Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Shove it dumb cluck as you're trying to practice censorship. ...

No I'm not you fruitloop, I'm pointing out to you that what you are doing is not Logic or Philosophy of Mathematics its Mathematics and as such is for a MATHEMATICS forum.

In fact, why don't YOU find yourself another forum to post on (but I wouldn't try OPC if I were you because your ass would be banned so quick over there) ...

Why you keep mentioning this OPC I have no idea? Unlike you I'm not a weeble who flits about the weeb posting their opinions upon all an sundry regardless of the forums aim, so no I won't be leaving as I see no need and experience shows that sooner or later all the weebles pass through here anyway and then they move on or get banned.

Wrong on all counts, you self-serving dumb cluck.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Shove it dumb cluck as you're trying to practice censorship. ...

No I'm not you fruitloop, I'm pointing out to you that what you are doing is not Logic or Philosophy of Mathematics its Mathematics and as such is for a MATHEMATICS forum.

In fact, why don't YOU find yourself another forum to post on (but I wouldn't try OPC if I were you because your ass would be banned so quick over there) ...

Why you keep mentioning this OPC I have no idea? Unlike you I'm not a weeble who flits about the weeb posting their opinions upon all an sundry regardless of the forums aim, so no I won't be leaving as I see no need and experience shows that sooner or later all the weebles pass through here anyway and then they move on or get banned.

Arising,

While you may opine that the math is distinctly separate from logic or the philosophy, your prerogative is your own philosophical bias only. When we discuss particular issues using logic, this is just the same as using particular math issues using math. Math is the most basic form of all logic. It uses numbers as original premises instead of everyday human propositions. Compare, for instance:

All people are animals.

All integers are numbers.

If you don't allow particular math statements, do you not have to deny even particular human concerns here?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Wrong on all counts, you self-serving dumb cluck.

PhilX

Show me where fruitloop?

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Wrong on all counts, you self-serving dumb cluck.

PhilX

Show me where fruitloop?

Use your birdbrain to figure it out as Hex would say.

PhilX

Scott Mayers wrote:While you may opine that the math is distinctly separate from logic or the philosophy, your prerogative is your own philosophical bias only. ...

Did say I stand to be convinced. But I did not quite say(or I hope not) that Maths is distinctly separate from Logic(other than in the philosophical sense) as I think we'd both agree that Maths and Logic are examples of formal axiomatic systems but it is the issues that each attempts to deal with that makes the difference(for me) in where such things should be posted and discussed. Which is my point about philx's post, as its Mathematics.

When we discuss particular issues using logic, this is just the same as using particular math issues using math. Math is the most basic form of all logic. It uses numbers as original premises instead of everyday human propositions.

And yet a number is a proposition in some sense? But like I say, stand to be convinced.

Compare, for instance:

All people are animals.

All integers are numbers.

If you don't allow particular math statements, do you not have to deny even particular human concerns here?

Not quite sure of your point here?

Scott,

You'll have to dumb yourself down so that Chicken Man can understand you at his level.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Use your birdbrain to figure it out as Hex would say.

PhilX

No idea why you bring your playmate into this this?

The onus is upon you as I've stated my reasons why I think your post is in the wrong place and in fact upon the wrong forum, and I may remind you at your invitation.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Use your birdbrain to figure it out as Hex would say.

PhilX

No idea why you bring your playmate into this this?

The onus is upon you as I've stated my reasons why I think your post is in the wrong place and in fact upon the wrong forum, and I may remind you at your invitation.

Hex is your playmate. I already stated my reasons why this post belongs here.

PhilX

Arising,

You simply prefer a classification of WHAT philosophy should include. In the past peoples, including many of us still today, "philosophy", is the most generic class that covers any and all subjects. While the magazines will tend to narrow down areas more in line with the limitations given space for publication AND the fact that other subdivisions of philosophy, like science or math, gets more discrete attention in other forums, it is NOT illegitimate to discuss any of these things here. We also have a section on "Gender Politics". Does the fact that this particular subject is also covered by more specific sites that attend to narrow down the topic only to Feminism (or Masculism, where they might exist), are we not allowed a general place to discuss this here too? The idea here is that many people interested in philosophy have a broader range of interests that interrelate to each other. It helps when we can combine these for those of us who can see these relations. If we had to simply go to a math site to speak of this, how does this help others to find the connected relationships between the different but interrelated topics?

Scott Mayers wrote:... If we had to simply go to a math site to speak of this, how does this help others to find the connected relationships between the different but interrelated topics?

Then we'd be talking Philosophy of Mathematics or(maybe) Mathematical Logic. Show me where this post does any of what you say? Which is all that my point is about and a point that I did not raise but was invited to comment upon, something Phil appears to dislike.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Hex is your playmate. I already stated my reasons why this post belongs here.

All you said was that you can't find sites for recreational maths(I gave you some) and that the mods here don't understand their own subject categories so you take this as license to post.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Hex is your playmate. I already stated my reasons why this post belongs here.

All you said was that you can't find sites for recreational maths(I gave you some) and that the mods here don't understand their own subject categories so you take this as license to post.

The mods have Rick Lewis to refer to who has the final say.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The mods have Rick Lewis to refer to who has the final say.

PhilX

Actually Rick gives the mods pretty much the freedom to do as they wish and supports them in their choices.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The mods have Rick Lewis to refer to who has the final say.

PhilX

Actually Rick gives the mods pretty much the freedom to do as they wish and supports them in their choices.

As I said, it's Rick in charge.

PhilX

....................The Completed Extended Proof

(this post should be read together with the first two posts of this thread)

First keep in mind that (x^p)^1/p = x, p not equal to 0. This will help you to understand what follows.

The difference between the power of two anagram numbers with p = 0 is trivial. This difference always equals 0 (since the two expressions becomes equal to 1 and the difference between the ones is 0) and 0 divided by 9 is always 0, a trivial result.

I am asserting the theorem is always true for p being any natural number. In fact I'm asserting that the theorem is true for any real number p (except for p = 0), a bonus.

Let's say we have y = (cab)^p and x = (abc)^p where again a, b and c can take on any values from 0 to 9. Let's raise each expression to the 1/p power (again p not equal to 0). Now we have y^1/p = (cab) and x^1/p = (abc). Taking their difference, we have (cab) - (abc). Comparing with the first post, this is already proven to be divisible by nine and if we replace 1/p by n (where n is allowed to be any real number except 0) and then replace n by p (since p is a dummy variable), this proves this part of the theorem for three-digit numbers and by following the same steps as shown in the second post, this completes the extended proof for powers of anagram numbers of any number with unspecified number of digits).

PhilX