There is no way a round earth is credible. Please read

where the hell is the relevance of the OP to the shape of the earth?

OP meaning.

OP meaning.

OPENING POST

I didn't know that, don't yell, next time just quote it

when talking about raindrops and counting them, it is wrong to say 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop, why? Since we count how many there are, so, 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 2 raindrops. The same with piles of sand, 1 pile of sand + 1 pile of sand = 2 piles of sand. Only when talking about volumes can you say that you put them together, since you don't do that with "1 raindrop + 1 raindrop" since it means that you count how many there are, not adding them together. A raindrop isn't a volume, a litre is a volume.

when talking about raindrops and counting them, it is wrong to say 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop, why? Since we count how many there are, so, 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 2 raindrops. The same with piles of sand, 1 pile of sand + 1 pile of sand = 2 piles of sand. Only when talking about volumes can you say that you put them together, since you don't do that with "1 raindrop + 1 raindrop" since it means that you count how many there are, not adding them together. A raindrop isn't a volume, a litre is a volume.

I never thought of that, lets burn him for not being perfect

You have to admit though, it is a working theory. Lets say you had the two drops on a sheet of metal to count them, but then they rolled into eachother, oh noes

a and a = a


---

expression of the drop + drop = drop

so basicly when you count sticks, or sausages it's

1 sausage + 1 sausage = 1 sausage

or

1 stick + 1 stick = 1 stick

it is

a + a = 2a

Quantity is when you for example put an object behind the number, like box(es)

3 boxes + 2 boxes = 5 boxes

4 raindrops + 3 randrops = 7 raindrops

Then you count how many you have

When we speak about putting volumes together like for example water

3 grams of water + 1 gram of water = 4 grams of water

Lets say you had the two drops on a sheet of metal to count them

why would you need to count them when you know there are two drops? You also failed to count them. oh noes

a and a = a


---

expression of the drop + drop = drop

In matrix/vector algebra, the AND operator is the parallel of multiplication, not addition. I think you mean "a or a = a".

so basicly when you count sticks, or sausages it's

1 sausage + 1 sausage = 1 sausage

or

1 stick + 1 stick = 1 stick

it is

a + a = 2a

Quantity is when you for example put an object behind the number, like box(es)

3 boxes + 2 boxes = 5 boxes

4 raindrops + 3 randrops = 7 raindrops

Then you count how many you have

When we speak about putting volumes together like for example water

3 grams of water + 1 gram of water = 4 grams of water

Quote

Lets say you had the two drops on a sheet of metal to count them

why would you need to count them when you know there are two drops? You also failed to count them. oh noes

We're not counting drops.  We know that when you have 1 drop and you add it to another drop you still have 1 (larger) drop.  I was expressing something that is clearly a fact (try it for yourself) in mathematical terms.

Unimportant -I think you're right - oops.  It's about 4 years since I've done that stuff and even though it's so simple I still got it wrong - still the drop + drop = drop can definitely be expressed mathematically as I stated to begin with.

Also I think it's important again to remember that even if I'm completely wrong about this, it still doesn't in any way effect the validity of the original point of this topic - and indeed is a completely irrelevent point.

We're not counting drops.  We know that when you have 1 drop and you add it to another drop you still have 1 (larger) drop.  I was expressing something that is clearly a fact (try it for yourself) in mathematical terms.

The problem is that you aren't counting anything.

Unimportant -I think you're right - oops.  It's about 4 years since I've done that stuff and even though it's so simple I still got it wrong - still the drop + drop = drop can definitely be expressed mathematically as I stated to begin with.

If by "expressed mathematically" you mean, "written down with symbols", then fine, any crap can be written down with symbols.  However I assert that there's no consistent and interesting way for you to assign semantics to the symbols that have anything to do with the reality of raindrops or piles of sand.

Also I think it's important again to remember that even if I'm completely wrong about this, it still doesn't in any way effect the validity of the original point of this topic - and indeed is a completely irrelevent point.

You brought it up, dude.

From you're arguement it sounds like you're argueing exactly the same thing that I was.  You should read the entire topic before commenting.

It looked to me like, while I was refuting your shoddy use of mathematics, Anansy was attacking your "If you don't understand maths, take it from me, my maths skillz are awesome."  That's an argument from authority, and a lousy one at that, since you're not an authority.

Second law of godamn thermodynamics.

Second law of godamn thermodynamics.

... doesn't seem particularly relevant here.

...Except when you look at the whole drops issue, apearantly the whole drop issue is about defenitions.
But under every defenition in this world theres always a hard core of FACT.
FACT being that 1+1 will always equal 2 (apart from a certain mathematical loophole that I might write down if there's interest), we should'nt look at the drops but at the Quarks and Electrons (or even strings if you like) to get the REAL image of what the drop is.

Defenitions are simplifications, they can be used, but only to a certain point, as far as I know the only thing truly FACT is math, instead of purely relying on defenitions it relies on extremely abstract ideas, and the first post or any other argument until now did'nt use any real math.

Heres a thought, GET ON A FUCKING BOAT AND GO AROUND THE WORLD.

Which would prove what?  On either model, an east-west back to start trip by boat is possible.

On both models, a North to south to north trip by boat is not.

