4 ms·

yeah that seems fine. there's like no good reason to do that. are you trying to simulate reality or something? but my point still stands, choose whichever calc

by novia 6mo ago

yeah that seems fine. there's like no good reason to do that. are you trying to simulate reality or something? but my point still stands, choose whichever calculation you think is important to be able to do with Ω, defined as f(Ω), square it for good measure, and set that as the max, the min, and the number of numbers in between each integer. The total number of possible numbers will be ~2*f(Ω)⁴ which should be more than enough numbers :)

vlovich123 6mo ago
AES256 already has more possible keys than exist atoms in the visible universe and that’s a pretty mundane thing. If you wanted to store all those keys, that’s even large. # of atoms in the universe turns into a very small very quickly when talking about permutations and permutations come up all the time (mathematical simulations, probability computations, etc). I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make saying “pick the largest possible number relevant” as that number varies. Also, that’s just the rational numbers. There’s plenty of digits of precision needed for trajectories over galactic distances and the more precision you try to give irrational numbers, the larger your magical “largest number” needs to grow again. Also, we don’t know how big the “non observable universe” is and it’s beyond the scope of science. It very well could be an infinite number of atoms and then what?
- random3 6mo ago
  Since we don’t know the number of atoms, we’d need to let omega be a function, then deal with all the edge cases, rename omega with ∞ and..
  - vlovich123 6mo ago
    Yeah I can’t tell if op is trolling or really thinks they can just define a rational number big enough to not need infinity as a concept.
- jcgrillo 6mo ago
  > It very well could be an infinite number of atoms and then what? Where I get stuck with this is how might we measure that? Continuous measurements and infinite measurements are not something we can make. We fit continuous theories to discrete measurements--and the good ones fit really well!--but until we can measure it how can we actually know? I concluded we just can't, and we have to be OK with that.
  - computably 6mo ago
    > We fit continuous theories to discrete measurements--and the good ones fit really well!--but until we can measure it how can we actually know? Well, physicists came up with quantum mechanics because they found a way to distinguish a genuinely discrete phenomenon. Understanding the physical universe overlaps with a subset of math. It shouldn't constrain the abstract tools which may or may not one day be useful for that understanding.
    - jcgrillo 6mo ago
      I agree that continuity (and therefore infinity) are really useful tools. But it may also be useful to develop mathematical formalism that hews more closely to that which we can actually observe. Or not! But if nobody investigates we'll never know.
gstrike 6mo ago
[dead]

by novia 6mo ago

vlovich123 6mo ago

AES256 already has more possible keys than exist atoms in the visible universe and that’s a pretty mundane thing. If you wanted to store all those keys, that’s even large. # of atoms in the universe turns into a very small very quickly when talking about permutations and permutations come up all the time (mathematical simulations, probability computations, etc). I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make saying “pick the largest possible number relevant” as that number varies. Also, that’s just the rational numbers. There’s plenty of digits of precision needed for trajectories over galactic distances and the more precision you try to give irrational numbers, the larger your magical “largest number” needs to grow again. Also, we don’t know how big the “non observable universe” is and it’s beyond the scope of science. It very well could be an infinite number of atoms and then what?

random3 6mo ago
Since we don’t know the number of atoms, we’d need to let omega be a function, then deal with all the edge cases, rename omega with ∞ and..
- vlovich123 6mo ago
  Yeah I can’t tell if op is trolling or really thinks they can just define a rational number big enough to not need infinity as a concept.
jcgrillo 6mo ago
> It very well could be an infinite number of atoms and then what? Where I get stuck with this is how might we measure that? Continuous measurements and infinite measurements are not something we can make. We fit continuous theories to discrete measurements--and the good ones fit really well!--but until we can measure it how can we actually know? I concluded we just can't, and we have to be OK with that.
- computably 6mo ago
  > We fit continuous theories to discrete measurements--and the good ones fit really well!--but until we can measure it how can we actually know? Well, physicists came up with quantum mechanics because they found a way to distinguish a genuinely discrete phenomenon. Understanding the physical universe overlaps with a subset of math. It shouldn't constrain the abstract tools which may or may not one day be useful for that understanding.
  - jcgrillo 6mo ago
    I agree that continuity (and therefore infinity) are really useful tools. But it may also be useful to develop mathematical formalism that hews more closely to that which we can actually observe. Or not! But if nobody investigates we'll never know.

gstrike 6mo ago

[dead]