Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Is Global Warming a Hoax?

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 376 to 450 of 580
  1. #376
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    If a mathematical function returns a value with a limit of 0, that means as the input value gets larger, the output value gets closer and closer to 0 but never reaches it. It instead becomes infinitesimal.
    Ok, so like the reciprocal of a pair of numbers... the larger the one number, the smaller the other number. As we approach infinity, the reciprocal approaches zero.

    But so long as one number is defined, so is the reciprocal. However large the larger number gets, so long as it is not infinite, then its reciprocal will not be infinitesimal. We can measure it. It is 1/x, that is a meausrement because we know x. Only if we don't know x can we not know 1/x.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Again you're making the mistake of assuming all these things we infer are true based on past observations are immutable. You don't have enough evidence to conclude that.
    Not based on past observations, based on present observations. You're the one stuck in the past.

    By that logic we may someday be able to assign a value to infinity.
    I think we're talking about different definitions of "immeasureable". You might be referring to something that will always be immeasurable (which, incidentally, implies knowledge of the future). I'm talking about the limitations of our ability to measure things, which improves with time.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #378
    fwiw, I'm comfortable also making the prediction that infinity will always be immeasurable. Poop isn't though.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #379
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, so like the reciprocal of a pair of numbers... the larger the one number, the smaller the other number. As we approach infinity, the reciprocal approaches zero.

    But so long as one number is defined, so is the reciprocal. However large the larger number gets, so long as it is not infinite, then its reciprocal will not be infinitesimal. We can measure it. It is 1/x, that is a meausrement because we know x. Only if we don't know x can we not know 1/x.

    That's what a limit means, we don't have a definition for how far it goes except that it never reaches its limit.
  5. #380
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    That's what a limit means, we don't have a definition for how far it goes except that it never reaches its limit.
    But no finite number will return an infinitesimal reciprocal. Not if infinitesimal means "immeasurable".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Not based on past observations, based on present observations.
    I forgot you have no past but an infinite present. My bad.

    For the rest of us, all observations come from the past as all observations take time to be converted from physical inputs to thoughts.
  7. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I forgot you have no past but an infinite present. My bad.

    For the rest of us, all observations come from the past as all observations take time to be converted from physical inputs to thoughts.
    Observation does not equal thoughts.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Not based on past observations, based on present observations. You're the one stuck in the past.



    I think we're talking about different definitions of "immeasureable". You might be referring to something that will always be immeasurable (which, incidentally, implies knowledge of the future). I'm talking about the limitations of our ability to measure things, which improves with time.
    You're arguing we'll have to move the goalposts if we get a precise enough measuring device. I'm using the meaning of 'undefined' as equivalent to 'immeasurable'. Maybe a better word is 'unknowable', but I know you hate that...
  9. #384
    Let's talk about reciprocals more. It should be very clear that the reciprocal of infinity is zero. Like I said earlier, polar opposites of the same coin. Zero and infinity are as related to one another as 0.5 and 2. If you want to multiply by one, you can divide by the other. They are entangled, for lack of a better word. You can't have one without the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Observation does not equal thoughts.
    It's a precondition. How else do you become aware of your observations?
  11. #386
    Maybe a better word is 'unknowable', but I know you hate that...
    Hey I'm happy that some things are unknowable. I just don't think everything is unknowable.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #387
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's a precondition. How else do you become aware of your observations?
    Sure, but one happens before the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Let's talk about reciprocals more. It should be very clear that the reciprocal of infinity is zero. Like I said earlier, polar opposites of the same coin. Zero and infinity are as related to one another as 0.5 and 2. If you want to multiply by one, you can divide by the other. They are entangled, for lack of a better word. You can't have one without the other.
    1/undefined is still undefined.
  14. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sure, but one happens before the other.
    But you can't record your observation until you're aware of it. What you experience as observations are neural reconstructions of the past, they don't happen in real time.
  15. #390
    Your experience of 'now' lags ~250 milliseconds behind the actual 'now' that is happening in the outside world.
  16. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    1/undefined is still undefined.
    Yes, but my point is that if infinitesimal means a value above zero that we cannot measure, then its reciprocal is a finite number that we also cannot measure. Thus, infinitesimal does not equal infinity.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #392
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes, but my point is that if infinitesimal means a value above zero that we cannot measure, then its reciprocal is a finite number that we also cannot measure. Thus, infinitesimal does not equal infinity.
    If infinitesimal is undefined so should be its reciprocal I would think...
  18. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If infinitesimal is undefined so should be its reciprocal I would think...
    Indeed, but if infinitesimal is >0, then its reciprocal is a value that is <infinity. Undefined, maybe, but only due to our limitations.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #394
    Undefined and undefinable are different things.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Your experience of 'now' lags ~250 milliseconds behind the actual 'now' that is happening in the outside world.
    Because of this, the present is unavailable to us. Although the present exists (for now, ha ha), our experience is an ongoing reconstruction of the recent past.

