Proof

[WillTalbot]

Re: Proof

Haha.

In 8th grade algebra and they think they can understand calculus.

As for what's going on there: are you doing math with binary and hexadecimal or what? That would be dumb.

Yeah I know it's pretty hard, I actualy read calc lessons online its confusing as heck! Some of the more simple problems i got though

[spyke252]

Re: Proof

Nevermind. I sat down with a math major from another forum I frequent and found the mistake: You can't multiply the two summations of the series to get the other series.

EDIT: Nothing to do with my bases problem, afro.

[this_n00b_rocks]

Re: Proof

I'm not sure if anyone posted this, but it's a lot easier to disprove something, and really hard to prove it.

2+2=4
DISprove it.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proof

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

[studmuffin51306]

Re: Proof

I'm not sure if anyone posted this, but it's a lot easier to disprove something, and really hard to prove it.

2+2=4
DISprove it.

2 = 1.5
3 = 3
4 = 4
2+2 = 3

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

To make it something really easy to grasp, imagine blowing up a balloon. No matter how long, how hard you blow into the balloon (assuming it doesn't pop XD), you can always measure the amount of space inside the balloon as a finite number.

True, if you can define our universe as a seperate thing from space itself, then yes, it is finite. But the fact is, we haven't seen other universes, so as far as we know, it could stretch as far as space itself. So then you get into the "so what's beyond that?" argument.

[ddrdanc3r55]

Re: Proof

And then you have the paradox of something infinitely small not existing at all.

so, uhh

this would mean that the difference between .9... and 1 would be infinitely small, which would mean there is no difference between the two, right?

[Shashakiro]

Re: Proof

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

Not really. All you need in order to disprove something is to find an instance in which it is not true.

I can easily disprove the statement "All fish are green" by finding a single fish that is not green. But in order to prove the statement, I would have to find every single fish in existence and verify that all of them are green, which is essentially impossible, since you have no way of knowing whether you missed a fish somewhere.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proof

Define "green" objectively.

[Sir_Thomas]

Re: Proof

Please dont do this or I will end up saying something that will get me yet another two week ban. Some kid went on a tangent with the same "HOW DO WE KNOW GRASS IS GREEN" type arguement. Its a stupid angle to play so please stop befiheroihasoi.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proof

Seriously, how do we know that grass is green and that it's not a mass hallucination that makes grass appear green?

Also, there is no such thing as green anyway. What we know as green is just our mind interpretting information received from our eyes.

[The_Q]

Re: Proof

Green is a certain wavelength of light. It is a name for a color that appears when that wavelength is bounced off of a surface.

Welcome to science.

Q

[poopyfacemandoom]

Re: Proof

Ok note Sir_Thomas is at my house so we are on the same computer so please dont ban him for what im going to say,ban me. HOW TO PROVE SOMETHING IS REAL CAN YOU TOUCH IT AND SEE IT? YES ITS REAL. GODDAMN YA RETARD AND GREEN IS A COLOR PLEASE DONT SIT HERE SMOKE POT THEN GO "MAN GREEN IS NOW RED MAN" ITS RETARDED LIKE YOU!!!!!! ALSO DEFINE "PENIS" IS A "PENIS" REAL?YES,THATS A EXAMPLE OF HOW DUMB YOU ARE. PLEASE SAVE ME AND ANYONE WITH A BRAIN THE TROUBLE AND KILL YOURSLEF NOW. AND ONE FINAL THING

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

[Afrobean]

Re: Proof

Green is a certain wavelength of light. It is a name for a color that appears when that wavelength is bounced off of a surface.

Welcome to science.

Q

Reality is built entirely on human perceptions and human based definitions.

Welcome to philosophy.

Afrobean

[poopyfacemandoom]

Re: Proof

Seriously, how do we know that grass is green and that it's not a mass hallucination that makes grass appear green?

Also, there is no such thing as green anyway. What we know as green is just our mind interpretting information received from our eyes.

Posting as Sir_Thomas TOO LAZY TO SWITCH


If we see the color green due to a mass halucination, the grass is still green, and is still defined as green. Now the definition would change a bit, what the definition is defining wouldnt.

Instead of it being defined as green due to how the retina recieves the light it would be "GRASS IS GREEN DUE TO HALUCINATIONS HUR HUR'. But the grass would still be green non teh less. The how changes just not the what.

[Reach]

Re: Proof

so, uhh

this would mean that the difference between .9... and 1 would be infinitely small, which would mean there is no difference between the two, right?

Correct !!!


And uh yea, noone takes seriously unpractical proofs and philosophical nonsense . They're ok for debate, but it'll never mean anything. Science is practical, science has gotten us places. Obviously there is practical face value to using scientific method as your proof as far as the human race is concerned.