1

**Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mathematical formulae**

« **on:**September 30, 2016, 09:54:31 PM »

Thank you, I'll have a pop at that.

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Thank you, I'll have a pop at that.

2

Can't we say the same about 1/3? 1/3 can't be expressed exactly as a decimal.But can as a finite number of elementary operations on numbes. Besides, we know all decimals.

You'll have to help me here. The square root of 2 can be calculated by hand using very simple arithmetic to any accuracy you desire. In what way does this differ from the calculation of 1/3 by, for example, long division?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Besides, we know all decimals.'

3

Is there a method of inserting mathematics in a post?

4

What I mean is that we are unable to process the entire real number. Take pi for instance - you don't know all decimals. You can only operate on rational approximations. Take sqrt(2). It exists only as an abstract number, but you can't provide its decimal representation. It's like computers - they only operate on finite number of bits, therefore all numbers are rational for them.

On the other hand, rationals can be a base to define all real numbers (for instance equivalence classes of Cuachy sequences), so in that sense the extension is a proper word.

Can't we say the same about 1/3? 1/3 can't be expressed exactly as a decimal.

5

I may be misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that the rational numbers have an existence we cannot extend to the rest of the reals?In reality, real numbers don't exist.All numbers we can process are rational.

6

Does a number have to be constructed to garner any validity?

Does pi have to be constructed in some fashion; isn't its definition enough for its existence?

Does pi have to be constructed in some fashion; isn't its definition enough for its existence?

7

I think an equivalent quesion would be: Are real numbers real?

In my opinion we can not argue about rational numbers, as they indeed appear in nature. Real numbers, on the other hand, are as much a theoretical construct as imaginary numbers.

Where do rational number appear in nature? I've never seen one.

You do know that rational numbers are also real numbers don't you?

8

The existence of G-d has already been proved. To do so again would be repetitive. Just because none of you atheists have bothered to read philosophy doesn't mean that the rest of us are that abysmally stupid.

Dipshit calling himself after the Indian Goddess of Death and Destruction, who glorifies Lucifer. Know you not that Jews believe not in the Devil?

Appararently not. Angels have no free will in Judaism. They cannot rebel. Ha Satan, The Adversary, is the Prosecuting Attorney of G-d's Heavenly Court. He is the Tempter because that is WHAT G-d wants him to be.

Shit for Brains , if you are going to argue, at LEAST know what the f**k you are talking about. Toodle pip, Dipshit!

In what sense does God exist?

9

Point 4 has no connection with point 2.

You should rewrite your hypothesis:*A Tossed coin will always come down tails*; or quote your conclusion in terms of the hypothesis: *Therefore a tossed coin will come down either heads or tails*.

2. Propose a hypothesis:

. A tossed coin will come down either Heads or Tails.

4. Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis:

. The tossed coin came up Tails,

. therefore Tails comes up 100% of the time.

You should rewrite your hypothesis:

10

There's a wonderful biography of Tolstoy by Aylmer Maude: *The Life of Tolstoy*. It reveals Tolstoy to be a very complex man; I would heartily recommend it.

11

Yaakov doesn't seem to have a problem with homosexual marriage, per se... he has a problem with it being forced on him. He hasn't crossed into full-blown bigotry yet.

How is homosexual marriage forced on people? Are they tied down and sodomized?

12

Yaakov, I have to disagree with you about that. What you are describing is skill. Probabilities arise when there is incomplete information or the element of chance. A player chooses the best move according to their ability to see ahead and consider all of the possibilities.

Consider a strong club player playing against a beginner - the club player will*always* win (unless the beginner happens to be a prodigy); the difference in the skill level guarantees it.

Now consider a game between two players of near-equal ability. Over a short series of games the outcome may be in some (but not much) doubt but over a longer series of games the better player will emerge as the victor. This, of course, assumes that the players are sound in mind and body and don't make too many silly mistakes.

As for chess computers, once again this is a matter of skill; a two-fold skill: the ability of the programmer to produce software to play the game and the also their ability to assess the software through a chess-player's eyes. Chess computers have to work in a quasi-mathematical way because they can't work any other way. We don't work mathematically. Even mathematicians don't work mathematically. A chess player (or a mathematician) can have a flash of insight a 'eureka' moment if you will, a computer can't. Having mentioned the 'eureka' moment I should point out that the people who get them most often tend to be the people who have put in the most work (again, the most skilled).