    If you ever do gouge your eyes out with scissors (and I hope you don't) you will not experience it until 1/4 second after it happens. Your brain will send the commands to your muscles owing to a failure of your frontal cortex to inhibit the impulse, the scissors will pierce your eyeball and severe your optic nerve, but at that same moment you will be experiencing the sensation of them looming but not yet touching your eye. Only 1/4 of a second later will you experience pain and blindness.

    The realisation that you're a dumb fuck for blinding yourself may take considerably longer as you'll probably be too busy screaming for a while to have a coherent thought.
  21. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Indeed, but if infinitesimal is >0, then its reciprocal is a value that is <infinity. Undefined, maybe, but only due to our limitations.
    Depends how you look at it I guess. Still don't think 0 = infinity. By this logic then 2 = 1/2
  22. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Still don't think 0 = infinity. By this logic then 2 = 1/2
    Yeah, and space isn't time, it's just that one can't exist without the other. To say they are the same is not accurate, but also to say they are different is not entirely accurate either. For example, multiplication and division. They are different functions. But are they? When we wish to multiply by x, we can divide by 1/x instead, and vice versa. So are they really that different?

    If I have 2 apples, then it can be expressed as 2 times one apple, or one apple divided by 0.5. The numbers are only as different as the functions we're applying to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #398
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Let's talk about reciprocals more. It should be very clear that the reciprocal of infinity is zero. Like I said earlier, polar opposites of the same coin. Zero and infinity are as related to one another as 0.5 and 2. If you want to multiply by one, you can divide by the other. They are entangled, for lack of a better word. You can't have one without the other.
    This whole divide by 0 thing is nonsense. You can't divide by zero it is meaningless. It isn't a defined function. You can do loads of analysis on limits of functions but not a single thing will say anything/0 is infinity because the statement divided by zero means nothing.
  24. #399
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, and space isn't time, it's just that one can't exist without the other. To say they are the same is not accurate, but also to say they are different is not entirely accurate either. For example, multiplication and division. They are different functions. But are they? When we wish to multiply by x, we can divide by 1/x instead, and vice versa. So are they really that different?

    If I have 2 apples, then it can be expressed as 2 times one apple, or one apple divided by 0.5. The numbers are only as different as the functions we're applying to them.
    Do you understand what same and different mean? I don't think you do. Things that are similar are different, not the same.

    And once again you need to start defining limiits because your statement about if we wish to multiply by x instead we can divide by 1/x in general isn't true.
  25. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Let's talk about reciprocals more. It should be very clear that the reciprocal of infinity is zero. Like I said earlier, polar opposites of the same coin. Zero and infinity are as related to one another as 0.5 and 2. If you want to multiply by one, you can divide by the other. They are entangled, for lack of a better word. You can't have one without the other.
    For a start the reciprocal of infinity isn't zero. It is a meaningless statement. Infinity is a concept (in maths a well definite one, in your vocabulary not so much) not a number. Just because the words are related to maths doesn't mean your statement means anything more than something like the reciprocal of a square is a circle.
  26. #401
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oh don't give me this crap. OUR maths falls aprt, not THE maths. Physics can explain perfectly well what's going on inside a black hole, we merely don't understand how to apply the maths yet. I'm sure (though not 100% certain) we will one day.
    What do you mean physicists can explain perfectly well what's going on? You realise basically everything we know about black holes is due to playing around with maths and nothing else right?
  27. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    ...because your statement about if we wish to multiply by x instead we can divide by 1/x in general isn't true.
    You're wrong.

