100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Bullies and logic | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
________ JUST AN OPINION __________ * * * (Not meant for invoking any argument, just something to consider -- so NO RESPONSE NECESSARY!!!) IF ONE CANNOT STAMD THE HEAT, ONE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!! (... Rather than turning everybody's attention to the one's twisted & illogical point of view!)* * * Frankly, jasonpfaff, this is an Adult Network, and we can do without your constant adolescent bickering over being attacked, and HOW WE SHOULD CARRY OUT OUR ARGUMENTS... Your behavior is annoying in the least, and abusive in the most (which is a kind of an attack in itself). That constitutes the grounds for being expelled from the site... You seem to have a beef with everybody... I suggest you take it up with the moderators -- see what they woud say??? Otherwise, you leave us no choice but filing a complaint against you! (unless you adopt an adult attitude towards carrying out the conversation without the complaints!!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!! P.S. NO RESPONSE EXPECTED, thank you -- just consider a friendly adult advise... Thank you jane for your perspective. That is definatly not my intention (to attack any one), but if thats what you have observed, than clearly there is a delivery problem on my part. ill go through my arguments and clearify them as best as i can. thanks again.(this is what i mean by we can work through this stuff, wether your right or not, thats how your percieveing it and i should take every messure to make sure i typ what i mean, which clearly i havnt been doing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, jasonpfaff, this is an Adult Network, and we can do without your constant adolescent bickering over being attacked, and HOW WE SHOULD CARRY OUT OUR ARGUMENTS... lol. i really do mean this in the spirit of fun jane but damn gal, talk about bickering over being attacked. surely the comedy of your recent spat with me, the chauvenist attacker of women that i've never been, must give you at least a little chuckle. lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, looking back at my previous posts, i can see how i took some things out of context. i can not see how i have been rude or mean in anyway. ill becarful and make sure i ask questions and clearly understant to topic before i make any declarations.
jane, i dont know what to tell you, i wish we could get along because your perspective in this would be valueable to me. but i will continue, and if you report me, i dont think itl get anywhere, and if it does, well both be penalized. so lets just leave it at im sorry for any misunderstanding wev had and i hope we can get past it. wux, i screwed up and misrepresented what you said. (arithmatic/math) i shouldnt have assumed. i still belive any mathematics will have somekind of arithmatic, but i can see how i (accidently) changed a variable in your argument which affected it. i appologize  it would mean a great deal to me if we could finish this discussion. i undertand my posistion isnt conventional, but it does have grounds none the less. it just takes a little creativity to comprehend. but please try, for the sake of learning adleast. so, let me clarify and make sure were on the same page. im arguing that A something can exist and non exist at the same time B something can be illogical and still be true C logic and math are so simaler, theres ALMOST identicle. their relative and related. are we on the same page? thanks for everybodys patience, i hope we get somewhere |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topology and combinatorics are just two entire fields of mathematics that can be explored without involving any arithmetic at all. Wait, theirs not arithmetic at all in topology or combinatorics? Did you ever read what I wrote? Why would you ask a rhetorical question that has nothing to do with what I actually wrote? Notice the phrase 'can be explored'. What is the true essence of topology? Of combinatorics? Of geometry? Of actual algebra? Investigate those and you will find arithmetic to be incidental. combinatorics borrows may different formulas from other sciences including probability(there is most definitely arithmetic in physics) Integer partitions (studied by partition theory) calculus as well as arithmatic. I know notations for intervals are used in topology, and there is basic arithmetic involved in that process. All true, all presumably relevant to your point, and all irrelevant to my point of view. thats not to say they cant work without arithmatic, but only taken in a certain context can they work without arithmatic. Notice your language use - you say "can they work". It seems to me that you are approaching these fields from an 'applied' perspective. Regardless, the essence of topology and combinatorics has nothing to do with arithmetic. Algebra itself (actual algebra, not the algebra taught pre-university, nor the algebra used by engineers, etc) requires no arightmetic. Geometry requires no arithmetic. Using any of these fields for a real life problem... I find it hard to imagine doing so without arithmetic. to draw a conclusion from that certain context that topology or combinatorics have nothing to with arithamtic is questionable to me. Good. Question it. Learn more about what mathematics actually is. You said in an earlier post math can only go 4 directions. (add subtraxt multiply or divide) the rest is either a combo of those or symbols that represent something. which strongly suggests to me that you have little understanding of what mathematics really is. These operations have nothing to do with actual mathematics, and everything to do with 'that which is labelled math in the public school system'. As far as arithmetic being a tiny scale, that I respectfully disagree with. Based on the discussion so far, I think its unlikely you understood me, but you go on ahead and disagree with whatever you thought I meant. All math one way or the other comes down to reduction. It’s a crucial and necessary aspect of any science.  And this has what to do with arithmetic? