NP Alabama Pi

[jporter]

> From: sigfpe <0x7ff00012 at sigfpe.com>
> Organization: can be a good thing
> Reply-To: 0x7ff00012 at sigfpe.com
> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:57:05 -0700
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: NP Alabama Pi
> 
>> I won't reproduce it here, but the gist: There seems to be growing
>> support, among those who think about such things, that Pi (and
>> other versions of Platonic Idealism) ain't so absolute, after all.
> 
> I believe a little precision is in order here or else half-truths
> will beget quarter-truths and so on.
> 
> The ratio of the circumference of a physical circle to its physical
> radius is not a constant.  The idea that it might not be goes back
> as far as Gauss and Lobachevsky and with the triumph of GR (that
> is General Relativity - Einsten's theory of gravity) it became
> clear that this ratio really is, at best, approximated by pi.  This
> is no growing movement, this is mainstream physics for at least
> half a century.

Yes, but we are talking about Pi, the mathematical concept, and the growing
realization that there may be no such animal as pure math, that math is just
as messy and experimental as physics. You see, if one is to persist in
believing that physics and *pure* mathematics (or any pure Platonic ideal,
for that matter) never intersect, you will inevitably be forced to accept
supernatural explanations for why mathematics works so well. (See my reply
to Vaska).


> 
> That pi, the pure mathematical constant, might not be a constant,
> is something of an oxymoron.  It is defined to be "The constant
> such that..." where the ellipsis is the definition.

You are taking the purity for granted. But it may all be in the eye of the
beholder. In the Euclidean space with which we are most physically
comfortable, Pi remains constant out as far as you care to look. In a
reality where surfaces are spherical, where diameters must be drawn along
the surface of a sphere (and bend with it), Pi would vary. Which serves to
demonstrate that the particular "pure mathematical constant" you are
referring to may be more of a comfortable invention than an absolute.

> 
> Before a century ago there was no doubt that the above ideas
> represented the same thing.  But the revolution in science where
> it was realised that they might not be passed by before most of us
> were born.
> --

But the gist here is another level on entirely. It's not just that the
*physical* circle and the *ideal* circle are not the same, but that they
might actually BE the same, and that neither one of them is ideal.

Paraphrasing W.C. Williams: No abstractions but in things.

jody