    678*46=31188
    678/(1/46)=31188
    46/(1/678)=31188

    Take any two numbers, mulitply them together, note your answer, then divide one by the reciprocal of the other, and note your answer.

    Apology accepted.

    For a start the reciprocal of infinity isn't zero.
    Again, you're wrong, although I can't actually prove this one.

    This whole divide by 0 thing is nonsense. You can't divide by zero it is meaningless.
    If this were true, then neither can you multiply by zero. Because... division and multiply are essentially the same function, just the inverse of one another. The proof is above, see the reciprocal sums.

    Do you understand what same and different mean? I don't think you do. Things that are similar are different, not the same.
    Nature is absolutely full of things that are different yet the same. Such as... space and time, energy and matter, magnetism and electricity, mulitplication and division, addition and subtraction. When two things are so intricstically linked that they cannot exist without the other, then for all intents and purposes, they are one and the same. It's no coincidence that the word "spacetime" exists and has meaning. Different apsects of the same thing. To say that "the same" and "different" are as black and white as you're suggesting, that implies that multiplication is as different to division as apples are. It's you who doesn't understand what "different" means.

    What do you mean physicists can explain perfectly well what's going on?
    That's not what I said. I said physics, not physicists. One day a physicist might be able to explain it, but that day hasn't come yet. That is because physicists don't yet fully understand physics.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 01-13-2017 at 07:10 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #403
    So... the numbers 2 and 0.5... the functions multiply and divide... they are both "different" and "the same". Rather than mutiplying by two, I can divide by 0.5 and get the same answer. They are inverse to one another. They are polar opposites. North can only exist relative to south. North doesn't exist without south. One is an emergent property of the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #404
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Nature is absolutely full of things that are different yet the same. Such as... space and time, energy and matter, magnetism and electricity, mulitplication and division, addition and subtraction.
    'Different but related' is not the same as 'same'.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    When two things are so intricstically linked that they cannot exist without the other, then for all intents and purposes, they are one and the same.
    The word to describe this is 'interdependent', not 'identical'.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's not what I said. I said physics, not physicists. One day a physicist might be able to explain it, but that day hasn't come yet. That is because physicists don't yet fully understand physics.
    Fair point, but when one says 'physics', they generally mean 'the postulates of physics', not 'the entirety of information about the universe, known and unknown'. Also, the latter does not 'explain' anything because 'explain' is a verb meaning to make something understandable. The information itself does not make itself understandable, it needs someone to interpret it. That's where 'explain' comes in.
  30. #405
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So... the numbers 2 and 0.5... the functions multiply and divide... they are both "different" and "the same". Rather than mutiplying by two, I can divide by 0.5 and get the same answer. They are inverse to one another. They are polar opposites. North can only exist relative to south. North doesn't exist without south. One is an emergent property of the other.
    Try 'different but related' -'different but the same ' is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying 'black yet white'.

    'same' implies interchangeable. 'Two' and 'a couple' or 'a pair' are interchangeable. When I say 'a couple' I never mean 'a half'.
  31. #406
    Are space and time the same thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #407
    My point with that question is simply that it's not as binary as you'd like to think.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #408
    Not the same, but they're interrelated (in theory).
  34. #409
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Not the same, but they're interrelated.
    But they are the same. That's why it's actually called spacetime.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #410
    Had you said they were the same, I'd have argued they're not.

    Like I say, it's non-binary.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #411
    Saying space and time are interrelated does not do justice to the level of relation. We're not talking about brother and sister here. Rather, mind and soul.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #412
    Here's a question then...

