Allah is a logical entity.
-
lol Here Mel a link for you, I know how much you like pictures but do pay attention to the description...
http//www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/60f5/
That is all good. Now here is what it is really about and it is not tshirts from geekthink
The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke about rounding and estimating. For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers to integers (no decimal places) and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator will automatically round, so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. When you punch in the 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you add, the sum 4.95 will be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.
It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.
--SDSTAFF Dex
Straight Dope Science Advisory BoardNow take a breather, and think about it
-
But im sure you allready googled your way past the streightdope answer, wich is the correct one.
-
Bwahahah, you picked this up from straightdope?!?! I didn't need to google, I am a regular at thinkgeek, just like I don't need to look up dictionary.com for what logic is, that was a good one though... lol
Now take a breather, and think about it
It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.
Did you notice the key word 'measurements'? Do you know of measured values and true values?!? In relation to what neo asked you do you know what real numbers are? What constants are in mathematics? Maybe I should add are you even aware of what numbers are and how they play out in mathematics?!?
But I understand, google is your friend, learn it, live it, love it.
-
2.1 is still 2 at a higher value. thus 2.5+2.5=5. This is perfectly within the limits of math. You just have to use large values of a number.
Thus 2+2 actually CAN be 5
Dont take me on in math, or rather. please do! Then call me stupid.
and right back at you
LMFAO
2+2 = 4.
2.5 != 2Please, just shut up before you embarrass yourself further.
lol Here Mel a link for you, I know how much you like pictures but do pay attention to the description...
http//www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/60f5/
That is all good. Now here is what it is really about and it is not tshirts from geekthink
The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke about rounding and estimating. For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers to integers (no decimal places) and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator will automatically round, so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. When you punch in the 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you add, the sum 4.95 will be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.
It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.
--SDSTAFF Dex
Straight Dope Science Advisory BoardNow take a breather, and think about it
And then you do it anyway.
Rounding is only an approximation and a premise of rounding is that you do not equate it. ! So when 2.4 is rounded down to 2 you ackowledge the fact that 2.4 is not actually 2, but you're rounding it down for simplicity's sakes.
God you're stupid. Seriously, what school did you go to? Because they obviously didn't do their job. I've read some ridiculous things on the internet but this takes the cake.
-
2.1 is still 2 at a higher value. thus 2.5+2.5=5. This is perfectly within the limits of math. You just have to use large values of a number.
Thus 2+2 actually CAN be 5
Dont take me on in math, or rather. please do! Then call me stupid.
and right back at you
LMFAO
2+2 = 4.
2.5 != 2Please, just shut up before you embarrass yourself further.
lol Here Mel a link for you, I know how much you like pictures but do pay attention to the description...
http//www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/60f5/
That is all good. Now here is what it is really about and it is not tshirts from geekthink
The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke about rounding and estimating. For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers to integers (no decimal places) and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator will automatically round, so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. When you punch in the 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you add, the sum 4.95 will be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.
It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.
--SDSTAFF Dex
Straight Dope Science Advisory BoardNow take a breather, and think about it
And then you do it anyway.
Rounding is only an approximation and a premise of rounding is that you do not equate it. ! So when 2.4 is rounded down to 2 you ackowledge the fact that 2.4 is not actually 2, but you're rounding it down for simplicity's sakes.
God you're stupid. Seriously, what school did you go to? Because they obviously didn't do their job. I've read some ridiculous things on the internet but this takes the cake.
Good job on missing the point completely you stupid fuck! I have a bachelor in theoretical math, with main focus on logical algorithm's. Altso called AI. Abstract and creative thinking is not part you is it? Incredible for someone who want to argue about something like logic.
theoretical world = things work within the framwork of itelf, like something silly as large values and objective logic, this does not make it wrong. But it makes it theoretical, not real.
I can't even be arsed to tell you what the point of the joke was if you don't get it youself. But ofcourse, that would take brain to do so.
Good day fucktard
-
Tsk tsk...such strong emotions...On any forum it's wise not to take the word of anyone when they make claims...but to verify what they have actually posted. That is the best judge, after all we can verify empirical evidence, the rest is all theoretical, nooo its all relative or as some would say, only in their head.
-
Tsk tsk...such strong emotions...On any forum it's wise not to take the word of anyone when they make claims...
I agree
but to verify what they have actually posted.
Ohhh you mean a math joke known ALL OVER THE WORLD with matematicians, and even som geeks that makes tshits who didnt understand it's point. Not to worry though, the rest of us do. So now go and get the tshirt toots.
