Math problems you can easily do in your head
Mark
________ ________
10 50
15
20
25
30 100
Ok, this is easy, so quickly determine the
intermediate numerical value in column B
that would coorespond with 15 in column A.
You have 60 seconds.
---
Mark
Mark
My apology. Upon further review I noticed
this problem is so obvious, that no longer
than 3 seconds is necessary.
---
Mark
Piet de Arcilla
Mark
---
15 - 10 = 5 or 1/4
______ __
30 - 10 20
100 - 50 = 50
1/4 of 50 = 12.5
50 + 12.5 = 62.5
(easier to do in your head
using interpolation.)
---
Mark
Bill Penrose
> Ok, this is easy, so quickly determine the
> intermediate numerical value in column B
> that would coorespond with 15 in column A.
As Barbie once said (but doesn't anymore), "Math is hard."
Now it turns out that Barbie's diminished capacity is really due to
lead.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/318031.php
DB
Piet de Arcilla
You said it was a math problem, not an arithmetic problem, so I
skipped the arithmetic.
I always find it easier to write a program than calculate anything
myself.
Piet de Arcilla
Why do we think ingesting lead causes lower IQs, rather than lower IQs
causing the ingestion of lead?
$Zero
gee, i don't think i could answer that one in 60 days, let alone 60
seconds.
but i _did_ do this logic thinger in my head almost instantaneously:
IF 2 + 2 = 5
AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
1] True
2] False
3] Unable to Determine
4] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2170a7c6ac73bca1
...
so why can't you?
it only took _me_ a split second.
i was half-asleep (having just gotten out of bed) and was heading off
to take a morning piss when the question AND answer came to me.
-$Zero...
"Sometimes I don't respond to posts." ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
here's some other posts in the series:
"Tomorrow's Zero math challenge" ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/be3e83aea5bc1b2b
"Math Quiz Simple Answer" ~ by Mark
"More easy as pie math" ~ by Mark
"Math problems you can easily do in your head" ~ by Mark
"I.Q. test, find the lost cat in 27 seconds" ~ by Mark
because:
"Sometimes I don't respond to posts." ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
Mark
> On Nov 18, 7:04 pm, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > column A column B
> > ________ ________
>
> > 10 50
> > 15
> > 20
> > 25
> > 30 100
>
> > Ok, this is easy, so quickly determine the
> > intermediate numerical value in column B
> > that would coorespond with 15 in column A.
>
> > You have 60 seconds.
>
> gee, i don't think i could answer that one in 60 days, let alone 60
> seconds.
Then you aren't a creative anything, because at a second's
glance, it's OBVIOUS that...
In column A, halfway between 10 and 30 is 20.
So obviously, halfway between 50 and 100 is 75.
My one-eyed cat knew that much. I mean, the
conclusion hits your brain without even saying
it in your mind.
Then, in a lightning flash (less than a second)
I see that my comparison number of 15 is the obvious
result of adding 20 and 10 divided by two.
So, almost involuntarily my mind adds 50 and
75 in less than a second getting 125, and in
the remaining liberal margin of ...5 seconds,
dividing by two, I "see"...
62.5
> but i _did_ do this logic thinger in my head almost instantaneously:
>
> IF 2 + 2 = 5
Ok, hold the plane! Stop!
Since I find it expeditious and smart to stick
with reality in my time allocation, and since
mathematical reality uses BASE 10, then,
2 + 2 doesn't equal 5, and now I race off
to something that isn't nonsense.
That's your answer.
---
Mark
Mark
$Zero
> On Nov 20, 8:01 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 7:04 pm, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > column A column B
> > > ________ ________
>
> > > 10 50
> > > 15
> > > 20
> > > 25
> > > 30 100
>
> > > Ok, this is easy, so quickly determine the
> > > intermediate numerical value in column B
> > > that would coorespond with 15 in column A.
>
> > > You have 60 seconds.
>
> > gee, i don't think i could answer that one in 60 days, let alone 60
> > seconds.
>
> Then you aren't a creative anything, because
NEWSFLASH: look up the word "sarcasm"
> at a second's glance, it's OBVIOUS that...
>
> In column A, halfway between 10 and 30 is 20.
>
> So obviously, halfway between 50 and 100 is 75.
>
> My one-eyed cat knew that much. I mean, the
> conclusion hits your brain without even saying
> it in your mind.
>
> Then, in a lightning flash (less than a second)
> I see that my comparison number of 15 is the obvious
> result of adding 20 and 10 divided by two.
>
> So, almost involuntarily my mind adds 50 and
> 75 in less than a second getting 125, and in
> the remaining liberal margin of ...5 seconds,
> dividing by two, I "see"...
>
> 62.5
>
> > but i _did_ do this logic thinger in my head almost instantaneously:
>
> > IF 2 + 2 = 5
>
> Ok, hold the plane! Stop!
brainwash alert!
> Since I find it expeditious and smart to stick
> with reality in my time allocation, and since
> mathematical reality uses BASE 10, then,
> 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5,
"IF"
that's what logic is all about, genius.
"IF" 2 + 2 = 5
AND...
THEN...
see?
If all brown-haired women have bad tempers...
AND...
THEN...
see?
etc..
logic.
it's an IF thinger.
it's a conditional thinger.
> and now I race off to something that isn't nonsense.
logic is logic.
that you cannot handle what logic actually is, is not nonsense, it's
simply an indication of the level and quality your so-called genius,
creative or otherwise.
> That's your answer.
THAT is NOT an answer.
that, sir, is your brainwash in action.
because the answer to that particular question is: False.
because in that IF scenario, 2 = 2 = 5, not 4.
and there's a consistent mathematical logic to the condition of 2 + 2
= 5, which also makes 3 + 3 = 5, etc..
but it probably takes a creative genius to see it at first.
after that, once informed of the inexorable mathematical relationship
which exists there, almost anyone else can easily grasp the truth of
it.
that is, if they're willing and able to reject the brainwash which
force the saps to believe things which just aren't true.
> ---
> Mark
voila:
> > IF 2 + 2 = 5
> > AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
> > AND 3 > 2
> > THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
>
> > 1] True
X ... 2] False
2 + 2 = 4 is False.
> > 3] Unable to Determine
> > 4] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2170a7c6ac73bca1
>
> > ...
>
> > so why can't you?
>
> > it only took _me_ a split second.
>
> > i was half-asleep (having just gotten out of bed) and was heading off
> > to take a morning piss when the question AND answer came to me.
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > "Sometimes I don't respond to posts." ~ by Mark
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
>
> > here's some other posts in the series:
"Tomorrow's Zero math challenge" ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/be3e83aea5bc1b2b
"Math problems you can easily do in your head" ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0812a0e2065f6626
"Math Quiz Simple Answer" ~ by Mark
"More easy as pie math" ~ by Mark
"I.Q. test, find the lost cat in 27 seconds" ~ by Mark
> > because:
>
> > "Sometimes I don't respond to posts." ~ by Mark
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
-$Zero...
translation:
"Questions. Too. Hard. Hurt. Head. Make. Feel. Dumb."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
$Zero
> because in that IF scenario, 2 = 2 = 5, not 4.
typo
because in that IF scenario, 2 + 2 = 5, not 4.
-$Zero...
there's a consistent mathematical logic to the condition
of 2 + 2 = 5, which also makes 3 + 3 = 5, etc..
but it probably takes a creative genius to see it at first.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0d60e92104bda391
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A 2 second scan (without reading), I saw the
word "brainwash" in your response.
Lemme tell ya what brainwash is...
Brainwashed is the fellow that upon seeing
a cute little joke that contains the phrase,
"knee grow", then ensues a course of
mouth foaming, ranting, and reflexive
judgement that somehow even the lightest
deviation from your brainwashism is an
unforgiveable breech where freedom of
speech isn't allowed. It's political correctness
run amuck. It's, well...
BRAINWASHED
---
Mark
$Zero
> > AND...
> > THEN...
>
> > see?
>
> > etc..
>
> > logic.
>
> > it's an IF thinger.
>
> > it's a conditional thinger.
>
> > > and now I race off to something that isn't nonsense.
>
> > logic is logic.
>
> > that you cannot handle what logic actually is, is not nonsense, it's
> > simply an indication of the level and quality your so-called genius,
> > creative or otherwise.
>
> > > That's your answer.
>
> > THAT is NOT an answer.
>
> > that, sir, is your brainwash in action.
>
> > because the answer to that particular question is: False.
>
uh huh.
> I saw the word "brainwash" in your response.
naturally.
> Lemme tell ya what brainwash is...
this should be a treat.
next up, a Dittohead will come along and tell me all about how nice
Rush Limbaugh really is.
> Brainwashed is the fellow that upon seeing
> a cute little joke that contains the phrase,
> "knee grow", then ensues a course of
> mouth foaming, ranting, and reflexive
> judgement
you have quite the "imagination", there, fella.
what a knee jerk asshole thing to compose.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2833ad00baae919d
methinks your guilt is having its way w/ you:
> that somehow even the lightest
> deviation from your brainwashism is an
> unforgiveable breech where freedom of
> speech isn't allowed.
yeah, i'm about as politically correct as they come.
ask any old cunt.
free speech?
fuck that shit.
> It's political correctness run amuck.
no, it was just an indication of what's in your heart.
nothing more, nothing less.
"the tongue is an unruly member."
-- That Jesus Dude
> It's, well...
>
> BRAINWASHED
not the slightest bit.
well, ok, maybe the slightest bit.
but only the good stuff.
-$Zero...
but it's the answers that aren't funny
which are the funniest of all.
in a positive life-changing kind of way.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c644afc3d7e7b958
Piet de Arcilla
> because in that IF scenario, 2 = 2 = 5, not 4.
>
> and there's a consistent mathematical logic to the condition of 2 + 2
> = 5, which also makes 3 + 3 = 5, etc..
>
> but it probably takes a creative genius to see it at first.
>
> after that, once informed of the inexorable mathematical relationship
> which exists there, almost anyone else can easily grasp the truth of
> it.
>
> that is, if they're willing and able to reject the brainwash which
> force the saps to believe things which just aren't true.
There isn't a single answer to your problem unless you actually define
everything prior to asking it. You happened to choose to redefine '+'
and keep the normal definitions of '>', '=', and numbers. But you
didn't _say_ you were doing that in the problem statement. If you are
going to redefine symbols, there's no reason why 2 + 2 can't equal 4
and 5 simultaneously; it depends on what you mean by '=', '4', and
'5'.
You probably think your answer is the most parsimonious, but that's
just because you're in love with your own purported 'creative genius'.
> > IF 2 + 2 = 5
> > AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
> > AND 3 > 2
> > THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
If the missing piece of the puzzle is that all numbers greater than 3
are equal to each other, then the above is perfectly consistent, but
the answer is 'true', not 'false'.
However, the other point I want to make is that a smart person should
be able to look at the problem and immediately see that it's
underdetermined before even working through the possible assumptions.
$Zero
> On Nov 20, 9:34 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > because in that IF scenario, 2 = 2 = 5, not 4.
you do realize that that was a typo, right?
it should have been:
> > because in that IF scenario, 2 + 2 = 5, not 4.
as i immediately explained in a subsequent post:
typo -- because in that IF scenario, 2 + 2 = 5, not 4.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/6a6d576f63bf4ba2
> > and there's a consistent mathematical logic to the condition of
> > 2 + 2 = 5, which also makes 3 + 3 = 5, etc..
>
> > but it probably takes a creative genius to see it at first.
>
> > after that, once informed of the inexorable mathematical relationship
> > which exists there, almost anyone else can easily grasp the truth of
> > it.
>
> > that is, if they're willing and able to reject the brainwash which
> > force the saps to believe things which just aren't true.
>
> There isn't a single answer to your problem unless you actually
> define everything prior to asking it.
i defined everything necessary.
and yes, there _is_ only one single answer which fits all of the IF
statements.
> You happened to choose to redefine '+'
> and keep the normal definitions of '>', '=', and numbers.
i didn't redefine '+' (or anything else).
the '+' means the exact same thing it always means.
> But you didn't _say_ you were doing that in the problem statement.
because i wan''t.
i simply proposed that IF 2 + 2 = 5
AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is False
> If you are going to redefine symbols,
i'm doing no such thing.
> there's no reason why 2 + 2 can't equal 4 and 5
> simultaneously;
yes there is, it's called math.
2 = the quantity two
3 = the quantity three
4 = the quantity four
5 = the quantity five
and the '=' sign means "equals"
and the '+' sign means "add"
> it depends on what you mean by '=', '4', and '5'.
they all mean exactly what they normally mean in base ten math.
> You probably think your answer is the most parsimonious, but that's
> just because you're in love with your own purported 'creative genius'.
no.
i think my answer is the only answer merely because it's true.
the fact that i'm a creative genius just makes the question all that
much more interesting and entertaining.
> > > IF 2 + 2 = 5
> > > AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
> > > AND 3 > 2
> > > THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
>
> If the missing piece of the puzzle is that all numbers
> greater than 3 are equal to each other,
are all numbers greater than 3 equal to eachother?
of course not.
is that true in the world of math?
nope.
so it does not apply.
4 = the quantity four
5 = the quantity five
6 = the quantity six.
7 = the quantity seven, etc.
> then the above is perfectly consistent, but
> the answer is 'true', not 'false'.
no.
it's definitely 'false'.
because if all of those conditions are 'true', then that means that um
= 0.5
therefore 2 + 2 cannot equal 4 in any way at all.
because under those IF conditions, 2 + 2 = 5, not 4.
in base ten, the only time that 2 + 2 = 4 is when um = 0.0
> However, the other point I want to make is that a smart person
> should be able to look at the problem and immediately see that it's
> underdetermined before even working through the possible assumptions.
it's not undeterminable at all.
'false' is the only logically correct answer one could possibly come
to given all of the IF conditions stated above.
this is due to the inexorable differences between odd and even
numbers.
...
anyway, if i _had_ redefined any of the symbols, you'd be able to
easily describe how i did so.
but you cannot.
nobody can.
why?
because i did NOT redefine any of the symbols.
tell me how you think i redefined the '+' sign.
or any others.
i didn't.
go ahead, define the symbols using words and show me in your
definitions where i have changed any of the definitions even a slight
bit.
you cannot.
[bowing]
-$Zero...
that, sir, is your brainwash in action.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0d60e92104bda391
Piet de Arcilla
> go ahead, define the symbols using words and show me in your
> definitions where i have changed any of the definitions even a slight
> bit.
"If 2 + 2 = 5" is the same as saying "If 2 + 2 = 5 and some numbers or
operators are redefined". This is because it is a contradiction to say
"If 2 + 2 = 5 and all numbers and operators mean what they usually
do".
All your statements have to be interpreted in a way that avoids
contradictions if they are to be interpreted at all.
You can't deduce anything from a contradiction. You do agree with
that, don't you?
$Zero
> On Nov 20, 12:20 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > go ahead, define the symbols using words and show me in your
> > definitions where i have changed any of the definitions even a slight
> > bit.
>
> "If 2 + 2 = 5" is the same as saying "If 2 + 2 = 5 and some
> numbers or operators are redefined".
nope.
not at all.
because If 2 + 2 = 5 then um = 0.5
> This is because it is a contradiction to say
> "If 2 + 2 = 5 and all numbers and operators
> mean what they usually do".
no it isn't.
because they all DO mean what they usually do.
you just keep insisting otherwise without being able to describe or
explain this alleged alternate meaning.
and that's because there is no alternate meaning in play.
one merely has to figure out how 2 + 2 can equal 5.
which i have done.
2 + 2 = 5 when um = 0.5
EOFS
> All your statements have to be interpreted in a way that
> avoids contradictions if they are to be interpreted at all.
you're claiming there's a contradiction without being able to explain
what the contradiction is.
that's a bit silly of you, logic-wise.
anyway, there is no contradiction.
there's simply a leap of logical understanding necessary in order to
see the inexorable mathematical relationships which are expressed in
such an IF conditional.
> You can't deduce anything from a contradiction.
sure you can, but that's besides the point here.
> You do agree with that, don't you?
there are no contradictions whatsoever in the statement:
If 2 + 2 = 5
it's no more contradictional than the statement:
IF all brown-haired women have bad tempers.
it's a statement asking you to accept the fact that it purports.
and due to the inexorable differences between odd and even numbers it
turns out that there _is_ a way for 2 + 2 = 5 AND for 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
while 3 > 2
it's when um = 0.5
it's that simple.
it's a perfectly reasonable and highly logical deduction.
just because it hasn't been taught widely does not mean that it is not
true.
a fact is a fact.
regardless of how many people are aware of it.
...
anyway, i'll simply remind you that you have NOT described the
alternate meaning you've alleged.
that should be perfectly easy to do were it true, no?
what have i redefined?
nothing.
i've merely noticed an existing inexorable mathematical relationship
that everyone else illogically missed.
no big deal.
but it's true.
-$Zero...
i'm saying that IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
then well, what i'm saying is that there's a perfectly logical
mathematical reason for all of that. and because of that logical
reason, 2 + 2 = 5 under those conditions.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7b2f9851a850f65c
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8185f17c55cd605d
Piet de Arcilla
um means u multiplied by m, in conventional mathematical notation.
um = 0.5 is completely irrelevant without defining u and m, _unless_
you are using an alternate meaning for those symbols.
$Zero
> On Nov 20, 1:01 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2 + 2 = 5 when um = 0.5
>
> > EOFS
>
> um means u multiplied by m,
> in conventional mathematical notation.
um is an explanation i'm giving you after the fact.
it was not part of the original statements, was it?
no.
just like if i had told you (after the fact) that we were using a
different base than base ten, which we're not.
> um = 0.5 is completely irrelevant without defining u and m,
> _unless_ you are using an alternate meaning for those
> symbols.
um stands for Unicornian Math.
it's a mocking way to abreviate the dynamic.
um... see what i mean?
Unicornian Math is the name i long ago gave to this logical
mathematical relationship between odd and even numbers, in honor or
Dr. Zen, who had used a Unicorn in a race as an "analogy" in an
argument attempt which he so thoroughly and completely lost regarding
a girl named Beth with brown hair who did not have a bad temper after
all.
0.5 is the value of that inexorable relationship between the odd and
even numbers which causes the following statements to be true:
in other words, when um = 0.5, then:
2 + 2 = 5
3 + 3 = 5
2 < 3
2 + 3 = 5
5 + 1 = 5
4 + 1 = 5
4 + 4 = 9
etc..
that's when um = 0.5.
but when that inexorable relationship between the odd and even numbers
= 0, (when um = 0) then the following statements are true:
2 + 2 = 4
3 + 3 = 6
2 < 3
2 + 3 = 5
5 + 1 = 6
4 + 1 = 5
4 + 4 = 8
etc..
when that inexorable relationship between the odd and even numbers =
1, (when um = 1) then the following statements are true:
2 + 2 = 6
3 + 3 = 4
2 < 3
2 + 3 = 5
5 + 1 = 4
4 + 1 = 5
4 + 4 = 10
see how that works?
no rule breaking.
no alternate notations.
no alternate meaning for any symbols.
nada.
zippo.
try again.
-$Zero...
anyway, i'll simply remind you that you have NOT described
the alternate meaning you've alleged. that should be perfectly
easy to do were it true, no? what have i redefined? nothing.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fbca4e5120cde073
Piet de Arcilla
> no rule breaking.
>
> no alternate notations.
>
> no alternate meaning for any symbols.
You've admitted that you're using a personal meaning for "um". You've
also admitted that it's necessary to know what "um" equals before you
can know what 2 + 2 equals. So you have been pinned down as using at
least one _particular_ symbol in a non-standard way. Even though it
was logically certain that you were using at least one symbol in a non-
standard way before you mentioned "um".
$Zero
> On Nov 21, 12:44 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > no rule breaking.
>
> > no alternate notations.
>
> > no alternate meaning for any symbols.
>
> You've admitted that you're using a personal meaning for "um".
no.
the use of "um" is a way for me to describe what you don't seem able
to see on your own.
it could be called blahdeblah and it wouldn't change a single thing in
regards to the inexorable relationship which exists between odd and
even numbers when 2 + 2 = 5, etc.
> You've
> also admitted that it's necessary to know what "um"
> equals before you can know what 2 + 2 equals.
bzzzt. nope.
the IF statements determine what "um" or "blahdeblah" equals.
IF 2 + 2 = 5 THEN... the inexorable relationship between the odd and
even numbers is 0.5
it doesn't matter one bit what you name it or whether you choose to
realize that it exists or not.
it just is.
> So you have been pinned down as using at
> least one _particular_ symbol in a non-standard way.
name it.
because, nope. i have not.
just because a relationship exists does not mean that it is non-
standard, FFS.
i have used no symbols in any non-standard way whatsoever.
> Even though it was logically certain that you were
> using at least one symbol in a non-
> standard way before you mentioned "um".
no symbols i used were used in any non-standard way whatsoever.
i simply explained how 2 + 2 = 5 could be true.
EOFS
i explained the condition that made it true.
i explained the inexorable relationship that exists between odd and
even numbers and how recognizing it allows conditions to make 3 + 3 =
2 + 2 while 3 > 2.
IF...
AND...
THEN...
pure logic.
pure rational reasoning.
nothing more, nothing less.
-$Zero...
Unicornian Math is the name i long ago gave to this logical
mathematical relationship between odd and even numbers, in
honor of Dr. Zen, who had used a Unicorn in a race as an
"analogy" in an argument attempt which he so thoroughly and
completely lost regarding a girl named Beth with brown hair
who did not have a bad temper after all.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5801d9420f042436
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>Unicornian Math
Another phrase that means "the voices in xero's head."
You never want to go there. Ever.
--
Ray
Mark
Piet my friend, I instantly tagged Zero long ago
for what he is doing.
He is a narcissist. Now while there are many
varieties of this pathology, 2 of the more common
categories are the physical narcissist, where one
tries to establish superiority by showing off their
self perceived beauty and strength (usually lacking)
and in Peter's case,
The "cerebral" narcissist, in which his compulsion
is to try and establish intellectual prowess so as
to solve the incongruency of his self esteem.
His hunger for validation forces him to do this with
his unique style of DOUBLE TALK. Basically, If
I may defer to my second language of "redneckism",
he's what we call...Full of Shit.
His double spacing format is a tell. This indicates
a need for largeness and an attempt to add
importance to his nothingness.
In reality, he is actually a very decent and
competent person, albeit slightly lazy and
somewhat of a dreamer.
I find him harmless, but unfortunately, also
unable to present at this time any information
of redeeming significant enlightenment
beyond the general pedestrian level.
Course, I see your analytical skills are
strong enough to parse his circular
reasoning and reveal the mundaneness.
Myself,
I'm adept at revealing that "man behind
the curtain".
All in all, I see no crisis here, so...
A Merry Christmas to all and
good night.
---
Mark
livin' on Tulsa time.
$Zero
> On Nov 21, 12:57 am, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 12:44 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > no rule breaking.
>
> > > no alternate notations.
>
> > > no alternate meaning for any symbols.
>
> > You've admitted that you're using a personal meaning for "um". You've
> > also admitted that it's necessary to know what "um" equals before you
> > can know what 2 + 2 equals. So you have been pinned down as using at
> > least one _particular_ symbol in a non-standard way. Even though it
> > was logically certain that you were using at least one symbol in a non-
> > standard way before you mentioned "um".
>
> Piet my friend, I instantly tagged Zero long ago
> for what he is doing.
Can Mark count to 2?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2170a7c6ac73bca1
two facts:
.......... fact #1
Mark "tagged" me as a "narcissist" as an utterly futile self-defense
mechanism for his not being able to answer any of the very simple
questions which i posed to him about whatever idiotic brainwashed
stances he was taking at the time, a few of which can be found below
for your entertainment pleasure:
anyway, again, i ask you the simple question: fails to what?
trying using your alleged mind this time, you brainwashed sap.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7c2c90b629eacdfc
which is why you refuse to answer the relevant questions:
what are they cutting and burning, and for what reason?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5a091fc1dd848a9a
and until you honestly answer those questions,
everything you've offered is a lie.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a67b2dedbb462dcd
it's quite entertaining to watch
you avoid the pertinent questions
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a67b2dedbb462dcd
methinks you're unwittingly arguing
for the defense there, genius.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e01f9e7b5c4e16d7
next time put on your thinking cap.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/536ce9182c676510
services provided? "hey, you finally get the pea!"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729
among many other recent gems. including this beaut:
gee, i don't think i could answer that one in 60 days,
let alone 60 seconds. but i _did_ do this logic thinger
in my head almost instantaneously:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0812a0e2065f6626
which nicely documents this hilarity:
"Sometimes I don't respond to posts." ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
here's some other posts in the series:
"Tomorrow's Zero math challenge" ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/be3e83aea5bc1b2b
"Math problems you can easily do in your head" ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0812a0e2065f6626
"Math Quiz Simple Answer" ~ by Mark
"More easy as pie math" ~ by Mark
"I.Q. test, find the lost cat in 27 seconds" ~ by Mark
because:
"Sometimes I don't respond to posts." ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
LOL.
.......... fact #2
every single silly thing which Piet said above was easily proven to be
false as is clearly evidenced in my utterly cogent and purely logical
and illuminating response to same in a subsequent post which i posted
just a few minutes after Piet's delusions about what he claimed i was
or was not doing:
pure logic.
pure rational reasoning.
nothing more, nothing less.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7dd67a9e2a376535
so given these two facts, i ask again:
Can Mark count to 2?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2170a7c6ac73bca1
only time will tell.
methinks he'll instead get hopelessly stuck on the concept of 0.
> He is a narcissist.
i often talk about myself because i talk about what i know.
i talk about what i can independently verify. duh.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e5301cba87fefc76
Mark apparently "tags" people as "narcissists" whenever they make him
feel... dumb.
"Questions. Too. Hard. Hurt. Head. Make. Feel. Dumb."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
like i said, tagging so-called "narcissists" is an an utterly futile
self-defense mechanism which ironically is a matter of self-projection
on Mark's part: ***
Dude, i'm not the one who named an Art Academy after myself.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a67b2dedbb462dcd
"in my name" -- indicative.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729
*** "self-projection", now, was that a beaut of a term to use in that
sentence or what?
yikes.
my creative genius just never disappoints... agreed?
> Now while there are many varieties of this pathology,
naturally.
Dude, i'm not the one who named an Art Academy after myself.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a67b2dedbb462dcd
> 2 of the more common
> categories are the physical narcissist, where one
> tries to establish superiority by showing off their
> self perceived beauty and strength (usually lacking)
somehow i'm reminded of a story about you overcoming the ravagings of
a boating accident w/ a drunk friend in which your amazing psychic
powers helped you to survive based only on your sheer strength of will
and, well, your amazing strength as a swimmer, who trained for months
because he was so utterly psychic and tuned into God almighty.
"self-projection" redux.
> and in Peter's case,
>
> The "cerebral" narcissist, in which his compulsion
> is to try and establish intellectual prowess so as
> to solve the incongruency of his self esteem.
bwah!
incongruency?
yikes.
my self esteem couldn't be any more healthier and accurate.
what a moron you are.
it's my bank account that doesn't jive w/ those facts.
duh.
but one who has true self-esteem needs no cash for validation
purposes, so...
party on, Garth!
> His hunger for validation
your snoozefest is obviously in full mode at this point in your
"thinkings".
whoa.
> forces him to do this with
> his unique style of DOUBLE TALK.
that you cannot handle what logic actually is,
is not nonsense, it's simply an indication of
the level and quality your so-called genius,
creative or otherwise.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0d60e92104bda391
translation:
"Questions. Too. Hard. Hurt. Head. Make. Feel. Dumb."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
> Basically, If
> I may defer to my second language of "redneckism",
> he's what we call...Full of Shit.
Truth in Advertising, Finally.
http://www.PureBullshit.com/#u
> His double spacing format is a tell.
here's the tell:
my "double spacing format" partly used because i don't use caps.
and partly because i find that putting separate thoughts on separate
lines makes for a much more pleasurable and entertaining read.
YMMV
BTW: thanks for stopping by for yet another read.
the validation is precious.
...
and, it's also partly due to the fact that i'm not at all anal-
retentive and therefore do not feel the obsession to conform to some
arbitrary formatting thinger.
i just go with the flow, Dude.
> This indicates
> a need for largeness and an attempt to add
> importance to his nothingness.
uh huh.
nothingness.
sure thing.
> In reality, he is actually a very decent and
> competent person, albeit slightly lazy and
> somewhat of a dreamer.
i'm not the least bit lazy.
> I find him harmless, but unfortunately, also
> unable to present at this time any information
> of redeeming significant enlightenment
> beyond the general pedestrian level.
bwah!
for starters, i've handily shown time and time again what a totally
brainwashed sap you are.
as well as and many MANY others who foolishly venture to think
otherwise.
yikes.
which is pretty much my "life's mission".
> Course, I see your analytical skills are
> strong enough to parse his circular
> reasoning and reveal the mundaneness.
as if.
> Myself,
>
> I'm adept at revealing that "man behind
> the curtain".
um, you're definitely adept at self-projecting your own vast
collection of neurosis.
> All in all, I see no crisis here, so...
that one would consider the possible removal of their brainwashes as
"a crisis" is more telling than any other possible thing.
> A Merry Christmas to all and
> good night.
>
> ---
> Mark
> livin' on Tulsa time.
-$Zero...
anyone who isn't 100% humble is a major idjit.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/9574032580072d1d
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
<Zoooooming to the bottom of another long post
that neither I or anyone else took time to read.>
Good news is, I took a second to type this:
Someday I might read one if it is titled,
"I've stopped making shit up and twisting
reality so I don't have to face myself."
OR
"I'm making sentences that actually contain
verifiable and nondelusional information".
YES, you may use those titles.
You're welcome.
---
Mark
G.E., making imagination work
$Zero
> On Nov 21, 8:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
two facts:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5156041d5294582b
> <Zoooooming to the bottom of another long post
> that neither I or anyone else took time to read.>
yeah, that'll sell. sure thing.
"Sometimes I don't respond to posts." ~ by Mark
here's some other posts in the series:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0812a0e2065f6626
> Good news is, I took a second to type this:
>
> Someday I might read one if it is titled,
> "I've stopped making shit up and twisting
> reality so I don't have to face myself."
why would a narcissist ever do such a thing?
facing oneself is the epitome of narcissistic joy.
> OR
>
> "I'm making sentences that actually contain
> verifiable and nondelusional information".
translation:
Mark refuses to admit what an absolute moronic idiot
he is for not having been able to see the simple,
logical, non-delusional, totally veriable truth of
Unicornian Mathematics.
duh.
[bowing]
> YES, you may use those titles.
merci.
that's French for "Thanks."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729
> You're welcome.
>
> ---
> Mark
> G.E., making imagination work
Rush Limbaugh, et al, making creative geniuses poor.
anyway...
thanks for stopping by for yet another read.
the validation is precious.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5156041d5294582b
-$Zero...
yikes. my creative genius just never disappoints... agreed?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5156041d5294582b
Piet de Arcilla
> false as is clearly evidenced in my utterly cogent and purely logical
> and illuminating response to same in a subsequent post which i posted
> just a few minutes after Piet's delusions about what he claimed i was
> or was not doing:
You cannot suppose that "2 + 2 = 5" without redefining something or
introducing some idiosyncratic assumption.
Changing bases will not help. 2 + 2 = 4 in base 5; 2 + 2 = 10 in base
4; 2 + 2 = 11 in base 3; 2 + 2 = 100 in base 2.
Saying a "relationship" "is" a number is a null statement as far as
I'm concerned. You could just as well say an orange is a football. A
number is a number, and a relationship is a relationship.
If um = 0.5 requires that 2 + 2 = 5 and vice versa, then um = 0.5 is a
mathematical statement too, but it clearly doesn't use conventional
notation.
Piet de Arcilla
of whatever Indonesians do, I would like to point out that it's a big
country; comparable to the size of the U.S. in population. So whatever
they do in terms of burning stuff probably does have a significant
effect.
$Zero
> On Nov 21, 8:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > every single silly thing which Piet said above was easily proven to be
> > false as is clearly evidenced in my utterly cogent and purely logical
> > and illuminating response to same in a subsequent post which i posted
> > just a few minutes after Piet's delusions about what he claimed i was
> > or was not doing:
>
> You cannot suppose that "2 + 2 = 5" without redefining something or
> introducing some idiosyncratic assumption.
no redefinition of any kind is required to suppose that "2 + 2 = 5".
if there were a redefinition of some sort, you would be easily able to
describe what is being "redefined".
yet you cannot.
in the case of "2 + 2 = 5", you are erroneously supposing that the "+"
sign is being "redefined" but you are totally unable to compare and
contrast the two required distinct "definitions" which you
brainwashedly imagine to be contrary to each other.
the very nature of creating an IF statement is an act of creating an
_assumption_.
proposing that "2 + 2 = 5" is no different than supposing that "all
brown-haired women have bad tempers".
both are working assumptions.
and you go from there, logically.
just exactly as you would take the assumption "1 + 1 = 10" and then
compare it w/ the other assumptions in order to determine whether or
not you were operating in base two instead of base ten.
IF 1 + 0 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 10
AND 1 + 10 = 11
THEN 1 + 11 = 100
voila, you can logically determine that you are adding quantities
using base two.
but in the case of 2 + 2 = 5, AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, AND 3 > 2, it is not
a matter of changing bases, it's a matter of operating in a whole
other "blahdeblah" dimension where the odd or even natures of the
individual numbers in an equation determines how they will be
logically summed.
it is _similar_ to summing in a different base, but it is NOT summing
in a different base.
it is summing in a different Unicornian Mathematical dimension -- one
where the inexorable relationship between the odd and even numbers is
equal to 0.5 instead of more familiar 0.0.
> Changing bases will not help. 2 + 2 = 4 in base 5; 2 + 2 = 10 in base
> 4; 2 + 2 = 11 in base 3; 2 + 2 = 100 in base 2.
the logic problem which was originally presented had nothing
whatsoever to do with using a different base. it was performed in base
ten.
> Saying a "relationship" "is" a number is a null statement as far as
> I'm concerned.
then you have to apply that to base "2" as well as base "10".
it's silly season for you to pretend that operating the summation of
numbers when base = "2" is somehow a "null statement". same applies to
base "10". yet summing in both of these alternate bases requires the
additions to be handled "differently". just like Unicornian
Mathematics does. but no redefinition has occured whatsoever. we have
merely identified another dimension in which to consider the addition
of quantities where the odd and even natures of the numbers in the
equation has a determining factor.
> You could just as well say an orange is a football.
apples and oranges.
> A number is a number, and a relationship is a relationship.
a base... is... a relationship... is... a number...
and so on and so forth.
> If um = 0.5 requires that 2 + 2 = 5 and vice versa, then um = 0.5 is a
> mathematical statement too,
no more than base = 10 is a statement.
> but it clearly doesn't use conventional notation.
yes it does.
it's no different from saying base = 10 or base = 2.
one need not make those "statements".
they exist independently by the very nature of the relationships
provided in the assumptions.
saying um = 0.5 is no different from saying base = 10 or base = 2.
in 2 + 2 = 5 AND etc., it's merely applied to another nature of the
numbers in question.
see how that works?
pure logic.
pure rational reasoning.
nothing more, nothing less.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7dd67a9e2a376535
-$Zero...
see how that works?
no rule breaking.
no alternate notations.
no alternate meaning for any symbols.
nada.
zippo.
try again.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5801d9420f042436
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>no redefinition of any kind is required to suppose that "2 + 2 = 5".
But there is a healthy dose of insanity required.
--
Ray
Piet de Arcilla
> On Nov 21, 1:30 pm, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > every single silly thing which Piet said above was easily proven to be
> > > false as is clearly evidenced in my utterly cogent and purely logical
> > > and illuminating response to same in a subsequent post which i posted
> > > just a few minutes after Piet's delusions about what he claimed i was
> > > or was not doing:
>
> > You cannot suppose that "2 + 2 = 5" without redefining something or
> > introducing some idiosyncratic assumption.
>
> no redefinition of any kind is required to suppose that "2 + 2 = 5".
>
> if there were a redefinition of some sort, you would be easily able to
> describe what is being "redefined".
No, that is not possible because your statements can be made
consistent in multiple different ways, depending on what you choose to
redefine. Therefore there is no unique answer to the problem.
> the very nature of creating an IF statement is an act of creating an
> _assumption_.
>
> proposing that "2 + 2 = 5" is no different than supposing that "all
> brown-haired women have bad tempers".
>
> both are working assumptions.
>
> and you go from there, logically.
>
> just exactly as you would take the assumption "1 + 1 = 10" and then
> compare it w/ the other assumptions in order to determine whether or
> not you were operating in base two instead of base ten.
>
> IF 1 + 0 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 10
> AND 1 + 10 = 11
> THEN 1 + 11 = 100
>
> voila, you can logically determine that you are adding quantities
> using base two.
No, you can't. What if 1 + 100 = 42? That doesn't contradict the
above, yet if it is true, then you are obviously not doing base two
math after all.
> but in the case of 2 + 2 = 5, AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, AND 3 > 2, it is not
> a matter of changing bases, it's a matter of operating in a whole
> other "blahdeblah" dimension where the odd or even natures of the
> individual numbers in an equation determines how they will be
> logically summed.
That's nice. Why are you stuck on the idea that there is _one_
additional dimension possible? I already demonstrated that there is at
least one more, which provides the opposite answer you got.
If you won't explain your "dimension", there's only one reasonable
explanation, which is that you're afraid nobody will be impressed.
Piet de Arcilla
make some sort of inductive leap from your problem, and I think it's
questionable whether inductive reasoning should be called logic at
all. Furthermore, I think the very fact that people disagree with you
is evidence of how untrustworthy induction is.
$Zero
> On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 1:30 pm, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 8:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > every single silly thing which Piet said above was easily proven to be
> > > > false as is clearly evidenced in my utterly cogent and purely logical
> > > > and illuminating response to same in a subsequent post which i posted
> > > > just a few minutes after Piet's delusions about what he claimed i was
> > > > or was not doing:
>
> > > You cannot suppose that "2 + 2 = 5" without redefining something or
> > > introducing some idiosyncratic assumption.
>
> > no redefinition of any kind is required to suppose that "2 + 2 = 5".
>
> > if there were a redefinition of some sort, you would be easily able
> > to describe what is being "redefined".
>
> No, that is not possible because your statements can be made
> consistent in multiple different ways, depending on what you
> choose to redefine.
no.
firstly, i haven't redefined anything whatsoever.
if i had, you would easily be able to identify it, particularly due to
the fact that when the inexorable relationship between the odd and
even numbers = 0.5, a very specific way of adding the numbers together
is necessary which one could easily contrast with any other so-called
"standard method" if such a "non-standard" method was somehow in
contradiction w/ the so-called "standard method".
if the logical truth of the inexorable differences between odd and
even numbers which allows "2 + 2 = 5" were breaking some sort of
axiomatic "rule" you would easily be able to identify said rule. you'd
be able to easily cite it from some mathematical source of some sort.
but you cannot.
because since it is NOT breaking any sort of existing axiomatic rule,
you are totally unable to cite such a definition that it "redefines",
therefore you are totally unable to compare and contrast it with what
you believe to be the "approved" way of "summing" numbers.
and since the inexorable relationship between the odd and even numbers
exists, and one can apply it logically to any summing of numbers, you
are left completely empty-handed in your endeavor to disprove the
facts you brainwashedly seek to dispute, mostly because these facts
which you are having bizarre trouble accepting are 100% consistent,
100% rational, and 100% logical, give or take 0%.
secondly, in base ten, there is only one logically consistent way that
one can accept that 2 + 2 = 5. and that is when the inexorable
relationship between the odd and even numbers = 0.5.
there is no other logically consistent way that one can accept that 2
+ 2 = 5.
if you believe that there _is_ a perfectly logical consistent way that
one can accept that 2 + 2 = 5, let's see it. let's see your IF AND
THEN statements and we'll give it a look see.
good luck w/ that.
because there is no other possible way that 2 + 2 = 5 in base ten.
> Therefore there is no unique answer to the problem.
then go ahead and show one other possible answer which is perfectly
logical and consistent.
if what you're saying is true, that should be a snap.
good luck w/ that.
because there is no other possible way that 2 + 2 = 5 in base ten.
> > the very nature of creating an IF statement is an act of creating an
> > _assumption_.
>
> > proposing that "2 + 2 = 5" is no different than supposing that
> > "all brown-haired women have bad tempers".
>
> > both are working assumptions.
>
> > and you go from there, logically.
>
> > just exactly as you would take the assumption "1 + 1 = 10" and then
> > compare it w/ the other assumptions in order to determine whether or
> > not you were operating in base two instead of base ten.
>
> > IF 1 + 0 = 1
> > AND 1 + 1 = 10
> > AND 1 + 10 = 11
> > THEN 1 + 11 = 100
>
> > voila, you can logically determine that you are adding quantities
> > using base two.
>
> No, you can't.
WHOT?
methinks you're losing your grasp of logical mathematical reality.
> What if 1 + 100 = 42?
ok.
so far so good.
> That doesn't contradict the above,
yes it does.
because the symbol 4 does not exist in base 2.
> yet if it is true, then you are obviously not doing base two
> math after all.
that's because you have not created a valid base two IF statement.
> > but in the case of 2 + 2 = 5, AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, AND 3 > 2, it is
> > not a matter of changing bases, it's a matter of operating in a
> > whole other "blahdeblah" dimension where the odd or even natures
> > of the individual numbers in an equation determines how they will
> > be logically summed.
>
> That's nice.
yep.
and it comes with the feature of actually working.
which is nice.
> Why are you stuck on the idea that there is _one_
> additional dimension possible?
i'm not.
i've merely identified the odd/even dimension.
there could be others, i suppose.
i would guess that there are.
but none of them would have 2 + 2 = 5 in base ten.
> I already demonstrated that there is at
> least one more,
yikes. nope. you have not.
are you actually referring to the "if 1 + 100 = 42" thinger?
if so, you'll note that you had quite a bit of trouble making it
logical and consistent with the other statements.
> which provides the opposite answer you got.
hardly.
it's totally unrelated and absolutely non-applicable to the perfectly
logical and consistent odd/even relationships i've been showing here.
> If you won't explain your "dimension", there's only one reasonable
> explanation, which is that you're afraid nobody will be impressed.
i've already explained the dimension.
i couldn't care less if any one else is impressed or not.
the dimension exists.
your denying it doesn't change that one bit.
and when um = 0.0, you never even notice the dimension.
but when "blahdeblah" = anything other than 0, you can easily see the
perfectly logical results in any and all equations.
see how that works?
...
now go ahead, try that w/ your "if 1 + 100 = 42" thinger and see what
you get.
nonsense.
but if you give me any other "blahdeblah" other than "blahdeblah" = 0,
i can immediately tell you what 2 + 2 =, OR what 3 + 3 =, and i will
give you the same exact answers today, tomorrow, and ten years from
now, see what i mean?
it's just like changing number bases, but it is NOT changing number
bases.
it's about the inexorable differences between odd and even numbers.
it's a _definite_ dimension with 100% logical and rational
consistency.
you'll recall:
IF 2 + 2 = 5
AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
1] True
2] False
3] Unable to Determine
4] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
in logical reality, the answer is #2, False.
but for you and most others, the answer is #4.
even though you'd like to insist that it's #3.
but it's all about the IFs, remember?
IF All brown-haired women have bad tempers.
AND Beth is a brown-haired woman.
THEN Beth has a bad temper is...
1] True
2] False
3] Unable to Determine
4] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
see how that works?
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.
If that is granted, all else follows."
-- The Thousght Police
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
and you "accuse" me of being the only one to see the truth of the
inexorable relationship between odd and even numbers which allows for
2 + 2 = 5?
well...
"He wondered, as he had many times wondered
before, whether he himself was a lunatic.
Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one."
-- The Narrator
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
"Sanity is not statistical."
-$Zero...
it is summing in a different Unicornian Mathematical dimension
-- one where the inexorable relationship between the odd and
even numbers is equal to 0.5 instead of the more familiar 0.0.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b389e09a16423d9b
$Zero
nor of course does the symbol 2.
> > yet if it is true, then you are obviously not doing base two
> > math after all.
>
> that's because you have not created a valid base two IF statement.
>
> > > but in the case of 2 + 2 = 5, AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, AND 3 > 2, it is
> > > not a matter of changing bases, it's a matter of operating in a
> > > whole other "blahdeblah" dimension where the odd or even natures
> > > of the individual numbers in an equation determines how they will
> > > be logically summed.
>
> > That's nice.
>
> yep.
>
> and it comes with the feature of actually working.
>
> which is nice.
>
> > Why are you stuck on the idea that there is _one_
> > additional dimension possible?
>
> i'm not.
>
> i've merely identified the odd/even dimension.
>
> there could be others, i suppose.
>
> i would guess that there are.
>
> but none of them would have 2 + 2 = 5 in base ten.
except when um = 0.5, of course, provided that the other dimension
provided an intersecting point in the Unicornian Mathematics
dimension, which it would naturally have to being as all logical
numerical dimensions probably intersect somewhere.
sorry, you'd insist that it was #1.
i keep making that silly mistake.
-$Zero... ObligatoryCorrections...
mostly because these facts which you
are having bizarre trouble accepting
are 100% consistent, 100% rational,
and 100% logical, give or take 0%.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/dad39cba4f8c22d3
$Zero
> One of the things going on here is that you think it's possible to
> make some sort of inductive leap from your problem, and I think it's
> questionable whether inductive reasoning should be called logic at
> all.
the "inductive leap" occurred only when i first noticed the existence
(and effects) of the inexorable differences between odd and even
numbers. after that, it's completely deductive, forever more.
well, actually, technically speaking, it was _always_ deductible, but
from what i gather, i guess nobody else ever bothered to deduce it.
> Furthermore, I think the very fact that people disagree with
> you is evidence of how untrustworthy induction is.
that's where we greatly differ, obviously.
...
> Therefore there is no unique answer to the problem.
then go ahead and show one other possible answer which
is perfectly logical and consistent. if what you're saying
is true, that should be a snap. good luck w/ that.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef28634590e4e70f
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/dad39cba4f8c22d3
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.
If that is granted, all else follows."
-- The Thousght Police
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
and you "accuse" me of being the only one to see the truth
of the inexorable relationship between odd and even numbers
which allows for 2 + 2 = 5?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef28634590e4e70f
...
-$Zero...
"Sanity is not statistical."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef28634590e4e70f
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/dad39cba4f8c22d3
$Zero
well, i suppose that if their population were comparable in size to
the U.S. and they were confined in an area as small as Rhode Island,
any typical tribal burning of peace pipes might have a significant
effect on each other, but probably not so much on the planet as a
whole.
the burden of proof is upon you for claiming that
typical tribal living is the third largest source
of harmful pollution on planet earth.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/31734e3bfbd58815
-$Zero...
are the tribal peoples of Indonesia damaging the eco balance?
what are they cutting and burning, and for what reason?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5a091fc1dd848a9a
the questions are there for a reason.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/31734e3bfbd58815
Piet de Arcilla
> logical and consistent.
> > IF 2 + 2 = 5
> > AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
> > AND 3 > 2
> > THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
If 1, 2, and 3 are distinguishable, but all integers greater than 3
are equal to one another, then your statements are consistent and the
answer is 'true'.
On the other hand, if integers are all distinguishable, but adding
them together always produces the number 5, then your statements are
consistent and the answer is 'false'.
Piet de Arcilla
> On Nov 21, 1:33 pm, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, while I don't know much about the environmental impact
> > of whatever Indonesians do, I would like to point out that it's a big
> > country; comparable to the size of the U.S. in population. So whatever
> > they do in terms of burning stuff probably does have a significant
> > effect.
>
> well, i suppose that if their population were comparable in size to
> the U.S. and they were confined in an area as small as Rhode Island,
> any typical tribal burning of peace pipes might have a significant
> effect on each other, but probably not so much on the planet as a
> whole.
"tribal burning of peace pipes"? Look, Indonesia has a population of
well over 200 million, and a half trillion GDP. The GDP is small in
comparison to the U.S., but that doesn't mean their pollution is
insignificant.
$Zero
> On Nov 22, 8:43 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > then go ahead and show one other possible answer which is
> > perfectly logical and consistent.
> >
> > > IF 2 + 2 = 5
> > > AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
> > > AND 3 > 2
> > > THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
>
> If 1, 2, and 3 are distinguishable, but all integers greater than 3
> are equal to one another, then your statements are consistent
> and the answer is 'true'.
what total nonsense.
go ahead and try writing that out as a series of IF statements and
you'll see why.
there's no there there.
but before you even waste your time doing that, here's a brief
explanation of why it's absolutely ridiculous:
1. mathematically speaking, saying that "all integers greater than 3
are equal to one another" is completely desperate nonsense, that
would be nothing more than playing useless symbol games. for instance,
you would be pointlessly redefining the symbol 7 to equal something
other than the quantity seven. you'd be guilty of doing exactly what
you have been erroneously alleging that _i'm_ doing: redefining the
symbols (which i am not).
and you'd be throwing out all quantities greater than five, which is
utterly ridiculous.
so much so, that i find it hard to describe without venturing into
absolute redundancy.
2. you could apply your same "logic"...
> If 1, 2, and 3 are distinguishable, but all integers greater than 3
> are equal to one another, then your statements are consistent
> and the answer is 'true'.
...to the following assumptions:
IF 1 + 1 = 2
AND 2 + 2 = 4
AND 2 + 3 = 5
AND 3 + 3 = 6
AND 5 + 1 = 6
AND 6 + 1 = 7
THEN 2 + 3 = 7 is...
True?
bzzzt.
i don't think so.
yet, using your alleged "alternate explanation", behold:
there would be no way to distinguish between bases or anything else.
therefore, your conditions are totally illogical and inconsistent.
you cannot distinguish your "system" from infinite others.
it's not based on anything remotely tangible other than a silly
arbitrary rule with no basis whatsoever.
so it applies to all possibilities.
your system would be throwing out all number and logic system babies
with the bathwater.
because there is no unique distinguishing dynamic to base your
assumptions upon other than pure chaos.
compare:
Unicornian Mathematics relies upon the inexorable nature of the
difference between odd and even numbers.
> On the other hand, if integers are all distinguishable, but adding
> them together always produces the number 5, then your statements
> are consistent and the answer is 'false'.
again, your conditions are totally illogical and inconsistent, but
even worse yet.
and again, with this one, there is no way to write them up into IF
statements which don't enter into silly season on steroids.
because your premise:
"if integers are all distinguishable,
but adding them together always
produces the number 5"
...has no logical mathematical use whatsoever beyond the quantity
five. that's a very strange and useless "dimension" to offer as an
explanation of anything.
why even bother employing the unique-but-redundantly-equal-to-five
symbols for 6, 7, 8, 9... 1,000,000, etc..?
you cannot say they are "distinguishable" if the summing of any and
all of them is limited to yielding the quantity five.
that is a totally useless and completely nonsensical and illogical
mathematical "system" which has no logical consistency because those
kind of "assumptions" could be applied to every possible mathematical
situation and they would all yield the exact same result: no
quantities greater than five. interestingly, that would also be
invalidating the "standard" system which you somehow believe to be
exempt to your five quantity limit, for some unknown reason.
a numbering system inherently needs to have the ability to represent
every possible quantity from negative infinity to positive infinity.
yours stops at five. how utterly silly.
summary:
yours is NOT an alternate explanation for 2 + 2 = 5
because... it equally applies to 2 + 2 = 4.
there's no difference between them.
therefore, an invalid assumption.
you can't have 2 + 2 = 5 and also = 4.
numeric symbols are not variables which you can blank out, they
represent unique quantities.
try again.
yikes.
but this time, try creating an explanation which includes all possible
distinguishable quantities.
-$Zero...
mostly because these facts which you
are having bizarre trouble accepting
are 100% consistent, 100% rational,
and 100% logical, give or take 0%.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef28634590e4e70f
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/dad39cba4f8c22d3
Piet de Arcilla
> summary:
>
> yours is NOT an alternate explanation for 2 + 2 = 5
> because... it equally applies to 2 + 2 = 4.
>
> there's no difference between them.
> therefore, an invalid assumption.
>
> you can't have 2 + 2 = 5 and also = 4.
There's no difference between "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 5". You just
said so. So you've obviously got no grounds for saying I can't have
both true at the same time. In fact, I have to have both true at the
same time if there is no difference between them. Q.E.D.
$Zero
> On Nov 23, 12:13 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > summary:
>
> > yours is NOT an alternate explanation for 2 + 2 = 5
> > because... it equally applies to 2 + 2 = 4.
>
> > there's no difference between them.
> > therefore, an invalid assumption.
>
> > you can't have 2 + 2 = 5 and also = 4.
>
> There's no difference between "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 5".
that's what _you're_ claiming, not moi.
you misread (or misinterpreted) what i actually wrote.
> You just said so.
no.
i said:
*yours* is NOT an alternate explanation for 2 + 2 = 5
because... it equally applies to 2 + 2 = 4.
[in *yours*] there's no difference between them.
therefore, it's an invalid assumption.
in the non-summary section, i handily proved that your "alternate
explanation" for "2 + 2 = 5" equally applied to "2 + 2 = 4", therefore
making them absolutely no different.
in the Unicornian Math "blahdeblah"set of assumptions:
when um=0.0, "2+2=4" is true, and "2+2=5" is false
when um=0.5, "2+2=4" is false, and "2+2= 5" is true
therefore, they are definitely _different_.
however, with your nonsensical "alternate" set of assumption, they are
the same.
PiesAlt1:
"If 1, 2, and 3 are distinguishable, but all integers greater than
3 are equal to one another, then your statements are consistent
and the answer is 'true'."
PiesAlt1 yields:
"2+2=4" is true, and "2+2=5" is true
so not applicable.
...
PiesAlt2:
"On the other hand, if integers are all distinguishable,
but adding them together always produces the number
5, then your statements are consistent and the answer
is 'false'."
PiesAlt2 yields does slightly better with 2+2:
"2+2=4" is false, and "2+2=5" is true
but it gets totally fucked when applied to all other possible
assumptions.
because in Unicornian Math:
IF 2 + 2 = 5
THEN 5 + 1 = 5
AND 6 + 1 = 7
AND 7 + 1 = 7
AND 8 + 1 = 9
AND 9 + 9 = 17
etc.
but PiesAlt2 yields:
IF 2 + 2 = 5
THEN 5 + 1 = 5
AND 6 + 1 = 5
AND 7 + 1 = 5
AND 8 + 1 = 5
AND 9 + 9 = 5
etc.
so _that_ "alternate" PiesAlt2 explanation certainly does not fit,
either.
try again.
> So you've obviously got no grounds for saying
> I can't have both true at the same time.
WHOT?
again, your PiesAlt1 claims that there's no difference at all between
the quantities 4, 5, 6, 7, etc., but Unicornian Math definitely does
not. on the contrary, it fully recognizes the correct (base ten) value
of all numbers.
and your PiesAlt2 gives results of five for every possible sum, so
it's not compatible at all w/ the dynamics of Unicornian Math, nor any
other logical mathematical system.
> In fact, I have to have both true at the same time
> if there is no difference between them. Q.E.D.
nope.
you missed it.
try again.
-$Zero...
you can't have 2 + 2 = 5 and also = 4.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/43c8cccf3c632d7f
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>what total nonsense.
Indeed you are.
--
Ray
$Zero
(was: Re: Math problems you can easily do in your head)
On Nov 23, 5:28 am, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:13:34 -0800 (PST), "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >what total nonsense.
>
> Indeed you are.
"Sanity is not statistical." ~ The Thoughtless Police
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef28634590e4e70f
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/dad39cba4f8c22d3
-$Zero...
because these facts which you are
having bizarre trouble accepting
are 100% consistent, 100% rational,
and 100% logical -- give or take 0%.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef28634590e4e70f
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/dad39cba4f8c22d3
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>The Thoughtless Police
And quoting yourself proves it.
--
Ray
$Zero
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:30:29 -0800 (PST), "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com>
i quote myself because i'm the wittiest person i know.
-$Zero...
Here's Why.
(was: Re: Why are Lousy, Boring Writers Enabled Here?)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2902160f408dbf9e
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>On Nov 23, 9:35�am, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:30:29 -0800 (PST), "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Thoughtless Police
>>
>> >(was: Re: Math problems you can easily do in your head)
>>
>> >On Nov 23, 5:28�am, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:13:34 -0800 (PST), "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >what total nonsense.
>>
>> >> Indeed you are.
>>
>> > �"Sanity is not statistical." ~ The Thoughtless Police
>> > �http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef28634590e4e70f
>> > �http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/dad39cba4f8c22d3
>>
>> >-$Zero...
>>
>> > �because these facts which you are
>> > �having bizarre trouble accepting
>> > �are 100% consistent, 100% rational,
>> > �and 100% logical -- give or take 0%.
>> > �http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ef28634590e4e70f
>> > �http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/dad39cba4f8c22d3
>>
>> And quoting yourself proves it.
>
>i quote myself because i'm the wittiest person i know.
Ounce for ounce, you also spout the most nonsense. Circulating
nonsense and recycling of empty headedness = xero.
>-$Zero...
>
> Here's Why.
> (was: Re: Why are Lousy, Boring Writers Enabled Here?)
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2902160f408dbf9e
--
Ray
$Zero
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:43:47 -0800 (PST), "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com>
Buddy, I have to hand it to you:
you make me laugh out loud!
Great answer, Mr. Staccato.
-- Belle Harper
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/3bf1e9f73c321359
> >-$Zero...
>
> > Here's Why.
> > (was: Re: Why are Lousy, Boring Writers Enabled Here?)
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2902160f408dbf9e
>
> --
> Ray
spit.
-$Zero...
"There was truth
and there was untruth,
and if you clung to the truth
even against the whole world,
you were not mad."
-- The Thoughtless Police
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>spit.
Perfect reply. Your hallmark.
--
Ray
$Zero
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:54:45 -0800 (PST), "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >spit.
>
> Perfect reply.
yep.
here's a hanky.
(spit-filled, of course)
> Your hallmark.
um, no, yours.
> Ray
-$Zero...
"There was truth and there was untruth, and if you
clung to the truth even against the whole world,
you were not mad." -- The Thoughtless Police
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/3bf1e9f73c321359
Jeffrey Bloss
> I take a Lead suppliment.
>
> ---
> Mark
"supplement" dumbass. LOL
--
http://tr.im/1f95