And whether on copulates on board has nothing to do with the possibility of the trip, though might make it more enjoyable.

...Except when you look at the whole drops issue, apearantly the whole drop issue is about defenitions.

YYyyyeah so I still don't see where thermodynamics comes in.  I mean I know you mentioned some subatomic particles, and that's a physics thing, and so is thermodynamics... other than that I don't see the connection.

I'm fine with adding anything you (or whoever) wants, so long as you rigorously specify what "+" means and what "=" means.  For example, the sentence "1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop" is obviously true if you define the sentence "x = y" to be true for all x and y, but that's a pretty dumb way to define things.  I suggest in particular that not all raindrops are the same, so the result of "1 raindrop + 1 raindrop" should probably not the same as "1 raindrop".

I brought in thermodynamics cause things don't just disapear, as you undoubtedly know, the second tells us that 1+1 is'nt 1 and can't be 1, it has to be 2, unless you do it on a physical scale and take into acount quantum mechanics, THEN you have a probability of about 1 to a googelplex (10Egoogel (1 googel = 10E100)) that the drop will disapear and 1+1 will actually be 1.

However, you guys probably think Heisenberg was a conspirator too.

I brought in thermodynamics cause things don't just disapear, as you undoubtedly know, the second tells us that 1+1 is'nt 1 and can't be 1, it has to be 2, unless you do it on a physical scale and take into acount quantum mechanics, THEN you have a probability of about 1 to a googelplex (10Egoogel (1 googel = 10E100)) that the drop will disapear and 1+1 will actually be 1.

Okay, just, stop it.  Stop.

I brought in thermodynamics cause things don't just disappear, as you undoubtedly know, the second tells us that 1+1 isn't 1 and can't be 1, it has to be 2, unless you do it on a physical scale and take into account quantum mechanics, THEN you have a probability of about 1 to a googelplex (10Egoogel (1 googel = 10E100)) that the drop will disappear and 1+1 will actually be 1.

However, you guys probably think Heisenberg was a conspirator too.

What, do you have a random phrase generator so you can spew unrelated garbage?

If you tried to really relate the 2nd law(entropy), you would say something like
1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = (< 2 raindrops) + loose water molecules

How are you applying Heisenberg(uncertainty)?  "I can either know the speed of  water in the drops, or their vector, but not both?"

Maybe it's silly of some of us to actually try to discus these things in a logical way, but even if you are going to mock us, at least try to connect your statements to some thought.

What, do you have a random phrase generator so you can spew unrelated garbage?

Where can I get one?


Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

(that's a gramatically correct sentence )

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom

"Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?"

The word "and" had lost all meaning by the end of that post. It didn't even look like a real word anymore!

[/quote]Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom

Snake!!!!!! Snnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkke!

Quote

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom

Snake!!!!!! Snnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkke!

MONGOOSE!!!!! :shock:

Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Shenanigans.  I know that "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo," is a meaningful sentence but I claim that your sentence is neither meaningful nor grammatical.

Please provide a parse.

The sentence is unpunctuated and uses three different readings of the word "buffalo". In order of their first use, these are:
The city of Buffalo, New York.
The animal "buffalo", in the plural (equivalent to "buffaloes"), in order to avoid articles.
The verb "buffalo", meaning to confuse, deceive, or intimidate

Marking each "buffalo" with its use as numbered above gives:
Buffalo1 buffalo2 Buffalo1 buffalo2 buffalo3 buffalo3 Buffalo1 buffalo2.

Thus, the sentence turns into a description of the pecking order in the social hierarchy of buffaloes from the Buffalo zoo:
[Some] buffalo(es) from Buffalo [that] buffalo(es) from Buffalo intimidate [themselves] intimidate [other] buffalo(es) [from] Buffalo.

It may help to consider the following sentence, which has the same grammatical structure as the original.
Many things many people say confuse many people.

Other than the obvious confusion caused by the homophones, the sentence is difficult to parse for several reasons:
The use of "buffalo" as a verb is not particularly common and itself has several meanings.
The construction in the plural makes the verb "buffalo", like the city, rather than "buffaloes".
The choice of "buffalo" rather than "buffaloes" as the plural form of the noun makes it identical to the verb.
There are no grammatical cues from syntactically significant words such as articles (again possible because of the plural construction) or "that".
The absence of punctuation makes it difficult to read the flow of the sentence.
Consequently, it is a garden path sentence, i.e., it cannot be parsed by reading one word at a time without backtracking.
The length of the sentence reaches the limitations of human ability to parse structure and meaning.

It can be extended (and go beyond parsability?) to:
Buffalo1 buffalo2 Buffalo1 buffalo2 buffalo3 buffalo3 Buffalo1 buffalo2 Buffalo1 buffalo2 buffalo3

In which the subject and object of the central verb 'balance'. Indeed, for any n >= 1, the sentence buffalon is grammatical.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

so where the fuck is the relevance between this whole raindrop shite to the shape of the earth, eh?

The relevence was that sometimes something we assume is correct turns out to be not always the case.

For example once upon a time people thought the world was flat.  These days it turns out that that belief is (probably) false.

So just because we think something is true, we should still question it and be critical.

That was the entire point of this topic!  :shock: