The Conservapedia: If Wiki is too scientific for your simple religious mind. - Page 4

Ait'al · 2007-03-21, 10:15 PM

Yea but I still think science has to strictly be the study of something. Making formulas wouldn't be math. I think studying math and giving the study of it a name could be considered science. I don't think the using of something counts as a science though.

And Phythagareoms theorom will always work. Becuase like a shape. It is a predefined thing. So yes it will always work. It is in a way like a hypothetical situation. It can not be altered to not work. It cannot be made not to work. Like any algebraic expression or basic programing situation. Except in programing you have a sub langueage and things to mess it up. The basic principle if it could be as defined in math would always work. If math didn't work taht way computers could not work. And programing would be an imposibilty. It will not work out logically. There are some things you can figure out to work or not work. It was probably known well enough I even learned it in school at some point.

As is it is a definition of a situation within a predefined situation. So it will not cease to work. How can you get it to not work. It is only the mathimatical eqaution for a triangles lower side. YOu can already check all possible numerical situations. Which ones wouldn't work outside of the inability of our number system to define something properly or not being able to get a calculator that can hold enough numbers if that even ever happens with it. Either way I think it is still to practical to be that kind of study. It's more like engineering. It's not a science. It must by nature be applicable If I'm not mistaken. If that is the fine line. I'm pretty sure there is something that defines it as seperate from a science. The only problem with pythagareoms theorom would be the decimal system wouldnt it?

Infernus · 2007-03-21, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ait'al

And Phythagareoms theory will always work. Becuase like a shape. It is a predefined thing. So yes it will always work. It is in a way like a hypothetical situation. It can not be altered to not work. It cannot be made not to work. Like any algebraic expression or basic programing situation. Except in programing you have a sub langueage and things to mess it up. The basic principle if it could be as defined in math would always work. If math didn't work taht way computers could not work. And programing would be an imposibilty. It will not work out logically. There are some things you can figure out to work or not work.

NO! NO! NO!

Pythagorean theorem will not always work AS FAR AS WE KNOW! And that is the point.

What is to say it will always work? The fact that you think it will? Pythagorean theorem has NOT been proven.

Kepler's Laws have been proven, they always apply. We have not yet encountered a case where pythagorian theorem has been proven wrong, but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. In any science a Law is undisputably true... at the moment pythagorian's is, but only at the moment.

There are many things in algebra that can be made to not work... Newton's method takes a major crap if your initial input value is off, it will find the tangent line NO WHERE near where you are looking for one. L'Hopitals rule should always work, but in certain cases it doesn't apply...

...and have you ever dealt with imaginary numbers? Of course, by your standards I guess they don't exist.

What are you exactly? You can't be a mathematician or a physicist, you'd be strung up by your colleagues for even making some of the suggestions that you're making. A chemist maybe, because they make and break rules like they're nothing.

The basic principle of math is to attempt to explain things in our phyisical world using numerical representation. As our understanding develops, our calculations change.

Originally Posted by Ait'al

I think studying math and giving the study of it a name could be considered science.

You mean, mathematics.

Ait'al · 2007-03-21, 10:34 PM

Won't it always work in the confines of whole numbers?

I'm not a scientist.Edit: I just liked studying math alot in school. (which again is not a science. Mathematics would be a science if mathematic refers to it's study. The applied part would not be science. Which is what I refer to as math. That may be where we are getting hung up.)

And more recently I had this idea that is is our base system that causes problems in math not the fact that is exists. (not saying it's for inteligent reasons but I never bothered really thinking it out.)

And another reason is the fact that you can simply change the system to a different number set. So in that way math is just a system. . Or atleast from the standpoint of how many digits we use. Our number system does create it's own issues. Or atleast it creates them in distinct places. If you change to a 12 based system you still have the same problems though with say .33333333333inf but you don't get them in same place I think.(probably because the system is still fundamentally the same no matter how many digits you use.) So I don't know. Maybe there is some underlining same situation no matter what. But maybe our number system can't count it properly. Or no system can. I have no idea. I think that is just some stupid thing I wondered about playing with numbers when I was trying to familiarize myself with ram or something at different points or whatever I was doing. Take 6 and 7 based systems and run the numbers. So I wondered what was the connection between our system and what is happening in math. Besides it's obvious relivants.(just a stupid thing I never looked at enough. So, I don't never really had the chance to figure it out. And I can't remember hearing any thing that touched the issue.)

BTW I thought this because I wondered if it had to do with the lack of numbers in it. Or was that just the decimal system that runs into that. (I stopped doing this stuff along time ago so I don't remember it as well anymore.)

