Macarios

Re: 2+2
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2018, 02:26:31 AM »
Tom, please stop inserting pseudo-mathematic gobbeldygook in your answer.

Why should he stop?

If you compare it with court (like Flat Earthers always do) Flat Earth is not about facts and figures, it is about belief.
"Global conspiracy" is "prosecution", and "righteous minority" is "defendant".
And defendant has every right to defend, including right to lie.
To find the truth is the job for prosecution.

But it goes both ways.
If you are Flat Earther and attack Globe Earth model that works, you must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem is, Globe Model is not just based on few academic theories, but on the fact that it is the only model where all observations and measurements accumulated for millennia fit together.

Flat Earthers are stuck in desire to find "one final proof that Earth is flat", which is impossible.

Every single local fact from Globe Model COULD be shown as according behavior of Flat Model too.
But ALL TOGETHER facts fit in SINGLE Globe Model, and those other interpretations of those facts require different Flat Models for different subsets of facts.

And there's Space and Space Exploration.
They must constantly deny it and for every new achievement create new ways to discredit it.

For example, direct measurement of Moon distance, whether using amateur radio or radar, is very hard to deny.
Even harder since Apollo missions installed reflectors used now for laser measurements of Moon distance by terrestrial observatories.
McDonald's observatory has Laser Ranging Station, Apache Point another, and I don't know if there's more.

Venus distance was also measured by radar, when Venus was at position of maximum elongation.
(It is position in Venus orbit where angle between Venus-Sun line and Venus-Earth line is 90 degrees.
When you measure distance to Venus by radar, and angle between Venus and Sun from Earth,
you can calculate Sun distance from both, Earth and Venus.)
.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 02:53:16 AM by Macarios »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2018, 11:39:34 AM »
None of it is pseudo-mathematics. You guys are just unaware of the fact that all of mathematics, down to the simplest proof, is only correct if a set of axioms it depends upon is correct.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 05:32:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2018, 02:21:36 PM »
The image also shows that pi would equal 4 in a quantized universe where space existed as discrete units on a fundamental level.

It looks like you have a clear test then for whether the universe is continuous or not. Space is continuous
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: 2+2
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2018, 03:21:48 PM »
i've posted this before, but i'm gonna toss it in here since it's now actually appropriate for the thread i'm posting in instead of my usual thread derailment.  and i like math arguments.  obviously.

here's an easy way to demonstrate why this proof is unsound.  let's try see if we can approximate the length of a line segment with sine waves of increasingly smaller amplitudes.

consider the following sine function, y=4sinx, and let's restrict the domain from x=0 to x=6.28. 

it's obvious just from looking at the graph that the length of the sine wave is greater than the length of the domain (6.28 units).  and, math-doing-robots confirm that the length of that line is ~17.628.  it's also obvious that if we want to approximate the length of the domain, then we must decrease the amplitude.

next we're going to add more sine functions to the graph.  the pi=4 proof demands that the perimeter of the square remain constant by changing its shape in a specific way.  likewise, we're going to keep the length of the sine wave constant while we decrease its amplitude.  the only way to do that is to increase its period proportionally.  in other words, if we decrease the amplitude by half, then we must increase the period by half.  if i'm not making sense, just check out the following graph.  this is y=4sinx, y=2sin(2x), y=sin(4x), y=.5sin(8x), all from x=0 to x=6.28

if you plug all those formulae into the math-wizard-robot, it will confirm that they all have the same length, ~17.628.  but now we have a problem.  as you can see, we can keep iterating and the sine wave will get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller until it appears to be approximating the length the line, but since ~17.628 != 6.28, we know that it never does.

in fact, this notion of keeping the length of the sine wave constant by only letting amplitude vary inversely proportional to period is exactly what your proof does.  just look at the corners.  each time they "fold" the perimeter in the corners, they're doing it in a specific way that keeps the length the same, halves the amplitude, and doubles the period.  graphing the absolute values of the same sine functions from before illustrates this.  each iteration, starting with purple, has half the amplitude and double the period of the previous iteration, but their lengths are all the same.  it might appear that they would approximate the length of a line as the amplitude approaches zero, but it never does, and they never do.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: 2+2
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2018, 04:32:18 PM »
EDIT: Found it:
"When 50 milliliters of water are added to 50 milliliters of alcohol, the volume of the two mixed together is only about 96 or 97 milliliters.
When mixed together, the combined molecules fit together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space. Water and ethanol mix to form a solution."

So, 2 ml of water + 2 ml of alcohol gives 3.84 to 3.88 ml of solution. Not 4 ml.
So, in a real world problem an example has been found where 2+2 =/= 4.

