## √5 and Phi

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:51 pm Well, you are certainly projecting belief onto me.

I don't have any beliefs - I haven no use for them. I have a toolbox of instruments and various mental models that help me attain my goals.
If you have goals, you must believe in possibilities as a necessary constituency of those goals
all rooted in the "belief" that they are attainable by some means, if even unknown.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:51 pm Entropy is not chaos... common error.
No association was explicitly made; implication being human beings are not entropy.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:51 pm No, it isn't. It's only possible to know approximations of an irrational number. Its exact value is beyond your reach.
This is false; irrationals such as in √n if/when not approximated are exact.
Approximations only occur if/when "approximating" in decimal form: ~2.23606...

If you leave the irrational alone, it is exactly what it is: irrational without approximation.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:51 pm Everything that you think is "the value" of π is only a representation of it.
Representation of a relationship to a whole integer 4
which may concern anything: effectively '4' becomes a variable
as in: 4 of some concerned triangle relating line/curve,
to any scale permissible in/by the universe.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:51 pm There is nothing "exact" about 1/√5 - it's just an expression. It has no value until you evaluate it. Like 2+2 is an expression which evaluates to 4.
This is again false; 1/√5 is exactly the multiplicative reciprocal of √5, thus
there is an exactitude to be found: it is qualitative/relational,
not quantitative, the "domain" numerologists are trapped in.

Numbers are just as much qualitative as they are quantitative.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:51 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:51 pm There's nothing "precise" about the symbol π either. It's diameter relative to radius - you are just juggling symbols. give me an exact, numerical quantity.
No, it's circumference to diameter.

4/√Φ
is a scalable relationship as can be applied to anything.

The problem is Western academia either does not know of the relationship between π and Φ
or they are intentionally withholding it from humanity, for reasons I can understand (if true)
but I don't know if such motive(s) actually exist or not, however they are at least possible.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: √5 and Phi

nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm If you have goals, you must believe in possibilities as a necessary constituency of those goals
all rooted in the "belief" that they are attainable by some means, if even unknown.
You are not hearing me. I don't have beliefs.

I recognise infinite possibilities - this is my starting place. This is my logical introduction rule.
Everything is possible. Unless it's impossible.

Impossibility is the logical elimination rule.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm This is false; irrationals such as in √n if/when not approximated are exact.
There is nothing exact about √n. It's just symbols. √ and n don't mean anything - they are placeholders.

There are a bunch of algorithms for computing the square root of an integer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_o ... uare_roots

Which one do you have in mind?
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm If you leave the irrational alone, it is exactly what it is: irrational without approximation.
Epistemic error.

Kant calls those Things in itself

You can't know anything about a noumenon.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm Representation of a relationship to a whole integer 4
Numbers don't exist. You can't have relationships to non-existents.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm This is again false; 1/√5 is exactly the multiplicative reciprocal of √5
A reciprocal of a non-existent is still a non-existent
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm there is an exactitude to be found: it is qualitative/relational,
That is the false promise of the Mathematical dream.

Show me a man who insists on exactness and I'll show you an inexact man.

Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations. --John von Neumann
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm Numbers are just as much qualitative as they are quantitative.
No. Numbers don't exist. They are just conceptual tools. We invented them.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm No, it's circumference to diameter.
Right. I mis-spoke. It's circumference to diameter. My argument stands unaffected.

You can't accurately measure the diameter of any circle, therefore you can't measure pi.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:36 pm √Φ
How much is that?
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:50 pm .
..
...
How much is that?
The ignorance of your last question serves as sound reason to just ignore all preceding:
it is not a quantity, it is a relationship, the same ignorance alluded to in my prior response
owing to the failure to understand that not all functions of Φ are on terms of "how much".

