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

[Whaleboy]

Again, why should liberty be valued over a tolitarian control? You have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do! That would be forcing your morality on me.

Hence, we could only have the Mill Limit by a slow evolution and... wait for it... democracy God I hate admitting that.

http://www.geocities.com/ben_j_elijah/mill.htm

I cant be bothered to explain the benefits of libertarianism here, just read that. Thats a different matter though. The borgs view is as valid as mine, says my relativism.

[Whaleboy]

That is the inconsistency

But 1 is 1 is it not? How can something be and not?

[Kuciwalker]

Huh?

[Whaleboy]

But 1 is 1 is it not?s it not?

I'm sorry, I was mistaken!

x = 1
x^2 = x
x^2 - 1 = x - 1
(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 1
2 = 1
1 = 2

[Ned]

Originally posted by elijah
1 + 1 = 1

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Now who can tell me the flaw in that!!

Why is 0/0 = 0?

[Whaleboy]

Ned: Because that is just silly

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
1 + 1 = 1

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0

This is the discrepancy. If you are doing it in algebra, you cannot assume that (a-b)=0, and thus you cannot simply ignore the 0/0 and put 0 on the rhs. However if, as you stated earlier, that you are usuing numbers for a and b, then you must use the (1-1)(1+1)/(1-1)=0 form, in which the multiplication must be done first. This is because you cannot devide any number by 0, and to know that there was a 0 on the top to cancel with the 0 on the bottom, you would have to have worked out the top already. With algebra you can go (a-b)(a+b)/(a-b)=(a+b) but then you would have to presume that you are working with non designated letters, in which case the rhs would have to be shown as 0/(a-b). There are rules to prevent the misuse of maths like that (even if I explain them in such an awful way).

[Whaleboy]

Its flawed maths by the way ladies and gentlemen, except that when you change the rules of maths, but can still keep it consistent, then these "proofs" actually hold.

In the meantime, assuming "proper" maths, can anyone tell me where I went wrong in the proofs?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Its necessarily subjectivist, but it lends itself to, and is indeed far better when you account for pseudo-objectives. That is what my position is based on, indeed, most liberals I talk to have a similiar notion, albeit not as a discrete concept more of a disposition.

This makes no real sense. You get docked 10 points for being needlessly confusing.

[Kuciwalker]

Elijah - if it's internally consistent, it CANNOT claim things like 1 = 2. By definition, every single distinct number is only equal to itself.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
x = 1
x^2 = x
x^2 - 1 = x - 1
(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 1
2 = 1
1 = 2

Again, are you using algebra or numbers? If you are using x as x then you cannot presume that x^2=x. If you are using numbers then (1-1)(1+1)=x-1 is not equivilant to 1+1=1. You cannot persume that x can act as an x for some and act as a 1 for others. It is either an x or a 1, and where the two will give different answers, you must be consistant.

[Kuciwalker]

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

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Its flawed maths by the way ladies and gentlemen, except that when you change the rules of maths, but can still keep it consistent, then these "proofs" actually hold.

No they don't. You need to be consistant.

Originally posted by elijah
In the meantime, assuming "proper" maths, can anyone tell me where I went wrong in the proofs?

I have. You must be consistant, and use an x or a 1. In both you have presumed that the x is a 1, but then presumed that the x can act as an x on others.

[Kuciwalker]

Drogue - still wrong.

What he went wrong with is two things - division by zero and 1 = 2. Division by zero is undefined BECAUSE it results in internal inconsistancies when defined.

[Whaleboy]

Drogue: Well yes . The idea is that it is flawed maths, but could hold for another system. This logic is natural for this universe because of certain variables that are variable (funny that).

DD: Let me put it another way. Relativism is necessarily subjectivist, you cannot be absolutely relativist (cognetively particularly and an objectivist. You can of course still be a relativist to a reasonable degree, enough to be liberal, as is the case with the theologians, but you cant be "the ultimate relativist". I trust the irony of that term isn't lost on you.

Relativism however is naturally placed to accept the notion of pseudo-objectives. Indeed, it pretty much does but not discretely. I have a given context of two equally valid subjectives and an independent observer who has to decide between them. He does so, and thus becomes sided with that subjective, but his judgement is pseudo-objective and to him, his viewpoint and decision is objective. That is logical judgement. Illogical judgement is where one subjective forces itself onto the other without the involvement of the pseudo-objective. That is necessarily objectively illogical (from the independent observers point of view that is) because until he judges, both views are equally valid. Relativism is really a means of one subjective emulating pseudo-objectivity to empathise with others and realise the validity of other concepts for other contexts, while still maintaining the validity of your own, for your own.

As humans, we do relativism all the time as should be now clear.