I'm taking this here because no one else understands what I am saying.

[Quick]

OK, so I have stated this on 3 different forums and pretty much no one really knows what I am saying. So consider this a test of my sanity.

The idea is that an unknown quantity could be literally anything. Anything includes things that either change or are a representative of infinity in some way.

I got this idea going over some old math skills in algebra. I had also previously watched 2 math documentaries titled "Dangerous Knowledge" (pt. 1 & 2) and "Einstein's big idea."

The idea is basically that you don't get to manipulate an equation for free. There is a cost to everything. So if you have to multiply X by 3 (3X) then if X is a quantity that is dynamic, changes, or is assigned random values at random, then in having X + X + X all three X's could potentially be different values.

Naturally, if this is assumed, someone would have to prove that there are integers that are in fact dynamic, change, or assign random numbers. It could very well be assumed that these have to be irrational numbers, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Take for example that we cannot predict the movement of an electron going around a group of protons and electrons, for example. That is an example of what could be theorized as one of these dynamic integers.

Going back to the idea that manipulating an equation isn't free, if you were to take one of these unknown variables that do have a dynamic, non-repeating range (in other words a fruition of some sort of infinite dimension) then this means that time within the equation actually passes while manipulating the equation (at least the parts where the unknown variable is involved). This idea comes from Einstein's first theory of relativity in that his calculation assumed things would remain a constant speed instead of accounting for changing speeds of a particular thing. Einstein ofc later rectified this theory which is the theory of relativity we have today.

What are people's thoughts on this? Is it a sign that my mental illness is a variable that I am not considering? Is what I am saying make any sense at all? If I am being irrational, I would appreciate some evidence as to why I am wrong.

 

[Quick]

Calculating for unknown quantities.

OK. So I had previously come up with a rather unintelligible word salad of a problem that I don't see on the forum. (don't know if it never went through or mods thought it was spam or what.)

I have tried to work out this problem into more concrete terms.

This would be the question:

What is the quantity of x when x is an undefined quantity that has a covariance with a known equation of .5.

How I have tied to figure this out:

I just picked a random equation I thought of to give a concrete example.

x=4y+3

Don't know how to add the covariance. Just assumed it was:

.5x=4y+3
x=(4y+3)/.5
x=8y+6

The original inquiry I had was that when solving for a completely unknown quantity that the quantity could be literally anything. It could be the number 27 or a pineapple or an airplane. I was trying to figure out why we assume that when we are dealing with an unknown why we assume that the variable is static and not dynamic. In other words I was wondering why we didn't use clarification that the unknown quantity was a static real number.

This was brought about after I was doing some studying of simple algebra on Khan Academy and had previously (a day or two before) watched two math documentaries titled "Dangerous Knowledge" and "Einstein's Big Idea" I am trying to brush up on math skills because I want to go to college but don't want to have to pay for really basic math classes that I could figure out how to do on my own.

 

[mmm4444bot]

… don't know if [my other post] never went through or mods thought it was spam or what …

I just approved your posts. Do you want them merged into a single thread? I'm not sure whether you're asking two different questions.

New member's first three posts need to wait for approval (SPAM control). You were supposed to have been informed of this policy (twice) when you registered -- by e-mail and by private message. Did you receive these notices?

 

[Quick]

When I made the second post, I did see a pop up when I made my second post about my posts having to be confirmed by a moderator for SPAM control. Sorry for being redundant if I was. I tried to find the rules for this site and the contract I agreed to to be apart of this site, but couldn't figure out where it was.

I wouldn't mind my two posts to be combined because they both try to tackle the same thing. They go about it in different ways, however. The second time is where I try to put it more concretely and give an actual example to work off of.

 

[Dr.Peterson]

I think you may just be missing the fact that when we use variables, it is assumed that each variable stands for one fixed value. The word "variable" may give the impression that the value may "vary" even while you are using it, but it really just means that on any given occasion, the variable might stand for a different number -- but still the same number each place it is used in a problem. So x+x+x means we are adding three of the very same number, and we can indeed call it 3x. Nothing here is "dynamic", "random", or "infinite".

If we did want to apply math to a situation where quantities are not fixed, we would use a different kind of math! For instance, there is something very different, called "random variables", which represent values that actually vary randomly (according to a particular "probability distribution"). We work with these in entirely different ways than algebraic variables.

