Proof

[spyke252]

Re: Proof

the only reason why you wouldn't disprove it is because assigning numbers different values goes outside of what is generally accepted in math.

Assigning numbers different values means that you have to change the proof you are disproving as well. What you do to one part of any equation, you ust do the same to the other part. Luckily, you gave a total of three numbers values, so it is possible to solve.

Meaning, if you say 2 is a variable that gets the value of 1.5, then your proof would change to 3/2 + 3/2 = 4. This isnt the only way to say it, but it would be true. And as you can see, that would be impossible to disprove, without changing the numbers again.

However, Assigning numbers different values is a complex situation. It's not generally thought of because it isn't a good thinking style.

EDITS:
1) Could someone inform me of how we know that everyone's brain interprets the color green the same way?
2) Could someone please not call us "Goddamned retards" when they type like a five year old in a critical thinking forum?
Thanks, spyke

[studmuffin51306]

Re: Proof

FFR IS GAY YOU DUMBASS GO PLAY DDR WHICH IS STILL GAY.

Why are you even on here?

[this_n00b_rocks]

Re: Proof

Assigning numbers different values means that you have to change the proof you are disproving as well. What you do to one part of any equation, you ust do the same to the other part. Luckily, you gave a total of three numbers values, so it is possible to solve.

Meaning, if you say 2 is a variable that gets the value of 1.5, then your proof would change to 3/2 + 3/2 = 4. This isnt the only way to say it, but it would be true. And as you can see, that would be impossible to disprove, without changing the numbers again.

However, Assigning numbers different values is a complex situation. It's not generally thought of because it isn't a good thinking style.

If the numbers were defined as variables, then they wouldn't be qualified as numbers.

[Fox tails]

Re: Proof

For the same reason that it's impossible to objectively prove something, it's also impossible to objectively disprove something.

So, what Afrobean is trying to say is that what we as people know as green could actually be known to the universe as... muave or some other color? In other words, we can't define green because green may not be universally known as green.

[Gray Fox]

Re: Proof

So, what Afrobean is trying to say is that what we as people know as green could actually be known to the universe as... muave or some other color? In other words, we can't define green because green may not be universally known as green.

Something like that I suppose.