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A something can exist and non exist at the same time My personal belief is that we simply do not understand what is really going on in those situations where this would appear to be true. B something can be illogical and still be true I've seen no examples of this. I have seen examples of people confusing 'logic' with 'common sense', and examples where people's logic was faulty, and examples where incorrect or insufficient information was involved. C logic and math are so simaler, theres ALMOST identicle. their relative and related. I see no value in claiming they are 'almost identical'. Logic applies to topology, topology uses logic, but beyond that the study of logic has little to do with the study of topology. These are different fields. I find that the quality/clarity of a persons thinking is almost always improved when they recognize and remember the differences between things, and the quality of their thinking almost always degrades when they want to blur things together, and ignore their distinctions. Unless one is deliberately and appropriately grouping by shared qualities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jasonpfaff
on
Fri 11/27/09 05:23 PM
|
|
Topology and combinatorics are just two entire fields of mathematics that can be explored without involving any arithmetic at all. Wait, theirs not arithmetic at all in topology or combinatorics? Did you ever read what I wrote? Why would you ask a rhetorical question that has nothing to do with what I actually wrote? Notice the phrase 'can be explored'. What is the true essence of topology? Of combinatorics? Of geometry? Of actual algebra? Investigate those and you will find arithmetic to be incidental. combinatorics borrows may different formulas from other sciences including probability(there is most definitely arithmetic in physics) Integer partitions (studied by partition theory) calculus as well as arithmatic. I know notations for intervals are used in topology, and there is basic arithmetic involved in that process. All true, all presumably relevant to your point, and all irrelevant to my point of view. thats not to say they cant work without arithmatic, but only taken in a certain context can they work without arithmatic. Notice your language use - you say "can they work". It seems to me that you are approaching these fields from an 'applied' perspective. Regardless, the essence of topology and combinatorics has nothing to do with arithmetic. Algebra itself (actual algebra, not the algebra taught pre-university, nor the algebra used by engineers, etc) requires no arightmetic. Geometry requires no arithmetic. Using any of these fields for a real life problem... I find it hard to imagine doing so without arithmetic. to draw a conclusion from that certain context that topology or combinatorics have nothing to with arithamtic is questionable to me. Good. Question it. Learn more about what mathematics actually is. You said in an earlier post math can only go 4 directions. (add subtraxt multiply or divide) the rest is either a combo of those or symbols that represent something. which strongly suggests to me that you have little understanding of what mathematics really is. These operations have nothing to do with actual mathematics, and everything to do with 'that which is labelled math in the public school system'. As far as arithmetic being a tiny scale, that I respectfully disagree with. Based on the discussion so far, I think its unlikely you understood me, but you go on ahead and disagree with whatever you thought I meant. All math one way or the other comes down to reduction. It’s a crucial and necessary aspect of any science. And this has what to do with arithmetic? ok...so prove me wrong. I DONT KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY THIS TO YOU OR EVERYONE ELSE. IV SAID IT MANY MANY TIMES. MY ARGUMENT, YOUR ARGUMENT, EVERYONES ARGUMENT IS BASED ON PERCEPTION. I FULLY REALIZE AND ACCEPT THAT MY PERCEPTION IS NOT YOURS, AND THAT I MAY BE MISSING SOMETHING OR NOT SEEING THE FULL PICTURE. I COULD VERY WELL BE WRONG! SO AGAIN, PLEASE, IF IM WRONG, TELL ME WHY. BACK IT UP. GIVE ME PROOF OR A THOUGHT PROCESS, SOMETHING. I WANT TO LEARN I WANT TO LEARN TEACH ME YOU SAY IM WRONG, YOU SAY I DONT UNDERSTAND SO MAKE ME UNDERSTAND IS THIS LOGIC? IF YOU DISAGREE, IF YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING ANOTHER WAY YOUR SOOOO ILLOGICAL THAT NO ONE WILL EVEN EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY? THATS LOGIC HUGH? IF SOCRATES COULD SEE US NOW, WHAT WOULD HE SAY. (YES I REALIZE I HAVE CAP LOCKS ON, IM EMPHASIZING) im at a loss... lets put it this way im wrong. lets say i agknowledge that. would you please tell me why? i know im wrong, hmmm but i dont know why cause no one will tell me. they dismiss my ideas becuse there not conventional. non conventional = wrong quantum physics is wrong quantum physics is unconventional (backwards on purpose) if i offend anyone, i appologize. sincerly was not my intention. ill drop it since no one is willing to play ball. good luck to you all ps, this is EXACTLY what i ws refering to in my OP. BULLYING pure and simple |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok...so prove me wrong. No. You can read. Go visit wikipedia and start reading about these fields of mathematics, and think about what you read. Besides, you haven't presented an argument that has anything to do with my claims - you've mentioned that arithmetic is often used by those studying combinatorics, and sometimes used by those studying topology. That has nothing to do with what combinatorics and topology essentially are. YOU SAY IM WRONG, YOU SAY I DONT UNDERSTAND SO MAKE ME UNDERSTAND I'm normally paid at least $20 an hour to do what you are asking. I will tutor you via voip/IM if you want it. As far as me writing up explanations on here, people much smarter, better educated, and more articulate than I have already written volumes (haha) out there on the intertubes for you to read. im wrong. lets say i agknowledge that. would you please tell me why? I think you'll go a lot farther with that approach - but regarding which claim, exactly? ps, this is EXACTLY what i ws refering to in my OP. BULLYING pure and simple Where is the bullying? Maybe you would benefit from taking some responsibility for the effect of your approach. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, my computer screen is going nuts with a bunch of different colors.