 

[Dr.Peterson]

To make sense of this, you'll have to explain what you mean by "covariance with a known equation".

But probably my answer to the first question applies here, as well. Variables DO represent only one value at a time. And the reason we assume this (that is, it is part of the definition of "variable") is that to do otherwise would make everything impossible.

 

[Quick]

I think you may just be missing the fact that when we use variables, it is assumed that each variable stands for one fixed value. The word "variable" may give the impression that the value may "vary" even while you are using it, but it really just means that on any given occasion, the variable might stand for a different number -- but still the same number each place it is used in a problem. So x+x+x means we are adding three of the very same number, and we can indeed call it 3x. Nothing here is "dynamic", "random", or "infinite".

If we did want to apply math to a situation where quantities are not fixed, we would use a different kind of math! For instance, there is something very different, called "random variables", which represent values that actually vary randomly (according to a particular "probability distribution"). We work with these in entirely different ways than algebraic variables.

Thank you for treating me with respect. When I brought this to people on other forums, they had no idea what I was talking about and their answers didn't satisfy me.

It makes perfect sense that what I was struggling with wasn't even algebra. It must have just been that I was looking at algebra equations when this idea came to me. If the mods want to move this thread to the correct subforum, then can.

But yes, the problem really has more to do with random variables instead of algebra. In a way I feel I am biting off more than I can chew in that even if you were to explain it to me, I wouldn't be able to understand because the level of math I understand is extremely limited.

I am still curious about this kind of math, however. So if there is a way to explain some of these things to me, I would appreciate that.

 

[Quick]

To make sense of this, you'll have to explain what you mean by "covariance with a known equation".

But probably my answer to the first question applies here, as well. Variables DO represent only one value at a time. And the reason we assume this (that is, it is part of the definition of "variable") is that to do otherwise would make everything impossible.

OK. So I got the idea of having a covariance from a video I was watching of Jordan Peterson when he was talking about how there are correlating statistics for psychometrics of the Big 5 personality aspect scale. Basically, I was able to figure out that because there is a covariance between the trait Openness and IQ. These things are related, but its not a correlation coefficient (where there is a direct correlation). So what I was thinking is that lets say you were making a graph and trying to map the correlation between an equation (could be anything) and then say that there is a correlation of .5 (or 1/2) for each point with the unknown quantity. IDK if it would work as a range that X could be in relation to the equation or whether only half the points show up where the equation and the unknown quantity are the same.

 

[Quick]

Oh, and I did just read the email where it says that my posts would be reviewed before they are posted by the mods. I just didn't see the email at first.

 

[mmm4444bot]

… previously watched 2 math documentaries titled "Dangerous Knowledge" (pt. 1 & 2) and "Einstein's big idea."

I'm not familiar with those documentaries, but we can discuss algebra or we can discuss physics. If you're thinking about some sort of interrelation between the two, you're going to have to be more specific.

… if you have to multiply X by 3 (3X) then if X is a quantity that is dynamic, changes, or is assigned random values at random, then in having X + X + X all three X's could potentially be different values.

In algebra, this is not correct. Whether X changes randomly to discrete values or X changes smoothly and continuously, X takes on only one value at a time.

X could be 1. Then 3X is three times 1 (that is, 1+1+1). If X changes to 7, then 3X is three times 7 (that is, 7+7+7).

If you had three different numbers added, then you would need three different symbols to represent the sum (that is, X+Y+Z).

Naturally, if this is assumed, someone would have to prove that there are integers that are in fact dynamic, change, or assign random numbers. It could very well be assumed that these have to be irrational numbers, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Take for example that we cannot predict the movement of an electron going around a group of protons and electrons, for example. That is an example of what could be theorized as one of these dynamic integers.

You've lost me, here.

I googled keywords einstein "dynamic integers" and I don't understand the references. People have used the phrase "dynamic integers" to discuss quasi-physics (blend of physics and philosophy), to discuss computer science, and some other discussions that I cannot parse at all. Again, if you're referencing something in those documentaries, you'll need to define all terms and phrases and provide a thorough context for each. There may eventually be somebody in the forum who is familiar with the context; time will tell.

