Live data from Hacker News

π in Other Universes

azeemba.com

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: π in Other Universes

#51
post #2

> Mathematics can be seen as a logic game. You start with a set of assumptions and you come up with all the logical conclusions you can from that. Then, if someone else finds a situation that fits those assumptions, they can benefit from the pre-discovered logical conclusions. This means that if some conclusions require fewer assumptions, then those conclusions are more generally applicable This is a really, really n…

This is also a part of why I am somewhat fascinated by the idea and the state of Lean4 and mathlib in Lean4. People put more and more formally verified proofs into mathlib, which in turn makes formally proving further theorems in mathlib easier.

If you start with nothing (like in the numbers game), simple proofs are a lot of ... just effort, because you have specify a lot of rewrites and overall work. In mathlib, however, systems like simp (the simplification system) or linarith ("There is a solution by linear arithmetic") seem to do a lot of heavy, repetitive lifting by now.

It's a really interesting snowball effect. Sadly, everything I understand is most likely already in there, so I doubt I could contribute meaningfully, haha.

Re: π in Other Universes

#52
post #16

Note that even if another universe has a different π when it comes to geometry they are still going to also have an important constant that has the same value as our π. E.g., the zeros of the function defined by the series x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7! + ... are nπ where n is an integer and π is our π. Another place our pi will come up is in the exponential function. It's periodic with period 2πi.

> Another place our pi will come up is in the exponential function. It's periodic with period 2πi. Isn't it the opposite? As I understand, we (European civilization humans) historically _define_ our complex exponential function to have a period of 2πi to match the period of our previously defined sin and cos functions. We could have defined it to have another period — for example, if we define "360° angle" to be equa…

> As I understand, we (European civilization humans) historically _define_ our complex exponential function to have a period of 2πi to match the period of our previously defined sin and cos functions. We could have defined it to have another period — for example, if we define "360° angle" to be equal to 1 instead of 2Pi, and define sin0=0, sin0.25=1, sin0.5=0, sin0.75=-1, sin1=0, we'd also define periodicity of e^ix to be 1.*

No, it doesn't work in degrees.

The definition of e isn't that arbitrary.

2π is the unique period which satisfies the definition of e using derivatives and the extension of real number algebraic laws to complex numbers. This shows up as a real world physical measurement, which I describe below.

The (natural) exponential function eˣ is defined as the unique function which equals its own derivative and satisfies e⁰ = 1 (like other exponentials). The value of e comes from this.

Combine that with the definition i² = -1 and using basic rules of algebra which are observed on real numbers with exponentials and derivatives (such as (xª)ᵇ = xªᵇ) and you find the function eˣ must be periodic with period 2πi.

This comes from sin(x) and cos(x) and their derivatives. The derivative of sin(x) is cos(x), and of cos(x) it is -sin(x), but only if sin(x) and cos(x) are defined in the usual math way with period 2π.

Those sin/cos derivatives and that little negative sign are enough to make them components of the unique solution to the derivative definition of eˣ applied to a complex argument, and thereby fix its period in the complex plane and prove Euler's famous identity (without needing the Taylor expansion).

That in turn has.a more physical basis. Asin(x+B) with constants A, B are the family of functions whose second derivative equal themselves negated.

Physically, it means an object whose acceleration is proportional to its displacement from a fixed position and in the opposite direction will oscillate with a period of exactly 2π seconds, if the acceleration is -1m/s² per 1m displacement.

This setup is called a harmonic oscillator.

In this way, 2π arises (and is measurable!) from physical properties of time, force and inertia, of things moving in straight lines.

No circles required.

Re: π in Other Universes

#53

Not sure about your universe, but here on earth, pi is 2. The length of the equator is 4 times the distance from the pole. (Approx.)

A flat earth would have pi at about 3.14159 though.

Based on the attitude of its advocates, a flat earth would lack science and mathematics entirely, so pi would be undefined?

Re: π in Other Universes

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It blows my mind to think of mathematics/logic almost like a huge cellular automaton. “axioms” don’t necessarily correspond to “truth”, to me they’re arbitrary constraints that can give rise to complexity. And sometimes the resulting systems can be useful

Axioms are not wrong if you can derive some math from them. They may not correspond to anything in our world, and then we usually discover something that does.

