StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:29 pm**

Is it really that easy? I would argue that 2 and 2 do not necessarily make 4. Any takers?

Note: If Ms. Sgw Universe would like to take part, I would be overjoyed.

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:31 pm**

you mean it in the funny metaphorical sense that something cannot be what we call it JUST BECAUSE we gave it that certain name?

or you mean that the concept for which we use the word "two" to describe it, multiplied "twice" is not identical to the concept for which we use the word "four" to describe it?

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:34 pm**

That would definitely be part of it. If one is to apply the mechanism of mathematics (whether flawed or not) to the concept of a number, then that person had better understand and be able to put to words their understanding of that concept.

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:06 pm**

Agapooka wrote:That would definitely be part of it. If one is to apply the mechanism of mathematics (whether flawed or not) to the concept of a number, then that person had better understand and be able to put to words their understanding of that concept.

I'm not really sure that for me personally there is much to discuss.

Mathematics isn't just a name for an abstract subject.
It's actually more like an umbrella term for the concepts, patterns and ways to describe these that exist in nature (i.e. golden ratio, fractals, etc.)
"Numbers" are also nothing more than labels to those existing concepts which we are able to extract from observing nature.

Mathematics wasn't invented, it was discovered, in the "obervating and understanding" sense of the word, NOT in the "being able to create" sense.

Although for the people who have not yet thought about this in deep detail, it might certainly be an interesting subject to discuss.

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:16 pm**

It's been proven mathematically I'm afraid... (you can't really argue with a mathematical theorem...)

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:30 pm**

fireball37 wrote:It's been proven mathematically I'm afraid... (you can't really argue with a mathematical theorem...)

Sweetheart, that only 'proves' 1 and 1 is 2.

*grin*
What you really want to prove is (2+0i) + (2+0i) = (4+0i)..

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:27 pm**

That's not really necessary, proving that 1+1 = 2 proves the process of arithmetic addition, for whatever values, including 2+2 = 4...

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:32 pm**

Universe wrote:
fireball37 wrote:It's been proven mathematically I'm afraid... (you can't really argue with a mathematical theorem...)

Sweetheart, that only 'proves' 1 and 1 is 2. *grin*
What you really want to prove is (2+0i) + (2+0i) = (4+0i)..

I have a physics degree i don't know WTH that's saying.

Damn pure mathematics.

@ universe

I don't see where complex numbers fit into this.

Posted: **Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:23 pm**

I agree with Thriller, but I don't have a physics degree.

By the way, I told Jack this yesterday:

"The claim that 2 and 2, when put together, make 4 is just as ridiculous as the claim that two halves of a man, when put together, make a man. Even if properly fused, the result is but a corpse."

Posted: **Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:16 pm**

Agapooka wrote:I agree with Thriller, but I don't have a physics degree.

By the way, I told Jack this yesterday:

"The claim that 2 and 2, when put together, make 4 is just as ridiculous as the claim that two halves of a man, when put together, make a man. Even if properly fused, the result is but a corpse."

One deals strictly with quantity the other has a qualitative measure.
SO that doesn't apply at all.

Posted: **Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:48 pm**

Yes, I'm not a fan of logic algebra, I can barely get the basic gist of that proof, but it does work...

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:06 am**

Thriller wrote:
Agapooka wrote:I agree with Thriller, but I don't have a physics degree.

By the way, I told Jack this yesterday:

"The claim that 2 and 2, when put together, make 4 is just as ridiculous as the claim that two halves of a man, when put together, make a man. Even if properly fused, the result is but a corpse."

One deals strictly with quantity the other has a qualitative measure.
SO that doesn't apply at all.

What are you measuring quantitively? If the qualitive essense of that which you are quantitively measuring changes as a result of you measuring it, then that which you are measuring changes and the natural number answer, which implies that no change has occured, would in fact be inaccurate. It would be inaccurate to argue that 4 apples plus 5 more apples result in 9 oranges. It would be more accurate to say that 4 apples plus 5 apples results in 0 oranges.

Let us consider this evidence:

Code: Select all

1. Anything divided by 0 is infinity. In simple language, 0 fits an infinite amount of times in the number 1. (Alternatively, if this concept is too difficult for anyone to grasp, we will give 'a' the value of infinity.)
2. Likewise, anything divided by infinity is 0.

Therefore, let 'a' be 'pi / 0' (because it's yummier that way).
Let 'b' be '2' and let 'c' be '4'.

Let us consider the following logic:

If b + a = c + a, then b = c

Therefore, 2 = 4.
HOWEVER:

Because of the nature of infinity, 2 = 0 (where b+a=c+a, b+a-a=0 and c+a-a=0) and it is possible to argue that 2 + 2 = 0. This demonstrates the manner in which qualitative and quantative are intrinsically related, as there is only a quantity of "things" that share a specified quality.

The Observer Effect would also come into play, where the observed changes as a result of the observer observing it or due to being placed in an environment in which it can be observed.

Mathematics are theoretical in nature, but it seems as though such variables as those presented above, inclusive of which is the Observer Effect, are thoroughly ignored. Mathematics work based on flawed assumptions and it has been my observation, however affected by the OE it may be, that many things can be given the appearance of logical and true when they are based on flawed assumptions. *hint hint*

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:08 am**

Agapooka wrote:
Thriller wrote:
Agapooka wrote:I agree with Thriller, but I don't have a physics degree.

