Government Conspiracy

Cancelled out?  Beyond Assumption?  Why would you place anything beyond your only tool to comprehend?

Cancelled out?  Beyond Assumption?  Why would you place anything beyond your only tool to comprehend?

I will try one more time before assuming that you're simply ignoring my questions and points, choosing instead to poke at semantics with a rolled up piece of newspaper as if that's part of a good debate. <--That right there was a metaphor, by the way. Not to be taken literally.

Here. I'll try to compare my line of reasoning to something. If you are having a debate with somebody about whether grass is green or purple, it would be illogical to say "both of our ideas assume that grass has color, therefore both ideas are possible". Obviously one is more probable than the other. You could do the same with mathematics. If one person is saying that 2*2=4, and another is saying that 2*2=5, it would be illogical to say "these both assume that math exists, therefore they're both possible".

A more mathematical comparison is this: When you're trying to algebraically solve the equation 2x+2y=2x+6, you can cancel out 2x because it is part of both sides. Then you're left with 2y=6, and can solve from there.

I am not placing anything beyond my 'only tool to comprehend'. I am saying that we can ignore those as a point of argument. I apologize if that was unclear.

Quote from: John Davis on January 24, 2013, 09:52:30 AM

Cancelled out?  Beyond Assumption?  Why would you place anything beyond your only tool to comprehend?

I will try one more time before assuming that you're simply ignoring my questions and points, choosing instead to poke at semantics with a rolled up piece of newspaper as if that's part of a good debate. <--That right there was a metaphor, by the way. Not to be taken literally.

Here. I'll try to compare my line of reasoning to something. If you are having a debate with somebody about whether grass is green or purple, it would be illogical to say "both of our ideas assume that grass has color, therefore both ideas are possible". Obviously one is more probable than the other. You could do the same with mathematics. If one person is saying that 2*2=4, and another is saying that 2*2=5, it would be illogical to say "these both assume that math exists, therefore they're both possible".

A more mathematical comparison is this: When you're trying to algebraically solve the equation 2x+2y=2x+6, you can cancel out 2x because it is part of both sides. Then you're left with 2y=6, and can solve from there.

I am not placing anything beyond my 'only tool to comprehend'. I am saying that we can ignore those as a point of argument. I apologize if that was unclear.

Your point is clear, but may be simplified. We are surrounded by facts, and facts cannot be contradictory. With our definitions of colors you can absolutely say that one blade of grass, of reasonably homogeneous color, cannot be both all green and all purple. We may be totally fooled when we say that blade of grass is green, but it is a tautology that if that blade of grass exists, it is not both purple and green.

So, even though there are absolute unambiguous facts that we don't know, we do know that contradictory facts do not exist.

Your point is clear, but may be simplified. We are surrounded by facts, and facts cannot be contradictory. With our definitions of colors you can absolutely say that one blade of grass, of reasonably homogeneous color, cannot be both all green and all purple. We may be totally fooled when we say that blade of grass is green, but it is a tautology that if that blade of grass exists, it is not both purple and green.

So, even though there are absolute unambiguous facts that we don't know, we do know that contradictory facts do not exist.

Good day, RealScientist. That's very true, but it wasn't actually my point... My point was that if two things have the same underlying basis, then the basis does not factor into their comparison - comparison is about differences and not similarities. John Davis seemed to not understand that.

I can see how you might have mistaken what I said for that and apologize.

What is religion?  Why are you judging the worth on the repeatability of said experiment?  Different observers must view events differently, so this seems like a flawed premise.

Will you dare to proceed and claim that Different mathematicians must calculate "two plus two" differently?


Edit:
Sytruan, you beat me to it!

Yes.  They *may* calculate two plus two differently.  Thats the point of math.

Yes.  They *may* calculate two plus two differently.  Thats the point of math.

Wrong. That's not the "point" of math. I assume you know how addition works. 1+1=2, 1+1+1+1=4, therefore 2+2=4. Q.E.D.

I'm not in the mood for an explanation of basic first-grade mathematics. If you want to obtusely ignore what we have been saying as well as post things directly contradictory to the basic rules of mathematics and logic, go ahead. But from now on, unless you have a post that uses logic and actually backs up your claims rather than simply asserting things that contradict the basic rules of mathematics and logic, I will simply ignore your posts.

