Understanding formulas, shapes, algorithms etc

This is a discussion on Understanding formulas, shapes, algorithms etc within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; but the prob is, that even maths contains conflicts between facts derived directly from axioms... And brewbuck, I did not ...

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    131
    but the prob is, that even maths contains conflicts between facts derived directly from axioms...

    And brewbuck, I did not understand your questions, sorry
    Programming is a form of art.

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    131
    We are creating laws that work in certain circumstances... But possibly, not in all...
    Programming is a form of art.

  3. #18
    aoeuhtns
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    581
    The 1/3 * s * h formula can be proven without calculus.

    Consider the unit cube, with vertices (0,0,0), (0,0,1), through (1,1,1).

    There are three faces that don't touch the origin. Connecting them to the origin forms three congruent cones (or pyramids, since they have square bases) with base area 1 and height 1 that fill up the volume of the cube.

    Any other cones are formed by linear transformations and rearranging the bases' shapes. (The rearranging the bases' shapes part can be proven without going through all of calculus, too, but that depends on what your definition of 'area' and 'volume' are. And on how radically you're willing to rearrange bases' shapes.)
    Last edited by Rashakil Fol; 04-16-2007 at 01:27 PM.
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.

  4. #19
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by hardi View Post
    but the prob is, that even maths contains conflicts between facts derived directly from axioms...
    Can you give an example?

    And brewbuck, I did not understand your questions, sorry
    My question is about the quantifiable nature of reality. The only way we can really quantify anything is to measure it via some measuring apparatus. If the quantity being described is unmeasurable, can it really exist?

    The real question is, "What does it mean to measure something?"

  5. #20
    aoeuhtns
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by hardi View Post
    but the prob is, that even maths contains conflicts between facts derived directly from axioms...
    That's if you choose axioms that are inconsistent. Why would you do that?
    Whenever such contradictions occur, mathematicians generally like to fix the axioms. See naive set theory vs. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    Can you give an example?



    My question is about the quantifiable nature of reality. The only way we can really quantify anything is to measure it via some measuring apparatus. If the quantity being described is unmeasurable, can it really exist?

    The real question is, "What does it mean to measure something?"
    Umm, i think of it as getting the most exact amount as possible...
    Programming is a form of art.

  7. #22
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    I hate proofs with a passion.
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    131
    I think this is an example(though i am not sure, maybe my definitions are errenous).

    Given a straight line and a point, there is only one line that goes through that point and is parallel to the other line. (I think this is one of the axioms...).

    In case we are talking about a sphere, then there can be no such thing... (ofcourse, nothing is derived here). Actually, i don't know of any good examples about colliding derivations. And maybe I missed out a part of the definition...
    Programming is a form of art.

  9. #24
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by hardi View Post
    Given a straight line and a point, there is only one line that goes through that point and is parallel to the other line. (I think this is one of the axioms...)
    Trying to apply such an axiom to the surface of a sphere is nonsensical. For one thing, you haven't defined "line" and "parallel" in the context of a sphere. A line on the surface of a sphere, when considered in a Euclidean space, isn't a line at all.

    You see contradictions because the axioms have been (over) simplified.

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    131
    very possible - i just need to recheck them
    Programming is a form of art.

  11. #26
    aoeuhtns
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    581
    If you're doing geometry on the surface of a sphere, you're working with a different set of axioms. There's nothing contradicting, you're just working with a different set of axioms. That's like defining your own addition operator on the integers and saying there are conflicts in the axioms because what you've defined implies 2 + 2 = -4 while another definition of addition implies that 2 + 2 = 4.
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    131
    yup, that axiom just doesn't work on a sphere.
    Programming is a form of art.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Program with Shapes using Virtual Functions
    By goron350 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-17-2005, 02:42 PM
  2. Binary Search Trees Part III
    By Prelude in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-02-2004, 04:00 PM
  3. "Patenting" math formulas or something like that
    By deltabird in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-26-2003, 04:47 AM
  4. Draw Shapes.
    By Unregistered in forum C Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-19-2002, 10:22 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21