Government Conspiracy

  • 159 Replies
  • 10864 Views
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2013, 10:08:44 AM »
Also, a very eminent member of this society has given thorough proof that 1+1 = 1

May I ask for the proof in full or link form?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2013, 10:19:24 AM »
Also, a very eminent member of this society has given thorough proof that 1+1 = 1

May I ask for the proof in full or link form?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,42804.msg1062514.html#msg1062514

I miss James :(
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2013, 10:41:04 AM »
Also, a very eminent member of this society has given thorough proof that 1+1 = 1

May I ask for the proof in full or link form?
You do not need to read the whole thread, unless you have sleeping disorders.

The claim is that the prhase:

     "when one drop of water touches another drop of water they sometimes merge into just one drop of water"

is the same as saying:

    1 + 1 = 1

They don't even understand how the word "merge" is not the same as the word or symbol "is equal to". In fact, they have problems with almost every single word and every single symbol in the equation and the phrase.

Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2013, 10:42:10 AM »
The problem here is that the expression "1+1" is an abstract mathematical concept, as opposed to "the number of apples on a table if we put an apple on the table and then another apple on the table" or "the number of raindrops formed if we bring two raindrops next to each other."  (It happens to be equal to the first, and one might need a more rigorous definition of "number of raindrops" to determine if it's equal to the second.)

My point is that parallels to the real world do not constitute a mathematical proof.

EDIT: Beaten!

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2013, 10:53:58 AM »
Zetetic maths is fun though. At least that's what it was dubbed here one time. 

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2013, 11:11:19 AM »
The problem here is that the expression "1+1" is an abstract mathematical concept, as opposed to "the number of apples on a table if we put an apple on the table and then another apple on the table" or "the number of raindrops formed if we bring two raindrops next to each other."  (It happens to be equal to the first, and one might need a more rigorous definition of "number of raindrops" to determine if it's equal to the second.)

My point is that parallels to the real world do not constitute a mathematical proof.

EDIT: Beaten!
Thank you.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2013, 02:15:53 PM »

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

1+1 does not equal 1 because 1=2.

Consider the following proof:

Let a=b where a and b are real numbers,
then ab=b2
so ab-a2=b2-a2.

Factorising both sides gives us

a(b-a)=(b+a)(b-a)

and cancelling out the common factor of b-a leads to

a=b+a.

Choosing a=b=1 we get 1=2.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2013, 05:58:17 PM »
Also, a very eminent member of this society has given thorough proof that 1+1 = 1

May I ask for the proof in full or link form?
You do not need to read the whole thread, unless you have sleeping disorders.

The claim is that the prhase:

     "when one drop of water touches another drop of water they sometimes merge into just one drop of water"

is the same as saying:

    1 + 1 = 1

They don't even understand how the word "merge" is not the same as the word or symbol "is equal to". In fact, they have problems with almost every single word and every single symbol in the equation and the phrase.

Hee superscientist, you might want to take a look at the picture I posted.

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

1+1 does not equal 1 because 1=2.

Consider the following proof:

Let a=b where a and b are real numbers,
then ab=b2
so ab-a2=b2-a2.

Factorising both sides gives us

a(b-a)=(b+a)(b-a)

and cancelling out the common factor of b-a leads to

a=b+a.

Choosing a=b=1 we get 1=2.

Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2013, 07:32:22 PM »

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

1+1 does not equal 1 because 1=2.

Consider the following proof:

Let a=b where a and b are real numbers,
then ab=b2
so ab-a2=b2-a2.

Factorising both sides gives us

a(b-a)=(b+a)(b-a)

and cancelling out the common factor of b-a leads to

a=b+a.

Choosing a=b=1 we get 1=2.

Well, since a=b + a then b = 0 so if a = 1 then 1=1 so...
Why use evidence
Ok

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #69 on: January 30, 2013, 05:45:39 AM »

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

1+1 does not equal 1 because 1=2.

Consider the following proof:

Let a=b where a and b are real numbers,
then ab=b2
so ab-a2=b2-a2.

Factorising both sides gives us

a(b-a)=(b+a)(b-a)

and cancelling out the common factor of b-a leads to

a=b+a.

Choosing a=b=1 we get 1=2.
Hooray for logical errors. (b-a)=0 because b=a. Substituting 4 for a to prove my point... b-4=0 because b=4.

Also, Beorn. The picture you posted breaks down because we define those partially by comparing them to real-world examples (if we didn't initially define words by using physical examples, how could we develop or learn language in the first place?). One object along with one more of that object makes two of that object. Remember, however, that math was initially created with solid objects. Liquids do not act in the same way, so it's pointless to equate solids with liquids (referring to the link you posted).