Quote from: John Davis on January 24, 2013, 01:01:27 PM

Yes.  They *may* calculate two plus two differently.  Thats the point of math.

Wrong. That's not the "point" of math. I assume you know how addition works. 1+1=2, 1+1+1+1=4, therefore 2+2=4. Q.E.D.

I'm not in the mood for an explanation of basic first-grade mathematics. If you want to obtusely ignore what we have been saying as well as post things directly contradictory to the basic rules of mathematics and logic, go ahead. But from now on, unless you have a post that uses logic and actually backs up your claims rather than simply asserting things that contradict the basic rules of mathematics and logic, I will simply ignore your posts.

-1 + 1 + -1 + 1 .... = 0
-1+ (1+-1+1+-1 ...) = -1 + (0)

You may feel free to ignore my posts.  As its been said, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

-1 + 1 + -1 + 1 .... = 0
-1+ (1+-1+1+-1 ...) = -1 + (0)

Irrelevant, therefore ignored. Try again.

Irrelevant, therefore ignored. Try again.

Psst. catBot. Ignoring implies not responding to it. Now to return to the original topic of the thread - the entire planet's reputable earth scientists, astronomers, and astronauts (since apparently space missions were a Hollywood hoax) working together to fool everyone else for no economic, status, or health reason(s) is completely absurd, in my opinion. As I stated, there is no actual reason for them to do so, and organizing this specifically to fool the entire rest of the planet would be a monumental task - even if there were some reason to do it, there is very little, and typically a group of this size does not go to extraordinary effort unless there is a substantially large payoff.

Quote from: John Davis on January 24, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

-1 + 1 + -1 + 1 .... = 0
-1+ (1+-1+1+-1 ...) = -1 + (0)

Irrelevant, therefore ignored. Try again.

I'd say how one performs addition in a series is extremely relevant to how math works and addition works.

Quote from: catBot on January 24, 2013, 01:28:40 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 24, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

-1 + 1 + -1 + 1 .... = 0
-1+ (1+-1+1+-1 ...) = -1 + (0)

Irrelevant, therefore ignored. Try again.

I'd say how one performs addition in a series is extremely relevant to how math works and addition works.

Mathematics is not a word game. John's implication that you have to add an even amount of numbers is not acceptable in any kind of infinite series in Mathematics. Infinite series have a convergence value if and only if there exists a value L such that:



This means, that if for any range r greater than zero I can find an infinite part of the series where all values of the series are between L+r and L-r, then the limit of the series is L. (This explanation is slightly simplified to improve legibility, and not totally right)

In your case you just have a series of ones and zeros, which converges to nothing. Therefore, both your equations are wrong.

Mathematics is not a subject for half baked suppositions.

Quote from: John Davis on January 24, 2013, 01:51:12 PM

Quote from: catBot on January 24, 2013, 01:28:40 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 24, 2013, 01:25:17 PM

-1 + 1 + -1 + 1 .... = 0
-1+ (1+-1+1+-1 ...) = -1 + (0)

Irrelevant, therefore ignored. Try again.

I'd say how one performs addition in a series is extremely relevant to how math works and addition works.

Mathematics is not a word game. John's implication that you have to add an even amount of numbers is not acceptable in any kind of infinite series in Mathematics. Infinite series have a convergence value if and only if there exists a value L such that:



This means, that if for any range r greater than zero I can find an infinite part of the series where all values of the series are between L+r and L-r, then the limit of the series is L. (This explanation is slightly simplified to improve legibility, and not totally right)

In your case you just have a series of ones and zeros, which converges to nothing. Therefore, both your equations are wrong.

Mathematics is not a subject for half baked suppositions.

math is a word game.  see definitions of word and game for ref.

Mathematics is not a word game. John's implication that you have to add an even amount of numbers is not acceptable in any kind of infinite series in Mathematics. Infinite series have a convergence value if and only if there exists a value L such that:



This means, that if for any range r greater than zero I can find an infinite part of the series where all values of the series are between L+r and L-r, then the limit of the series is L. (This explanation is slightly simplified to improve legibility, and not totally right)

In your case you just have a series of ones and zeros, which converges to nothing. Therefore, both your equations are wrong.

