Well, everything does relate to mathematics in some way. I don't like saying something is a fact, because nothing can ever be 100% proven. And facts are considered 100% true by most people.
Based on a certain system of Axioms, mathematical stuff CAN be 100% proven and IS 100% proven.
So you're saying my handphone is on my desk, is 7 cm from the left, 9 cm from the bottom from the bottom-left corner at 10:58 PM isn't a 100% proven fact? Stop using absolutees, because thats what makes you a horrid debater, and a biggest failure with 'absolutes' is that simply using them is a fallacy in most cases.
Are you REALLY sure that what you said about your handphone is true? You PERCIEVED it to be there. But WHO guarantees that what you percieve is really as it seems? The simplest things to name here are optical illusions. Theoretically one could even manipulate your brain in a way that you think that your handphone is where you said. Not that I have ever heard of a machine that is able of such, but maybe we're all mind controlled? You can't prove the opposite.
None.
Just because you can't prove you are correctly perceiving your phone, does not mean it is reasonable to act on the assumption of incorrect perception. Judging and acting on incomplete information is just a part of life.
None.
As far as my concious is aware, my computer desk is ruled with metric rulers for some reason unknown from purchase. I did not perceive as just being there by that.
Theoretically one could even manipulate your brain in a way that you think that your handphone is where you said. Not that I have ever heard of a machine that is able of such, but maybe we're all mind controlled? You can't prove the opposite.
In debate, we also have Occam's Razor to cut out useless, supernatural, unexplained, unattainable at our current level of technology. It often wins debates on proof too.
In layman's terms "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one."
As far as those laws go, I did prove 100% that my handphone is on my desk, is 7 cm from the left, 9 cm from the bottom from the bottom-left corner at 10:58 PM. And as my desk, I only have one desk that belongs to me. I just proved too much 100%, accurately.
None.
As far as those laws go, I did prove 100% that my handphone is on my desk, is 7 cm from the left, 9 cm from the bottom from the bottom-left corner at 10:58 PM. And as my desk, I only have one desk that belongs to me. I just proved too much 100%, accurately.
Who decides on what a cm is?
Because personally I think it is 100 cm from the left and 2834 cm from the bottom. At 23:02 as well.
None.
Who decides on what a cm is?
Because personally I think it is 100 cm from the left and 2834 cm from the bottom. At 23:02 as well.
Humans do. Every nation in the world except the U.S. and Canada uses the metric system, its length measures are called meters. or m for abbreviation. 100 cm is a meter. a Centi- is a prefix for 1/100. a Milli is 1/1000. Humans have created it for the use of measuring time and length to their standards.
None.
Well, everything does relate to mathematics in some way. I don't like saying something is a fact, because nothing can ever be 100% proven. And facts are considered 100% true by most people.
Based on a certain system of Axioms, mathematical stuff CAN be 100% proven and IS 100% proven.
So you're saying my handphone is on my desk, is 7 cm from the left, 9 cm from the bottom from the bottom-left corner at 10:58 PM isn't a 100% proven fact? Stop using absolutees, because thats what makes you a horrid debater, and a biggest failure with 'absolutes' is that simply using them is a fallacy in most cases.
Are you REALLY sure that what you said about your handphone is true? You PERCIEVED it to be there. But WHO guarantees that what you percieve is really as it seems? The simplest things to name here are optical illusions. Theoretically one could even manipulate your brain in a way that you think that your handphone is where you said. Not that I have ever heard of a machine that is able of such, but maybe we're all mind controlled? You can't prove the opposite.
He perceived it there with sight. Since he can perceive it there with multiple other means (touch, outside confirmation, etc.) he can indeed really be sure.
You can't prove the same, so it's a moot point to argue it.
Who decides on what a cm is?
Because personally I think it is 100 cm from the left and 2834 cm from the bottom. At 23:02 as well.
Humans do. Every nation in the world except the U.S. and Canada uses the metric system, its length measures are called meters. or m for abbreviation. 100 cm is a meter. a Centi- is a prefix for 1/100. a Milli is 1/1000. Humans have created it for the use of measuring time and length to their standards.
Canada uses the metric system, the base unit of metric length is metres, and it's length maintained by the SI & GCPM as the distance travelled by light in vacuum within of 1/299,792,458th of a second.
The things you people are trying to argue about aren't religion, or government policy. They're hard scientific facts. You can't win by providing your case and backing it up until your opponent submits. Someone is always going to be wrong, and someone else is always going to be right.
None.
Well, everything does relate to mathematics in some way. I don't like saying something is a fact, because nothing can ever be 100% proven. And facts are considered 100% true by most people.
Based on a certain system of Axioms, mathematical stuff CAN be 100% proven and IS 100% proven.
So you're saying my handphone is on my desk, is 7 cm from the left, 9 cm from the bottom from the bottom-left corner at 10:58 PM isn't a 100% proven fact? Stop using absolutees, because thats what makes you a horrid debater, and a biggest failure with 'absolutes' is that simply using them is a fallacy in most cases.
Are you REALLY sure that what you said about your handphone is true? You PERCIEVED it to be there. But WHO guarantees that what you percieve is really as it seems? The simplest things to name here are optical illusions. Theoretically one could even manipulate your brain in a way that you think that your handphone is where you said. Not that I have ever heard of a machine that is able of such, but maybe we're all mind controlled? You can't prove the opposite.
