formula for calculating the certain mathematical constant (particularly Pi),
Why should only “analytically *uncomputable* ” (experimentally
obtained ) or calculated via “guesstimated physical model” or not
directly presicely measurable (such as proton/electron mass ratio)
physical constants be subjected to this methodology ?
I would like to return this discussion back to mathematical constants,
especially to Pi, which has clear geometrical/topological
nature/origin (perhaps it has additionally the physical nature too
but I am not concerned about that part for now). and is not invented
by the pen on the piece of paper.
There are many formula’s for Pi. I presume (I am guessing – please
correct me if I am wrong) that originally certain method of Pi
computation (whether it was in close form formula format or otherwise,
such as iterative approach – I don’t know, sorry, – but in my line of
thinking it doesn’t matter, which specifically it is/was) .
The results produced of all (or some) subsequent independent formula
is compared with above “standard” for correctness – am I correct so
Now if you agree with me in above, – then for each of such *new*
formulas (being under the test) there is some uncertainty whether this
formula is true or not – would you agree with that ? If so, then why
Solomonoff’s methodology is not applicable (in some form ) ?
Also (returning now to the world of physics and going on another path
of sought) – why some sort of “reverse” methodology (vs Solomonoff’s
one) can not be be developed ?
Here is potential example of such “reverse” methodology applicability:
the physicists agree that Einstein formula constitutes calculational
precision improvement over Newton’s one
So could we say that the Newton’s is * more distorted due to “noise”*
whereas Einstein’s one contains less noise and is closer to the
*absolute truth* (for the issue concerned) ?