Science, Math, and all other human study's
David
who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
No body on the planet earth!
An alien from outer space may arrive with a level of mathematic that
surpasses the math we know on earth, the new method of alien math may
be so technologicaly advanced it prooves our math to be obsolete and
in-effective.
Every so often over the last thousands of years, baby human evolution
among the geological time scale, scientific theory is prooved false.
what causes these radical shifts in human belief? The origin has
somehow been shifted to create a dynamical alteration introducing new
platforms with different perceptions.
Human theory only works if one follows the perspective close enough to
link the relitive platforms in time. Perspectives become currupted the
further one strays from the origin. Just as in between two numbers 1
and 2, where exactly does the assymptote divide the two numbers?
Therefore we modualize perceptions.
David G.
PMD
seen to type in talk.atheism:
>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>
>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>
>No body on the planet earth!
But 2+2=11.
>An alien from outer space may arrive with a level of mathematic that
>surpasses the math we know on earth, the new method of alien math may
>be so technologicaly advanced it prooves our math to be obsolete and
>in-effective.
Doubt it very much. What it might be is more accurate but I doubt that
we would have to throw every theory out as being wrong.
>Every so often over the last thousands of years, baby human evolution
>among the geological time scale, scientific theory is prooved false.
Good. This means that science is working.
>what causes these radical shifts in human belief?
Evidence that shows the extant theory to be implausible usually.
>he origin has
>somehow been shifted to create a dynamical alteration introducing new
>platforms with different perceptions.
Not sure what you mean there. Could you clarify please?
>Human theory only works if one follows the perspective close enough to
>link the relitive platforms in time. Perspectives become currupted the
>further one strays from the origin. Just as in between two numbers 1
>and 2, where exactly does the assymptote divide the two numbers?
>Therefore we modualize perceptions.
And here too. Could you clarify please?
--
>> PMD aa#167
--
Jeremiah 4:6-7; Proverbs 15:1; Romans 3:10 : Matthew 5:44; Luke 19:2
http://www.hornetsnest.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (opening soon)
>God is a solipsist >> civility = my_view*your_view/my_certainty^2
I know how the universe was created but according to my calculations
I will die before I can tell anyo..... NO CARRIER
Von Bailey
<pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16 Apr 2002 01:37:16 -0700, neo_lib...@hotmail.com (David) was
>seen to type in talk.atheism:
>
>>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>>
>>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>>
>>No body on the planet earth!
>
>But 2+2=11.
>
Actually it's 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
You see, you aren't taking into consideration the effects of inertia
and gravity on the process of addition. While the effect is almost to
small to measure, it exists and therefore 2+2 can never equal 4. We
just round off the numbers for the sake of efficiency in the system.
von
http://home.attbi.com/~redbai
Great people aren't elected.
>>>take out NOSPAM to respond via email<<<
Von Bailey
<pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16 Apr 2002 01:37:16 -0700, neo_lib...@hotmail.com (David) was
>seen to type in talk.atheism:
>
>>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>>
>>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>>
>>No body on the planet earth!
>
>But 2+2=11.
>
Josef Balluch
> Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
Ummmm ....... Is that supposed to be a profound statement?
> who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>
> No body on the planet earth!
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/gcampbel.6.4.96.html
> An alien from outer space may arrive with a level of mathematic that
> surpasses the math we know on earth, the new method of alien math may
> be so technologicaly advanced it prooves our math to be obsolete and
> in-effective.
Uh huh. We have been using mathematics for thousands of years. It has
taken mankind to the moon and back. It has sent space probes beyond our
solar system. It allows us to go inside the atomic nucleus, and approach
the origin of the universe. Pretty impressive for something that is
obsolete and ineffective.
> Every so often over the last thousands of years, baby human evolution
> among the geological time scale, scientific theory is prooved false.
> what causes these radical shifts in human belief? The origin has
> somehow been shifted to create a dynamical alteration introducing new
> platforms with different perceptions.
What causes you to think that human knowledge should be static?
> Human theory only works if one follows the perspective close enough to
> link the relitive platforms in time. Perspectives become currupted the
> further one strays from the origin. Just as in between two numbers 1
> and 2, where exactly does the assymptote divide the two numbers?
> Therefore we modualize perceptions.
Yawn. Another one of those whines about the uncertainty of human
knowledge, and the pointlessness of science.
Josef
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too
lazy to study physics.