i could clarify or modify all of these arguments to meet your standards, but before i do, id like to know if we can figgure this out maturely and profesionally. (not to say any one is otherwise, i just need to make sure.) i realize i was being vauge about the 4 arguments i was making, but thats because i was making 4 arguments with out anyone arguing back (other than calling me illogical) until message s last post. ill do my best to stay on track, feel free to correct me if you think im out of line, or if im not seeing the bigger picture, or if im not interpreting you right. thats really all i can do, the rest is up to everyone else. im really inveted in this topic, and i dont have the oppertunity to converse with many intelligent people. im young (20 yr) and am by no means an expert of logic. iv read several book on the topic, and continue to research it, but i dont know everything so bear with me. i love science. (especially physics). according to physics perception (which is determined by past experiances, interpretation, culture and society) is only a perception, or a distinct way to viey and observe things. there are rulls in other dimensions and aspects of the universe that dont apply to us, but just beacuse they dont, does not by any means prove that its false. (again, quantum mechanics clearly proves that things can exist and not exist at the same time. will explain later when i make my argument) with all that said, (and in otherwords) wether i like it or not, i suspect my observations, my arguments and my logic could easily become biased. we see what we want to see right. thats the whole reason for this discussion (on my part) i want to test my ideas through you guys so i have some sort of scientific control. the last thing i want is to become so focused on one aspect of something that i fil to see everything else. if you think im already there please help me get out. so, can we move on? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok...so prove me wrong. No. You can read. Go visit wikipedia and start reading about these fields of mathematics, and think about what you read. Besides, you haven't presented an argument that has anything to do with my claims - you've mentioned that arithmetic is often used by those studying combinatorics, and sometimes used by those studying topology. That has nothing to do with what combinatorics and topology essentially are. YOU SAY IM WRONG, YOU SAY I DONT UNDERSTAND SO MAKE ME UNDERSTAND I'm normally paid at least $20 an hour to do what you are asking. I will tutor you via voip/IM if you want it. As far as me writing up explanations on here, people much smarter, better educated, and more articulate than I have already written volumes (haha) out there on the intertubes for you to read. im wrong. lets say i agknowledge that. would you please tell me why? I think you'll go a lot farther with that approach - but regarding which claim, exactly? ps, this is EXACTLY what i ws refering to in my OP. BULLYING pure and simple Where is the bullying? Maybe you would benefit from taking some responsibility for the effect of your approach. i have over and over. message, you have clearly shown me that you know your stuff when it comes to logic. your right? what could a 20 year old kid know that you couldnt? i had good intentions, but regaurdless they were wrong, and now i am paying for that wrongness. you say they were wrong, and you are experianced and wise, so they must be wrong. i tried to comprimise, dropped my pride, disreagaurded my ego, and tried to be objective. but you still say i am wrong, and you are wise... and knowledgable i asked you to back up your claim!, i expected you to follow a distinct rule in logic, the logic that you know so much about and have so much experiance, the staement is yours, therefore the burden of proof is on you. but you refused. you refused, told me to look it up, broke that rule. but you are wise, experienced and knowledgable, so you must be justified in doing so. i reiterated over and over again that i would like help in developing or if need be modifying or trashing these ideas, but again, you refused. and you are knowledgable and wise and experianced, so you must be right. i think... i finally understand your "logic" thank you for helping me see the truth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought you said you wanted to approach this maturely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought you said you wanted to approach this maturely. yes ma am i did, but in this context an approuch takes two. apperantly thats not going to happen. but thats ok, no hard feeligs. i wont hold this against you at all. quantum theory is not for everybody. and diversity is essential to growth (i believe) if you would ever like to discuss it, id be honored, otherwise, no big deal. i know im not wrong. i know your not wrong. i know we each have a part that makes up the whole. ill just have to find someone else to discover how that concept works. good night, and thank you for your input on the math. (you did get me thinking about it, and i can see where your coming from) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Fri 11/27/09 09:12 PM
|
|
Frankly, jasonpfaff, this is an Adult Network, and we can do without your constant adolescent bickering over being attacked, and HOW WE SHOULD CARRY OUT OUR ARGUMENTS... jrborgie lol. i really do mean this in the spirit of fun jane but damn gal, talk about bickering over being attacked. surely the comedy of your recent spat with me, the chauvenist attacker of women that i've never been, must give you at least a little chuckle. lol. --- Yeah, I almost feel ashamed of myself - although I had a concrete reason for being upset with you (while he's upset with almost everybody...) Anyways, what's done is done -- the hutchets are burried... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 11/27/09 09:18 PM
|
|
I realize I’ve jumped in at the middle but I think if I begin with the following I might catch up.