Regarding the Bohr model of an atom (where electrons orbit the nucleus as particles), it's outdated. It still has use, as an introduction for beginning chemistry students, but the Quantum Mechanical model has replaced the Bohr model because we now know that electrons do not orbit the nucleus like little moons around their planet. Quantum physics and Schrödinger’s wave equations describe electrons more accurately as a waveform. We can't say where an electron is; the equations provide a probability of volume where electrons most likely are (forming energy shells). It's only when we use an instrument to detect an electron that this waveform collapses to a physical particle at a specific location. I'm not a physicist; I'm speaking from memory regarding what I read at Quora awhile back.

You have some interesting thought experiments in your head, motivated by something you watched, but I cannot see inside your mind. I'm not sure what specifically you're thinking about.

 

[mmm4444bot]

… This would be the question:

What is the quantity of x when x is an undefined quantity that has a covariance with a known equation of .5.

I'm not sure that I've seen covariance described as an equation. (The number 0.5 is surely not an equation.) I associate the topic of covariance with probability.

Are you talking about a correlation coefficient? The size of that indicates the strength of a linear relationship between a pair of different random variables.

I just don't understand what the "quantity of x" means, with respect to covariance. If you're not well-versed in the topic, you might be garbling the terminology.

Again, somebody with more experience in probability than I may have a better response for you, later. :cool:

 

[Quick]

I am almost certainly using terms that are messed up or non-existent (and by that I mean they are different terms).

I didn't really take any direct terms directly from the documentaries I watched. They are pretty much just terms that I have tried to think of that I think are reasonable, but that doesn't really mean much. I have trouble with words in general, but that's neither here nor there. I will say that I was going to school at ITT Tech for a CS degree which I didn't finish, and the school ended up going belly up anyways. So it's very strange that these terms come up as CS terms considering I am not really using terms that I am consciously aware of their meaning.

___________________________________________________________

OK so let's say that you have an equation that is represented on a graph. Then let's say based on that, the quantity of X has a correlation of 50% of whatever that equation is. The problem is that IDK how X would graph on top of the equation with a correlation of .5 (50%). It's a way to look at infinity in a way that is more structured. I did this because what I was talking about before wasn't getting me anywhere.

___________________________________________________________

To talk more about my idea, in the documentary "Dangerous Knowledge" it's about mathematicians who tried to tackle problems that ended up with them having dire consequences in one way or another, be it they went insane or committed suicide, but that these things that they proved have real consequences in how people (mostly educated mathematicians) see the world as a whole. One guy ended up getting bipolar and was working on the problem of infinity. Another guy made a proof that said physics is kinda unpredictable. Another basically proved that logic is illogical, and another guy made a proof that basically said that there were problems that humans would never be able to solve because we are basically computers and there are problems that computers can't solve. All these guys lived in the 1900's I think.

So what I did was try to apply some of the things that they proved (without knowing the math [God knows it's way above my head]) that I learned about and tried to apply it to some of the most fundamental things that we kinda take for granted. It actually came about spontaneously; I just basically had this thought and just decided to follow it. Hence, I came up with the idea that maybe when we say we are dealing with an unknown quantity that if what we know about that quantity is nothing that we don't know how that is going to affect other things within an equation in an almost metaphysical way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[mmm4444bot]

… It's a way to look at infinity in a way that is more structured …

More structured than what?

Infinity is not a number.

Infinity is a concept.

For example, there is no such thing as a smallest positive number. On the Real number line, we can get infinitely close to zero without reaching it, and, no matter how close to zero we think we are, there is always an infinite quantity of Real numbers between where we are and zero. Similarly, there's no such thing as two adjacent points, on the Real number line. No matter how close two points are, there is always an infinite number of additional points between them. These are examples of how we apply the idea of infinity.

:idea: How would more "structure" affect how we envision infinity, in such cases as these?

 

[Quick]

More structured than what?

Infinity is not a number.

Infinity is a concept.

For example, there is no such thing as a smallest positive number. On the Real number line, we can get infinitely close to zero without reaching it, and, no matter how close to zero we think we are, there is always an infinite quantity of Real numbers between where we are and zero. Similarly, there's no such thing as two adjacent points, on the Real number line. No matter how close two points are, there is always an infinite number of additional points between them. These are examples of how we apply the idea of infinity.

:idea: How would more "structure" affect how we envision infinity, in such cases as these?

