flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Lunar Calendar--Solar Calendar conflict

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
edfed wrote:
math can explain many things, but they cannot explain maths itself.
I don't agree, because only mathematics is an ideology which can prove its truth. Laughing Mathematics can also prove (and it should be interesting for you, edfed) its limitations (see Gödel's theorem). Laughing
Post 29 Feb 2008, 13:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
real facts are the impossible to believe.
like the fact the time doesn't exist.
time is only there to let it be.
without ime, everything append instantlly, and then, nothing append.
then, time is just a life sensation.

imagine the space without time.
it will be a big spiral, the earth, the moon, the sun, they will become expending spirals, starting at bigbang position.

it's not a human possible idea, it' a meta idea, the same as the god idea.

it's like bacteries, they cannot imagine our exisance, they are too little for that.
for us, it's the same, we are too little to understand some meta ideas.

the expanding spiral is just a human image, not a real representation of what it could be.

acceptance of our natural ignorance is a big step.

math exist cause of our ignorance, we try to understand things by a reality transposition of what we can see, feel, ear, touch...

to learn the real facts, you must die, then, reintegrate the unity of universe, and then rebecome the part of universe matter/energy.

dust we are, dust we always be.
Post 29 Feb 2008, 13:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I don't understand a word of what you are saying edfed. Are you surrounded by recently emptied bottles of ethanol based liquids?
Post 29 Feb 2008, 13:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
no way.
it just try to explain my feeling about mathematics.

maths was invented to play with our reality ( two apples, one bootle of ethanol, 5,88667 liters of beer....) then it's normal to be confronted to problems in non "reality" things.

a tool cannot be the explanation of everything. and math is a tool.

like computer cannot make everything ( as everybody hopes), math cannot explain everything.
Post 29 Feb 2008, 13:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
But you are going off on a tangent, you said the real fact is that 1<>0.999..., even after you were shown that the mathematical fact gives the opposite result. All you said above is that maths does not answer eveything, and that does not answer the Q about what are the real facts.
Post 29 Feb 2008, 13:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
the 1<>0,(9) is not a math proof.
it's a feeling.
a 2 years old children can say it too.
1 is not equal to 0,(9)

scientists named these numbers as irrational numbers.
because it cannot be used in math applications.

unexplanables things are like the violence, the accidents, the unprobable than append, the probable that never append.

like me.
impossible to explain what can i do, what i am, what can be my reactions...
it's not to speak about me, and focus all the universe on me, but it's true, i'm the antiproof.
nobody can predict what i'll do.
for exemple, can you predict that now, i'll walk in my mountain for an hour or two?
Post 29 Feb 2008, 13:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
revolution: methanol Wink
Post 29 Feb 2008, 17:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
victor



Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 126
Location: Utopia
victor
vid wrote:
revolution: methanol Wink
A bit of chemistry. Ethanol, CH3CH2OH, is correct, and is found in alcoholic drinks.

Methanol, CH3OH, is toxic and may cause blindness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Health_and_safety .

Wink
Post 01 Mar 2008, 02:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Thanks, victor.

Ethanol is also toxic, just a bit less toxic than methanol.

I've heard that oxygen is also toxic in large concentrations. As usual, all things in moderation.
Post 01 Mar 2008, 04:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
there is nothing like "positive zero" in any number field (rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, whatever) i know. There is limit which can approach zero from either side, but there is no "positive zero".
Ok, let me put it in a different way for you to get it.

I ask you to "name" me the SMALLEST positive number you can. It isn't 0, surely since it's not positive.

I call it +0, which is equal to:

0.0000...(infinite number of zeroes)...1

vid wrote:
If you want 1/0 to be infinity, you are forced to drop lot of features of these fields. What for?
1/0 is undefined because it depends on the context.

It's the same as saying: "He will go out in town", but 'he' is undefined because it is out of context -- who is "he"? If we had a previous information (phrase) that stated "John" then 'he' wouldn't be undefined anymore.

Same with 1/0. If you have previous information that a positive value comes to 0, then you can be sure 1/0 will equal +infinity in this case (and not -infinity). If it were to come from the negative side, you would have -infinity. This is why it is undefined outside of context.