JasonP wrote: im arguing that A something can exist and non exist at the same time B something can be illogical and still be true C logic and math are so simaler, theres ALMOST identicle. their relative and related. A bird can fly and in so doing defied all logic – until somewhat recently (in terms of humanity). Yet we don’t need math to explain and understand how a bird can fly. Although we can apply mathematical expression to the phenomena. Mathematics developed as measuring tool. Each number represented a specific set of something without ever having to describe the something being counted. People often make the mistake of confusing Mathematics, as described above, with the way modern mathematical notation is applied to scientific research. The applied version of mathematics is actually a strict and formal language. The notation used (signs, letters, ideograms) in combination with numbers are both qualitative and quantitative. They represent descriptions of and predictions for very abstract ideas and concepts. This language continues to evolve as new fields of science develop. These scientific fields often need new “descriptive” characters that can be applied to “purely mathematical” equations and previously used scientific notation in unique ways. I know I’m being rudimentary with my explanation but, like you, I’m still at the beginner level. So I thought, maybe, another beginner could better explain why your thoughts regarding “MATH” are finding so much opposition. Science actually deals very little with math and as Massage and Wux have tried to explain – math is not the logic which is used to back up the science you have been relating too, but rather it is the application of ‘equations’ in combination with descriptive features of (scientific languate) that is being used in support of the scientific research being done today. I hope this helps – and I also hope that others more knowledgable than me will correct my errors so that I TOO might learn. EDIT: I forgot one thing - look up some real scientific equations. If you know what the various signs, letter, and idiograms really mean you might gain a better perspective with my explanation. The end results of these 'equations' is not a number describing a set of something - it is actually representitive of an abstract concept. I think this is the reason why this method cannot be equated with the same kind of absolutes we equated pure math to. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 11/27/09 09:46 PM
|
|
ok, so you think its impossible for something to exist and not exist at the same time? Have you ever heard of quantum physics? Heisenberg uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics.... again, when you attempt to define something and call it absolute, you place rigid parameters around yourself, you trap your self. logic is not absolute. something can be illogical and still be true (unless your ready to rewrite quantum physics) Do you have any specific references that will attest to the “validity” of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Have any analogies held up under test-retest situations? Do these analogies have possible applications outside QM? in 300 AD the thought of a phone was illogical. perception and observation are crucial to logic. as soon as you observe something you influence the physical process taking place Chaos theory in other words. Variables variables variables. So in the analogy you have presented can we assume that 15 people viewing the same car accident from various and some similar locations have actually altered the event? Are you suggesting that the descrepancies between the reports of these 15 people are based on subjective observation influence? anyways, logic can not exist in our reality (i hesitate to use that word exist) with out perception and observation. I agree with perception in one regard. Another person can describe a thing, an event, a proposition and I can construct an abstract overview of what was described and that will be my perception, though I have never observed what might have been described. From there logic can be applied. No one ever viewed sound waves before there was logical conclusion that they existed. In fact until some very modern equipment we had no idea that sound waves could be viewed in color – we don’t even have to hear them. according to superstring theory, there ar 10 + 1 dimensions, each with its own set of rules. so...can you exist and not exsist? yes, according to quantum you can. can something be illogicl and true? yes, quantum physics is You take the hypothesis and the analogies too far. From some subatomic particle to the complexity of wholly formed and integrated functional system (bug, plant, animal, human, planets). You have an appetite for knowledge and before too long you too may join the ranks of some very notable scientists who really loved to write science fiction novels. But you really have to learn the difference between fact and fiction in order to make your stories seem like futuristic possibilities. i appritiate your side, i really do. but quantum physics clearly opposes logic as we know it, its definatly not impossible. It is most definitely a scientific field of intrigue and it holds some thought provoking possibilities but at the moment there is way too much speculation about the information that is being disseminated. History has held many