## Why is it so hard to prove that e+pi or e*pi is irrational/rational?

The reason why it is so hard to prove is actually very easy to answer. **These ***constants, identities, and variations*** being referred to in this post, and others like it, all lay embedded in a far deeper substrate than current mathematics has yet explored**.

Mathematics has been, and always shall be my ‘first love’, and it has provided for me all of these years. **I am not criticising mathematics in any way.** It is my firm belief that mathematics will overcome this current situation and eventually be quite able to examine these kinds of questions in a **much more ***expansive ***and ***deeper ***way.**

We need to extend our examination of mathematical knowledge, *both in depth and in scope,* out farther and in deeper than numbers (sets and categories as well – even more below) have yet done. **I’ll introduce you to a pattern you may have already noticed in the current stage of our mathematical endeavour.**

We all know there are numbers which lay outside of *Q* which we call Irrational numbers. There are also numbers which lay outside of *R* which we call Imaginary numbers. They have both been found, **because the domain of questioning exceeded the range of answers being sought within the properties each of those numbers.** This pattern continues in other ways, as well.

**We also know there are abstractions and/or extensions of Complex numbers where the ‘air starts to get thin’ and mathematical properties start to ‘fade away’: **Quaternions, Octonians, Sedenions,…

This pattern continues in other ways: **Holors**, for example, which extend and include mathematical entities such as Complex numbers, scalars, vectors, matrices, tensors, Quaternions, and other hypercomplex numbers, yet are still capable of providing a different algebra which is consistent with real algebra.

**The framing of our answers to mathematical questions is also evolving.** Logic was, for example, limited to quite sophisticated methods that all were restricted to a boolean context. Then we found other questions which led to boundary, multi-valued, fuzzy, and fractal logics, among a few others I haven’t mentioned yet.

**Even our validity claims are evolving. **We are beginning to ask questions which require answers which transcend relationship properties such as causality, equivalence, and inference in all of their forms. Even the idea of a binary relationship is being transcended into finitary versions (which I use in my work). There are many more of these various patterns which I may write about in the future.

**They all have at least one thing in common:** *each time we extend our reach in terms of scope or depth, we find new ways of seeing things which we saw before and/or see new things which were before not seen.*

There are many ‘voices’ in this ‘mathematical fugue’ which ‘weaves’ everything together: **they are the ***constants, variations, identities,*** and the ***relationships they share with each other.*

The constants *e, π, i, ϕ, c, g, h* all denote or involve ‘special’ relationships of some kind. **Special in the sense that they are completely ***unique***.**

For example:

*e*is the(some would say proportion, but that’s not entirely correct).*identity of change**π*is the. There’s much more going on with than simply being a component of*identity of periodicity**arc*or, in a completely different context, a component of*area*…

**These relationships actually transcend mathematics.** Mathematics ‘consumes’ their utility (making use of those relationships), but they cannot be ‘corralled in’ as if they were ‘horses on the farm’ of mathematics. **Their uniqueness cannot be completely understood via equivalence classes alone.**

**They are***ubiquitous***and therefore not***algebraic***.****They are***pre-nascent***to number***,***equivalence classes, and validity claims and are therefore not***rational***.**

These are not the only reasons.

**It’s also about WHERE they are embedded in the knowledge substrate compared to the concept of number, set, category…. ***They lay more deeply embedded in that substrate.*

The reason why your question is so hard for mathematics to answer is, because our current mathematics is, as yet, unable to decide. **We need to ‘see’ these problems with a more complete set of ‘optics’ that will yield them to mathematical scrutiny. **

This entry was posted on Apr 25, 2018 by Heurist. It was filed under Holors, Insight, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Learning, Mathematics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Understanding, Wisdom and was tagged with insight, knowledge, learning, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Philosophy Of Mind, understanding, Universal Constants, wisdom.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

## Leave a Reply