Chess is a game of complete information and pure skill. That is its joy. It doesn't care where a person is from, what colour their skin, what religion, how rich their parents were*etc*. If you win at the chess board it is because in that game you were the better player.

If you want probabilities in a game try backgammon. I thoroughly recommend it.

Consider a strong club player playing against a beginner - the club player will

Now consider a game between two players of near-equal ability. Over a short series of games the outcome may be in some (but not much) doubt but over a longer series of games the better player will emerge as the victor. This, of course, assumes that the players are sound in mind and body and don't make too many silly mistakes.

As for chess computers, once again this is a matter of skill; a two-fold skill: the ability of the programmer to produce software to play the game and the also their ability to assess the software through a chess-player's eyes. Chess computers have to work in a quasi-mathematical way because they can't work any other way. We don't work mathematically. Even mathematicians don't work mathematically. A chess player (or a mathematician) can have a flash of insight a 'eureka' moment if you will, a computer can't. Having mentioned the 'eureka' moment I should point out that the people who get them most often tend to be the people who have put in the most work (again, the most skilled).

Chess is a game of complete information and pure skill. That is its joy. It doesn't care where a person is from, what colour their skin, what religion, how rich their parents were

If you want probabilities in a game try backgammon. I thoroughly recommend it.

13

I notice that someone has voted for the fifth option involving probabilities. For the life of me I can't think what the probabilities in chess are.

14

Papa Legba, rockets work by pushing on the gas they eject and in turn the gas pushes back because the rocket has high pressure behind it and less pressure or no pressure in front of it.

No they don't. Rockets work by the principle of conservation of momentum.

velocity of exhaust gases multiplied by mass of exhaust gases = mass of rocket multiplied by velocity of rocket. In order for the total momentum of the system to remain unchanged (conserved) the velocity of the rocket is in the opposite direction to the velocity of the gases.

15

or because it is comparably dense and solid enough to have a surface area, as well as the surface tension of water.What?

boats float, metal does not: surface area.

Ice always floats, regardless of its form. It floats on water, because it is less dense than water. Believe me.

When water freezes it expands. That is why pipes burst in winter. Thus ice has a larger volume for the same mass of water. Larger volume and same mass equals lower density.

and you do not see a relationship between surface area and density?

There is no relationship between surface area and density. Two objects may have the same mass and density but different surface areas. Consider a cube of modelling putty, if that is reshaped into a sphere the volume and density remain constant but the surface area decreases.

16

Hawking is a glorified mathematician.

Yaakov, there is nothing more glorious than a mathematician.

17

The horizon is always at eye level. It has to be. It cannot be any other way but get this. This would be the case on any shaped Earth so the argument is pointless.

Surely the horizon is below eye level? If you are standing on a beach your feet are on much the same level as the water and your eyes are a few feet above that. The horizon comes into your field of view because it is far away.

18

If the universe is logical, what are its axioms and what are its rules of inference?

19

But a universe that allows giant planet-carrying turtles would not be logical. In such a universe we couldn't be sure of everything. The most hilarious and ridiculous things we but had to expect to happen. It would be a magical universe. It is not the universe we observe. So why does the universe follow our logic, if logic is only man-made?

The universe does not follow our logic. The universe is awash with counter-intuitive elements. Is the duality of light logical? The idea of an observor influencing the outcome of an experiment by the mere act of observation of that experiment - is that logical? What then, of objectivity? Of certainty?

20

I still do not understand that. If something in the universe would happen contradicting any kind of logic - for example discovering a flat planet floating through space on the back of a huge turtle - we had to admit, that the universe is magical rather than logical. But so far it seams to follow our kind of logic. There may be things not explainable by mere logic (sure there are), but there are no things happening contradicting our logical princioles, or are there?

If we were to discover a flat planet on the back of a giant turtle then the universe is still behaving according to its own nature. The fact that we would have to tear up the science books is neither here nor there: the universe allows giant planet-carrying turtles. Evidence is everything.

21

There's nothing wrong in trying to apply logic to the universe - in fact, it's rather noble but we must keep a sense of humility about us when we do it. We are unlikely to know everything and we are unlikely to know anything with 100% certainty. Even quantum mechanics may someday bowl us a googly (throw us a curve ball).

22

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

I do not understand that. When the universe does not behave logical, how come logic can be applied to understand what's going on in it?