I think everyone here owes Tom an apology.

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2018, 09:17:02 PM »
totallackey,

I don't appreciate your arrogant "drop the mic" attitude; it's especially damaging and annoying when you're so obviously wrong. Nobody owes him an apology. He's extremely misguided. Pi is also not equal to 4 just because he doesn't understand the difference between perimeter and area. First, you clearly don't understand the fundamental nature of mathematics. 2 mL means something COMPLETELY different than 2. This is not to mention that it's mathematically invalid to say 2 mL water + 2 mL alcohol = 3.88 mL solution. Equality is not defined that way by the axioms of mathematics; sure, in normal conversation we say many things are "equal" to each other, but you're abusing the notation here. That science experiment does not produce an equation. Please go back to school.

The fact that you actually had to conduct research to figure out that the volumes don't add up speaks to your unjustified arrogance (Dunning-Kruger) and lack of knowledge. I can come up with the same experiment in my head -- dissolve salt in water; wow volumes don't add up so math is bullshit.

No scientific law says that the volumes must add up. None. No scientific law says that "+" is the proper operator that describes this situation. I could apply the same argument to say that you're stupid: "you = 1 person and 1 person = 1 stupid person." Since transitivity holds, "you = a stupid person." Do you see how your abuse of mathematical notation is an artifact of a simple, delusional mind?

Mathematics DEFINES the numbers to mean what we intuitively think they mean, at least on a simple level. AS A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THESE DEFINITIONS, 2 + 2 MUST EQUAL 4. Why is it so hard to understand?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 09:26:13 PM by JohnAdams1145 »

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2018, 09:24:11 PM »
i've posted this before, but i'm gonna toss it in here since it's now actually appropriate for the thread i'm posting in instead of my usual thread derailment.  and i like math arguments.  obviously.

in fact, this notion of keeping the length of the sine wave constant by only letting amplitude vary inversely proportional to period is exactly what your proof does.  just look at the corners.  each time they "fold" the perimeter in the corners, they're doing it in a specific way that keeps the length the same, halves the amplitude, and doubles the period.  graphing the absolute values of the same sine functions from before illustrates this.  each iteration, starting with purple, has half the amplitude and double the period of the previous iteration, but their lengths are all the same.  it might appear that they would approximate the length of a line as the amplitude approaches zero, but it never does, and they never do.

Oh no. No no no! Yes, you're correct. Yes, it's an interesting mathematical exercise. Unfortunately, your interpretation of it -- the logic of saying that you can't use this method, is very different from what Tom Bishop will say it is. He'll say "WOW -- I knew we shouldn't have trusted those mathematicians! The length of a line is obviously ... by my proof here <reproduces your proof>" When something leads to obvious contradiction, you don't try to handwave the contradiction away or assert that it is actually not a contradiction; you try to fix that "something" that led there.

Re: 2+2
« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2018, 10:00:43 PM »
totallackey,

I don't appreciate your arrogant "drop the mic" attitude;
NGAS about what you appreciate or what you do appreciate.
..it's especially damaging and annoying when you're so obviously wrong correct.
FTFY.

No need to thank me.
Nobody owes him an apology.
Yeah, they do.
He's extremely misguided. Pi is also not equal to 4 just because he doesn't understand the difference between perimeter and area. First, you clearly don't understand the fundamental nature of mathematics. 2 mL means something COMPLETELY different than 2. This is not to mention that it's mathematically invalid to say 2 mL water + 2 mL alcohol = 3.88 mL solution. Equality is not defined that way by the axioms of mathematics; sure, in normal conversation we say many things are "equal" to each other, but you're abusing the notation here. That science experiment does not produce an equation. Please go back to school.
A bunch of BS text, just to bury the example demonstrating Tom was right in a last one real world example...2 ml of one solution + 2 ml of another solution =/= 4 ml of a solution.
The fact that you actually had to conduct research to figure out that the volumes don't add up speaks to your unjustified arrogance (Dunning-Kruger) and lack of knowledge.
1)I do not think Macarios appreciates the fact you tossing him in the Dunning-Kruger pile...
2)by the way, you bandy "Dunning-Kruger effect," about like you own the copy write on it or something...I think it more likely you are just some arrogant ass that discovered the term during a period of deep self exploration prior to taking up residence here in these forums...
or  I can come up with the same experiment in my head -- dissolve salt in water; wow volumes don't add up so math is bullshit.
No, math is real.