    If north and south are different, is north an emergent property of south? Or is south an emergent property of north?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #413
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But they are the same. That's why it's actually called spacetime.
    You've gone to just talking complete shit again. Spacetime is a concept that refers to the idea that space and time are interdependent, it combines the two, it doesn't say they're identical.
  39. #414
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You've gone to just talking complete shit again. Spacetime is a concept that refers to the idea that space and time are interdependent, it combines the two, it doesn't say they're identical.
    It unifies them.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #415
    It's like if I devised a theory that combined space with mass and called it spacemass, then said that it means space = mass.
  41. #416
    When they unified electricity and magnetism, they didn't just acknowledge they are interdependant, they recognised that it was one force, now called electromagnetism.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It unifies them.
    So if you combine two things together they must be identical? Ok then since 2+3=5 I just proved that 2=3.
  43. #418
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're wrong.

    678*46=31188
    678/(1/46)=31188
    46/(1/678)=31188

    Take any two numbers, mulitply them together, note your answer, then divide one by the reciprocal of the other, and note your answer.

    Apology accepted.
    Good example of why proving statements in general can almost never be done by giving examples. You could give me an infinite amount of examples in this case and still be wrong, precisely because you only need one example that doesn't work which I know. I'll give you a hint I've already told you it's meaningless.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Again, you're wrong, although I can't actually prove this one.
    The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is 0. This is not the same thing as 1/infinity = 0.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If this were true, then neither can you multiply by zero. Because... division and multiply are essentially the same function, just the inverse of one another. The proof is above, see the reciprocal sums.
    No you can multiply by zero. Any number (note infinity isn't a number) multiplied by zero is zero. What you're doing is using an incorrect definition and attempting to work backwards. What you actually know is a nice little trick for manipulating fractions not the real definitions of mathematical terms.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nature is absolutely full of things that are different yet the same. Such as... space and time, energy and matter, magnetism and electricity, mulitplication and division, addition and subtraction. When two things are so intricstically linked that they cannot exist without the other, then for all intents and purposes, they are one and the same. It's no coincidence that the word "spacetime" exists and has meaning. Different apsects of the same thing. To say that "the same" and "different" are as black and white as you're suggesting, that implies that multiplication is as different to division as apples are. It's you who doesn't understand what "different" means.
    Once again the terms aren't interchangable in literally every single one of the examples you gave. They are linked, not the same. The words same means something but once again you think you can bastardise it's meaning and that's ok.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's not what I said. I said physics, not physicists. One day a physicist might be able to explain it, but that day hasn't come yet. That is because physicists don't yet fully understand physics.
    Ohh so you were making a meaningless statement. Something exists therefore physics will one day explain it in full. I'm not sure I agree but at least that statement is debatable rather than completely wrong like what I thought you were saying.
    Last edited by Savy; 01-13-2017 at 09:39 AM.
  44. #419
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's like if I devised a theory that combined space with mass and called it spacemass, then said that it means space = mass.
    Now who's talking shit?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #420
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So if you combine two things together they must be identical? Ok then since 2+3=5 I just proved that 2=3.
    see - electromagnetism
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #421
    Must be trolling now so cba continuing.
  47. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy
    which I know
    Do tell...

    If you intend to throw zeros at me, then we're going into the realm of our lack of understanding, rather than maths itself breaking down.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #423
    In fact I just put milk in my coffee and called it a milkee, thus proving that milk and coffee are the same thing.
  49. #424
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Now who's talking shit?
    Only for the purpose of illustrating that you were...
  50. #425
    The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is 0. This is not the same thing as 1/infinity = 0.
    This is false.

    The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity approaches zero. Any value greater than zero has a reciprocal less than infinity.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    In fact I just put milk in my coffee and called it a milkee, thus proving that milk and coffee are the same thing.
    Risht, so you're saying that time and space are only related because they exist together? That's the level of relation? Coexistence?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #427
    There's different approaches to maths, and one of them would say that 1/infinity = 0; but none of them say that 0 = infinity

    Same thing for physics; there's a concept of spacetime as a singular entity, but there's no concept that space = time any more than there's a concept that space = mass.
  53. #428
    The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is 0.
    I mean this implies zero has a reciprocal that is lower than infinity, merely a number approaching infinity.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do tell...

