Help me understand

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 08, 2017, 01:09:38 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:08:03 PM

Ok, so given these two numbers:

a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002

This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.

One of the many numbers between them is:

x = 0.000000.....000000015

Does that clear it up for you?

That is certainly not between them. That is larger than both of them.

You should probably recheck.  Just as a simplified model for clarity and to make sure your understanding of math is adequate to getting the correct answer:

Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal 0.1?
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal to 0.2?

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:10:52 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 08, 2017, 01:09:38 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:08:03 PM

Ok, so given these two numbers:

a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002

This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.

One of the many numbers between them is:

x = 0.000000.....000000015

Does that clear it up for you?

That is certainly not between them. That is larger than both of them.

You should probably recheck.  Just as a simplified model for clarity and to make sure your understanding of math is adequate to getting the correct answer:

Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal 0.1?
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal to 0.2?

As far as relevant numbers go, rather than that nonsense you posted,
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01

If I may, the numbers in between 0 and 1 are what's referred to as an uncountable infinity. The integers between 0 and infinity are countably infinite.

As for the other thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 08, 2017, 01:28:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:10:52 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 08, 2017, 01:09:38 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:08:03 PM

Ok, so given these two numbers:

a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002

This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.

One of the many numbers between them is:

x = 0.000000.....000000015

Does that clear it up for you?

That is certainly not between them. That is larger than both of them.

You should probably recheck.  Just as a simplified model for clarity and to make sure your understanding of math is adequate to getting the correct answer:

Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal 0.1?
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal to 0.2?

As far as relevant numbers go, rather than that nonsense you posted,
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01

Okay, we'll do it your way.

0.02 > 0.015 > 0.01

Is it provoking smart people to discuss stupid things that gives the rush that drives your trolling, or is it the power trip you get from duping gullible people into believing hogwash that motivates you?

I never troll.

This is an incorrect way to discuss this notation.

0.02 > 0.015 > 0.01

we are talking about

0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01.

Perhaps you aren't understanding the notation? You need to consider the signifcant digits in a way you currently aren't if you wish to talk about 0.9999...999 rather than 0.99999....

Maybe it's time to acknowledge using notation like "0.999...999" that narc introduced and JD ran with is useless because it lacks any definition of scale. It's also completely irrelevant when discussing how to address a number like 0.999... because it's comparing a finite series of 9s after the decimal point to an infinite one.

If I may, the numbers in between 0 and 1 are what's referred to as an uncountable infinity. The integers between 0 and infinity are countably infinite.

As for the other thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

I can't let this happen too often, but I agree with th3rm0m3t3r0. It's a case of when he's right he's very right and . . . . .

Maybe it's time to acknowledge using notation like "0.999...999" that narc introduced and JD ran with is useless because it lacks any definition of scale. It's also completely irrelevant when discussing how to address a number like 0.999... because it's comparing a finite series of 9s after the decimal point to an infinite one.

I can define it discretely, if that is what you are asking. And it certainly is respective of scale as much so as 0.9999...

I feel like my examples have done this much, but we can do it more formally.

Also, bring the Cantor th3rm0m3t3r0, because he was full of bollocks.

I can define it discretely, if that is what you are asking. And it certainly is respective of scale as much so as 0.9999...

No. You are describing a finite number without defining the significant digits, hence the "..." in the middle.

Alternatively, I've been describing a clearly defined term.

You are playing games.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 05:27:47 PM

I can define it discretely, if that is what you are asking. And it certainly is respective of scale as much so as 0.9999...

No. You are describing a finite number without defining the significant digits, hence the "..." in the middle.

Alternatively, I've been describing a clearly defined term.

You are playing games.

Why would I describe a finite amount of digits with a ...

I'm really not sure. I've heard arguments both ways, but if 1+ 0.999...999 = 2, we could end up with a negative number if we add up all those positives. We could expect no less out of globularist math.

Going right back to here! What on earth has this rubbish got to do with Globe vs. Flat?

Why is there any special Globularist Math and for us poor non-mathematical geniuses
Of course, the old monks supposedly wiled away the time debating such things as, "How many angels could dance on the head of a pin?".
Many of your issues seem less relevant to the Flatularist vs Globularist questions than even that!

All you seem to be trying to prove is "what a clever young man your must be". OK I'l grant you that, now get onto something that matters.

How does the question of how smart(-alackey) Flatularists might be or even how dumb Globularist's might be relate to the shape of the earth?