So what can cause pythagoreoms theorom to not work. I think I studiesd situations like the other ones you mentioned once and I think I remember the problem with the other ones was just not thinking it out properly in small ways. I used to go over that sort of thing alot in school. It's just been along time and I don't remember any of it too specifically.

I still think the other formulas that wouldn't work would be from just being to broad or not well thought out enough. the only thing that should be wrong with math should be the people doing it. Not the hard stuff. Which is why it's study would be more of a slight stupidity issues in some cases than a hard science if you get my drift.

Infernus · 2007-03-21, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ait'al

Won't it always work in the confines of whole numbers?

We don't know.

EDIT: Wait, I'm confused by what you mean.

There aren't many whole numbers when you sum their squares that equals another whole number.

1^2 + 1^2 = C^2

sqrt(2) = decimal

2^2 + 2^2 = C^2

sqrt(8) = decimal

3^2 + 2^2 = C^2

sqrt(13) = decimal

Ait'al · 2007-03-21, 11:10 PM

In a situation like that can't you just use the base 10 number to tell if it will work though.

There are alot of math situation where you can becuase any higher numbers a a reapeating of it an it should still always logically work. Or something like that. There would a difference in how it can screw up based on the mathematics you are using. Only certain problems can come up if you use multiplication practically.(That would be in checking some kinds of equations)

Though it is simpler because it is an addition of an addition. So I think it doesn't have as many of them. Division has more problems if I'm not mistaken. So wouldnt the mulitplicatin make it alot simpler or even likely imposible to work. It is harder for a pure adition based anything to ever screw up. Or more correctly impossible except for extreme stupidity on an idividuals part. And mulitiplication is just doubled addition from one perspective. So isn't it impossible.

The theorom is pure multiplication checking. So where could it screw up. addition is always absolutely knowable. So so is pure simple multiplication. I don't think it can be wrong. It would just be a matter of figurig out the logic of what exist in the eqaution and figureing if there is anything else logically in it that can go wrong then. IN this case in the fact it is checking something. But in this case pure multiplication. So....

Checking it against division or other backwords maths could seem to say it might be possible. But if you think about it as purly forwards math. Can anything about it ever be impossible besides human stupidy and saying a wrong number. Which is where I throw in the decimal system. IT at is core is different. It is the whole number system divided by 10 at it's base in a way. So it screws things up a bit I think. I forget. But the only thing that can screw up understanding that is pure stupidity. Like me not being able to remember what the decimal system does at it's core. We mad ethe damn thing it's only our stupidy stopping us form understanding it. Very literally. We thought it out to make the sytem work. We really do cease to understand it out of stupidity. You understood it when you first learned it. That is why you can potentially enter into a discussion about it when you were first introduced to the math. You just cease to keep thinking it out even though your brain literally did the work and understood what you are now trying to think out in a way the last time you did math with it. Or even when you first learned it. And I'm very very familiar with that aspect of math. I'm just not htinking them out literally as much right now again. But I know why I don't know it. And what I'm doing to screw it up. It is the same with everyone else. And mathameticians now a days. I think it's a modern trend.

That just brought alot of memories back.

Off topic a little.

And to add something I beleive we are realistically becoming dumber by the day. I think this was not a hard issue many years ago because It was not a contraversy because we simply figured it out. We simply knew then because we could stil figure it out. Point in case. Watch sesame street. (this is not neccaserily that good of a point depending on your standpoint but bear with me) If you see the vids with the kids from the 80s, they were very bright and inteligent looking doing what ever they were doing. The new ones on the other had are almost, like us, dumb as posts. Very little brain activity. So, yea, I think these issues are arriving and have been for a good 10 15 years (atleast from what I practically know) because we are litterally becoming more stupid on average, from our ways of life. Or to put it more accuratly, something equivilant to morals and activities or something that is making us too stupid to simply figure it out anymore. Maybe odd but I thought it always seemed like that was the problem for the last 15 years as these kept becoming issues. (If not what is causing it if it is happening)

And, sorry, long post again. And more importantly I've brought us all way off topic. Unless this of course is in the conservapedia. 8) Probably is though. 8p And on top of it that last paragraph just obliterated my entire point. Unless I'm right possbily. That just used to be something I wondered as things went this way. I swear it was understood. But it is math so that can be figured out. 8)

Sorry. "This" post is so weird because I just had a bunch of flashbacks about the stuff. I'm still sort of proccessing it a bit. Trying to remember it all and figure out how I came to stuff again. I get a little weird when I do that.