Mathematics is not a subject for half baked suppositions.

Now now now, RealScientist. Feeding the trolls only encourages them. Similarly, using evidence on those who deny/ignore it is equally futile.

math is a word game.  see definitions of word and game for ref.

Maths is an axiomatic and logic game. Words are not even the preferred way to express concepts in Maths.

In word games the one who sounds nicer wins. In Maths, sounding nice is absolutely irrelevant.

But now that you have shouted to the four winds your ignorance about Mathematics, I will use your quote every time Maths become a subject of discussion.

-1 + 1 + -1 + 1 .... = 0
-1+ (1+-1+1+-1 ...) = -1 + (0)

You may feel free to ignore my posts.  As its been said, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

John, I'm afraid you are wrong. The series -1+1-1+1 ... does not equal anything. Its limit is undefined. For a series to equal something its partial sums must tend to the same limit. In the above series the odd partial sums tend to -1 and the even partial sums tend to 0.

Now I can think one of two things here:

1) You made an honest mistake based on a misunderstanding of infinite series.
2) You knew exacly what you were doing and tried to score a debating point dishonestly.

I hope it was 1.

You talk about conspiracies....
NASA+governments hide the truth of the fE...

That's not how it is.

We are all, flat-earther/NASA/governments included, are subjected to much greater Conspiracy, the source of which is (yet) unknown (to me).
Someone has inverted all the dictionaries to swap the meanings of the words "flat" and "round" (along with all their synonyms).

Mr. Rawbotham was genuine astronomer, but all his works got misunderstood because of this  swap.

Its a rule made for the usefulness of math, but the opposite case can be examined.  That was the point.

And just because "+"  or "e" are the words, not english words, doesn't mean they aren't words.  And just because the game is open ended, doesn't mean its not a game.

Noun
A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

Word
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed

Haven't you heard about the Word?

Its a rule made for the usefulness of math, but the opposite case can be examined.  That was the point.

And just because "+"  or "e" are the words, not english words, doesn't mean they aren't words.  And just because the game is open ended, doesn't mean its not a game.

Noun
A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

Word
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed

Haven't you heard about the Word?

With the same logic you can say that prostitution is a word game.

In fact, all this argument is a cute little circular argument where you use a word game to claim that whatever you want to declare a word game is a word game.

There is a clear difference between disciplines that use, to a greater or lesser extent, words to express the concepts of the discipline, and the games played by people with a clear deficit of arguments to plead for their pet theories.

I disagree the difference is so clear to most.  In fact, I imagine most believe themselves to be of a privileged status, smarter than everyone else and definitively hating groups like ours.   Mostly this hate stems from an ignorance of what we are all about.  In the end the shape of the earth isn't the most important ideal we hold, or even in the long run an ideal that matters.  Generally, if something that exists pisses the shit out of you, its likely worth examining a few times more.  Question EVERYTHING. 

mathsman, I'm familiar with why you say I'm wrong, but I'm demonstrating a concept that shows the arbitrary decision making in the mathematical academic and arm chair world.  Some things in math are simply done out of convention and out of interest.  In fact one can say all things done in math are done out of convention or interest.  Surely that could be said for most peoples lives.  For example, take conventions concerning division by zero.

The fact that we math is a word game is not an argument made to circle.  It is self evident;  when not so, definition of terms must be necessary to ensure even communication. 

Prostitution is surely a game.  Its hardly a game of words.  Math is literally communicated via language comprised of words that can be assembled in order determined by rules of syntax and convention.  To try to say one cannot examine the opposite cases or alternate cases from defined convention is to blindly have faith in said conventions and to have never learned anything for oneself, instead content to be fed from a silver spoon. 

The point in all this is, if I wanted to define 1+1 = 3, I am more than welcome to.  The math police isn't going to break down my door and write me a ticket.  No one of any sense would bother.

you should all read the above post very clearly. it actually makes a lot of sense. most of you will want to argue his point. you need to read between the lines.