The topic is "Help me understand", yet all you ever do is try to confuse!

Quote from: boydster on December 08, 2017, 05:36:41 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 05:27:47 PM

I can define it discretely, if that is what you are asking. And it certainly is respective of scale as much so as 0.9999...

No. You are describing a finite number without defining the significant digits, hence the "..." in the middle.

Alternatively, I've been describing a clearly defined term.

You are playing games.

Why would I describe a finite amount of digits with a ...

You described a finite, but undefined, amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends.

Again, you are playing games. It's really not worth the effort.

I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.

I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.

You are playing games, totally irrelevant to the topic, "Help me understand"!

All you are doing is adding confusion and trying to show what a smart fellow you are.
OK, we don't need convincing, Now, get onto something relevant to the flat ~ globe question.

Does anyone else ignore the centered italic text?

There is no question, the earth is flat as can be. I would attribute our recent popularity to truth.

I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.

You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."

This doesn't work in reality.

Does anyone else ignore the centered italic text?

So sorry, Oh enlightened one. Is this clearer?
All you are doing is adding confusion and trying to show what a smart fellow you are.

OK, we don't need convincing,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"

Now, get onto something relevant to the flat ~ globe question.

There is no question, the earth is flat as can be. I would attribute our recent popularity to truth.

What do you even mean by, "our recent popularity to truth"?

Can the shape of the earth now be determined by popular vote?

What choices are there on this ballot because no two flat earthers seem able to agree on a flat earth model?
You don't even know the shape (continental layout) of your supposed flat earth.
If you simply ask people whether the earth is or is not flat, many would answer loosely, "It looks flat".
But, if you admitted that

• no-one really knows what the shape of the countries on the flat earth are,
• intercontinental air routes simple do no fit with your flat earth,
• this flat earth cannot even explain how the sun rises and sets
• there is not even any agreement as to why things fall down!

Would you really be so "popular"?

There is no consistent "Flat Earth Theory".
Instead, there is just a mish-mash of ideas and no agreement, even among flat-earthers, on many vital issues.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let's look at the "generally accepted model".
I think "map", better described as "continental layout" because no-one expects a detail map is extremely important, so look at the "generally accepted map(s):

John Davis Secretary Of The Society

Quote from: John Davis on April 18, 2010, 11:05:57 AM There is no accurate map of the Earth.  We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.

The following are maps that various Flat Earth Society members believe to be the true flat earth "continental layout":

FE Ice Wall Map North Pole centred AEP

FE Bipolar Map (0°, 0°) centred AEP

1893 map by Orlando Ferguson. Credit: Don Homuth

Map Northern Hemiplane, DET

Map Southern Hemiplane

Sandokhan "True" Flat Earth Map

All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.

Of course you will ask, "What is wrong with the Ice-Wall Map?".
The simple facts are that many flat earthers have realised at last that

• Antarctica is really an island continent and that there is a real single South Pole.
• That the Southern Stars do really appear the rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole,
   a single point due south of everywhere.
• The Southern Hemisphere distances, especially for intercontinental airline flights were simply untenable on the old Ice-Wall Map.

The distances on the Bi-Polar or Sandokhan's Map are still not correct, but the errors are spread over both hemispheres and are less noticeable.
But in my opinion the Bi-Polar or Sandokhan's Map introduce more problems than they solve, not the least being the gross distortions of directions.

And is "gravity" caused by:

• Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
• Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
• Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
• Simple density as many seem to claim,
• Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
• Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
• İntikam's "atmosphere push".
• And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down  .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This is an incorrect way to discuss this notation.

0.02 > 0.015 > 0.01

we are talking about

0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01.

No, we aren't.  You are either deliberately fucking around to be an asshole or you are incredibly dense.  I believe you are too intelligent to not understand, so I conclude that you're just being a dick.  However, you said:

I never troll.

So if you're insisting you're a moron, then I suppose you would know better than anyone else.  Whether you're just fucking with us or too stupid for words, though, the point has been proven beyond any reasonable argument, so I'm out.

I stated that pretty poorly. To say:
-- if there is no number between two numbers .: those numbers are equal
Is to say:
-- all numbers are equal, and there are no distinct numbers at all.

I'll have to check whenever I get time to spend in my library, but I believe I can source this with Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Nope.
There are infinitely many numbers. You can always find a number between 2 non-equal numbers.

Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002

There is another number between them:
c = 0.000000.....000000015

Notice how these numbers are not infinitely recurring.

This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them.

But there is. These numbers are not infinitely recurring.
You have them terminate.

As far as relevant numbers go, rather than that nonsense you posted,
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01

Except they were not the numbers you posted.
If you want a more valid comparison you have:
0.015, 0.02 and 0.01.

we are talking about
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01.

No you weren't.
You were talking about 0.0, followed by a finite but undisclosed number of 0s (an equal number in all three cases), and then either 1, 2 or 15.

That means we are talking about numbers that can be scaled to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.15.

Perhaps you aren't understanding the notation? You need to consider the signifcant digits

Why would you just consider the significant digits rather than all?

Why would I describe a finite amount of digits with a ...

If you were describing a infinite amount of digits, it would end at ... because that is all there is, you will never get to the point where the number is different.

By showing the ... you are indicating that there are lots of digits removed.

I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends.

An impossibility.
If it is infinite, it can't end.

The simple fact is 1/9=0.99999.

If you wish to disagree, point out what the error is.

malnutrition?

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 05:48:33 PM

I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.

You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."

This doesn't work in reality.

Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?

Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 12:55:25 PM

I stated that pretty poorly. To say:
-- if there is no number between two numbers .: those numbers are equal
Is to say:
-- all numbers are equal, and there are no distinct numbers at all.

I'll have to check whenever I get time to spend in my library, but I believe I can source this with Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Nope.
There are infinitely many numbers. You can always find a number between 2 non-equal numbers.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:08:03 PM

Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002

There is another number between them:
c = 0.000000.....000000015

Notice how these numbers are not infinitely recurring.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:08:03 PM

This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them.

But there is. These numbers are not infinitely recurring.
You have them terminate.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:30:13 PM

As far as relevant numbers go, rather than that nonsense you posted,
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01

Except they were not the numbers you posted.
If you want a more valid comparison you have:
0.015, 0.02 and 0.01.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 05:10:09 PM

we are talking about
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01.

No you weren't.
You were talking about 0.0, followed by a finite but undisclosed number of 0s (an equal number in all three cases), and then either 1, 2 or 15.

That means we are talking about numbers that can be scaled to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.15.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 05:10:09 PM

Perhaps you aren't understanding the notation? You need to consider the signifcant digits

Why would you just consider the significant digits rather than all?

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 05:39:47 PM

Why would I describe a finite amount of digits with a ...

If you were describing a infinite amount of digits, it would end at ... because that is all there is, you will never get to the point where the number is different.

By showing the ... you are indicating that there are lots of digits removed.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 05:48:33 PM

I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends.

An impossibility.
If it is infinite, it can't end.

JackBlack, please leave this discussion to the adults.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 06:27:05 PM

Does anyone else ignore the centered italic text?

So sorry, Oh enlightened one. Is this clearer?
All you are doing is adding confusion and trying to show what a smart fellow you are.

Quote

OK, we don't need convincing,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"

Now, get onto something relevant to the flat ~ globe question.

Quote from: John Davis

There is no question, the earth is flat as can be. I would attribute our recent popularity to truth.

What do you even mean by, "our recent popularity to truth"?

Can the shape of the earth now be determined by popular vote?

What choices are there on this ballot because no two flat earthers seem able to agree on a flat earth model?
You don't even know the shape (continental layout) of your supposed flat earth.
If you simply ask people whether the earth is or is not flat, many would answer loosely, "It looks flat".
But, if you admitted that

• no-one really knows what the shape of the countries on the flat earth are,
• intercontinental air routes simple do no fit with your flat earth,
• this flat earth cannot even explain how the sun rises and sets
• there is not even any agreement as to why things fall down!

Would you really be so "popular"?

There is no consistent "Flat Earth Theory".
Instead, there is just a mish-mash of ideas and no agreement, even among flat-earthers, on many vital issues.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 04, 2017, 11:50:29 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let's look at the "generally accepted model".
I think "map", better described as "continental layout" because no-one expects a detail map is extremely important, so look at the "generally accepted map(s):

John Davis Secretary Of The Society

Quote from: John Davis on April 18, 2010, 11:05:57 AM There is no accurate map of the Earth.  We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.

The following are maps that various Flat Earth Society members believe to be the true flat earth "continental layout":

FE Ice Wall Map North Pole centred AEP

FE Bipolar Map (0°, 0°) centred AEP

1893 map by Orlando Ferguson. Credit: Don Homuth

Map Northern Hemiplane, DET

Map Southern Hemiplane

Sandokhan "True" Flat Earth Map

All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.