And Macarios found an example where 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
No scientific law says that the volumes must add up. None. No scientific law says that "+" is the proper operator that describes this situation. I could apply the same argument to say that you're stupid: "you = 1 person and 1 person = 1 stupid person." Since transitivity holds, "you = a stupid person." Do you see how your abuse of mathematical notation is an artifact of a simple, delusional mind?
Same goes for you.

I could say that you and your buttbuddy = 2, but you and that other c---sucker over there do not equal buttbuddies.

Or that you regularly engage in some of necrophiliac/bestiality ritual with dead donkeys; yet, after the 4th time of being witnessed the fourth was found missing the next day...so it turns out, the 4th time we, by necessity, the first two times add up to 2 and the third and 4th time still only add to one, because there is no confirmation the 4th donkey is dead. 
Mathematics DEFINES the numbers to mean what we intuitively think they mean...
In and of itself, no it does not.
...at least on a simple level. AS A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THESE DEFINITIONS, 2 + 2 MUST EQUAL 4. Why is it so hard to understand?
Definitions provided prior to the act, yes.

Offline jayjay

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #68 on: January 14, 2018, 10:44:58 PM »

So, in a real world problem an example has been found where 2+2 =/= 4.

I think everyone here owes Tom an apology.

Transport yourself all the way back to caveman culture. Little language exists other than grunts. But there was still math. If you found four pieces of fruit, you knew that you and your cave-mate could each have two. Or, maybe you take three because you're hungrier, and your mate gets one. No matter how you slice it, it always adds up to four when calculating the representational number of these objects.

How about those grunts? Let's say a caveman grunts twice. Then he takes a few minutes and grunts twice again. How many grunts has he uttered? Would there be any possible situation that it would not be four?

What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.

Macarios

Re: 2+2
« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2018, 11:44:04 PM »
Sorry to disappoint you, but the "example" about "2+2=/=4" has the part that some of you missed.

"When mixed together, the combined molecules fit together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space."

Mass of solution remains equal to sum of masses of components.
Number of molecules remain the same.
Packing molecules better is like packing gravel between rocks.

Example is similar to mixing gasses: "2 liters of nitrogen and 2 liters of oxygen can all together fit into 1 liter container".
Or: "soft sponge 30 ft high on top of another soft sponge 20 ft high will not make stack of 50 ft, because lower parts of sponge stack will squish under the weight, especially if sponges are wet".
Does it mean 20+30=/=50 ?
No.

It doesn't disprove the math. Only questions the usage.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 11:52:07 PM by Macarios »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #70 on: January 14, 2018, 11:49:55 PM »
It also ignores the factors that determine volume. Like density in this case.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #71 on: January 15, 2018, 12:01:16 AM »
What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.

Arithmetic is based on Peano's Axioms. Its not a universal truth. Those axioms do not apply in all situations.

Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.

The insistance on calling a mathematical model an "absolute fact" is pretty typical for the quality of posters we get here. Use this as an opportunity for research and self improvement.

Re: 2+2
« Reply #72 on: January 15, 2018, 12:07:41 AM »

So, in a real world problem an example has been found where 2+2 =/= 4.

I think everyone here owes Tom an apology.

Transport yourself all the way back to caveman culture. Little language exists other than grunts. But there was still math. If you found four pieces of fruit, you knew that you and your cave-mate could each have two. Or, maybe you take three because you're hungrier, and your mate gets one. No matter how you slice it, it always adds up to four when calculating the representational number of these objects.

How about those grunts? Let's say a caveman grunts twice. Then he takes a few minutes and grunts twice again. How many grunts has he uttered? Would there be any possible situation that it would not be four?

What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the "example" about "2+2=/=4" has the part that some of you missed.

"When mixed together, the combined molecules fit together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space."

Mass of solution remains equal to sum of masses of components.
Number of molecules remain the same.
Packing molecules better is like packing gravel between rocks.

Example is similar to mixing gasses: "2 liters of nitrogen and 2 liters of oxygen can all together fit into 1 liter container".
Or: "soft sponge 30 ft high on top of another soft sponge 20 ft high will not make stack of 50 ft, because lower parts of sponge stack will squish under the weight, especially if sponges are wet".
Does it mean 20+30=/=50 ?
No.

It doesn't disprove the math. Only questions the usage.
It also ignores the factors that determine volume. Like density in this case.
Look, let everyone agree that there is 2 ml here and there is 2 ml there.

Let everyone agree that 2 ml of stuff can be added (+) to the 2 ml of stuff over here, without the combined stuff blowing up.

Let everyone agree that in particular cases there will not be a 4 ml outcome regardless of cause.

Seems to me Tom was right, whether or not he was right in terms of nominal, ordinal, or any other case.

