Printable View
Yea I was thinking in real world terms. After having put my all into Calculus I last year...well, mathematically I'm all used up :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by adam has a dream
And a just plain confusing one :?Quote:
The pie business is a failed proof.
As for the all encompassing bubble...it would be worth 4, not one, as it contains 4 bubbles...
Math isn't as philosophically flexible as all this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam has a dream
Math, like anything in life, is as flexible or permeable as you let it be.
The 4 bubbles of substance have to always be contained within another bubble of existence or substance, so no matter how far you peel back the field in which you view the math problem it always makes it one step more than you could ever imagine. The reason for this being, we can only tread with our imagination where existence is, the unfathomable is the area of lack of substance. In order to have something to be able to count in the first place you need to have a separate existing field in which to view said objects in perspective to it, as seemingly separate.
Thus, it would equal 5 if you include the medium through which the math problem was able to be worked out. Be it, in your head or written out on a piece of paper in "reality".
I understand what you're saying, but no.
It's not mathematically correct.
Mathematically, that fifth element would be the definition of the set of numbers you are adding, and, as such, not part of the calculation. You can't perform an operation on a definition, only on the object it is defining.
You can add your own fields, with your own operations to math. So everything is possible. Where do you think imaginary numbers came from, or infinitesimals, or negative numbers, or irrational numbers... they don't exist! They are only invented for the purpose of calculation. Since you didn't define in which field you are working, 2+2=5 could be a correct mathematical statement. Just like X²=-1 is impossible in one field, and possible in the field of imaginary numbers. Like Solskye said. Math, like anything in life, is as flexible or permeable as you let it be... you can define your own fields and own operations in math, np. We do it all the time for the purpose of calculation. It might not always seem logic at first sight, but as long as it serves the purpose of calculation it's fine. Try imagining -5 stones. Impossible. But at the same time, negative numbers play a huge role in making calculations.
i is simply an easier way to express the square root of -1. With this 2+2=5 you're talking about totally redefining the way we perform mathematical calculations.
To ChaybaChayba:
The funny thing about that is, you can't.
All of the things you mentioned came from pure mathematics, which I'm going to assume you have no understanding of. Having dealt with pure and applied maths, I understand that there is now a real world application for all of those things, they're not just pulled out of someone's ass.
You might make up bullshit fields in which to define equations, but I doubt you've ever actually put them up to mathematical rigour or the real world.
Until you give me some sign that you actually understand the basic concepts of maths, this is me out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam has a dream
Righto.
Get 5 pieces of cake.
Eat One Piece.
Take away two pieces.
How many do you have? Two pieces here, two pieces there.
Put them together again.
Now you have 5 pieces again.
Repeat until you die.
Ah, but where is the one you ate? Fractals have been disproven.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish
To satisfy everyone:
(2+2)^0 = (5)^0
:rolllaugh: At least that argument involves a statement that is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam has a dream
It just may satisfy those who are talking nonsense, because they will assume it's synonymous to 2 + 2 = 5... and we won't.
Everybody's happy :)
LOL nub. Yes they are. Calculus was pulled out of the asses of Leibniz and Newton. Maths aren't something that spawned out of nature. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by adam has a dream
Bullshit or not, we do agree ^^ If these bullshit fields and bullshit equations would serve the purpose of calculation they would be accepted into maths.Quote:
You might make up bullshit fields in which to define equations, but I doubt you've ever actually put them up to mathematical rigour or the real world.
And stay out.Quote:
Until you give me some sign that you actually understand the basic concepts of maths, this is me out.
They did not pull calculus out of their asses. They discovered it. Calculus is a part of nature. Humans only made up the symbols.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
I just wanted to pop in and ask you all to stop saying "maths." While it is a cute colloquial expression, it isn't necessary to have the s on the end because "math" is short of "mathematics." Maths is also short for it, but it just sounds a little stupid...no offense.
I'm Australian, math sounds retarded, no offense taken :) Hence I will keep using 'maths'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Heh. Mathematicses...that is what I think of when I hear maths.
LOL :lol: Where did they find it? Under a rock? Hahaha you're hilarious, please show me imaginary numbers in nature, or negative numbers. Go ahead and make me laugh ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Yeah, numbers themselves are made of physical matter. However, negative numbers can be found in debts and temperatures, but imaginary numbers are by definition not real. So, why didn't Euclid just make Pi 3? Why didn't Pythagorus make all three sides of a right triangle have the same measures, or at least make it where leg plus leg = hypotenuse? He had to get squares involved. Why didn't Descartes and Leibniz make derivatives simple halves? They made it so much more complicated than that. Can you explain any of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
They took the concepts from nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
Negatives are pretty easy to show based on a frame of reference - watching something "move away" in your rear-view mirror is watching it move in a negative direction.
Imaginary numbers are contained in the formula for a circle and any oscillatory motion, eg the vibration of a string.
No they made up concepts to describe nature. Big difference. Pi for example, is not exact. Try to give me the exact number of pi, you can't, therefore, your point fails.
That does not qualify as an explanation for anything I mentioned. FAIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
I came across a video that reminds me of you....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WdBth68lWMM
I came across a pile of turd that reminds me of you... LOL
Oh please, go cry to your mommy about trolls, I couldn't care less.
Didn't I tell you it was past your nap time?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
TROLL!! LOLOLOL.... grow up.
Pi is exact, however it is an irrational number and hence cannot be written as a single whole number. It's an infinite series that converges to one number, the link below shows you the series.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Calculating_.CF.80
hence my point does not fail.
Anything else you suggest will break down my argument?