By the way, I told Jack this yesterday:

"The claim that 2 and 2, when put together, make 4 is just as ridiculous as the claim that two halves of a man, when put together, make a man. Even if properly fused, the result is but a corpse."

One deals strictly with quantity the other has a qualitative measure.
SO that doesn't apply at all.

What are you measuring quantitively? If the qualitive essense of that which you are quantitively measuring changes as a result of you measuring it, then that which you are measuring changes and the natural number answer, which implies that no change has occured, would in fact be inaccurate. It would be inaccurate to argue that 4 apples plus 5 more apples result in 9 oranges. It would be more accurate to say that 4 apples plus 5 apples results in 0 oranges.

Let us consider this evidence:
Code: Select all
1. Anything divided by 0 is infinity. In simple language, 0 fits an infinite amount of times in the number 1. (Alternatively, if this concept is too difficult for anyone to grasp, we will give 'a' the value of infinity.)
2. Likewise, anything divided by infinity is 0.

Therefore, let 'a' be 'pi / 0' (because it's yummier that way).
Let 'b' be '2' and let 'c' be '4'.

Let us consider the following logic:

If b + a = c + a, then b = c

Therefore, 2 = 4.
HOWEVER:

Because of the nature of infinity, 2 = 0 (where b+a=c+a, b+a-a=0 and c+a-a=0) and it is possible to argue that 2 + 2 = 0. This demonstrates the manner in which qualitative and quantative are intrinsically related, as there is only a quantity of "things" that share a specified quality.
The Observer Effect would also come into play, where the observed changes as a result of the observer observing it or due to being placed in an environment in which it can be observed.

Mathematics are theoretical in nature, but it seems as though such variables as those presented above, inclusive of which is the Observer Effect, are thoroughly ignored. Mathematics work based on flawed assumptions and it has been my observation, however affected by the OE it may be, that many things can be given the appearance of logical and true when they are based on flawed assumptions. *hint hint*

It's like poetry for lawyer's.
You should write a book.

actually anything divided by zero is not infinity, it's undefined. (i'll explain this is you like.)

and no something divided by infinity is not zero. Any finite number divided by infinity is a number infinitesimally larger than, but never equal to, zero (f / I = 1 / I)

and then you follow up with some more god awful math.

a+b=c+a
(pi/0) + (2) = (4)+(pi/0) This is already wrong, common!!! You did not prove your original equation to be balanced to begin with and are just making this crap up off the top of your head.

Lol plz man i can say 3+6 = 30 but it doesn't make it true and that's exactly what you did. With some well chosen words designed to confuse. I expect better, This isn't even that funny.

**Hint HInt

This isn't the spam temple and if you do this again i think it deserves a warning.

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:12 am**

Agapooka wrote:"The claim that 2 and 2, when put together, make 4 is just as ridiculous as the claim that two halves of a man, when put together, make a man. Even if properly fused, the result is but a corpse."

That analogy doesn't really work, if you split a computer in half and then put it back together it won't work either. There's more to this sentence that you'd initially think but instead of me writing up an endless piece of text i'll let people think about it and in case someone doesn't understand it, i'll explain in detail.

and i join thriller on his statement pookie, your initial equation of b+a=a+c is flawed/you haven't proven its validity in the first place.
Anything derived from a flawed eqation is inherently incorrect, unless in the process a flawed method was used too, in that case you might end up with a viable answer

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:22 am**

I agree, it is flawed with incorrect assumptions. That's the point.

Debating isn't the art of discovering the truth. It's the art of dressing *anything* as the truth. Of course, anyone able to see beyond the words can realise that and I'm glad that I'm not surrounded by complete idiots, but I wish that they'd also understand what a debate is and see this, not as spam, but as a debate, although in a somewhat exaggerated form.

Thriller, you obviously haven't read the Wednesday debate, have you?

(If you have, I'm surprised that you haven't been able to see a pattern by now :roll:

) Mind you, it's in the "Official league, judged, debates" section.

The reason why debates were never meant to arrive at a truthful conclusion is that we have conflicting parties who are biased towards their respective points of view. (EDIT ADD-IN: That is, the purpose is to selfishly promote one's subjective point of view, as opposed to agreeing to work towards a truthful conclusion and admitting that they may not have it.) I have never liked to argue something that I believe, because I find it boring. In the spirit of debate, however, I am willing to argue any nonsensical thing I can come up with, just to see how far it will go. The reason why I am mentioning this is that the spirit of debate was broken when *someone* questioned the validity of this debate/discussion. I am therefore compelled to defend not only the validity of this debate, but also the message that it conveys about what debating is.

Come to think of it, is there anything more difficult to argue than "2+2 is not equal to 4"? Haha. I have to say, I don't think I did too bad in that light.

On the other hand, all anyone else had to do was prove that 2+2=4. Try bragging about that. :lol:

*On a side note, I was taught in school that anything divided by infinity was zero. Maybe they were too lazy to give a different answer, because I do find yours much more accurate in that regard. As for the inverse, that everythign divided by infinity is zero, I deduced that based on the flawed former. It would be a contradiction to teach one and not the other, so I'm glad that you (Thriller) addressed both.

StarGateWars Forums

Putting Two and Two Together

Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together

Re: Putting Two and Two Together