PMD
Bailey) was seen to type in talk.atheism:
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:00:01 +0100, PMD
><pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 16 Apr 2002 01:37:16 -0700, neo_lib...@hotmail.com (David) was
>>seen to type in talk.atheism:
>>
>>>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>>>
>>>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>>>
>>>No body on the planet earth!
>>
>>But 2+2=11.
And 2+2=10 too.
>Actually it's 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
>
>You see, you aren't taking into consideration the effects of inertia
>and gravity on the process of addition. While the effect is almost to
>small to measure, it exists and therefore 2+2 can never equal 4. We
>just round off the numbers for the sake of efficiency in the system.
Sorry. I always forget to take into account Flipsteins general theory
of relative addition. Roughly stated it means as we get nearer to
infinity all sums converge on zero. ie. infinity + n = 0 where n is
any number from 0 to infinity. It mathematically confirms that nothing
exists.
Von Bailey
<pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:02:19 GMT, NOSPAM...@hotmail.com (Von
>Bailey) was seen to type in talk.atheism:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:00:01 +0100, PMD
>><pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Apr 2002 01:37:16 -0700, neo_lib...@hotmail.com (David) was
>>>seen to type in talk.atheism:
>>>
>>>>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>>>>
>>>>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>>>>
>>>>No body on the planet earth!
>>>
>>>But 2+2=11.
>
>And 2+2=10 too.
>
>>Actually it's 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
>>
>>You see, you aren't taking into consideration the effects of inertia
>>and gravity on the process of addition. While the effect is almost to
>>small to measure, it exists and therefore 2+2 can never equal 4. We
>>just round off the numbers for the sake of efficiency in the system.
>
>Sorry. I always forget to take into account Flipsteins general theory
>of relative addition. Roughly stated it means as we get nearer to
>infinity all sums converge on zero. ie. infinity + n = 0 where n is
>any number from 0 to infinity. It mathematically confirms that nothing
>exists.
>
...including god.
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
> Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
> who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
> No body on the planet earth!
of course not...not when we all know that 2+2=5...the Kurumba's prove that
easily enough with their method of counting using knots tied into ropes...if
you have two ropes with two knots each and put them together you have 5
knots...ergo 2+2=5...
also 2.4+2.4=4.8 ... we then round to the nearest integer and again see that
2+2=5...:)
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
proof: god hates Baptists and likes gays... http://morons.org/articles/3/359
-------------------------------
the illustrated bible:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/crazycrap/view.asp?ID=5403
-------------------------------
http://truthordare.dyndns.org/t-or-d
Now, here's a little game that a lot of us played before a certain
over-rated bleached-blonde singer ever got the idea.
It's simple. It's titillating. It's childish. It's perfect!
And now it's updated for the Net.
-------------------------------
let the spammers put these in their databases....
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
galaxicon2000
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:00:01 +0100, PMD
> <pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Apr 2002 01:37:16 -0700, neo_lib...@hotmail.com (David) was
> >seen to type in talk.atheism:
> >
> >>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
> >>
> >>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
> >>
> >>No body on the planet earth!
> >
> >But 2+2=11.
> >
> Actually it's 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
No, he was working in base 3, so 2+2 does equal 11
Vedran Cacic
OK: Actually, it's just 10.22222222222222222222... :-)
Dan
>From: galaxi...@yahoo.com (galaxicon2000)
>Date: 4/17/02 3:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <81a3ecd3.02041...@posting.google.com>
Now why the hell didn't I catch that one? *sigh* Base 3 is the lowest
possible for 2, right? Or would Base 2 make 2+2=12?
Dan
aa #1617
apatriot #14
2nd Class Citizen
Dan
>From: prab...@shamrocksgf.com
>Date: 4/17/02 1:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vVhv8.97724$VM5.60...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>
>
>In talk.atheism David <neo_lib...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>
>> who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>
>> No body on the planet earth!
>
>
>of course not...not when we all know that 2+2=5...the Kurumba's prove that
>easily enough with their method of counting using knots tied into ropes...if
>you have two ropes with two knots each and put them together you have 5
>knots...ergo 2+2=5...
>
>also 2.4+2.4=4.8 ... we then round to the nearest integer and again see that
>2+2=5...:)
If you use the Yanamamo counting system, you don't get higher than 2. It's
just "many".
PMD
seen to type in talk.atheism:
>In article <81a3ecd3.02041...@posting.google.com> galaxi...@yahoo.com (galaxicon2000) writes:
>>NOSPAM...@hotmail.com (Von Bailey) wrote in message news:<3cbc3c87...@netnews.attbi.com>...
