The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Normally horizon physics videos involve that Kaku guy who says 'time' 20 times per sentence.
Reply 21
Just watched this on iplayer, quite enjoyed it...can't decide if the kid who thought 10 was the biggest number was setting himself up to be a mathematician :p: ...or just a kid who couldn't count properly yet :s-smilie: most likely the latter...but you never know :dontknow:
DeanK22
I get the general impression that the physics videos on Horizon are edited to make them "sexy" while the maths ones are edited to portray a kind of mystery and insanity.

Worst of all, the physics videos actually show some physics or try and explain something; I am not saying it is a lecture and sometimes the things are too advanced but at least every 10 minutes there is a short explanation of something that is put into laymen's terms. The only "explanation" on the video was Cameron explaining remarkably well why the two sets have the same cardanility and then when the interviewer asks the question "How?" the shot is over without explanation

To be fair, it did explain why reals aren't countable. But, yeah that is true.

Horizon has been dumbed down a lot. Atleast, its more accurate than the other program called dangerous ideas, as they said cantor committed suicide when in fact he died of a heart attack.

But, lol they tried to portray all mathematician who worked in infinity as going insane, which is rubbish.
Reply 23
DeanK22
He was Russian and it was completely ridiculous. I literally cannot believe someone would be prepared to pubicly announce they think there is a largest natural number - it is just literally absurd to do mathematics working on that assumption*.

I can only imagine he was doing it for a laugh but it wasn't very funny.

* I imagine you can do OK for a while but you certainly wouldn't be able to do "proper" analysis for instance and you would ofcourse either have to come up with a new system of numbers entirely or just do away with ZFC and miss out on things [like uncountability of the reals to name something glaringly obvious].


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism

The whole point is that you disagree with things like ZF (and the reals). Whether you can do 'mathematics' with it remains to be seen and depends on how you define mathematics. Quite a few things that are done in mathematics today are 'self-sufficient' in the way that they do not serve any outside purpose, so why would you want to outright reject ultrafinitism? It seems especially appealing since the whole idea of quantization in physics has come up.

That said, I don't think it's very interesting at the moment and I do agree it is slightly insane :p: .
Reply 24
silent ninja

The German (I think) mathematician who absolutely rejects infinity was interesting too: you count to the largest number and return to zero.

Modular Arithemtic omnomnomnomnomnonmnom.....
DeanK22
I get the general impression that the physics videos on Horizon are edited to make them "sexy" while the maths ones are edited to portray a kind of mystery and insanity.
Which is odd, since both Maths and Physics are sexy and insane...
I would have liked the documentary to have gotten into more depth in both the specific topics being discussed and other "concepts" but it just didn't happen.

Simplicity

Horizon has been dumbed down a lot.

But, lol they tried to portray all mathematician who worked in infinity as going insane, which is rubbish.


I concur.
Reply 26
I'm confused why Graham's Number is considered to be the 'biggest' natural number.

So what about "Graham's Number + 1"? Or [Graham's Number]^[Graham's Number]?

About the documentary - interesting, but didn't really learn anything. It was okay until up to 30 minutes in, where it just started to repeat itself.
Zhy
I'm confused why Graham's Number is considered to be the 'biggest' natural number.

So what about "Graham's Number + 1"? Or [Graham's Number]^[Graham's Number]?

About the documentary - interesting, but didn't really learn anything. It was okay until up to 30 minutes in, where it just started to repeat itself.


Actually it isn't the useful biggest number as recently there is another number even bigger (that is useful).

Nobody stated it was the biggest natural number - just the biggest useful one when it cam about [i.e. the upper bound for some problem - like the number of people who could die this instance would have an upper bound of the population of the earth].
I couldnt bring myself to watch past the ridiculously dramatic intro
Reply 29
You might aswell just say numbers are none existant if you argue that there is a largest number.
I'll watch it later. :smile:
Reply 30
Simplicity

Horizon has been dumbed down a lot.


What do you expect? Most people in Britain wouldn't have even understood the first proof that the set of all natural numbers and the set of all even numbers are the same size.
Reply 31
refref
What do you expect? Most people in Britain wouldn't have even understood the first proof that the set of all natural numbers and the set of all even numbers are the same size.


I doubt it's as much an "understanding" issue as a matter of accepting what the definition of "size" is.
silent ninja
I dont know anything about Physics, but what was all that red-shift stuff we learned at school? Doesn't that show it's finite and expanding?


No: metric expansion of space. (This might be the 'inflation' that they talked about, I didn't watch the program.)
Reply 33
sorry if im wrong here...but surely for numbers to reach a final/largest number and then return to zero then we would have to ignore all complex and negative numbers?
Reply 34
This program should have involved infinitesimals as a notion too, they're just as interesting, if not more so.

Personally I don't believe in all this 'the universe is infinte' hocus pocus.
Reply 35
silent ninja
.


I'll be watching this now. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. :yy:
Reply 36
dave6666
sorry if im wrong here...but surely for numbers to reach a final/largest number and then return to zero then we would have to ignore all complex and negative numbers?

Sounds complex.
it makes no sense to consider what happens outside the observable universe. so surely the question of whether of the universe is infinite, doesn't actually mean anything. since there's theoretically no way of knowing right?

The observable universe is finite, obviously, so for all intensive purposes, "the universe" is finite.

I dunno, I think its silly to ask questions we have no possible way of answering. like the retarded "Brain in a vat" philsophical idea.
SouthernFreerider
it makes no sense to consider what happens outside the observable universe. so surely the question of whether of the universe is infinite, doesn't actually mean anything. since there's theoretically no way of knowing right?

The observable universe is finite, obviously, so for all intensive purposes, "the universe" is finite.

I dunno, I think its silly to ask questions we have no possible way of answering. like the retarded "Brain in a vat" philsophical idea.

Hmm, lol I don't know about that. In a way, there are probably ways to tests the shape of the universe like looking at cosmological constant and rate of expansion e.t.c.

P.S. In a way this is similar to the big bang theory, as you some argued that philosophically you can't know which is correct(i.e. you can't go back in time and philosophy at the time couldn't handle infinity), however physics pinned it down to big bang theory being correct and not other alternatives.
Reply 39
SouthernFreerider
it makes no sense to consider what happens outside the observable universe. so surely the question of whether of the universe is infinite, doesn't actually mean anything. since there's theoretically no way of knowing right?

The observable universe is finite, obviously, so for all intensive purposes, "the universe" is finite.

I dunno, I think its silly to ask questions we have no possible way of answering. like the retarded "Brain in a vat" philsophical idea.


It's still interesting to discuss, and if history has taught mathematicians anything it should be that pursuing interesting ideas is fruitful for the subject as a whole.

Also, it's a massive statement to say that we could never would out the size of the universe.

Latest