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #73 on: January 15, 2018, 12:32:47 AM »
totallackey,

You're stupid. I'll put it that way. I honestly don't care if someone knows nothing about math, but you're something else. You stubbornly insist (thanks to your enormous ego and Dunning-Kruger) that you're right when you are so obviously wrong that it borders silliness. You probably can't even pass high school calculus at this point. You can't seem to recognize the stupidly obvious fact (that any fourth-grader can see with some time) that when we say "plus" or "in addition to" in English we can mean something different than "+" as used in mathematics. Your example is about as asinine as it gets. Can I say that two 1 ohm resistors in parallel have a resistance of 0.5 ohm and therefore 1+1=0.5? Keep spouting your garbage, but I doubt you'd take $0.50 in place of $2.00.

Macarios tried to explain to you that your usage of "+" and "=" was mathematically incorrect. Of course in the whole space of your delusion, you paid absolutely no attention and just coughed up the same idea that adding two things together somehow means that their volumes have to add up and that somehow disproves that 2+2 = 4. If I define a new operator like the matrix-vector product and try to apply it to mixing masses together and measuring the total mass, does that prove that my definition is contradictory? I think not.

The fact that you cannot process such simple distinction (between mathematics and a mathematical model) and yet still believe that you know anything (like the flatness of the Earth or how stars work) is mind-boggling.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 02:38:43 AM by JohnAdams1145 »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #74 on: January 15, 2018, 12:40:49 AM »
What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.

Arithmetic is based on Peano's Axioms. Its not a universal truth. Those axioms do not apply in all situations.

Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.

The insistance on calling a mathematical model an "absolute fact" is pretty typical for the quality of posters we get here. Use this as an opportunity for research and self improvement.

Arithmetic predates Peano’s Axioms by thousands of years. What you said is absurd on its face.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #75 on: January 15, 2018, 12:59:15 AM »
What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.

Arithmetic is based on Peano's Axioms. Its not a universal truth. Those axioms do not apply in all situations.

Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.

The insistence on calling a mathematical model an "absolute fact" is pretty typical for the quality of posters we get here. Use this as an opportunity for research and self improvement.

Tom, I have to admit that you've surprised me. What you've said is right! (Surprising, since you've also said 2+2 is not 4 and that pi = 4)

Arithmetic works only in a situation where those axioms are true. You are correct. This is why it is fallacious to say that just because 2 mL salt + 2 mL water is not 4 mL of salt water, 2+2 is not equal to 4. Arithmetic doesn't apply here! This is a situation where arithmetic does not apply. Therefore, even though we know that arithmetic would be wrong if it applied in this situation, that point is moot because it doesn't apply. What does this tell us? It tells us that we can't just say that 2 mL something + 2 mL something else = 4 mL something+something else just justifying it off arithmetic.

And of course, you're right. Calling a mathematical model "absolute fact" is very wrong. Mathematical models make predictions assuming that their assumptions hold. However, if you agree with all of the assumptions made by the mathematical model (ex. Newton's 3 Laws) then you cannot disagree with the conclusions (ex. momentum is conserved), so long as the model is mathematically valid. That does not mean, however, that a mathematical model necessarily has any bearing with the real world (ex. modeling the Earth as a pyramid or modeling liquids as rigid bodies).


I'll introduce an example:
If you agree that distances add in a straight line and that certain distances between points A, B, C, and D are d1, d2, d3, ..., and it turns out through geometric derivation, you find that these distances are inconsistent with being on a flat Earth, you cannot say that "mathematics doesn't apply here" because you agreed with the assumptions, and mathematics logically concluded something. Mathematics is essentially a large bunch of unbroken logical chains, so if you satisfy X, then you can automatically conclude Y.

Offline jayjay

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #76 on: January 15, 2018, 01:57:40 AM »
Those axioms do not apply in all situations.

Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.

At least you validate that this axiom is sometimes true. Little victories!

Offline jayjay

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #77 on: January 15, 2018, 01:59:36 AM »

At least you validate that this axiom is sometimes true. Little victories!

So, if this axiom is sometimes true, is it also scientifically 'sometimes true' that the earth is round?

Offline jayjay

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #78 on: January 15, 2018, 02:25:35 AM »

So, if this axiom is sometimes true, is it also scientifically 'sometimes true' that the earth is round?

There is a big difference between someone who believes: "it is scientifically impossible that the world is round", versus believing: "it scientifically possible that the world is round, but I believe it is flat".

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #79 on: January 15, 2018, 02:32:03 AM »
@jayjay - Just so you know, there is an option to modify your post when you want to come back later and add on to it. This is also the preferred “netiquette” here.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.