Intrinsic mathematics

[againtry]

I guarantee sqrt(2) is a root of more polynomials with rational coefficients than phi is.

Is that guarantee the same one you give when you sell someone the Empire State Building or Golden (Ratio) Gate Bridge?

[againtry]

Yep, I made a mistake. It should have been the Phi Gate Bridge.

[againtry]

That Carlos Victoria sure knows her knitting

[againtry]

Víctor M. González Helios-vmg
Nektra S.A.
Buenos Aires, Argentina

https://www.nektra.com/

[E8A4Nwbp]

Phi is too weird a number to come up spontaneously

Should we assess significance by the quantity of people assisted by phi, I believe the manner by which planets accommodate mass uses phi to efficiently produce a gravitation field that holds all the matter as a single mass.

It's more interesting to find that nature spontaneously constructs mathematical structures.

I suppose we are entitled to our opinion

Otherwise, thank you for all your thoughts on the initial matter of this post. I had been paying regards to intrinsic mathematics for a while, and clarifying my initial observations here has been useful.

May I push my luck for one more example akin to:

* For all natural or zero n, ((2^n)+2)! is divisible by 2^(2^n)
* Let f(x) = x^n + x^(n-1) + ... + x + 1. f(x) = 0 if and only if x != 0 and x^(n+1) = 1

Only much easier to describe to the common man. It would help a purpose I wish not to disclose at the moment

[helios]

I don't really understand what the part before the comma has to do with the part after, but

I believe the manner by which planets accommodate mass uses phi to efficiently produce a gravitation field that holds all the matter as a single mass.

I'll bite. How? Exactly what part of the shape contains a golden ratio? Because at astronomical scales large astronomical bodies are almost perfectly spherical. The only significant deviation is oblateness, which is caused by rotation.

Only much easier to describe to the common man.

Like I said, most people don't know anything about mathematics. If you try to explain they won't understand because they've stopped listening.

[againtry]

What nonsense. At astronomical scales most astronomical bodies are either points, clouds or formations of various spirals, disks. Anything but spheres, but all wondrously and intrinsically beautiful. All subject to equally beautiful mathematical law s of physics, many still to be fully understood and explained by the finest minds.

Yet again helios, such an arrogant and dumb POS, falls even deeper into her self made hole of ignorance. What a know nothing moron she is.

[E8A4Nwbp]

most people don't know anything about mathematics. If you try to explain they won't understand because they've stopped listening.

Paying regards to the aforementioned examples, perhaps in, through words, this may be true, however, illustration can be used to easily convey it.

Exactly what part of the shape contains a golden ratio?

Apparently, if I can recall correctly, the manner in which surface area is maximised and quantity of mass used is minimised.

I don't really understand what the part before the comma has to do with the part after

Phi can be argued to be of greater significance, should we assess significance by the quantity of people assisted.

[helios]

Apparently, if I can recall correctly, the manner in which surface area is maximised and quantity of mass used is minimised.

??? The surface area of a celestial body will tend to be minimized, not maximized. A sphere is the three-dimensional shape with the minimal area for any volume. The ratio between the two is not constant, in case you were wondering.
How could mass "used" (whatever that means) be minimized? A planet is a collection of matter moving through space. Once it has accreted there's no way for it to lose [a significant portion of its] mass, unless it collides with some other object or something.

Phi can be argued to be of greater significance, should we assess significance by the quantity of people assisted.

Cultural relevance is not what's in discussion. The argument about phi is about whether some intrinsic property of it links it in some way to aesthetics, in the same way that pi is linked to circles. Like, if in the painting I'm making I put this character at 61.8% from the far right, does that inherently make the composition more pleasing to the eye than at any other arbitrary location? Why? What's the mechanism behind that?

That's the argument. Cultural relevance just tells you that people have talked about it. All sorts of bullshit has been talked about that's completely divorced from reality, like homeopathy, psychoanalysis, and religion. Throughout history people have believed all manner of nonsense for no other reason than because it felt good.

[againtry]

Thats the argument

All of that incoherent blather is no more than hijacking the topic followed by a straw man whip around the traps. Anything to avoid mounting any sort of an argument.

[againtry]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

[againtry]

Of course, none of the people mentioned in the above Wikipedia article - Erdos, Euler et al - and any of the associated reference material compare convincingly to the voluminous contradictory cerebral effluvium and randomly cherry-picked emanations from our very own Argentine wunderkind - he who pontificates more than her countryman pope.

[againtry]

:)

[againtry]

:) :)

[againtry]

:) :) :) :)

[againtry]

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[E8A4Nwbp]

??? The surface area of a celestial body will tend to be minimized, not maximized. A sphere is the three-dimensional shape with the minimal area for any volume. The ratio between the two is not constant, in case you were wondering.
How could mass "used" (whatever that means) be minimized? A planet is a collection of matter moving through space. Once it has accreted there's no way for it to lose [a significant portion of its] mass, unless it collides with some other object or something.

We can shun this statement for the time being. I may have been informed of something other than phi

The argument about phi is about whether some intrinsic property of it links it in some way to aesthetics

The arguments and opinions you stated following this include man-made, intentional actions (such as the painting and homeopathy).

Paying regards to the many, debatable, occurrences of phi in nature (such as shells) to which I believe yourself or/and Ganado stated don't perfectly contain phi due to being imperfect, I would like to respond by saying the fact even this resonation is observable in numerous places, even though phi is not flawlessly present, makes phi aesthetically present in a way, as the likelihood for it to be, albeit not complete, ubiquitous is astronomical.

againtry wrote:

pontificates

I am impressed by your vocabulary, I don't suppose you use a particular source that you wouldn't mind disclosing

[helios]

The arguments and opinions you stated following this include man-made, intentional actions (such as the painting and homeopathy).

And?

Paying regards to the many, debatable, occurrences of phi in nature (such as shells) to which I believe yourself or/and Ganado stated don't perfectly contain phi due to being imperfect

I never said anything about phi and shells. Reread my original post on the subject: http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/270326/2/#msg1164774
I later went on to add that phi is too weird a number to show up in natural processes.

I would like to respond by saying the fact even this resonation is observable in numerous places, even though phi is not flawlessly present, makes phi aesthetically present in a way, as the likelihood for it to be, albeit not complete, ubiquitous is astronomical.

It's a number between 1 and 2. Could you really tell if the number you're looking at is actually 1.5 or 1.7 (a difference of about 7%)? Is that all it takes to amaze you?
It's not like we found the SHA-256 digest of the Epic of Gilgamesh encoded into the dances of bees. It's not like we can point our telescopes to a region of space and see clusters of stars and galaxies spelling out the phrase "we apologize for the inconvenience".

[Ganado]

... Ganado stated don't perfectly contain phi due to being imperfect, I would like to respond by saying the fact even this resonation is observable in numerous places, even though phi is not flawlessly present, makes phi aesthetically present in a way

I mentioned the shell, but only as an example. My understanding is that it isn't just slightly off phi, it's another logarithmic spiral altogether. Some of the shells might just-so-happen to be close to phi, but I still haven't seen anything that suggests it averages out to phi or anything like that.

Still, it's an argument that can be made and can have evidence gathered for or against it, so your post is better than anything I've heard so far. It's possible you're right.

[George P]

...point our telescopes to a region of space and see clusters of stars and galaxies spelling out the phrase "we apologize for the inconvenience".

"So long and thanks for the fishes."