That is the best judge, after all we can verify empirical evidence, the rest is all theoretical, nooo its all relative or as some would say, only in their head.
Yeah, like objective logic in a world based on subjective experince. Way to go girl, you really came of smart here!
-
Ohhh you mean a math joke known ALL OVER THE WORLD with matematicians, and even som geeks that makes tshits who didnt understand it's point. Not to worry though, the rest of us do.
Yes the rest of us do, unfortunately you posted something while googling to support your assertions which you got thru google in the first place... without even understanding the implications of what you yourself posted, well done I must say!
Yeah, like objective logic in a world based on subjective experince. Way to go girl, you really came of smart here!
For someone claiming to have a math degree your quote "Everything is perspectives, and nothing more. And they are all subjective." is astoundingly hilarious...world based on subjective experience? Wtf? Or your perceptions being subjective...if this world was based on subjective experience you could never come to a conclusion about 'objective' things and no one would know what empirical evidence is, which unfortunately for you, we do. You shouldn't be worried about me coming off smart or not, save your own arse...it's really in need of it wink
-
Good job on missing the point completely you stupid ****! I have a bachelor in theoretical math, with main focus on logical algorithm's. Altso called AI. Abstract and creative thinking is not part you is it? Incredible for someone who want to argue about something like logic.
theoretical world = things work within the framwork of itelf, like something silly as large values and objective logic, this does not make it wrong. But it makes it theoretical, not real.
I can't even be arsed to tell you what the point of the joke was if you don't get it youself. But ofcourse, that would take brain to do so.
Good day fucktard
lol "fucktard"? "stupid ****"? Someone is losing their cool (i.e. you). It's never a good idea to lose your cool in an argument because then you'll just resort to emotional arguments and thus concede your point, in much the same way you just have. Allow me to explain.
I get your "joke"; but you didn't understand my question - which was for you to destabilize the fact that logic is indeed based on an objective study and prove that it is based on the subjective. By showing me that mathematics operates on the land of the theoretical does nothing to prove your point because logic is theoretical by definition since it bypasses all sensory perceptions (e.g. a blind man can do logic even if he does not know what a real 'thing' looks like). A defining part of logic is that it underlines the laws of the universe from a thought-based level and thus it utilizes objective proofs; so sitting there saying "but it's not t3h realz lolz!" isn't really making a point - it's stating the obvious. Logic does not operate based on our senses and that is precisely what makes it objective. However, just because it's theoretical does not mean it can't be applicable to the "real" world and there are enough examples to prove this. So please, go back to the drawing board and think of a proper argument instead of obfuscating the topic with jocular bullshit or trying to insult me by touting your bachelors degree in mathematics because trust me, no one here cares. Thanks for trying though, your joke did make me laugh - just not the way you had hoped for.
By the way, for someone who did a BACHELOR in mathematics, you sure don't know how to read/write. I guess with all those numbers you really forgot how to express yourself within any level of articulacy huh? Do you want me to translate the above paragraph to you in an easier form to aid your understanding or do you think you're fine with that level of Enlglish (it's pretty basic, but I wouldn't put anything past you)? Don't be afraid to ask - no one think you can get any more stupid anyway.
-
Ohhh you mean a math joke known ALL OVER THE WORLD with matematicians, and even som geeks that makes tshits who didnt understand it's point. Not to worry though, the rest of us do.
Yes the rest of us do, unfortunately you posted something while googling to support your assertions which you got thru google in the first place... without even understanding the implications of what you yourself posted, well done I must say!
No, I know "Cecil Adam's" on a personal level, and have been supporting their site for years. Come again!
Oh btw, you like to view people on what they do, and if you like their writing style, right?. Download this.
http//rapidshare.de/files/6818785/logikz.rar.htmlIt is a shader type program that use AI algorithms draw fractals in a tangent space realtime, use perplex array's and use AI for all tengent vectors. I even added music for your's sake. So if you dont understand what you look at, wich a highly doubt, then just enjoy the music.
For someone claiming to have a math degree your quote "Everything is perspectives, and nothing more. And they are all subjective." is astoundingly hilarious...world based on subjective experience? Wtf? Or your perceptions being subjective...if this world was based on subjective experience you could never come to a conclusion about 'objective' things and no one would know what empirical evidence is, which unfortunately for you, we do.
No we dont, we know observation of system's that often repeat. Often being the keyword. Oh yes you can come to conclutions...YOU can come to conclutions, and so can everybody else, and sometimes those will overlap. The more we understand math, the more we understand just how subjective an experience the world truely is. And with the arrival of more absract types of both math and thinking, we have started to make quantum leaps (litterally quantum actually).
You shouldn't be worried about me coming off smart or not, save your own arse...it's really in need of it wink
no, not really. that you dont know what you're talking about is not my problem at all. But by all means, please stick to whatever you learned in highschool from books that are 10 year's old. And I will continue to focus more on recent *.edu documents.
-
lol "fucktard"? "stupid ****"? Someone is losing their cool (i.e. you). It's never a good idea to lose your cool in an argument because then you'll just resort to emotional arguments and thus concede your point, in much the same way you just have. Allow me to explain.
God you're stupid. Seriously, what school did you go to? Because they obviously didn't do their job. I've read some ridiculous things on the internet but this takes the cake.
whatever you'r point was, I'm not interrested hypocrite!
EDIT
By the way, for someone who did a BACHELOR in mathematics, you sure don't know how to read/writeyeah, it's a good thing it's not a bachelor in linguistic's is'nt it? So you want to come of smart by yet again attacking the way that i write, good on you. As for the rest of your thread...man you are a fool. When YOU observe something, it would be YOU'R observation of it that is written down. Then someone else can observe and make HIS (subjective) observation. And the two of you can see if they allign. If several people get the same observation ,it is made a fact. Like, the world was flat once...
-
Here's a formal argument to show that statement "logic is relative" is nothing more than playground bullshit for 17 year olds who think they know everything about t3h everythinnz
The statement "logic is relative" is a contradictory statement. Making a claim on the nature of logic is an objective statement by itself because if logic was relative then that statement could not be made. The fact that you claim "logic is relative" is making an objective statement and therefore logic is not relative. If you make the claim "logic COULD be relative" then that implies there's a chance that logic is objective, and if that's the case then said objective logic will rule over the subjective because there will be a facet of logic which remains objective. So no matter which way you try to break it down, logic stays objective.
whatever you'r point was, I'm not interrested hypocrite!
Of course you're not - because you can't prove yourself.
yeah, it's a good thing it's not a bachelor in linguistic's is'nt it? So you want to come of smart by yet again attacking the way that i write, good on you. As for the rest of your thread...man you are a fool. When YOU observe something, it would be YOU'R observation of it that is written down. Then someone else can observe and make HIS (subjective) observation. And the two of you can see if they allign. If several people get the same observation ,it is made a fact. Like, the world was flat once...
Lol.
-
The statement "logic is relative" is a contradictory statement. Making a claim on the nature of logic is an objective statement by itself because if logic was relative then that statement could not be made.
Oh YOU think so? interresting
The fact that you claim "logic is relative" is making an objective statement and therefore logic is not relative.
How on earth do you make that an objective statement. I'm honestly wondering. If it comes from someone expressing an oppinion. You find that objective? now that is interresting.
If you make the claim "logic COULD be relative" then that implies there's a chance that logic is objective, and if that's the case then said objective logic will rule over the subjective because there will be a facet of logic which remains objective. So no matter which way you try to break it down, logic stays objective.
say you, I dont agree, and you have'nt made you'r point at all.
Of course you're not - because you can't prove yourself.
You are right i can't an neither can you. But we can share, or attack eachother with our subjective oppinions, a shame you cannot see this. But try and pull your head out of your arse, and maybe that will help
-
Thank you neo for the breath of objective and dare I say, refreshing air, and one of the nails in the coffin to it's all subjective really, no no it is...
no, not really. that you dont know what you're talking about is not my problem at all. But by all means, please stick to whatever you learned in highschool from books that are 10 year's old. And I will continue to focus more on recent *.edu documents.
If the foundation is lacking, not much point in building on it is there for you? Focus on what you want, doesn't make what you wrote any less of a hilarity. Math degree, my potted plant's arse.
There's no hope for humankind when this happens...prepare for doom.
-
How on earth do you make that an objective statement. I'm honestly wondering. If it comes from someone expressing an oppinion. You find that objective? now that is interresting.
Because you are saying for certain that logic is relative.
say you, I dont agree, and you have'nt made you'r point at all.
You don't agree on what grounds? State your argument or shut up.
You are right i can't an neither can you. But we can share, or attack eachother with our subjective oppinions, a shame you cannot see this. But try and pull your head out of your arse, and maybe that will help
No. Wrong. I have proven myself - twice. I've shown you an argument of why logic is objective and I've asked you to disprove objective logical statements. You haven't provided a valid argument for why logic is subjective nor have you disproved the objective statements I've provided. If there's anyone here pulling things out of his arse it's you, not me.
-
Because you are saying for certain that logic is relative.
Nothing Neo. Absolutely nothing is for certain i thought taht was pretty obvious i thought that.
You don't agree on what grounds? State your argument or shut up.
I have. As everything is experienced through 6 billion (supposedly) different 5 sense reality's, that is the amount of variables to a truth there is then. We will to death support the view that we like, I will demonstrate, dont take this as an attack, I have cooled down, from this mornings quagmire.
Didn't Plato say this bout 2000 years ago?
Pet idea? Yes, if you consider 2000+ years of academia "pet idea" in the face of some post-modernist relativistic bullshit, yes.
I like the idea, thus age is a stamp of approval (allthough these academics did say earth was flat based on at the time objective observation). I do not like the idea, thus age is something outdated and wierd. It's all personal perspectives, and both view's on this abstract science of objectivity is perfectly valid, and seriously concidered by science. M theory and quantum physics is not excactly build upon facts of the matter now is it?
No. Wrong. I have proven myself - twice. I've shown you an argument of why logic is objective and I've asked you to disprove objective logical statements.
No you have given me the typical blahblah that everybody from your side of the fence gives. An incredible amount of words, actually saying very little. that is what you have given me.
You haven't provided a valid argument for why logic is subjective nor have you disproved the objective statements I've provided. If there's anyone here pulling things out of his arse it's you, not me.
I have produced 2 allready. It's a shame you are unable to think outside the box. But ok, I will cut it out in cardboard for you, but it will take some time then.
-
If the foundation is lacking, not much point in building on it is there for you? Focus on what you want, doesn't make what you wrote any less of a hilarity. Math degree, my potted plant's arse.
I gave you evidence as calculating 3 dimensional fractals in realtime can only be achieved by someone with an advanced math knowledge. But if you refuse to view evidence, because you dislike my personality. what does that say about you, really?
Who will cause the doom? The arsehole willing to listen to arguments given that they are good, nomatter what arsehole comes with them. Or village idiot, that will only listen to sources they like, and think is nice.
The evidence was in the file.
-
I just remembered this one about the obvious flaw of logic in real life.
A stone cannot fly of itself. My mom cannot fly of her self. Ergo, my mom is a stone.
In all it's simplicity, brilliant.
-
I gave you evidence as calculating 3 dimensional fractals in realtime can only be achieved by someone with an advanced math knowledge. But if you refuse to view evidence, because you dislike my personality. what does that say about you, really?
Why are you exagerrating? You gave me a link to what you claim is a program? Who even knows if it's yours...I'm sorry I'm not about to be d/l any weird stuff off from the net especially from someone claiming to have a math degree and then failing miserably to prove it in their posts alone.
Who will cause the doom? The arsehole willing to listen to arguments given that they are good, nomatter what arsehole comes with them. Or village idiot, that will only listen to sources they like, and think is nice.
The evidence was in the file.
You have really lost it, you are getting hysterical lol People claiming degrees and flaunting them in other's faces are sad and pathetic little posers who usually fail at what they set out to prove. Thus, their last ditch efforts when there is nothing left to fall back upon...oh look! I have a degree but I just wrote crap exposing my so called intellect to the world to be laughed at!! /whatever.
-
Why are you exagerrating? You gave me a link to what you claim is a program? Who even knows if it's yours...I'm sorry I'm not about to be d/l any weird stuff off from the net especially from someone claiming to have a math degree and then failing miserably to prove it in their posts alone.
I can put wahtever message you want me to in the program and repost it.
Where is it that i have failed? we have not spoken about math, only an age old math joke?You have really lost it, you are getting hysterical lol People claiming degrees and flaunting them in other's faces are sad and pathetic little posers who usually fail at what they set out to prove
Neo wrote
God you're stupid. Seriously, what school did you go to? Because they obviously didn't do their job. I've read some ridiculous things on the internet but this takes the cake.
And i answered him what my formal education is. I did this one single time, wich is hardly flaunting anything. It was answering a question.
Thus, their last ditch efforts when there is nothing left to fall back upon...oh look! I have a degree but I just wrote crap exposing my so called intellect to the world to be laughed at!! /whatever.
indeed whatever. That you dislike me and thus refuse to view evidence backing up my claim based on that, would be your God damn problem.