Logic can be applied to build

We can only understand the universe in terms of our own making subject to our own limitations. The universe may be audacious enough not to be limited by our intellect and imagination.

23

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

No. No it's not. Your computer is doing logic right now and it does that by exploiting the predictable logical behavior of electrons. The fact that the universe obeys the laws of physics proves that the universe behaves logically.

My computer works by exploiting the predictable

A logical system consists of a series of axioms and rules for combining them. It is a completely abstract structure.It does not have to correspond with anything in nature. We may apply logic to help us

24

my point to you as the same as my one to mathsman. unless you are saying the universe does not adhere to logic, in which case there is no point in having any kind of discussion with you, you have lost this argument do to your constant evasion whenever you are asked to address premises rather than conclusions.

Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

25

rama. please, understand basic logic.

if a implies b is not true, and c implies bmaybe true, if a is true it does not matter what c says might be. c has other explanations.

you have not offered any 100% evidence. full stop. argument from observation is never 100%. ever. observations always have multiple explanations. what we do, is we take the simplest explanation (the one with fewest assumptions), and we make sure it's possible, and conclude that is the best alternative.

my point to you as the same as my one to mathsman. unless you are saying the universe does not adhere to logic, in which case there is no point in having any kind of discussion with you, you have lost this argument do to your constant evasion whenever you are asked to address premises rather than conclusions.

a conclusion is only false if one or more premise is. would you care to share which, or would you just like to evade?

mikewolf, logic does not work like that. logic is watertight, probabilities don't enter into it like they do with evidence.

i have repeatedly defined capability and degree, and have given explicit examples. stop ignoring every word i say, i have no desire to repeat myself when it seems clear you will just ignore me yet again.

mikey, i have had to make the exact same post multiple times. READ IT. your bs is completely debunked there, and has been for the majority of this thread. what is wrong with you?!

you don't seem to understand a thing about evolution. i don't give a damn what individuals are capable of, i'm not talking about a lone species, i am talking about everything. if you cannot grasp that it is entirely your stupidity that is at play. not a single argument i have made holds unless you apply it to all species. why can you manage nothing beyond straw men?

The truth table for a implies b

a b a implies b

1 0 0

1 1 1

0 0 1

0 1 1

If a implies b is not true then a is true and b is false. If a implies b is true then a may be true or false.

26

evolution allows life to improve over generations. it states life will mutate to become better suited to survival.

Evolution is not about improving. It does not state life

The most we can conclude is that space travel is not possible by natural means

as we observe no animals even being able to go close to the heights necessary, we can conclude that it is not possible.

the higher up you go the easier ascent becomes (as gravity decreases).Demonstrably untrue. It takes more effort to reach the top of a hill than to climb halfway up.

You claim to have constructed a logical argument but all you have done is conflated two non-overlapping areas and produced a syllogism. The essence of your argument is that if evolution hasn't done it then it is not possible. Cast your mind over all the things which technology and science have brought us and ask yourself how many of these things appear in nature without human intervention?

Further to your assertion that logic trumps evidence: Logic can only prove statements to be true or false in terms of the original axioms of that particular system of logic. It cannot make claims about statements which cannot be derived from those axioms. The universe is not derived from axioms. It does not care about logic. It functions in a natural way not a logical way.

No matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't match experiment or observation it is worthless.

27

mathsman, we have met before, it took less than 30 seconds to dismiss your messages...

In fact, I have NOT proceeded at all in the manner described by you...I do not think in the lines of classical mathematics, on the contrary, I invent my own formulas.

Actually, I wasn't saying that you did. I was replying in a previous thread to a poster who doubted your method. I number crunched a few logs and found that your method seemed to work. The post I made was to show

28

Where did God come from?There's the rub.

29

I know that some philosophers claim youcanprove the non-existence of something, but the consensus is that you cannot. There's a lot of schisms between the logic of philosophy and the logic of science.

It's not philosophy, it's mathematics. Mathematicians prove non-existences all the time. There is no end to the decimal expression of the square root of two, there is no formula to solve by radicals (as there is for quadratics) for a general polynomial of degree 5 or above, there is no eigenvalue of a Laplacian that is smaller than one quarter times the Neumann alpha-isoperimetric constant squared...

I feel that this is a misuse of mathematics. A mathematician can prove the non-existence of a mathematical object in terms of the axioms of that particular mathematical branch. Outside of mathematics the proof and the object (or non-object) are meaningless.

30