Plotting Φ produces a spiral relative to a fixed origin, thus
the arc of it can be used to measure π and found to be
in whole integer relation to Φ. This relationship is presently
ignored by establishment science owing to the same having
established false premises esp. as they concern the nature
(or relative lack thereof) of space and time: they are not
but aspects of motion, thus have no intrinsic geometry
until in relation to one another. The same is true for Φ and π
the former always geometrically satisfying x²-x-1=0 thus
π is only 'transcendental' outside of these parameters
erroneously otherwise taken to be always so.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: √5 and Phi

nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:21 pm The ignorance of your last question serves as sound reason to just ignore all preceding:
it is not a quantity, it is a relationship
Relationship between.... ? Circumferences and radiuses?

You can't measure the circumference of ANY circle!
You can only approximate it.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:21 pm Plotting Φ produces a spiral relative to a fixed origin
Sure. A finite spiral. Because you can't calculate Φ to infinite precision.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:21 pm the arc of it can be used to measure π and found to be
in whole integer relation to Φ.
You can APPROXIMATE π, you cannot CALCULATE π.

Get it right

nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:21 pm The same is true for Φ and π
the former always geometrically satisfying x²-x-1=0 thus
π is only 'transcendental' outside of these parameters
erroneously otherwise taken to be always so.
All you are saying is that if both Φ and π are computable, then π/Φ is computable.

But that's just a silly Mathematical truism. To hell with precision, I'll settle for x²-x-1 ≈ 0

When you are done, please compute π

And when you are done with both - please compute Φ/π

nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:35 pm Relationship between.... ? Circumferences and radiuses?

You can't measure the circumference of ANY circle!
You can only approximate it.
...wow.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:35 pm Sure. A finite spiral. Because you can't calculate Φ to infinite precision.
Φ is already an incommensurable: it is a precise relationship.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:35 pm You can APPROXIMATE π, you cannot CALCULATE π.

Get it right
I can do both, if calculation may involve relating to a whole integer
(as it should given c = 1 establishes a link to the same).
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:35 pm All you are saying is that if both Φ and π are computable, then π/Φ is computable.
Computable? No. Relatable? Yes, such that they both equally concern c = 1.
But that's just a silly Mathematical truism. To hell with precision, I'll settle for x²-x-1 ≈ 0

When you are done, please compute π

And when you are done with both - please compute Φ/π

The request is invalid - they can be related such to establish
that π is not autonomous: it is produced by Φ. One way
of thinking of this is: from Adam's own rib was derived Eve.

From Φ's own rib was derived π - they are co-dependents
though this relationship is neglected by mainstream science
to the same degree humanity neglects the 1:1 ratio of man/woman.

Both are representations of image/likeness (ie. Φ/π), which is the vital root.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: √5 and Phi

nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:53 pm The request is invalid - they can be related such to establish
that π is not autonomous: it is produced by Φ.
It's also produced by Skep. Why are you discriminating?

Skep*Skep ≈ Skep + 1
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:09 am Skep is ( 1 - √5)/2
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:53 pm Both are representations of image/likeness (ie. Φ/π), which is the vital root.
So the vital root is Φ/π, but not Skep/π ? That makes Skep sad!!!

Surely if all you care about is "things being relatable", and Φ is relatable to π then Skep is relatable to π also?
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:00 pm It's also produced by Skep. Why are you discriminating?

Skep*Skep ≈ Skep + 1
1. No
2. Skep relies on the pre-existence of Φ
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:00 pm So the vital root is Φ/π, but not Skep/π ? That makes Skep sad!!!

Surely if all you care about is "things being relatable", and Φ is relatable to π then Skep is relatable to π also?
Not relatable, related by default/construct. I don't know how you relate to women (and care not to) given the inquiry is practically equivalent.
Perhaps you can explore that on your own and approach the union of image/likeness on your own personal terms.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: √5 and Phi

nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:35 pm 2. Skep relies on the pre-existence of Φ
No, it doesn't.

