• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Religious Math???

Sundog

Master Poster
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
2,066
The discussion of Euler's formula last week fascinated me and prompted me to do some research on my own. I found this page:

http://members.ispwest.com/r-logan/

Notice that at the end of the document, it turns into a surreal collection of Bible verses. Weird, huh?

I have several questions: Is his observation about phi, pi and the perfect square legit, or is it BS? I no longer have the math to sort it out.

Can anyone explain the significance of this to me? The relation of pi to e and i in Euler's formula is jaw-droppingly spooky to me. Is this a similarly profound observation or is it baloney?

And lastly, does anyone else think it's bizarre that someone this obviously intelligent chooses to inject Bible verses into his math?
 
Whoa!:eek:

He lost me on the bible part. (he lost me on the math too, but I'll bow to the experts for that). It sort of reminded me of the Louis Farrakan everything equals 19. ;)
 
Sundog said:


Care to elaborate, or is it not even worthy of it?

nope - not worthy

somewhere I have links to interesting and not too technical math sites - will post soon..
 
Tez said:
http://home.istar.ca/~lyster/pi.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/20020209/mathtrek.asp

http://www.g4g4.com/

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html


these are just a few of a myrid of links I have saved, that I've just glanced at again and dont seem to be too technical.

Most of the time I'm following links from www.mathpuzzle.com

Thank you. My math is in a shameful state. Last week I gritted my teeth and got out my college calculus book, starting at page 1. It's amazing how much you can forget if you don't use it.
 
Tez said:

Seconded.

It was enough to look at the introduction and see:
pi = b/m = 3.141592653589793... = a composite number
to deduce that the author has no idea what he is writing about.

(A composite number is defined to be an integer that is greater than 1 and not prime.)
 
Here is a copy of an email I sent him yesterday. I'll post his response when/if I get it.

I made a mistake in my original email, and mailed him back with where I goofed. I put the area where I made a mistake in red. I put comments about it, that I included in a follow-up email, in green.

The main idea where I think he is making a mistake, which leads to calling non-integer quantities integers, I've put in blue.

Hi Roger,

I read your online mathematics work at
members.ispwest.com/r-logan/fullbook.html , and I have some questions and
comments relating to it. Any further comments are appreciated.

Excerpts from your page will be bracketed by ***'s.

***
, and sometimes unexpected, as in the determination of the probability of
an occurrence.
***

If you are familiar with how pi arises in some probability distributions
(switching to polar coordinates to evaluate integrals, for example), it
isn't too mysterious.

***
When two infinite sequences,
***

Where is a plot of the sequences Pn and Gn in the rectangular coordinate
system?
And by a plot do you mean a paired plot, like of the points (Pn,Gn)?

***
, a mean proportional relationship, as described above,
***

Above this part, an example was given with the proportion being between
the bases and the altitude. Now you have the proportion being between the bases and the hypotenuse, and with infinite sequences! This might be O.K., it just isn't what is "described above".

***
, but is also a perfect square, a rational fraction having integers for
both numerator and denominator.
***

bm is not an integer. From a little lower, where you give the
relationships among the numbers,
b/m = pi, and b = sqrt((pi^2*phi^2)/(pi^2-phi^2)), so you can solve for m,
and get that bm = roughly 1.1342...

Likewise, 1+m^2 is not an integer. 1+m^2 is roughly 1.36102...

Unfortunately, in your largest "right" triangle (if it is indeed supposed
to be a right triangle), a^2+b^2 does not equal c^2. ie, OC^2+OB^2 does
not equal BC^2, ie. 1.8876...^2 + 2.308...^2 does not equal 3.665...^2. In your smaller triangles the equality holds.


Hi again Roger,
I was incorrect about this part. Your big triangle certainly is right. I goofeed. I wrote 1.8876...^2 + 2.308...^2, when I should have written 1.8876...^2 + pi^2.


OC = pi, but you have OB = b = 3.56... ? Your figure is not to scale then.
You probably made a typo, that is, you meant to type OB = b^2 = 3.56...,
so b = 1.887... as claimed earlier on on your page.

***
The definition of a composite number is an integer which is the product of
two other integers greater than 1. This paper clearly indicates that the
fraction bm/(1+m^2) is a perfect square and every perfect square is a
rational fraction with integers for both numerator and denominator and
since bm/(1+m^2) = phi^2/pi, then, by the rules of mathematics, phi^2, pi,
bm, and 1+m^2 are all integers when put in this form.
***

bm, 1+m^2, pi, phi^2 are not integers. If you have X/Y = a perfect square,
ie. the square root of X/Y is an whole number, it does not necessarily
follow that X and Y are whole numbers. ie. X/Y = 49, sqrt(X/Y) = 7, but X
could = 2582.3 and Y = 52.7.


Though, if they are postive integers as you claim, are they odd or even?
You know, to be mathematically consistent. ;)

***
It should be obvious to all readers that any number raised to the power of
pi*sqrt(-1) will equal -1.
***

That is not obvious, because it is not true. One of many counter examples
is 2^(pi*sqrt(-1)), which is roughly -.5702 + .8214*sqrt(-1).
 
Sundog said:
Thank you. My math is in a shameful state. Last week I gritted my teeth and got out my college calculus book, starting at page 1. It's amazing how much you can forget if you don't use it.
Sundog,

Try Calculus Made Easy. Like you, I wanted to "refresh" my Caclulus knowledge, and I found this to be a great book to remind me of all the basics, w/out getting sidetracked into all of those little sub-topics whose names I can never remember.

Yes, it's about a hundred years old, but the basics haven't changed much. As a bonus, Martin Gardner updated it and and added some material.

It's actually a fun read, for the most part - unlike most text books.
 
ChuckieR said:
Sundog,

Try Calculus Made Easy. Like you, I wanted to "refresh" my Caclulus knowledge, and I found this to be a great book to remind me of all the basics, w/out getting sidetracked into all of those little sub-topics whose names I can never remember.

Yes, it's about a hundred years old, but the basics haven't changed much. As a bonus, Martin Gardner updated it and and added some material.

It's actually a fun read, for the most part - unlike most text books.

Thank you very much, I will check it out!
 
I found Calculus from Graphical, Numerical, and Symbolic Points of View by Ostebee and Zorn to be a useful calculus book. It kind of has a more intuitive slant and isn't a "proof" book.

It could probably be found at a library too.
 
ChuckieR said:
Try Calculus Made Easy. Like you, I wanted to "refresh" my Caclulus knowledge, and I found this to be a great book to remind me of all the basics, w/out getting sidetracked into all of those little sub-topics whose names I can never remember.
Not to be confused with "Calculus, The Easy Way," which you'll find in many bookstores. I'm not putting down "Calculus, The Easy Way," as I found it entertaining and helpful for me when I needed to brush up on my calculus.
 
Sundog said:


Thank you very much, I will check it out!

You might also want to try Linderholm's Mathematics made difficult if you can find it from somewhere.
 
LW said:


You might also want to try Linderholm's Mathematics made difficult if you can find it from somewhere.

Thanks to ALL of you for being so helpful without a trace of condescention.

I really did make it through four semesters of calc at one time. Long, long ago...
 
"Thank you. My math is in a shameful state."


Didn't stop you chewing MY head off!:eek:
 
Soapy Sam said:
"Thank you. My math is in a shameful state."


Didn't stop you chewing MY head off!:eek:

Did it come out that way? I'm sorry. I was just trying to state the simple facts. The answer to your question is easy, but you won't understand it until you remove the mental block.

Maybe I didn't include enough smilies.
 

Back
Top Bottom