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:00:01 +0100, PMD
>>> <pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 16 Apr 2002 01:37:16 -0700, neo_lib...@hotmail.com (David) was
>>> >seen to type in talk.atheism:
>>> >
>>> >>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>>> >>
>>> >>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>>> >>
>>> >>No body on the planet earth!
>>> >
>>> >But 2+2=11.
>>> >
>>> Actually it's 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
>>
>>No, he was working in base 3, so 2+2 does equal 11
>
>OK: Actually, it's just 10.22222222222222222222... :-)
LOL
--
>> PMD aa#167
--
Jeremiah 4:6-7; Proverbs 15:1; Romans 3:10 : Matthew 5:44; Luke 19:27
PMD
to type in talk.atheism:
>>Subject: Re: Science, Math, and all other human study's
>>From: galaxi...@yahoo.com (galaxicon2000)
>>Date: 4/17/02 3:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <81a3ecd3.02041...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>NOSPAM...@hotmail.com (Von Bailey) wrote in message
>>news:<3cbc3c87...@netnews.attbi.com>...
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:00:01 +0100, PMD
>>> <pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 16 Apr 2002 01:37:16 -0700, neo_lib...@hotmail.com (David) was
>>> >seen to type in talk.atheism:
>>> >
>>> >>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>>> >>
>>> >>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>>> >>
>>> >>No body on the planet earth!
>>> >
>>> >But 2+2=11.
>>> >
>>> Actually it's 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
>>
>>No, he was working in base 3, so 2+2 does equal 11
>
>Now why the hell didn't I catch that one? *sigh* Base 3 is the lowest
>possible for 2, right? Or would Base 2 make 2+2=12?
100 base 2 = 4 base 10,9,8,7,6,5
And it would be
10+10=100 in base 2.
Janosch Zwerensky
>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>
>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
It is quite trivial do show this for example in Peano Arithmetic (using the
usual notational conventions).
>No body on the planet earth!
Bodies don't argue much indeed.
>An alien from outer space may arrive with a level of mathematic that
>surpasses the math we know on earth, the new method of alien math may
>be so technologicaly advanced it prooves our math to be obsolete and
>in-effective.
The alien could well be able to teach us some truly neat tricks (it might be
able to give an elementary proof of Fermat's last theorem which is less than a
thousand pages of print or it might have a method of factoring large integers
in polynomial time on standard computers or...). But all of this wouldn't make
our mathematics "obsolete".
(There is a remote chance that it might be able to prove that the set theory
that underlies our mathematics is inconsistent --- but even that would probably
not do more than motivate mathematicians to build a new founding theory of
mathematics which would keep most of what results we have now).
>Every so often over the last thousands of years, baby human evolution
>among the geological time scale, scientific theory is prooved false.
Most of the time scientific theories are extended, not "disproved" in the usual
sense of the word.
As far as mathematics is concerned, I'd like to see a theorem which was once
accepted as proven by the mathematical community and to which later on
counterexamples were found.
Earth Wolf
Janosch Zwerensky wrote:
>
>As far as mathematics is concerned, I'd like to see a theorem which was once
>accepted as proven by the mathematical community and to which later on
>counterexamples were found.
>
Does this include situations where flaws have been found in published
proofs?
What about the original "proof" of the 4-colour theorem, published in
the 1870's (I believe) which was discredited about a decade later?
Of course, the 4CT was eventually proved correct by Appel and Haaken
(sp?) so I guess it doesn't fit your request.
A professor of mine at Queen's University, in Canada, once found a flaw
in a published proof, although again, he did not disprove the theorem,
just tossed it back into the "TBD" column. :-)
--
Earth Wolf
"Old statisticians never die; they just get broken down by age and sex."
webgiant
1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
Case in point:
1.4 is a large value of 1, since it rounds to 1.
1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8
2.8 rounds to 3.
Thus for large values of 1, 1 + 1 = 3.
galaxicon2000
> On 17 Apr 2002 21:30:48 GMT, Vedran Cacic <ve...@student.math.hr> wrote:
> > In article <81a3ecd3.02041...@posting.google.com> galaxi...@yahoo.com (galaxicon2000) writes:
> >>NOSPAM...@hotmail.com (Von Bailey) wrote in message news:<3cbc3c87...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> >>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:00:01 +0100, PMD
> >>> <pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >On 16 Apr 2002 01:37:16 -0700, neo_lib...@hotmail.com (David) was
> >>> >seen to type in talk.atheism:
> >>> >
> >>> >>Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>No body on the planet earth!
