea that this will work and I don't leave a thing unfinished. However a computer calculates with digits. not with described logically interacting factors, so it would probably never get to a computer.And thank you for the article.

Thank you for your response. I guess i'll be busy writing population matrices now

But I've been thinking..

A conversation between people is nothing else than exchange of factors, which, determined by it's context, have a specific outcome.
For example, if I would say to you: your life or your jewels, you would know it's a joke because we're on the internet and I could not possibly rob you.

global variables: internet, anonymity of forum use
information variables: "Your life or your jewels"->50/50 chance of survivial depending on choice
possibility of dying: 0% (determined by global variables)
Context possibilities: you can fill in this

But if a person would say that on one of those dark November nights, it would look like:

global variables: Dark night, lonely street, evil-looking man
information variables: "Your life or your jewels"->same 50/50 chance of survival
personal variables: largely unknown to either you or the spectator*)
                           -visible: you see the masked man's eyes, you see it's a young kid who isn't 
                                        experienced
                            -mental: without revealing yourself you grab your pocket knife (if you
                                         would hesitate for a while the thug would notice it)

*note: if one would write a model for the thug person, knowing all the psychological data of the "basic" person, with the "added" (his childhood, his education, his experience, his alignment....) factors, one could roughly (or exactly) determine his actions at the moment of the example.

Outcome (forgive me for bad formulae, I'm just trying)

dark night (visibility decreases by 10% by each meter after 10 meters from target)
lonely street (possible helping hand would be 100+ meters away, check above formula for his visibility)
evil-looking man: nx chance of survival, with n=[your fighting/running/negotiations skill]
                          and x being the same of the thug

Context of inf. var.: 90% chance of not being a joke/bluff

Chance of survival: 50(if giving money)/50{calc} nx+(possibility of police car passing by) or something

Now work the data above with the personal variables and you'll get the outcome. Of course, if you was mistaken about the look in his eyes and did not notice the desperacy, you could be shot trying to defend yourself.And so on....

Every situation, conversation could be mapped like this (for conversations it would be terribly long), so my question is now

I know fate is a believer's excuse, but the things above makes me thinking that everything could be determined.

How would it then look?

-Is there a COMPLETELY random "something" that changes the course of events?(I haven't seen any random things in math)

-Is there a homeostatic system, that would automatically by some to us unknown, hyper-mechanic way restore the balance if it would be pulled too hard to one side?

-Or does the system not interact, but are we just shaped self-balancing (for example, an evil but nerdy kid has a plan on conquering the world.The plan would work out perfectly, but regarding that the average human being would bully a supernerd when in high school by those means the fluctuacy has been made even with the rest, and self-balance restored*)

Does this look like this [cathegory x    {sub-cathegory y} cathegory x]

Where the element y is free to do anything between his brackets but would never affect anything outside them (in the x-cath)
Or, if the element y becomes too "cool" and tries to interact with x, the x would "push" it back, hence restoring the balance?