Of course you will ask, "What is wrong with the Ice-Wall Map?".
The simple facts are that many flat earthers have realised at last that

• Antarctica is really an island continent and that there is a real single South Pole.
• That the Southern Stars do really appear the rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole,
   a single point due south of everywhere.
• The Southern Hemisphere distances, especially for intercontinental airline flights were simply untenable on the old Ice-Wall Map.

The distances on the Bi-Polar or Sandokhan's Map are still not correct, but the errors are spread over both hemispheres and are less noticeable.
But in my opinion the Bi-Polar or Sandokhan's Map introduce more problems than they solve, not the least being the gross distortions of directions.

And is "gravity" caused by:

• Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
• Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
• Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
• Simple density as many seem to claim,
• Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
• Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
• İntikam's "atmosphere push".
• And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down  .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There is no consistent "Flat Earth Theory".

LoL...Conspiracy Theories are made up as they go along. Its generally when they don't have an answer they make up crap. Thats all conspiracy theory really is...But then again you could apply that theory to politics and a bunch of other things as well.

Since I am the one who wrote the first post of this conversation I allow myself to stop all your conversations, since I think you are getting quite out of context.

My questions were pretty clear (I think) and I got no answers.

So, since I got particularly curious about my last question on the first post and since I didn't get an answer yet, I'll try again, this time by rephrasing my question:

How does the lie of an existing space influences the degree of power that the "powerful people" have over the population? Why not (for example) tell the world that beyond the icy limits of our magic flat earth the are monsters that are trying to destroy us and the governments need the resources to fight them back? they would still get control over us because they would be keeping us safe and they would still get money for this other scam, without having to spend so much to fake something so big as outer space?

Please try to read my question carefully and answer something other than "to control us/if they can make you believe it what else can they make you believe?"

Why would they lie about monsters at the rim? Everyone can look up and see stars, planets, the moon. That makes for a much easier sell than monsters.

"Hey, see that big yellow circle in the sky? We're going on a mission to land on it!"

Or...

"Give me money to protect you from a monster that you've never seen and never will because it lives in a place you can't possibly go!"

Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.

Let's say you have 5 bowls, each with 4 apples.
How many apples do you have?
5*4=20.

Guess what? That works in reality.

JackBlack, please leave this discussion to the adults.

But that would mean you aren't allowed here.

But thanks for showing you have no rational response to my argument.

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 09:52:14 AM

Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.

Let's say you have 5 bowls, each with 4 apples.
How many apples do you have?
5*4=20.

5*4=20.

Plus 63 apples still in the bushel = 83

Can Danang make us some apple Pi?

Can Danang make us some apple Pi?

Yes, but, it will be peach cobbler.

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 09:52:14 AM

Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.

Let's say you have 5 bowls, each with 4 apples.
How many apples do you have?
5*4=20.

Guess what? That works in reality.

1.9999... does not work in reality. You are dismissing 1.999...99923 because it does not work in reality, when 1.999... the series you are claiming = 1.99...999 also does not exist in reality.

To your apple point though, this is an issue many young students struggle with. It is also how many children learn mathematics. Let's talk about it a bit.

So, let us discuss the entirely similar situation: let us put two apples on a table - a sturdy table mind you that would not shake or move the apples or bring in other apples by accident and so on.  Now we then put another two apples on the table, and count those now there - we will likely get the result 4.  We can perform additional experiments like this, but we are fairly confident here that 'adding' works as we think it does. Yes, the results are consistent, and perhaps even corollary, but this is not the same thing as placing two numbers ones on a table and then two more number ones.

However, if we did the same procedure with sticks, fingers, line and most things this would show us that sums are completely silly. Look at this figure to see 2+2 = 4, which is similar to your argument:



If this is all we need, as you claim, to show that 2 + 2 = 4 and in your case 5 + 5 + 5 +5 = 20, then this is completely valid reasoning:


2 + 2 + 2 = 4.

Source: Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics; Page 52 MIT Press 198

For similar reasons, your supplied example is not sufficient to show that 2 + 2 = 4 in reality, or that 5 * 4 = 20.

Edit: filling in the dots.

I do have to ask, though this won't stop me from loving your movies Jack, if you feel that mathematics works in reality, then why are we continuing to work on advancing mathematics?