Refutation of the \"Language-Only\" Interpretation of Math (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 14, 2010, 16:48 (5177 days ago) @ George Jelliss

Yeah, I'm definitely in the world of "pure" mathematics in the stuff that I've been studying. Obviously I'm still ignorant about a great deal of physics.-Your explanation on e is well, something I *should* have thought of, but I've been so concerned with theory that I haven't touched application outside of my domain. Most of my work with e has been in euler's formula and related derivations of sin, cos, PI, etc. -What about the important sequences, Fibonacci, Lucas, and of course the golden mean? I've argued previously that at least for the Fibonacci sequence, its pattern lies solely on the previous iteration, basically, take whatever was in the last two steps and add them. But the other two numbers found in nature I don't think can be as easily explained away as e or PI--I might as well mention Mandelbrot here as well.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"