such intrigues in the past and today we can hardly imagine a time when people did not know or understand what we take for granted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize I’ve jumped in at the middle but I think if I begin with the following I might catch up. JasonP wrote: im arguing that A something can exist and non exist at the same time B something can be illogical and still be true C logic and math are so simaler, theres ALMOST identicle. their relative and related. A bird can fly and in so doing defied all logic – until somewhat recently (in terms of humanity). Yet we don’t need math to explain and understand how a bird can fly. Although we can apply mathematical expression to the phenomena. Mathematics developed as measuring tool. Each number represented a specific set of something without ever having to describe the something being counted. People often make the mistake of confusing Mathematics, as described above, with the way modern mathematical notation is applied to scientific research. The applied version of mathematics is actually a strict and formal language. The notation used (signs, letters, ideograms) in combination with numbers are both qualitative and quantitative. They represent descriptions of and predictions for very abstract ideas and concepts. This language continues to evolve as new fields of science develop. These scientific fields often need new “descriptive” characters that can be applied to “purely mathematical” equations and previously used scientific notation in unique ways. I know I’m being rudimentary with my explanation but, like you, I’m still at the beginner level. So I thought, maybe, another beginner could better explain why your thoughts regarding “MATH” are finding so much opposition. Science actually deals very little with math and as Massage and Wux have tried to explain – math is not the logic which is used to back up the science you have been relating too, but rather it is the application of ‘equations’ in combination with descriptive features of (scientific languate) that is being used in support of the scientific research being done today. I hope this helps – and I also hope that others more knowledgable than me will correct my errors so that I TOO might learn. EDIT: I forgot one thing - look up some real scientific equations. If you know what the various signs, letter, and idiograms really mean you might gain a better perspective with my explanation. The end results of these 'equations' is not a number describing a set of something - it is actually representitive of an abstract concept. I think this is the reason why this method cannot be equated with the same kind of absolutes we equated pure math to. Does that make sense? ya know it actuly does. although i disagree with math having a little part of science. ...wait, no i can accept that if we accept that it may be little but it is distinct and fundemental. i was under the impression they were saying it had nothing to do with logic. ok, i have one question (honest intentions, no sarcasm) how are we defining logic here? Ill think about it and respond when im not hungover and i feel life is worth living again. (God bless GJ!  ) thanks ps i dont know if i could write a book, i like QM because its a new frontier with so many answers to be found, a frontier that will always be a frontier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can something can be illogical and still be true ... its called PARADOX!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can something can be illogical and still be true ... its called PARADOX!!! yeah...it is. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can something be illogical and still be true ... its called PARADOX!!! yeah...it is. Although not as frequent as other phenomena, but science is full of Paradoxes -- no logical explanation... (yet!) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can something be illogical and still be true ... its called PARADOX!!! yeah...it is. Although not as frequent as other phenomena, but science is full of Paradoxes -- no logical explanation... (yet!) Definatly, i agree. I would continue but im having severe issues with my comp screen. Im going Dell next time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the question is why am I responding to this? Even though the OP was a statement, I feel that there is room for improvement in everyone's thought process. Not to appear supperior or belittle anyone's logic, but to open the minds of people to see beyond what they believe to be logical. a) 1+1 DOES equal 2. (esp. with Jason's clarification) But,.... b) 1+1 DOES equal 3. and,.... c) 1+1 DOES equal 4. and,.... d) 1+1 DOES equal 11. If you can see the logic of these statements, please respond with the explanation. I guess I'll explain the "logic" in my statements now. a) 1+1=2 Using absolute math, this is correct. b) 1+1=3 In binary, 00000011 is equivelant to the numeral "3". c) 1+1=4 Using a cypher where the absolute value of a number is derived by the absolute value of a number minus the absolute value of 2. (in essence, 3+3=6 equates to 1+1=4) d) 1+1=11 Two "1's" placed side by side makes the numeral 11. And no, I didn't do this to appear "supperior", I probrably should have been considered nutz. I was hoping that someone else would have posted the answer but the thread pretty much died when jason's PC died. |
|
|
|
|