And another interesting fact about the number system thing. I think part of it is we ahve a systme where 10 is 10 times the number 1 and 100 ten times that. So it is even going up. It has some affect on it. Other systems like english or japanese burst into 4 0 number etc after 100 if I'm not mistaken. It is a practical situation when you run into certain decimal situations. But that should still not affect addition situations. All numbers are the same even if you don't go buy the symbol, "number" used to represent them. The core value is the same so what would mess it up. It would just have a differnt notational value. (from a different meaning for notational. I think?!) 10,000 as apposed to 1,0000. Same value. So same mathematical result. With addition or multiplication atleast. It can always be translated. (not saying division can't. I'm not thinkiing that far right now.)... Edit: but because we have the same ammount evenly we keep running into certain things more predicatably. as you mulitply with decimals. Or if you compare the decimal to it's whole digit opposite value. AKA .1 is 10 when you think about how the numbers spread in multiplications placement as you go from 1-10 to 1-100 and the differents between 100 and 1,000 as far as expanding them into a new area of the number system. AKA 10-100 if you are relooking at a math eqaution from an equal but different set of numbers mathematcially. We can uniquely do that in our number sytem if I'm not mistaken. Because we go up even by multiplications in of 100. The other thing was just that I was looking at where things like .3333inf keep poping up if you do it in different systems. LIke a 6 based system when multiplying or something turns up in the numbers 2 4 6 or something when doing something I can't remember 8p Where nomraly you get it from from dividing certain number between 1 and 10. It was stupid but it was fun. It was something about the fact that 3 and 6 when looked at are the numbers for.3333333..... and .666666... When you took it in some other number ssytem. None 10 based with even intervals maybe. It poped up in the even numbers 2 and 4 maybe. In another it was in something lik 5 and 7. I can't remember. Those are probably not the right numbers. But it was fun to see how the same math anomoly moved around when you changed the math system. I can't remember how it worked. But you simply just have to do the math to get .333 or .666 and do basic math in another system untill you get the same perfectly repeating number again. I think it was the same amount of them in the same way. it was like it was still .333 and .666 how it poped up or smoething but it was in the representative spot of like 2 and 4. The even numbers. I didn't include .999 form some reason though. There was some reason .99 was not relevant. It must have had to do with not using numbers that were like 3x3. 6 was only 2and 3. But not sqaured. It don't know. I wish I could remember, but it was cool to do. Myabe it had to do with how you could not get .9999 in the same way. This situation only existed or something wiht .33333 and .66666 For some reason and I could find the same unique situation in different numbers systems and compare them and how they worked. I think I did a 6 7 with atleast 10ours 11and like12 with maybe some other larger number doing basic math things from ours to get that number.( I heard something about babylonians using a 6 based system and something about the romans system and I was comparing them realistically or trying to see what it was like to use hypothecal system based on having differnt amount of numbers in the base. IE a hypothetical system with symbols repeating from 1-9 or 1-6 or 1-7 then or before using larger ones than ours that do like 1-12 too see how it affected using the math.) Edit: It could have had to do with the the fractions 1/3 and 2/3. or .33 and .666. They were easy to find from some perspective in another system when you looked at what they were in the math system of 10. in another system they appeared or something where 2 and 4 were. (like I said it was stupid) It was just funny it was where the two so big whole numbers were in our system were. Basicaly the first two spuared numbers were the impossible infinant ones in another system. But that is because our systme is based on even numbers partly. though it does not continue relivants because after the number 10 it does not work untill it logically repeats itself where it does in the confines of 1-10 or wherever it can pop up.(because 10 is a derivative of 5 10 defines the restof the system) If it was an 8 based system it would dominant I think. Or a 16 based system actually. Not sure. 8 is 2.2.2 but 16 is 2.4.2 or 4.4 or 2.2.2.2. Maybe it is important it is not a sqaure of the sqaure to contintue it as teh dominant force because 16 would make 4 more important. Or would it?! I don't know. No 2 would still be dominant because it is only doubled 2.2.2 or 8 bieing the point of the 8 based system. 16 would only spread out the occurances of stuff by 2 since it would have to weight twice as long or something to reocure. But that would be pretty stupid to study.

OK. Where were we? And did I hit any points with that any of the earlier stuff? I think I lost where I was a bit in that. I half got to where I meant to, but then I think I lost it all.

Rayder · 2007-03-23, 07:50 PM

(5^9^4^8^9^7^9^9^9)^2 + (3^5^5^5^9^4^8^4)^2 = C^2

Solve it. Now.

Hamma · 2007-03-23, 08:46 PM

23

Peacemaker · 2007-03-25, 10:56 PM