The point in all this is, if I wanted to define 1+1 = 3, I am more than welcome to.  The math police isn't going to break down my door and write me a ticket.  No one of any sense would bother.

May I ask what you're defining here, exactly?  Addition?  (Though that wouldn't be a complete definition of addition.)  3?  (In which case, assuming conventional definitions of 1, addition, and equality, "new" 3 would be our expression for conventional 2.)  1?

The math police isn't going to break down my door and write me a ticket.  No one of any sense would bother.

You are absolutely right - no one will bother seeing how yet another freak disgraces himself.

Quote from: John Davis on January 28, 2013, 06:28:19 AM

The math police isn't going to break down my door and write me a ticket.  No one of any sense would bother.

You are absolutely right - no one will bother seeing how yet another freak disgraces himself.

I don't come to your house and insult you.

In fact, I imagine most believe themselves to be of a privileged status, smarter than everyone else and definitively hating groups like ours.   Mostly this hate stems from an ignorance of what we are all about.

There is no need to consider yourself the victim of hate. In fact, deflecting the issue towards a hate problem is just one more word game.

Since you consider anyone who did not sleep through Physics and Mathematics since 7th grade somebody "of a privileged status", I am quite amazed at how low you place the bar. I can only imagine that every adult in industrialized countries of the Pacific Rim are "of a very privileged status" according to you.

You are not a very good ambassador to "groups like ours" if you really believe that the dictionary definition of the words serves any purpose for a physicist or a mathematician. In fact, it is common practice to give words its own meaning in these subjects. "Theory" is not the same in common language and in Physics. "Probable" is not the same in common language as in Mathematics. In fact, "flowering", "division", "infinite", "limit" and so many other words have a meaning in common language and another in science and mathematics.

So, listen more to the concepts and less to the words. And loose your dictionary before entering classes of sciences and mathematics.

Quote from: John Davis on January 28, 2013, 06:28:19 AM

The math police isn't going to break down my door and write me a ticket.  No one of any sense would bother.

You are absolutely right - no one will bother seeing how yet another freak disgraces himself.

You, sir, are an arrogant twat. How dare you come to a place of learning and knowledge and insult the masters? Have you no shame? Were we in person I might challenge you, sir. Good day!

Quote from: catBot on January 28, 2013, 10:23:00 AM

Quote from: John Davis on January 28, 2013, 06:28:19 AM

The math police isn't going to break down my door and write me a ticket.  No one of any sense would bother.

You are absolutely right - no one will bother seeing how yet another freak disgraces himself.

You, sir, are an arrogant twat. How dare you come to a place of learning and knowledge and insult the masters? Have you no shame? Were we in person I might challenge you, sir. Good day!

I can send you a copy of the Scientific Gentleman's Rules for pistol duelling if you'd like.

You are absolutely right - no one will bother seeing how yet another freak disgraces himself.

I'd have to agree with Tausami and John Davis on this one - that was an extremely arrogant statement and completely unwarranted. Disagreement is no justification for blatant disrespect.

I think I might try this again though - 1+1=/=3 in the real world. While theoretically you can invent any mathematical rules, part of the basis of mathematics is that 1+1=2. If you have a single apple, and get another single apple, you will have two apples. While you could say "I'm replacing the symbol for 2 with the symbol for 3 and vice versa", it would allow the equation 1+1=3 to work in reality, but the basic concepts behind it will remain the same.

Word games in debate are pointless - deliberately shrouding meaning in semantics is boring, pointless, and kills debates. Please don't do that. It's part of the reason I had stopped responding before, and this is simply going to be a last attempt at getting a clear answer.

I'd also note that this topic seems to have gone far off of its original mark. I personally prefer if things are labelled correctly... could we please return to the topic of this alleged government conspiracy?

I've never seen a "1" in "real life".  Have you?

That said, a look at history, especially after 1946 might be of interest to you.  In addition I'd take a look a hyper reality and the current state of fiction and non-fiction.

I'd like to say there is no conspiracy;  models fit that don't hold a conspiracy exists.  However, if one wants to see a conspiracy, the evidence is all around.

(source smbc)

Also, a very eminent member of this society has given thorough proof that 1+1 = 1