Is there such thing as an infinitely large circle?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It is a pity that I am *dragged into* this. For the record, I did not accuse D of plagiarism

The rest of my quote is true. A shame one of our very few civil exchanges has to be misinterpreted by D64

The post that was quoted here has been removed

And in our universe, if standard cosmology holds up, we can only theoretically make a physical circle the size of our universe and no bigger which would say there would be no such thing in our universe as an infinite sized circle since our universe is thought to be something like 50 billion light years across and so about 160 billion light years 'around' if you can even say that. So any infinite circle would forever only exist on paper.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
And in our universe, if standard cosmology holds up, we can only theoretically make a physical circle the size of our universe and no bigger which would say there would be no such thing in our universe as an infinite sized circle since our universe is thought to be something like 50 billion light years across and so about 160 billion light years 'around' if you can even say that. So any infinite circle would forever only exist on paper.

Our universe is but one bubble, in a bathtub filled with bubbles.
And our unknowable infinity could be an endless array of bubble-filled bathtubs.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Joe Shmo makes a valid observation.

Show your work Duchess64.

Originally posted by @wolfe63
Joe Shmo makes a valid observation.

Show your work Duchess64.

In another thread vivify (I think) made a statement along the lines that science is not a matter of opinion. I disagreed and claimed that his statement may be true in mathematics, where one can make conclusions from axioms, but not in science where interpretation of experimental results, and for that matter the reality of the ontology of theories, is a matter of opinion. Duchess pointed out that the veracity of the continuum hypothesis is undecidable based on the standard axioms in set theory, in other words, even in mathematics there are statements that are a matter of opinion. I was aware of the problem with my post when I was making it, being aware of Godel's incompleteness theorem, but wanted to keep it simple, and didn't bother replying because her interjection only served to strengthen my basic point. To cut to the chase, that the continuum hypothesis can neither be proven or disproven from ZFC set theory is a somewhat obscure fact which a complete fraud is relatively unlikely to be aware of. Her proofs in the two threads under discussion (root two and Maths Olympiad) are standard, but it is possible to reinvent the wheel. The problem is that it is difficult to be completely original on these forums as we'd be getting into Millennium Prize territory - care to work out a set of axioms for Quantum Field Theory and show that Yang-Mills theories exist?

Originally posted by @deepthought
In another thread vivify (I think) made a statement along the lines that science is not a matter of opinion. I disagreed and claimed that his statement may be true in mathematics, where one can make conclusions from axioms, but not in science where interpretation of experimental results, and for that matter the reality of the ontology of theories, is a ...[text shortened]... re to work out a set of axioms for Quantum Field Theory and show that Yang-Mills theories exist?

I don't buy it. I know nothing of the continuum hypothesis, yet If I were reading your post about it and you mentioned it by name as simple google search of "continuum hyptho..." and google literally suggest "continuum hypothesis undecidable". from which I can skim through the text and pull the statement from Wolfram

"Together, Gödel's and Cohen's results established that the validity of the continuum hypothesis depends on the version of set theory being used, and is therefore undecidable (assuming the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms together with the axiom of choice). " So talking in vague generalities at the right time a could interject and sound as though I was aware...but I'm not. Without further exploration of my knowledge in set theory etc..., and only short vague statements you would likely give me the benefit of the doubt. That is her key to deception. If you'll provide me the name of the thread, I would like to examine her contributions to the topic in greater detail? If I am wrong and there is some original mathematics ( where you have an open dialog on different mathematical constructs that aren't easily plagiarized within her content), I'll admit I'm wrong.


I also remember you providing some proof to her and she( paraphrasing) "would not even be bothered to consider it because she deemed it inelegant or it used heavy machinery" Saying things like it's " possible that it is correct, but it is paltry excuse for mathematics" etc... That is a common theme with her..as soon as the proof deviates from her "textbook" elegance she refuses to comment on its validity. I hypothesize she does this because she feels the noose of her deception immediately tighten as she steps off the path. A response that is completely justified when trying to buffalo people who actually have some competency in the subject matter.

With statements like:

"If Soothfast, a professor of mathematics, will accept Blood on the Tracks's
original claimed 'proof' as completely correct, then I shall do so too.
I doubt that Soothfast will."

(Duchess64)


Consider asking yourself why mathematician of her supposed brilliance ( of which she continually boasts ) could not resolve the issues they have with the proof for themselves? You went in , and began to resolve the picture he was posing and your not even strictly a mathematician? Anyone with her supposed mathematical gifts should be able to tear the argument apart or verify it as long as the content was recognizable as mathematics.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"Thou doeth protest too MUCH!"