Φ = ( 1 + √5 ) /2
Skep = (1 - √5 ) /2 ≈-0.618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805762862135448622705260462818902449707207204189391137484754088075386891752126633862223536931793180060766726354433389086595939582905638322661319928290267880675208766892501711696207032221043216269548626296313614438149758701220340805887954454749246185695364864449241044320771344947049565846788509874339442212544877066478091588460749988712400765217057517978834166256249407589069704000281210427621771117778053153...

Maybe Φ relies on the pre-existence of Skep?
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:14 pm
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:35 pm 2. Skep relies on the pre-existence of Φ
No, it doesn't.

Φ = ( 1 + √5 ) /2
Skep = (1 - √5 ) /2 ≈-0.618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805762862135448622705260462818902449707207204189391137484754088075386891752126633862223536931793180060766726354433389086595939582905638322661319928290267880675208766892501711696207032221043216269548626296313614438149758701220340805887954454749246185695364864449241044320771344947049565846788509874339442212544877066478091588460749988712400765217057517978834166256249407589069704000281210427621771117778053153...

Maybe Φ relies on the pre-existence of Skep?
The universe does not depend your existence: the properties associated with Φ existed before you, and will after you.
How you manage to see this backwards is an indication of self-obsession and/or solipsism, very common thus uninteresting.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: √5 and Phi

nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:01 pm The universe does not depend your existence.
But Mathematics depends on human existence. As does the linguistic label "The Universe". And all mathematical descriptions of it.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:01 pm the properties associated with Φ existed before you
You can't possibly know that.
nothing wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:01 pm How you manage to see this backwards is an indication of self-obsession and/or solipsism, very common thus uninteresting.
How you manage to think you are seeing it "forwards" is the worst case of delusional Mathematical Realism I've seen in a while.
You are projecting your Mathematical mind onto the Universe.
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:16 pm But Mathematics depends on human existence. As does the linguistic label "The Universe". And all mathematical descriptions of it.
Mathematics is a language used to describe the behavior of Φ,
the existence of which upon all form relies: not only human body but
as it governs harmonics, as it relates to energy/frequency/vibration.

First Φ then math, not the other way around.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:16 pm You can't possibly know that.
Well I do?
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:16 pm How you manage to think you are seeing it "forwards" is the worst case of delusional Mathematical Realism I've seen in a while.
You are projecting your Mathematical mind onto the Universe.
The universe composes/proposes the golden ratio naturally:

I advise you stop projecting your own 'state' as if belonging to another:
you incessantly project human-origin language/syntax as if empirical
and I have ignored until now, however now you draw/project from yourself.

The only co-operative conjunction needed to capture the geometry of this universe is Φ and π:
the former as (π+π√5)/2π
the latter as 4/√Φ
thus they are co-dependent: neither came first, but both owe their existence to one another.
From this is derived the book of Genesis: generation. Simple enough for a simple approach,
but obscured from the worshipers of some other fanciful (however false) construct.

Simple beauty is simply beautiful.
Last edited by nothing on Sun Mar 01, 2020 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wtf
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

nothing wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:16 pm The only co-operative conjunction needed to capture the geometry of this universe is Φ and π:
the former as (π+π√5)/2π.
Φ is defined as (1 + sqrt(5))/2.

If k is any nonzero real number whatsoever, you can multiply the numerator and denominator of a fraction by k and it still represents the same number.

So 47/47 * (1 + sqrt(5))/2 = (47 + 47 sqrt(5))/98 = (1 + sqrt(5))/2.

There's nothing special about pi in this context. I've just shown a deep mystical relation between 47 and Φ. Or, I've just applied the first thing you learn about fractions in elementary school; that you can multiply the top and bottom by a nonzero constant without changing its value.

If I say 5 = 5 and then I note that 5pi = 5pi by multiplying both sides by pi, that doesn't show a relation between 5 and pi. It only shows that you can multiply both sides of an equation by a constant and preserve the truth value of the equation.

Why do you persist in misunderstanding this fact that you learned in grade school?
wtf
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

dbl post
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

### Re: √5 and Phi

wtf wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:52 pm
nothing wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:16 pm The only co-operative conjunction needed to capture the geometry of this universe is Φ and π:
the former as (π+π√5)/2π.
Φ is defined as (1 + sqrt(5))/2.

If k is any nonzero real number whatsoever, you can multiply the numerator and denominator of a fraction by k and it still represents the same number.

So 47/47 * (1 + sqrt(5))/2 = (47 + 47 sqrt(5))/98 = (1 + sqrt(5))/2.

There's nothing special about pi in this context. I've just shown a deep mystical relation between 47 and Φ. Or, I've just applied the first thing you learn about fractions in elementary school; that you can multiply the top and bottom by a nonzero constant without changing its value.

If I say 5 = 5 and then I note that 5pi = 5pi by multiplying both sides by pi, that doesn't show a relation between 5 and pi. It only shows that you can multiply both sides of an equation by a constant and preserve the truth value of the equation.

Why do you persist in misunderstanding this fact that you learned in grade school?
Φ is defined as (1 + sqrt(5))/2.
By who? You? Do you not understand that the '1' here can also be any value also found in the other two terms?
If k is any nonzero real number whatsoever, you can multiply the numerator and denominator of a fraction by k and it still represents the same number.
Your "defined as..." becomes incorrect if the speed of light is "defined" as c = 1.

Yes, Φ can be (n+n√5)/2n, thus n can be something other than 1 (!) if/when calculating displacements from c = 1.
By letting n be π, Φ is expressed in terms of π, thus joins line and curve as co-operative concerning c = 1.
There's nothing special about pi in this context.
Yes there is: each 2π concerns one rotation.
You can't do physics unless you are talking about a circle.
That's why physics equations often have π in them.
I've just shown a deep mystical relation between 47 and Φ.
No, you have not: you've shown you don't understand the importance of the base being a circle. 47 is not transcendental.
Or, I've just applied the first thing you learn about fractions in elementary school; that you can multiply the top and bottom by a nonzero constant without changing its value.
You should have never left there - that is not the issue here. The issue is keeping the equation in the form needed to actually describe something in the physical universe: something that rotates, like a planet. Present-day mathematics is thoroughly severed from physical reality, thus has no meaning outside of its own meaningless context.

2πr describes a circle. "47" is a meaningless number.
If I say 5 = 5 and then I note that 5pi = 5pi by multiplying both sides by pi, that doesn't show a relation between 5 and pi. It only shows that you can multiply both sides of an equation by a constant and preserve the truth value of the equation.
Truth value begins at how "coupled" the equation is to the actual physical universe in which we live.
Why do you persist in misunderstanding this fact that you learned in grade school?
The misunderstanding is yours: please continue to impress otherwise.

You obviously do not understand the need to leave the expression as a 2π base before going off
and reducing it to an arbitrary '1' like idiot mathematicians who do not even know what '1' naturally concerns:
Φ, Φ² and Φ³ in relation to the circle described by 2π. Thus by using 2π as n and 1/2n in/of (n+n√5)/2n,
you get a pentagram with sections represented by Φ, Φ² and Φ³ in direct relation to the circle surrounding it.

Because light does not actually "travel" but rather is a rate of induction,
everything else is moving in relation to light. Thus, the constituency of
the physical universe is motion, measured in discrete units, such that all
physical phenomena are particular displacements from the universal datum
of light, which is c, whose value is '1' as unity.

Φ = (π+π√5)/2π
and
π = 4/√Φ
thus each reference one-another and mutually concern a datum of light c = 1.
Approximated π is de-coupled from Φ, but the two are actually one, as from Φ's own rib comes π.

If you say "the speed of light isn't '1, it's 299 792 458m/s..."
(or some other arbitrary man-made metric),
I will say: and that's where you fail, General Relativity fails, Cult of Quantum fails
and all those who similarly believe that space can bend.

Hint: space has no intrinsic geometry less time,
thus what Φ is to space (yang) π is to time (yin).