No matter what you may think, the reciprocal of a positive value that decrements down continuously MUST pass throw +infinity before it comes down to the 'pure' 0.

vid wrote:
maybe you are referring to "nullity" idea... in that case, no, equations didn't work. they were pretty unusuable.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't called nullity (I think we're referring to different things), but I'll try to see again.
Post 01 Mar 2008, 18:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
victor: i wrote methanol on purpose Wink

Grey Beast: do not extend math by your "custom" definitions. operations and numbers in math are precisely defined, and there is no "positive zero", no "pure/unpure 0", no "approaching", and no "value coming down to another value".

Approaching only has meaning in context of limits, and what applies to limits, doesn't apply elsewhere.
Post 02 Mar 2008, 16:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
do not extend math by your "custom" definitions. operations and numbers in math are precisely defined, and there is no "positive zero", no "pure/unpure 0", no "approaching", and no "value coming down to another value".
I must be really bad at explaining then.

And you did not answer my question. How would you name the smallest real positive number? And what would it's value be? (I already told you before).

What do you mean by "operations and numbers are precisely defined"? I don't get it. A number is either:

1) a value
2) a symbol

Therefore I have explained before to you, the following two things:

1) the value "smallest positive real number" which you seem to not understand
2) the symbol +0 assigned to that value.

So what is not "precisely" defined anyway? You are just reading too many books and not doing it by yourself I believe, so it's probable you don't understand.

As to the "no approaching" and "no value coming down to another value". Well I think this will be the last time I'm going to repeat myself.

What were we discussing about in the first place? About the size of the Universe. As you may know (or not), this 'size' is now positive, hence it's a positive value. But to come down to 1/0 (or to start from there and going upwards to positively values), the value either shrinks or grows, respectively.

Eventually, if you take it that it shrinks, size will come down to +0 (again read what this "symbol" means above), then 1/size will be, surprisingly, +infinity. So what did you not understand, exactly?

Now, if it were to grow up from 1/0, then it would also be +infinity -- because then we would have had an abrupt gap from -infinity to +infinity (which would be "magical", or "undefined", or simply "incomprehensible" for some humans). Therefore in this case, it must have started from a positive number, the smallest positive number in existence -- that is +0. So again, what did you not understand from this?

Not to mention that size is something positive, right? Unless you have some weird theory on size being negative, then surely it's a positive number. So then, 1/size, no matter what value size is, will be a positive result. Hence, 1/+0 results in +infinity (and not -infinity).

Here's a link to some book I found randomly (hope you "trust" the book more than me): http://www.themathpage.com/aCalc/infinity.htm

Scroll down a bit until it talks about "limits" for 1/0 (from the right or from the left, i.e positive or negative). Notice it uses the +0 symbols too, which you seem to claim are "not precisely defined", but then a symbol is just a symbol, right?

vid wrote:
Approaching only has meaning in context of limits, and what applies to limits, doesn't apply elsewhere.
Thing is, math is not flawed like "other" science (e.g physics), it does not have any "special cases", you don't need any conditionals to make it work. So, everything applies everywhere. The thing is some don't know how to use that.
Post 02 Mar 2008, 16:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
Thing is, math is not flawed like "other" science (e.g physics), it does not have any "special cases", you don't need any conditionals to make it work. So, everything applies everywhere.
Maybe you would be interested in this thread
Post 02 Mar 2008, 16:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
is it possible that the size of universe is simply 1
as the binary fixed point representation can be a fraction of 1
then, as everything is realative, the univers, is the absolute reference, then, it's size is only ONE all inside is a fraction of this 1.

then, expantion of the 1 is possible as 1 human, it begin to be a little egg, then, grow, and grow. and stop growing (due to hormons and gravity). but in absolute, an human is 1 human, baby, adult, dead bones, but 1.

????
Post 02 Mar 2008, 16:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
And you did not answer my question. How would you name the smallest real positive number? And what would it's value be? (I already told you before).

sorry, i missed it. Thing which you seemingly didn't realize, is that there is nothing like "smallest possible real number above 0". For every real number, there is some smaller number. It is similar to asking about name and value of highest possible integer - that's nonsense, just like assigning some symbol to this nonexistent value.

Quote:
Notice it uses the +0 symbols too, which you seem to claim are "not precisely defined", but then a symbol is just a symbol, right?

I said Approaching only has meaning in context of limits, and that's exactly how it is used in article you linked. Of course that in context of limits, symbol 0+ does have a meaning.

But you used it outside of limits context. You said that there is some real number which is defined as 'smallest positive nonzero real number' and represented it by symbol 0+. This is simply not true, there is no such value. I hope i don't need to prove that for every real number above 0, there is some smaller number (x/2).

In context of limits, "0+" doesn't denote any value. Limit of function approaching value is defined as follows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(math)#Formal_definition wrote:

Let f be a function defined on an open interval containing c (except possibly at c) and let L be a real number.

"lim(f(x), x->c) = L" means that for each real ε > 0 there exists a real δ > 0 such that for all x with 0 < |x − c| < δ, we have |f(x) − L| < ε.

That is what "approaching" means in context of limits. It simply specifies bound for interval on which we explore functional values. Used outside this context, it doesn't have any mathematical meaning (unless defined otherwise, in that case i'd like to see that definition).


Edfed: Sorry, but your talking random nonsense is seriously not funny, and I strongly doubt anyone is interested in it, rather try to do something useful and productive.
Post 03 Mar 2008, 00:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
sorry, i didn't expalin it well.

imagine, the size of universe, it is all the things there can be, then, it is the one, the main, or the maximum value possible, and everything exept the universe itself, is less than one.

it's purelly abstract, and invoke some imagination tricks.

if universe = 1, all inside it is <1.
the sum of all inside = 1.
then, the probability there is something in a selected x,y,z,t place is <1, but the sum of all proba is = 1.
thebig bang, it can be the fact that the 1 was containing nothing, only seroes, and then, by mathemetics, we can say, 1/0, or more exactlly, how many 0 in 1? the result is an infinite exponential expansion.


hem, it's coming to be clear in my mind, soon, i'll can explain it more preciselly.
Post 03 Mar 2008, 00:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
if universe = 1,

at best, i can interpret this as using symbol 1 to denote universe, instead of it's classical meaning. otherwise, it sounds to me like without any sense, eg. "if blue is jump, then ...".

Quote:
then, the probability there is something in a selected x,y,z,t place is <1, but the sum of all proba is = 1.

what exactly do you mean by "probability there is something"? That's extremely loose term. And how do you compute that probability?

Quote:
thebig bang, it can be the fact that the 1 was containing nothing, only seroes,

how come? and what does "0" mean in your language (the one where "1" = universe)

Quote:
and then, by mathemetics, we can say, 1/0, or more exactlly, how many 0 in 1?

by what mathematics? which area / law / method of math implies this? and why should 1/0 be number of zeroes (whatever you mean by "zero") in universe?

I am afraid you are overstretching analogies beyond any sane bounds. Analogies (eg. "if universe is like number 1") is just explanatory helper
to understand some concept by liking it to some already-understood similar concept. But everything must be defined in a better way than by analogy, prior to even think of explaining it to anyone. Also, analogy should only be used if concepts are similar. In your case they aren't. Instead of tripping your mind like this, try to learn some real math and
understand it's exactness.
Post 03 Mar 2008, 02:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
imagine it like this:

universe is the 1, the absolute 1, as -273°C is the absolute 0.

then, at the start of everything, there was nothing in the universe.
totally nothing.
then, nothing is 0.
how many nothing in something?
an infinite.

it can explain the big bang and the fact that everythig appears instantlly.

analogy is the exact correspondanc between different things.
Post 03 Mar 2008, 11:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
edfed wrote:
-273°C is the absolute 0.
-273.15°C Twisted Evil
Post 03 Mar 2008, 11:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
then, at the start of everything, there was nothing in the universe.

says who? if you take big bang as absolute beginning, then this claim is false.

Quote:
then, nothing is 0.

how come? what is purpose to assign meaning of "nothing" to symbol "0" ?

Quote:
how many nothing in something?
an infinite.

why?

Quote:
it can explain the big bang and the fact that everythig appears instantlly.

what does it explain about big bang? and why do you call claim that "everything appeared instantly" a fact?

Now instead of reiterating your "thoughts" again, please to respond my questions (previous post included)

Quote:
analogy is the exact correspondanc between different things.

no, analogy is never exact. Just by two things being different, there can't be 100% correspondence between them. There is always some difference. That's why analogy can't be used for anything else than some explaination helper.
Post 03 Mar 2008, 19:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.