Sunday, December 8, 2013

I cannot find the end or the pattern to/in Pi, however I can prove you there is none.

I cannot find the end or the pattern to/in Pi, however I can prove you there is none.

Being a logical person by nature, I know that things are often much simplier than they appear. We simply need to ask ourselves the right question, in order to get the right result.
I can only laugh and then cry when I see reputed research websites, scientist communities, and even movies like "Pi" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ1sZSCz47w) all trying to find an end or a pattern to/in Pi, because their work is all based on a wrong approach, and they all follow the same path.



In fact, the end or pattern to/in Pi cannot be found for many reasons, and I can prove it.

1-For Pi to actually have an end, it needs to have a precise start value in order to be considered relative. Using space (and even time) calculations, you could then find a precise end once reaching the atomic level, but only if you forget the 4th dimension (time), and continue to presume there is no other dimension.

It is logical that if you don't specify how big something is, it can be of any size (infinite vector floating-point precision). Worst, if no size is defined, it shouldn't even exist.
However, if you can define or find its physical size, you can then calculate and find how many times it is bigger than an atom, which is the lowest possible value. Researchers try to find the value of B without defining the value of A in the first place, and they don't even assume A and B are linked and inter-dependant. You need to compare because everything is relative, and a relation always imply at least 2 things. You try to find one thing, but you reject that in order to exist, this thing needs another one. And this other thing is the scale compared to the smallest possible physical system which is the atom.

2-Also, lines (like those virtual lines creating the diameter and the circumference) are on a different dimension from points.


Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics))

Calculating any point with the expected level of precision requires vector calculation, and thus my first argument is reinforced, considering that without a starting scale value to compare with, there is infinite zooming possibility on a single vector point (dimension zero). Everything must remain relative in order to work, but that is not considered in current researches; you can find the value of a variable only when you compare it with another value, else it remains infinite by logic. A point might visually appear to have some consistent width and height, but in fact a point has none and should not even ever be visually represented, because it is infinite, thus invisible even to the best microscopes. Even at the atomic level, when there is nothing smaller, a point should not appear, because we live in a four-dimensional universe where time (t) is always allowing for better precision. A time value is constantly evolving, thus the time required to even simply calculate it, it is no more existing and should output a false value, until you can predict with infinite precision the time you will need to calculate the time value. In all cases, it is impossible to calculate the precision of a single point, unless you can manipulate the time, and even then, it would be extremely complicated to predict.

3-Any number X divided by number Y and then multiplied by number Y should theorically ALWAYS output a result of X (root value). Example: 1*3 = 3, then 3/3 = 1. It seems to work, isn't it? While this seems to always work, and always work only when using fractions (fractions are working in practice only because they simply represent a quantification of something, instead of quantifying it as a single number), it is also logical to say that 1/3 = 0.3333333333 (infinite 3), then 0.3333333333 (infinite 3)*3 = 1, right? However, this works only with fractions, because using a single number in this valid calculation, the end result is not 1, but 0.999999999 (infinite 9).

So, all the current mathematical system is based on the assumed principe that 1=1, however I just proved you that 1 does not equal 1, but rather 1 = 0.99999999 (infinite 9). If 1 does not equals 1, how can you hope to find any precise result to any formula based on this system? Because, that works only in practice, and not in theory. Everything is wrong. I found this out when I was 16 years old.

Good luck to all stubborn researchers. They will most probably end up drilling their brains just like in the movie if they don't give up and stay hooked. If they are obsessed by something, the only way to have a chance to actually get outside from random and highly-improbable luck is to learn to approach it correctly. You know, just like with women.


What is more important than the precision or the pattern itself, is the fact that we found a formula that is efficient at calculating a circumference value very easily from a diameter value. That should be sufficient for now, since anyway we can already "zoom in" enough to get useful and practical precision for virtually all domains created by humans up to now. Once we will have understood both the space and time dimensions, we should then come back to calculating Pi with a different approach; only then we might find something really useful out from the ultra-precise result in practice.
Research is not linear; it has been proved in the past that advances in one domain can revolutionize one and even many other domains. By finding answers to other questions, maybe the answers we are looking for will get unlocked. Revolutionary discoveries sometimes happen by error, but for errors to happen, there need to be things happening in the first place. While we focus on trying to find an end or pattern to Pi, our brains are not contributing to other problems and domains, and thus we are limiting our own potential to find solutions to some complex and extremely rewarding problems.


No comments:

Post a Comment