All of this is pointless though because language (logical equations included) is used to describe reality and communicate ideas. Arguing semantics is an asinine method of debate or point-making. We can communicate what we mean, and that is what matters.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 05:52:17 AM by Sytruan »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #70 on: January 30, 2013, 06:01:04 AM »
There is no Good reason you can't divide by zero.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #71 on: January 30, 2013, 06:11:54 AM »

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

1+1 does not equal 1 because 1=2.

Consider the following proof:

Let a=b where a and b are real numbers,
then ab=b2
so ab-a2=b2-a2.

Factorising both sides gives us

a(b-a)=(b+a)(b-a)

and cancelling out the common factor of b-a leads to

a=b+a.

Choosing a=b=1 we get 1=2.
Hooray for logical errors. (b-a)=0 because b=a. Substituting 4 for a to prove my point... b-4=0 because b=4.

Also, Beorn. The picture you posted breaks down because we define those partially by comparing them to real-world examples (if we didn't initially define words by using physical examples, how could we develop or learn language in the first place?). One object along with one more of that object makes two of that object. Remember, however, that math was initially created with solid objects. Liquids do not act in the same way, so it's pointless to equate solids with liquids (referring to the link you posted).

All of this is pointless though because language (logical equations included) is used to describe reality and communicate ideas. Arguing semantics is an asinine method of debate or point-making. We can communicate what we mean, and that is what matters.

1 raindrop + 1 raindrop is still 1 raindrop.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #72 on: January 30, 2013, 06:13:44 AM »
All of this is pointless though because language (logical equations included) is used to describe reality and communicate ideas. Arguing semantics is an asinine method of debate or point-making. We can communicate what we mean, and that is what matters.
The issue is some arguments have to be made between the lines.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #73 on: January 30, 2013, 07:34:51 AM »
There is no Good reason you can't divide by zero.

Technically, I suppose you can divide by zero - it's just pointless as the result is always the same. A number split into zero equal parts is no number at all.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #74 on: January 30, 2013, 11:36:51 AM »
There is no Good reason you can't divide by zero.

Right then, what's 3 divided by zero?

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #75 on: January 30, 2013, 11:40:21 AM »
Hooray for logical errors. (b-a)=0 because b=a. Substituting 4 for a to prove my point... b-4=0 because b=4.

Also, Beorn. The picture you posted breaks down because we define those partially by comparing them to real-world examples (if we didn't initially define words by using physical examples, how could we develop or learn language in the first place?). One object along with one more of that object makes two of that object. Remember, however, that math was initially created with solid objects. Liquids do not act in the same way, so it's pointless to equate solids with liquids (referring to the link you posted).

All of this is pointless though because language (logical equations included) is used to describe reality and communicate ideas. Arguing semantics is an asinine method of debate or point-making. We can communicate what we mean, and that is what matters.

1 raindrop + 1 raindrop is still 1 raindrop.
Somebody didn't fully read my post. I've made the pertinent sentence bold. If you'd like me to clarify, then I can.

There is no Good reason you can't divide by zero.
You're right, technically. There is no good reason that you can't divide by zero. There is, however, a good reason for why you cannot get a mathematical answer by dividing by zero. You wouldn't just get infinity, and no, it's not because you can't divide infinity by 0 to get your original input. Part of it is because if you tried to make function x/0, you would get infinity... but you would also get negative infinity. The answer is undefined, because it is both.

Zero is just weird, honestly. I've made a discussion about this here. And yes, it's in that forum. I couldn't think of a better place for it.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 11:43:20 AM by Sytruan »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #76 on: January 30, 2013, 11:47:43 AM »
You have not given me enough information to answer that question.  I need to know the context.  Are we talking about a ring, a sphere, the real number line, some other context?

Would it suffice to say:

a/b = ab+  where b+ is a generated inverse of b, and a = 3, b = 0, which is to say:
3/0 = 3*0+

The point being, division by zero is an issue with the context of real number lines, not an issue with math in general.   Its a rule made for conveinence, but as with all other rules it is prudent to break them for examination.  Math isn't a set of rules to follow, its a set of rules to use and abuse.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39563
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #77 on: January 30, 2013, 12:01:11 PM »
There is no Good reason you can't divide by zero.

Right then, what's 3 divided by zero?

Infinity (an undefined result).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #78 on: January 30, 2013, 12:13:18 PM »
just to muddy the water a bit. 1 rain drop + 1 rain drop wnt work to begin with becuse it isnt 1 rain drop. the rain drop is made up of trilions of hydrogen and oxygen molicules. so the equation should be 1trillion + 1 trillion = 2 trilion.  :)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #79 on: January 30, 2013, 12:18:01 PM »
Undefined values/results are a way of teachers and professors to teach concepts that students aren't responsible enough to deal with.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #80 on: January 30, 2013, 01:56:50 PM »
Undefined values/results are a way of teachers and professors to teach concepts that students aren't responsible enough to deal with.
Okay. Then show me an equation where x/0=y, y being a real number.

Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #81 on: January 30, 2013, 01:58:17 PM »
Although John is being snippy about it, and deliberately not referring to them for some reason, I believe he is implying that imaginary numbers can be useful (which is true).
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #82 on: January 30, 2013, 03:11:10 PM »
just to muddy the water a bit. 1 rain drop + 1 rain drop wnt work to begin with becuse it isnt 1 rain drop. the rain drop is made up of trilions of hydrogen and oxygen molicules. so the equation should be 1trillion + 1 trillion = 2 trilion.  :)

So one hydrogen molecule is now a raindrop? No wonder you think the earth is round.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #83 on: January 30, 2013, 03:24:44 PM »
just to muddy the water a bit. 1 rain drop + 1 rain drop wnt work to begin with becuse it isnt 1 rain drop. the rain drop is made up of trilions of hydrogen and oxygen molicules. so the equation should be 1trillion + 1 trillion = 2 trilion.  :)

So one hydrogen molecule is now a raindrop? No wonder you think the earth is round.

Note how he said trillions of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, although I think he means atoms. No wonder you think the earth is flat...
Why use evidence
Ok

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #84 on: January 30, 2013, 03:26:48 PM »
just to muddy the water a bit. 1 rain drop + 1 rain drop wnt work to begin with becuse it isnt 1 rain drop. the rain drop is made up of trilions of hydrogen and oxygen molicules. so the equation should be 1trillion + 1 trillion = 2 trilion.  :)

So one hydrogen molecule is now a raindrop? No wonder you think the earth is round.
Beorn, the only conclusions that I can draw right now are that you are either not very good at reading or are deliberately misrepresenting the statements of others. I'm leaning more toward the latter.

However, giving you the benefit of the (minimal) doubt...

One hydrogen molecule is not a raindrop and it was not stated. Pythagoras was likely attempting to say that the equation should be 1 trillion H2Omolecules + 1 trillion H2Omolecules = 2 trillion H2O molecules because a "raindrop" is a nebulous term and is liquid. I also stated before that mathematics began with solid matter - though I would like to add to that: Solid matter which does not change rapidly in shape or size.

Remember, mathematics initially started with counting - it's rather difficult to count blobs of water if they are colliding.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #85 on: January 30, 2013, 03:41:04 PM »
That's the point.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39563
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #86 on: January 30, 2013, 05:41:51 PM »
Undefined values/results are a way of teachers and professors to teach concepts that students aren't responsible enough to deal with.
Okay. Then show me an equation where x/0=y, y being a real number.
Who says that y has to be a real number?  After all, the square root of -1 is i, an imaginary number.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #87 on: January 30, 2013, 06:28:19 PM »
Undefined values/results are a way of teachers and professors to teach concepts that students aren't responsible enough to deal with.
Okay. Then show me an equation where x/0=y, y being a real number.
Who says that y has to be a real number?  After all, the square root of -1 is i, an imaginary number.
Fair enough. x/0=y, y being a defined number, period.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #88 on: January 30, 2013, 08:55:09 PM »
Undefined values/results are a way of teachers and professors to teach concepts that students aren't responsible enough to deal with.
Okay. Then show me an equation where x/0=y, y being a real number.
Who says that y has to be a real number?  After all, the square root of -1 is i, an imaginary number.
Fair enough. x/0=y, y being a defined number, period.
Meaning we can use it.  I had I said this already a page ago with:

a/b = a*b+, in this case b+ = 0+
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Government Conspiracy
« Reply #89 on: January 30, 2013, 09:11:14 PM »
Undefined values/results are a way of teachers and professors to teach concepts that students aren't responsible enough to deal with.
Okay. Then show me an equation where x/0=y, y being a real number.
Who says that y has to be a real number?  After all, the square root of -1 is i, an imaginary number.
Fair enough. x/0=y, y being a defined number, period.

How about 3/0(0)=3. 

amiright?