This is basically what drove this guy in "Dangerous Knowledge" crazy.

It talked about how if you draw a circle, and then you draw an infinite amount of lines through the middle of the circle then there will still be spaces in between lines around the circumference. The circle here represents infinity.

So what I tried to do is see how you could apply this idea of infinity inside infinity to any unknown quantity.

It's probably, just a big misunderstanding of things and that I am warping into some kind of contrived outlook on math because I don't know enough to really know what I am talking about. *scratches head*

 

[mmm4444bot]

… I tried to … see how you could apply this idea of infinity inside infinity to any unknown quantity.

I'm not sure what this phrase means, but my first thought is of an interval and that you're still thinking of infinity as though it's a number.

 

[Quick]

I'm not sure what this phrase means, but my first thought is of an interval and that you're still thinking of infinity as though it's a number.

Hmm..

The way I was thinking about this was that if something is unknown, then it is really unknown, meaning you have no idea how it affects things connected to it. Think of it like the theory of relativity in that when the experiment was done to prove Einstein's theory was sound. In the experiment, the stars location around the sun was wrapped when looking at the eclipse. Like you wouldn't be able to tell that the spacetime of the sun has an effect that changes where the stars seem to be with the naked eye.

So if you were to talk about the previous equation:

X=4y+3

Then you can graph this equation. But then what would be a 50% correlation of this equation? I mean, you would be given a range of what could be possible, but you wouldn't actually know what the exact value would be.

But what I was envisioning isn't algebra because algebra assumes static values.

There is like this weird place I am in between probability, algebra, and random variables because I don't really know anything about any of it.

 

[Quick]

I think you may just be missing the fact that when we use variables, it is assumed that each variable stands for one fixed value. The word "variable" may give the impression that the value may "vary" even while you are using it, but it really just means that on any given occasion, the variable might stand for a different number -- but still the same number each place it is used in a problem. So x+x+x means we are adding three of the very same number, and we can indeed call it 3x. Nothing here is "dynamic", "random", or "infinite".

If we did want to apply math to a situation where quantities are not fixed, we would use a different kind of math! For instance, there is something very different, called "random variables", which represent values that actually vary randomly (according to a particular "probability distribution"). We work with these in entirely different ways than algebraic variables.

This was what I was thinking about - Random Variables, specifically, Continuous Random variables. It's not exactly the same exact thing I was thinking, but it's close enough for me to know I am not crazy regarding this idea.

 

[mmm4444bot]

… Take for example that we cannot predict the movement of an electron going around a group of protons and electrons, for example. That is an example of what could be theorized as one of these dynamic integers.

Below is more insight about the current model of electrons. (Quora sends me information daily, and questions about the nature of electrons, their "movement" and "position" seem to be the most common.) At the end, the author talks about a special situation wherein it seems like electrons may actually "orbit" sometimes!

Question: How do electrons revolve around the nucleus?

Response (01-14-2018), by James Freericks, Professor of Physics at Georgetown University:

They don’t. At least not like planets revolving around the sun. When described by quantum mechanics, we find that the electrons are most often found in stationary states that have definite energy. When we describe these states, we do not know precisely where the electron is at any given moment, but if we measure its position at many different times, we find it is distributed in a pattern that can be calculated quite well using the theory of quantum mechanics. But in actuality, it is not easy at all to measure the position of the electron. What we can measure is the energy of the light emitted or absorbed as the electrons change their energy levels. The agreement between the experiment and theory is remarkably good. So good, in fact, we can use the wavelength of light measured to determine the mass of the nucleus, and we are nearly accurate enough that we could use it to measure the size of the nucleus. These stationary energy states have odd properties that we are not used to. The probability pattern associated with one of these states does not change with time, yet we know that the average kinetic energy of the electron is such that the electron acts as if it is moving faster than [one-hundredth] the speed of light (which is quite fast). Is it confusing. Yes, it is. But this is reality.

As a side note, there are special experiments in atoms called Rydberg atoms, which exist in highly, highly excited states of the atoms. And in these cases, recent experiments have been able to put the electron into orbits that resemble those of planets around the sun and were able to follow the orbit for a sizeable amount of time.

There is a lot of mystery in the reality of how electrons behave in atoms. We are still learning the details of how to understand all of this complex behavior.