He perceived it there with sight. Since he can perceive it there with multiple other means (touch, outside confirmation, etc.) he can indeed really be sure.
You can't prove the same, so it's a moot point to argue it.
Who decides on what a cm is?
Because personally I think it is 100 cm from the left and 2834 cm from the bottom. At 23:02 as well.
Humans do. Every nation in the world except the U.S. and Canada uses the metric system, its length measures are called meters. or m for abbreviation. 100 cm is a meter. a Centi- is a prefix for 1/100. a Milli is 1/1000. Humans have created it for the use of measuring time and length to their standards.
Canada uses the metric system, the base unit of metric length is metres, and it's length maintained by the SI & GCPM as the distance travelled by light in vacuum within of 1/299,792,458th of a second.
The things you people are trying to argue about aren't religion, or government policy. They're hard scientific facts. You can't win by providing your case and backing it up until your opponent submits. Someone is always going to be wrong, and someone else is always going to be right.
From reading this topic, Syphon's just repeating whatever's been said already. So why you're posting these things is quite hard to imagine.
None.
The human race doesn't have the ability to give something a name. We can label it so, but it doesn't make it so that the existence of it is.
None.
The human race doesn't have the ability to give something a name. We can label it so, but it doesn't make it so that the existence of it is.
What is a name, but the association of an abstract with an object in our model of reality? The association is what matters, the nature of the object does not. I can definitely give something a name, in fact, I hearby name you Puffalump.
None.
Just because you can't prove you are correctly perceiving your phone, does not mean it is reasonable to act on the assumption of incorrect perception. Judging and acting on incomplete information is just a part of life.
Judging != Proving.
As far as my concious is aware, my computer desk is ruled with metric rulers for some reason unknown from purchase. I did not perceive as just being there by that.
Theoretically one could even manipulate your brain in a way that you think that your handphone is where you said. Not that I have ever heard of a machine that is able of such, but maybe we're all mind controlled? You can't prove the opposite.
In debate, we also have Occam's Razor to cut out useless, supernatural, unexplained, unattainable at our current level of technology. It often wins debates on proof too.
In layman's terms "All things being equal, the simplest solution
tends to be the right one."
As far as those laws go, I did prove 100% that my handphone is on my desk, is 7 cm from the left, 9 cm from the bottom from the bottom-left corner at 10:58 PM. And as my desk, I only have one desk that belongs to me. I just proved too much 100%, accurately.
Nothing you said there is a proof. One can prove that 1 + 1 = 2 in Mathematics. But Occam's razor does not prove anything. Pay attention to the "tends".
None.
What is a name, but the association of an abstract with an object in our model of reality? The association is what matters, the nature of the object does not. I can definitely give something a name, in fact, I hearby name you Puffalump.
You associate that name with me, which would then say that the name refers to I, but the I do not refer to the name.
Theres a flaw, or phenomenon in mathematics:
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
a + b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
None.
What is a name, but the association of an abstract with an object in our model of reality? The association is what matters, the nature of the object does not. I can definitely give something a name, in fact, I hearby name you Puffalump.
You associate that name with me, which would then say that the name refers to I, but the I do not refer to the name. Theres a flaw, or phenomenon in mathematics: a = b a^2 = ab a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2 (a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b) a + b = b 2b = b 2 = 1
That is well known from mathematicians and you should know it's untrue :
To pass from : (a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
To : a + b = b
You need to divide by (a - b) and at start, you stated that a = b, so you did a division by 0...
Something true like this is that 0,999 = 1 :
x=0,999
10x=9,999
9x=9
x=1
None.
What is a name, but the association of an abstract with an object in our model of reality? The association is what matters, the nature of the object does not. I can definitely give something a name, in fact, I hearby name you Puffalump.
You associate that name with me, which would then say that the name refers to I, but the I do not refer to the name.
Theres a flaw, or phenomenon in mathematics:
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
a + b = b2b = b
2 = 1
you are dividing zero
by zero, this is an indeterminate form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form
None.
What is a name, but the association of an abstract with an object in our model of reality? The association is what matters, the nature of the object does not. I can definitely give something a name, in fact, I hearby name you Puffalump.
You associate that name with me, which would then say that the name refers to I, but the I do not refer to the name.
Theres a flaw, or phenomenon in mathematics:
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
a + b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
Stop bastardising maths.
a = b
a^2 = ab
0 = 0
0(a + b) = 0b
0 = 0
0 = 0
0 = 0
He can call you whatever he wants, it just doesn't make it part of English.
None.
You associate that name with me, which would then say that the name refers to I, but the I do not refer to the name.
Theres a flaw, or phenomenon in mathematics:
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
a + b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
Can we all say akars been watching too much movies?
Or how he relates us that we cannot give any forms of name?
I just can't stop to say but, Akar: You can't debate without supporting facts disproving hard proven facts.
You are also incoherent, making you all the less believeable. We- from now on can label every one of your statements as false if you keep on.
None.
I was just wondering if anyone could explain precisely to me how the quadrupole of a binary system of relatively heavy objects moving at close to light speed affects its' gravitational attraction on me?
None.
I'm not sure... VERY not sure, but I think that's it :
More you go fast, smaller you are... Smaller you are, more dense you are (same mass for less volume). More dense you are, more you deform the space-time (wich is the real thing that influence the gravitation). More the curve made by the deformation of the Space-Time is big, more objects around will be attracted...
None.
So, what do you think of my explication? (Sorry for reviving, but I think this was a good debate!)
None.