The point wasn't that they're wrong, but instead that they are arbitrary. You could create a mathematical system with entirely different axioms than what we explore typically, and it would only be different in how usefully it maps onto real world concepts.

Re: π in Other Universes

#55
post #36

* pi = 3.14159… appears in analysis and by extension statistics, independent of geometry. So aliens in these other universes would know this value, they’d just have a different constant for circles. Since they wouldn’t use Greek letters anyway, we’d have to translate, and it would be a bit silly to equate their 3.757… with “pi” instead of their 3.14159… * Personal aside: Of course, whether 3.14… (pi), 6.28… (2pi) or…

https://tauday.com/tau-manifesto#table-quadratic_forms

(Not to sound all Buzzfeed-y, but Table 3 makes a lot of sense)

Re: π in Other Universes

#56
post #42

One thing this doesn't touch on is that there are multiple meaningful definitions of pi-like constants for the p-norm unit circle that don't necessarily agree with each other in p != 2. Defining pi as the area of the unit circle gives an entirely different set of values that satisfying some wonderful properties - in particular, that definition of pi turns out to be the periodicity constant for a (arguably) natural se…

I wonder whether not being a Hilbert space has any awkward implications for geometry. I guess we have to chuck out the Polarization identity, which probably has implications for parallelograms, though I'm not sure quite what. anyway, thanks for the rec!

Re: π in Other Universes

#57
Maybe worth pointing out that there are countless other weird Universes where "Pi" retains its standard value.

This is the domain of differential geometry where the relation of circumference and radius holds only in the limit of infinitesimally small.

By all accounts our own Universe is of such a deformed-in-the-large but Euclidean-in-the-small variety. At least for as far we understand geometry in the quantum realm.

Re: π in Other Universes

#58
post #44
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole of the puzzles of cosmology actually all might be obvious if we had a few different fundamental theorems. But because we hit on some that almost work, and then build upon them a hole edifice of mathematics that is internally consistent and almost fits the universe we keep beating on it, not realizing that backing up a little and then driving forward again at a slightly different angle might yield a simpler,…

Most mathematics has no application to science whatsoever. It's a huge parts bin which scientists delve into when they build their models. And then much of the work is in trying to shoehorn the mathematics into being tractable. Mathematics is also not provably internally consistent. This was famously shown by Gödel [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theor...

Most mathematics originates from trying to solve physical or engineering problems. Typically physicists have been on the forefront of mathematical research - this has only really changed significantly in the last few decades.

Also, mathematics as practiced is internally consistent. It is incomplete, though. That is how it stays afloat of Godel's result. Basically Godel's results showed that no matter how much we strive, there will always be propositions which might be true, but which we will not be able to prove are true. Unless of course we start using methods that sometimes prove false propositions, which we have not done.

Re: π in Other Universes

#59
post #51
post #2

> Mathematics can be seen as a logic game. You start with a set of assumptions and you come up with all the logical conclusions you can from that. Then, if someone else finds a situation that fits those assumptions, they can benefit from the pre-discovered logical conclusions. This means that if some conclusions require fewer assumptions, then those conclusions are more generally applicable This is a really, really n…

This is also a part of why I am somewhat fascinated by the idea and the state of Lean4 and mathlib in Lean4. People put more and more formally verified proofs into mathlib, which in turn makes formally proving further theorems in mathlib easier. If you start with nothing (like in the numbers game), simple proofs are a lot of ... just effort, because you have specify a lot of rewrites and overall work. In mathlib, how…

That's very interesting, I'm no mathematician but I should have a play around with it.

> Sadly, everything I understand is most likely already in there, so I doubt I could contribute meaningfully, haha.

I wouldn't be so sure - and even if so then remember there's enormous benefit to improving tooling around a system. If you want to be involved somehow, better devx, tutorials, output, packaging, error messages all make a big difference to end users.

Edit -

As another thought, is there benefit in going through papers and translating that work into lean4? I'm not really familiar enough with it but if so that may

1. Find issues in current work, like Tao did in his own work

2. Add to a reusable body of work

Re: π in Other Universes

#60
I noticed that all the "circles" for alternative metrics are aligned with the coordinate system. For example, the one for the Manhattan distance has its corners on the coordinate axes.

What if we added an additional condition that a distance metric should not change when the orientation of the coordinate system is changed? Could we still have different values for the pi constant then?

Post reply on HN