Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by skywalker
    x^2 does equal x when x is 1 or 0

    You can interchange x and 1 if x = 1

    He's wrong, but your reasons that he is wrong are also wrong
    Yes it does, but then it must hold for both.

    (x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
    x + 1 = 1

    Does not hold when x is replaced with 1.

    I can't explain it right, but the answer is consistancy. There are built in logic in maths that menas that 1 cannot equal 2, because it would involve inconsistency. It's too late for me to work it out, and I can't remember the lecture on it, but I do remember it was consistancy that means his proof does not hold water.
    Smile
    For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
    But he would think of something

    "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker

    Comment


    • Yes, relativism in moderation makes sense. Where moderation lies is another discussion...

      My point was that relativism in the absolute sense was untrue, because there ARE absolute truths.

      Comment


      • (x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
        x + 1 = 1

        Drogue: Put simply, you cant divide both sides by (x - 1).

        Elijah - if it's internally consistent, it CANNOT claim things like 1 = 2. By definition, every single distinct number is only equal to itself.
        Only for this universe, or rather better put, this plane of perception. Dont get me into metaphysics. Thats the beauty of consistent world views . Its like philosophical postmodernism.. it really is everything!

        He's wrong, but your reasons that he is wrong are also wrong
        The difference is that I'm deliberately wrong! We spend ages in GCSE maths trying to come up with flawed proofs for absurd conclusions!

        No they don't. You need to be consistant.
        Spelling Nazi is still sleeping. By definition, you change the rules of logic, you get different conclusions and a different consistency.
        "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
        "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Drogue

          Yes it does, but then it must hold for both.

          (x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
          x + 1 = 1

          Does not hold when x is replaced with 1.

          I can't explain it right, but the answer is consistancy. There are built in logic in maths that menas that 1 cannot equal 2, because it would involve inconsistency. It's too late for me to work it out, and I can't remember the lecture on it, but I do remember it was consistancy that means his proof does not hold water.
          It does hold given the (false) premise that 1 + 1 = 1. He just left out a step. (x-1)(x+1) = (x-1)*1 = x-1

          I know 1 != 2. That is a fundamental truth, a way of expressing the fundamental truth "What is, is". However, your arguments against his math are incorrect. His math is incorrect, just not where you are criticizing it (though your ultimate criticism is correct, 1 != 2).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by elijah
            Only for this universe, or rather better put, this plane of perception. Dont get me into metaphysics. Thats the beauty of consistent world views . Its like philosophical postmodernism.. it really is everything!


            THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSE where the statement "what is, is" is untrue. Thus, THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSE where the statement "1 = 2" is true.

            The difference is that I'm deliberately wrong! We spend ages in GCSE maths trying to come up with flawed proofs for absurd conclusions!


            The "you" in that was referring to Drogue.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by elijah
              (x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
              x + 1 = 1

              Drogue: Put simply, you cant divide both sides by (x - 1).
              You could if you hadn't written x=1 at the top, which was my (badly put) point.

              Originally posted by skywalker
              It does hold given the (false) premise that 1 + 1 = 1. He just left out a step. (x-1)(x+1) = (x-1)*1 = x-1

              I know 1 != 2. That is a fundamental truth, a way of expressing the fundamental truth "What is, is". However, your arguments against his math are incorrect. His math is incorrect, just not where you are criticizing it (though your ultimate criticism is correct, 1 != 2).
              I know you know that, and I know your position. WHat I said was true, which is why you cannot do the /0. I didn't explain it well though, sicne it's late, and I never explain maths, I just do it. However it is inconsistency, in that without the x=1 at the top, the math would hold.
              Smile
              For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
              But he would think of something

              "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker

              Comment


              • Yes, relativism in moderation makes sense. Where moderation lies is another discussion...

                My point was that relativism in the absolute sense was untrue, because there ARE absolute truths.
                Absolute implies absolutely n-dimensionally infinite. Infinite means beyond 4-dimensions, as our infinities are finite in 5+ dimensions. You are making the classic mistake of assuming that we are merely dealing with this universe.

                That simply doesn't hold in cosmological terms. Already, our universe is insufficient. Put simply, there are no absolute truths, even that notion that there are none is false for other universes, but then they are subjective and the circle continues.

                As such, all we are left with, instead of x (set number) dimensions, is n.

                ITS FLAWED MATHS PEOPLE!!! You don't honestly think I'd seriously try to prove that 1+1=1??
                "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
                "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

                Comment


                • Originally posted by elijah
                  (x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
                  x + 1 = 1

                  Drogue: Put simply, you cant divide both sides by (x - 1).

                  We spent ages in GCSE maths trying to come up with flawed proofs for absurd conclusions!
                  'poly madness!!!
                  "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
                  "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

                  Comment


                  • Absolute implies absolutely n-dimensionally infinite. Infinite means beyond 4-dimensions, as our infinities are finite in 5+ dimensions. You are making the classic mistake of assuming that we are merely dealing with this universe.


                    wtf?

                    Just dealing with "our universe"? By definition, there is only one universe, because the universe is defined as the set of all that exists.

                    Laws of logic are inherently true, because truth is defined through logic and therefore there is no conception of truth without logic.

                    Comment


                    • Just dealing with "our universe"?
                      Let me rephrase. You are dealing with the region for which 4-dimensional time applies, is 14 billion years old and directly affected by the big bang.

                      The "laws of logic" only hold for this universe, and not even all of it!! Ever been to a black hole? 5-d in 4-d.
                      "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
                      "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

                      Comment


                      • THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSE where the statement "what is, is" is untrue. Thus, THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSE where the statement "1 = 2" is true.
                        Why not? Because the laws of this "universe" (see above definition) say so?

                        You wouldn't get very far in metaphysics or cosmology with that attitude .
                        "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
                        "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

                        Comment


                        • Black holes are not five dimensional... where'd you get an idea like that? Unless the universe itself is five-dimensional...

                          If you are using "universe" to refer to our spacetime, it still doesn't work. The physical laws of the universe must be uniform. Communication between areas with different physical laws would be impossible, and thus we could not detect their existance, and therefore they do not exist.

                          Logic is inherently true, because truth is defined through logic.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by elijah


                            Why not? Because the laws of this "universe" (see above definition) say so?

                            You wouldn't get very far in metaphysics or cosmology with that attitude .
                            "what is, is not" is internally inconsistant

                            Comment


                            • Why do threads involving me always turn into debates about metaphysics and or cosmology? *elijah ignores the perpetual fascination he has had with space -> astronomy -> astrophysics -> cosmology -> eurotrash for the past 16 years*
                              "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
                              "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

                              Comment


                              • Because you always talk about relativism?

                                Comment

                                Working...