    If you intend to throw zeros at me, then we're going into the realm of our lack of understanding, rather than maths itself breaking down.
    In mathematics, division by zero is division where the divisor (denominator) is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a≠0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 also has no defined value; when it is the form of a limit, it is an indeterminate form. Historically, one of the earliest recorded references to the mathematical impossibility of assigning a value to a/0 is contained in George Berkeley's criticism of infinitesimal calculus in 1734 in The Analyst ("ghosts of departed quantities").[1]

    There are mathematical structures in which a/0 is defined for some a such as in the Riemann sphere and the projectively extended real line; however, such structures cannot satisfy every ordinary rule of arithmetic (the field axioms).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero

    Zero is the counter example, your statement is true for the limits (-infinity,0), (0, infinity). For clarification on what that means (use of brackets is important) see the following link.
    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Interval.html
  55. #430
    There's different approaches to maths, and one of them would say that 1/infinity = 0; but none of them say that 0 = infinity
    Yeah well a lot of the "equals" and "same" stuff is philosophical rather than mathematical. Obviously north and south are not the "same", because they point in different directions, which is the whol point of even defining north and south. But they are emergent properties of one another... you can't have north without south, the instant you create one, the other is de facto created. So are they really that different?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is false.

    The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity approaches zero. Any value greater than zero has a reciprocal less than infinity.
    Ohh right you don't get how limits work either. That's cool I suppose you would have never dealt with them before.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_...lving_infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    There's different approaches to maths, and one of them would say that 1/infinity = 0; but none of them say that 0 = infinity
    This quite simply isn't true. It's just a bastardisation that gets thrown around, hence all the confusion.
  57. #432
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is false.
    I mean I may have not really participated in much studying whilst at uni & I'm very out of practise on a lot of these topics but I do have a degree in maths, and with it at least a competent understanding of the basics of calculus, so it'd be nice if you maybe listened and learned rather than just ignoring what I say and telling me I'm wrong.

    I'm sure someone like MMM can happily testify to the fact I'm not trying to dupe you.
  58. #433
    Your statement implies that the reciprocal of zero is approaching infinity. Explain to me why that isn't so.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #434
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I mean I may have not really participated in much studying whilst at uni & I'm very out of practise on a lot of these topics but I do have a degree in maths, and with it at least a competent understanding of the basics of calculus, so it'd be nice if you maybe listened and learned rather than just ignoring what I say and telling me I'm wrong.

    I'm sure someone like MMM can happily testify to the fact I'm not trying to dupe you.
    You take me way too seriously. You really should know better.

    You think I'm impressed with words like "calculus" and will suddenly stop talking shit as a consequence?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Your statement implies that the reciprocal of zero is approaching infinity. Explain to me why that isn't so.
    To say that


    means that ƒ(x) can be made as close as desired to L by making x close enough, but not equal, to p.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_...ion#Motivation

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You take me way too seriously. You really should know better.

    You think I'm impressed with words like "calculus" and will suddenly stop talking shit as a consequence?
    No, it just gets boring and as a result you miss out on learning about stuff because people cba getting into long tedious debates when you ask questions about things.
  61. #436
    The best thing is, I'm right that the reciprocal of zero is infinity. I couldn't give a fuck if someone said it's not possible to divide by zero. I can. I just did. 1/0=∞
    Last edited by OngBonga; 01-13-2017 at 10:03 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #437
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    No, it just gets boring....
    Noone's making you read my posts, and noone is forcing you to reply.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #438
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The best thing is, I'm right that the reciprocal of zero is infinity. I couldn't give a fuck if someone said it's not possible to divide by zero. I can. I just did. 1/0=∞
    You are free to stipulate this as an axiom, and explore the corner of math that you've created by adding this axiom.

    The reason this is not a part of broader mathematics is because of the logical inconsistencies it introduces in other ways.

