"This is a blatant lie, I've given long and forfilling answers, and this only proves you have never read my answers, but only come here to to get attention and run away just like vegetariantaxidermy says."
Not on my threads you haven't
Prove it!
Negatives can't be proven. How about a few examples?
I'm sure you see the pattern. What would surprise many people is that the factorial can be extended in a consistent way. For example 0! = 1 (can you define 1/2! in a consistent manner?) In fact the factorial makes sense except for negative integers.
The point I'm making is that restricting the meaning of numbers may have inhibited math progress (as Blaggard has pointed with the so-called imaginary numbers). Still one has to wonder whether there's a limit to abstract math.
That isn't in any way abstract, only liniar, you don't understand it and probaly apply a parrot speech because you heard someone else say it was abstract.
I'm sure you see the pattern. What would surprise many people is that the factorial can be extended in a consistent way. For example 0! = 1 (can you define 1/2! in a consistent manner?) In fact the factorial makes sense except for negative integers.
The point I'm making is that restricting the meaning of numbers may have inhibited math progress (as Blaggard has pointed with the so-called imaginary numbers). Still one has to wonder whether there's a limit to abstract math.
That isn't in any way abstract, only liniar, you don't understand it and probaly apply a parrot speech because you heard someone else say it was abstract.
Wrong and wrong. Anything that originates from our minds is abstract. I see you're employing one of your favorite phrases, a parrot speech. Mind telling me where I heard it?
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Wrong and wrong. Anything that originates from our minds is abstract. I see you're employing one of your favorite phrases, a parrot speech. Mind telling me where I heard it?
Every time you open your mouth only nonsense and babble spews out.
You can't say a single intelligent word, that's why we always see this overly simplistic threads from you, where only want a good discussiong going on, and you can't participate in the discussion, beacuse that is above your tragicly low lvl.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Wrong and wrong. Anything that originates from our minds is abstract. I see you're employing one of your favorite phrases, a parrot speech. Mind telling me where I heard it?
Every time you open your mouth only nonsense and babble spews out.
You can't say a single intelligent word, that's why we always see this overly simplistic threads from you, where only want a good discussiong going on, and you can't participate in the discussion, beacuse that is above your tragicly low lvl.
Funny I had the same impression about you. Now you know one of the reasons why I prefer not to engage people such as you in conversation.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Wrong and wrong. Anything that originates from our minds is abstract. I see you're employing one of your favorite phrases, a parrot speech. Mind telling me where I heard it?
Every time you open your mouth only nonsense and babble spews out.
You can't say a single intelligent word, that's why we always see this overly simplistic threads from you, where only want a good discussiong going on, and you can't participate in the discussion, beacuse that is above your tragicly low lvl.
Funny I had the same impression about you. Now you know one of the reasons why I prefer not to engage people such as you in conversation.
More of your usual nonsense and babble arguments to divert the truth.
Thing is, I have proven you are a retard, you only say it without proof.
One has to ask, what kind of job one such as you have?
I'm sure you see the pattern. What would surprise many people is that the factorial can be extended in a consistent way. For example 0! = 1 (can you define 1/2! in a consistent manner?) In fact the factorial makes sense except for negative integers.
The point I'm making is that restricting the meaning of numbers may have inhibited math progress (as Blaggard has pointed with the so-called imaginary numbers). Still one has to wonder whether there's a limit to abstract math.
That isn't in any way abstract, only liniar, you don't understand it and probaly apply a parrot speech because you heard someone else say it was abstract.
I would agree linear operations are a step by step procedure reasoning process. Another way of looking at this would be the ability to recognize patterns. Computers can also do this as well. Once we have grasped the idea then we have an apriori understanding. In other words we don't have to keep carry out operations ad infinitum in order to keep prove the rule.
It is their apriori understanding that allows for what Blaggs has already told us. That is to say, for the want of a better word, "novelty". Imaginary numbers would be an example of novelty being introduced to solve an intractable mathematical problem.
P.S.
Computers can apply reasoning processes, but they have no appreciation of the process. This is why humans and not computers can come up with novel solutions.
Ginkgo wrote:I would agree linear operations are a step by step procedure reasoning process. Another way of looking at this would be the ability to recognize patterns. Computers can also do this as well. Once we have grasped the idea then we have an apriori understanding. In other words we don't have to keep carry out operations ad infinitum in order to keep prove the rule.
It is their apriori understanding that allows for what Blaggs has already told us. That is to say, for the want of a better word, "novelty". Imaginary numbers would be an example of novelty being introduced to solve an intractable mathematical problem.
P.S.
Computers can apply reasoning processes, but they have no appreciation of the process. This is why humans and not computers can come up with novel solutions.
In other words, computers can do extremely complex math, like playing chess on master lvl with the very best humans, but not able to do a simple conversation, because conversating requires abstract thinking which computers can't yet do, only on very low lvl.
If one observers any of Philosophy Explorer where he tries to say something intelligent, he utterly fails. This isn't a demeaning attempt, but a objective observation. I have cast perals before him and it's totally wasted as he will not comprehend it.
[/quote]More of your usual nonsense and babble arguments to divert the truth.
Thing is, I have proven you are a retard, you only say it without proof.
One has to ask, what kind of job one such as you have?[/quote]
As to what job I have, that's none of your business.
Both you and Veg like to do name calling which shows your level of intelligence. You seem to have a thing about proving people retarded. What a great hobby.
Can anything intelligent pass between your lips?
PhilX
Hex also said:
"If one observers any of Philosophy Explorer where he tries to say something intelligent, he utterly fails. This isn't a demeaning attempt, but a objective observation. I have cast perals before him and it's totally wasted as he will not comprehend it." Who made you judge, jury and executioner? You aren't even fit to judge a beauty contest. Should I hold my breath and wait for you to say something intelligent?
PhilX
Last edited by Philosophy Explorer on Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ginkgo wrote:I would agree linear operations are a step by step procedure reasoning process. Another way of looking at this would be the ability to recognize patterns. Computers can also do this as well. Once we have grasped the idea then we have an apriori understanding. In other words we don't have to keep carry out operations ad infinitum in order to keep prove the rule.
It is their apriori understanding that allows for what Blaggs has already told us. That is to say, for the want of a better word, "novelty". Imaginary numbers would be an example of novelty being introduced to solve an intractable mathematical problem.
P.S.
Computers can apply reasoning processes, but they have no appreciation of the process. This is why humans and not computers can come up with novel solutions.
In other words, computers can do extremely complex math, like playing chess on master lvl with the very best humans, but not able to do a simple conversation, because conversating requires abstract thinking which computers can't yet do, only on very low lvl.
If one observers any of Philosophy Explorer where he tries to say something intelligent, he utterly fails. This isn't a demeaning attempt, but a objective observation. I have cast perals before him and it's totally wasted as he will not comprehend it.
Sorry about the bad grammar on my part. It really annoys the hell out of me that I can never pick up the grammatical errors in my original postings. It is only upon a second or third reading that I find the mistakes.
Most of this thread doesn't seem to about mathematics, or math, or maths, or even numbers.
Seems to me, some of the math, maths and calculations used in physics these days is too esoteric to be applied anywhere else - but is indispensable in abstract physics. I don't know whether that's useful right now, but in the past, some practical applications fell out of equations devised for a narrowly specialized field.
I don't suppose it's possible for anything a human thinks of to be too abstract - but many ideas turn out, on close examination, to be rubbish. That's okay; the rubbishy ones will be discarded, unless they make money for somebody.