> >>> >
> >>> >But 2+2=11.
> >>> >
> >>> Actually it's 3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
> >>
> >>No, he was working in base 3, so 2+2 does equal 11
> >
> > OK: Actually, it's just 10.22222222222222222222... :-)
>
> 1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
there you go changing the subject!
we were talking about 2+2 :)
> Case in point:
>
> 1.4 is a large value of 1, since it rounds to 1.
>
> 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8
>
> 2.8 rounds to 3.
>
> Thus for large values of 1, 1 + 1 = 3.
Not really, since according to convention
floating point numbers which are rounded
should be written with a decimal point
but no following zero, like this:
1. + 1. = 3.
Xee
<neo_lib...@hotmail.com> said:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
--From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
You want to know about numbers? Check out Surreal Numbers, by John H.
Conway and some other people. These guys started with NOTHING and derived
almost all of number theory from it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=surreal+numbers
--
-Xee
Found my calling as a part time bowler
Traded my wife for a new three hole-er
-Moldy Peaches "We're not those kids"
apeiron
> Science, Math, and all other human study is subject and objective.
>
> who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>
> No body on the planet earth!
I just love deconstructionists!
"2+2=4" is not an argument. It is a symbolic representation for the
manipulation of quantity for the purpose of solving real world
problems. Sure, go ahead and make "2+2" equal anything you want, but
your new logic is unlikely to solve pressing problems of the day.
Geez...you'd think people would learn.
The Infinite
zobicus
>
> "2+2=4" is not an argument. It is a symbolic representation for the
> manipulation of quantity for the purpose of solving real world
> problems. Sure, go ahead and make "2+2" equal anything you want, but
> your new logic is unlikely to solve pressing problems of the day.
>
> Geez...you'd think people would learn.
>
> The Infinite
Well said! Logic, math, science; all tools. Just like the guy who
started this thread. Just kidding!
Xcott Craver
<neo_lib...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> who can argue 2 + 2 = 4 ?
>> No body on the planet earth!
I argue that 2+2=4. Whoa, hey, I'm levitating! HEELLLLLLLLP!!
>> An alien from outer space may arrive with a level of mathematic that
>> surpasses the math we know on earth, the new method of alien math
>> may be so technologicaly advanced it prooves our math to be obsolete
>> and in-effective.
And those aliens could point out to us, correctly, that
if we put two apples on a table, and then put another two
apples on the table, we won't have four apples!
This whole time, all throughout human history, we never
paid enough attention to realize that you actually get
five apples!
-X
GJ
selling the extra apple!
"Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
news:PM0003A11...@giantH.bellatlantic.net...
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
actually, you get a whole lot of applesauce :^)
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
proof: god hates Baptists and likes gays... http://morons.org/articles/3/359
-------------------------------
the illustrated bible:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/crazycrap/view.asp?ID=5403
-------------------------------
http://truthordare.dyndns.org/t-or-d
Now, here's a little game that a lot of us played before a certain
over-rated bleached-blonde singer ever got the idea.
It's simple. It's titillating. It's childish. It's perfect!
And now it's updated for the Net.
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them your a mile away, and you have their shoes.
marika
> Well, if I could make five apples out of two and two apples... I'd be rich
> selling the extra apple!
This is possible because, today I heard Kurt Vonnegut doing a radio
commercial for Applebes Restaurant
Andrei Prokopiw
Wolf" <aard...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Janosch Zwerensky wrote:
>
>>
>> As far as mathematics is concerned, I'd like to see a theorem which was once
>> accepted as proven by the mathematical community and to which later on
>> counterexamples were found.
>>
> Does this include situations where flaws have been found in published
> proofs?
>
> What about the original "proof" of the 4-colour theorem, published in
> the 1870's (I believe) which was discredited about a decade later?
>
> Of course, the 4CT was eventually proved correct by Appel and Haaken
> (sp?) so I guess it doesn't fit your request.
>
> A professor of mine at Queen's University, in Canada, once found a flaw
> in a published proof, although again, he did not disprove the theorem,
> just tossed it back into the "TBD" column. :-)
Even Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem had a gap initially. Although it
didn't really take too long for that gap to become evident and known, and
then successfully closed.
-AP