    It's like the 0.999... equals 1, so long as there are infinite 9's. We can choose to define these as separate numbers, separate entities, but then we introduce a lot of logical inconsistencies and degenerate answers. So that's why we don't define them as separate things.
  64. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But they are emergent properties of one another...
    I know what you mean but this is not what we mean by 'emergent property'. An emergent property is what you get when you combine things and it creates something with entirely different properties. An example would be when you combine H and O to get H2O. Water is nothing like hydrogen or oxygen, it's quite different. Thus its 'waterness' is an emergent property of the combination of H and O.

    For things like N and S, since one can't exist without the other, they're interdependent.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    you can't have north without south, the instant you create one, the other is de facto created. So are they really that different?
    Yes, they're opposite to each other. In fact they're as different as you can get since each is defined in terms of its precise opposite relation to the other.

    I agree they are still complementary. But saying 'complementary means the same' is just retarded.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-13-2017 at 11:26 AM.
  65. #440
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    it'd be nice if you maybe listened and learned rather than just ignoring what I say and telling me I'm wrong.
    You're making the assumption that he's here to learn when everything he says and does to this point shows he's instead here to talk shit.

    It took me about 3 days to figure that out, how long have you been wondering?
  66. #441
    poop is fun to argue with because he trolls me as much as I troll him.

    savy is fun to argue with because his tone is filled with so much contempt. He's like a less ranty keith.

    mojo is less fun to argue with because he doesn't get sucked into emotional reactions, he sticks to the facts whilst maintaining a neutral tone.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You're making the assumption that he's here to learn when everything he says and does to this point shows he's instead here to talk shit.

    It took me about 3 days to figure that out, how long have you been wondering?
    poop wins the thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #443
    Yes, they're opposite to each other. In fact they're as different as you can get since each is defined in terms of its precise opposite relation to the other.
    Yes but here we're falling into the trap of thinking that polar opposite means as different as it's possible to be. That isn't the case in the examples I'm talking of. For example, it wouldn't be the case to think that division is more different to multiplication than addition is.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You're making the assumption that he's here to learn when everything he says and does to this point shows he's instead here to talk shit.

    It took me about 3 days to figure that out, how long have you been wondering?
    Nah he does care about learning just this is his way of going about doing it. It can work and does but I'm just bored of it, I'm sure I'll start joining in again the next time a topic comes up I care about enough.

    Not that he doesn't enjoy chatting shit, that is clearly true.
  70. #445
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes but here we're falling into the trap of thinking that polar opposite means as different as it's possible to be. That isn't the case in the examples I'm talking of. For example, it wouldn't be the case to think that division is more different to multiplication than addition is.
    Depends on whether you include things outside of the frame or not. North is more similar to South than it is to orange in the sense that it refers to a direction within a coordinate frame.

    But 'more similar than something else is' != 'identical'.

    A banana is more similar to an apple than it is to a bicycle. But that doesn't mean bananas and apples are identical.
  71. #446
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    mojo is less fun to argue with because he doesn't get sucked into emotional reactions
    You just haven't been pushing the right buttons. Try calling him a lady or saying that Islam is pure evil.
  72. #447
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You just haven't been pushing the right buttons. Try calling him a lady or saying that Islam is pure evil.
    Lazy hatin' inspires my melodramatic side.
  73. #448
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Lazy hatin' inspires my melodramatic side.
    Ah well sorry if I pissed you off that time.

    So it's true that 1/0 doesn't equal infinity? It makes sense to me that it doesn't, but I've seen it argued otherwise.
  74. #449
    Well being straight is similar to being gay as they are both sexual preferences therefore they are same. And as you're all a bunch of fags that's the first bit of evidence supporting ong.
  75. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Well being straight is similar to being gay as they are both sexual preferences therefore they are same. And as you're all a bunch of fags that's the first bit of evidence supporting ong.
    You know the kind of funny where someone is trying to be funny but fails? Then you laugh at the fail?

    That's the level of funny you're on here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •