My dear scholar
Yes, it can be proved This experiment has 2 parts. In the 1st part we measure their dimensions with ruler. They are NOT accurate.As far as ruler values are concerned, though approximation ,but agree with each other. As they are right ,we go to the 2nd part. The answer is to VERIFY the EQUATION. When Equation is proved Right by the ruler values then we to go the equation and DERIVE the REAL Pi Value. So, Cosmic Pi is NOT NOT NOT .....derived from the experimental values . On the other hand, Pi is derived from the VERIFIED EQUATION . Hence it is the NATURAL Pi Value OK
Here is a theoretical basis ( 183 method )for the experiment
Thank you my dear Scholar
WISH YOU A HAPPY NEW YEAR
here is yet another experiment following a different appraoch
I think yes, not every but to some extent. Also, mathematics laboratory is becoming a part of school curriculum.
With thanks
That is indeed a tricky question, and the answer will depend on your definition of mathematical proof. But in most cases in mathematics the generalization of the result i.e that the property that you are trying to prove holds for all cases, is where experimentation fails. Specially if the number of cases is big.
But those are just my thoughts.
Dear Scholar
here is yet another very simple experimental proof
My dear scholar This experiment has 2 parts. In the 1st part we measure their dimensions with ruler. They are NOT accurate.As far as ruler values are concerned, though approximation ,but agree with each other. As they are right ,we go to the 2nd part. The answer is to VERIFY the EQUATION. When Equation is proved Right by the ruler values then we to go the equation and DERIVE the REAL Pi Value. So, Cosmic Pi is NOT NOT NOT .....derived from the experimental values . On the other hand, Pi is derived from the VERIFIED EQUATION . Hence it is the NATURAL Pi Value OK
It’s hard to imagine most of the goings on in the world being turned into math. Generally when “math” is brought up, most of us think of arithmetic, which really doesn’t do a whole lot on its own. The majority of the interesting stuff in the world involves stuff much more fancy. There’s already a lot of mathematical structures out there (calculus and topology and all kinds of stuff) so, when you can, you find one that’s familiar and see if it fits. Otherwise you just create new maths.
Here’s how it starts: you tinker about with something until you notice a pattern. Then you make up symbols that allow you to write down those patterns. Then you see what the repercussions are.
For example: “***”, “ggg”, and “@@@”, all have something in common. So, make up a symbol: “3”. Make up some more symbols for other similar patterns and you’ve got the natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, …
Now you can start making up symbols to describe all the reasonable things you can do with numbers: “📷“. Boom! Now you’re cooking with arithmetic!
📷
2+3=5. Any questions you may have about the properties of "+" should be directed to the appropriate diagram.
Here’s where the abstraction starts. New symbols come as part of a package that includes rules. Generally by staring at the situation you can pull the rules out. For example, by looking at the picture above you’ll notice that it doesn’t matter which group on the left side is first, so: 2+3=3+2. Holy crap! Commutativity!
Now you can start poking the rules to see how far they bend. If they bend too far, you may find yourself in need of new symbols and rules. For example: What happens if you subtract a larger number from a smaller number? What if you add three or more numbers together instead of just two? Keep up this line of questions and pretty soon you get parentheses, primes, rational numbers, all kinds of stuff.
As often as not, new ideas, symbols, and rules are created because they are needed, as opposed to being found (like the picture above). For example: you can get from the natural numbers (1,2,3,..) to the rational numbers (2/3, 17/5, …) by merely asking some very reasonable questions about division. But the rational numbers have “gaps” (like 📷and 📷). So now you need a number system with no gaps. What do you do? Make it up! Call it the “real numbers”, 📷.
What’s surprising, from a philosophical point of view, is that the rules that apply in one place apply in others. Which is really nice, because then the rules and symbols that have been found in one area can immediately be applied in another.
Calculus, which only works on continuous things (like the real numbers), applies very well to describing fluid flow, despite the fact that fluids aren’t continuous (they’re made of atoms). Even weirder; most quantum mechanical systems share a lot of properties in common with complex numbers. So as QM was first being fleshed out it already had a couple hundred years of complex analysis to build on.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics