Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Grandy on June 06, 2009, 03:44:52 AM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU
Really stupid.
This dude apparently believes Math is wrong, which I can kinda relate to since many things on Math make no sense.
But then he proceeds to call everyone idiot and morons for using math in practical everyday uses, and accuses schools of brainwashing us to join the Mathemathic Religion.
Apparently unaware that if he had followers he'd be the closest thing of a cult you could ever get.
-
He obviously does not understand that certain basic abstract terms must be defined without rigor for anything to be formed by extension. Otherwise it would be like nihilism.
-
Yes, thats what people been saying the the comments. I think. I quite frankly did not understand your post.
-
I mean, you gotta just call things whatever because they have to be. Like red has to be red and a color. How can we exactly define what red is to a colorblind person? We don't. We just know because we see it and we define it as red.
If something like 3+3=6 isn't just accepted as true, you can't go on to things like calculus.
Nihilism is disbelief in inherent values like that.
-
If something like 3+3=6 isn't just accepted as true, you can't go on to things like calculus.
Yeah, some people think it is cool or "smart" to change that and say "no it's not, it's 7!" just to try being a deviant. There are smarter ways to deviate...
-
If something like 3+3=6 isn't just accepted as true, you can't go on to things like calculus.
Bad example, as "three" is the name for a specific idea. I can show you three in fingers. There is no arguing that three is three. Six is a name for what can be defined as two threes. You know what? Read my comment(s) on the video.
-
6 perhaps could be defined as another name for 5, couldn't it? We first would need to define 3.
Anyhow, however axiomatic it may or may not be, I think it still shows that you have to work bottom-up, if I'm using that term correctly.
What exactly is 3? There is some issue defining it because we can easily call 3 fingers 11,000 if we decide that's the new name for 3.
3 can only be really defined in context; by comparing different types of 3: 3 fingers, 3 snails, 3 circles...
You know what I ****ing hate? Platonism.
-
6 perhaps could be defined as another name for 5, couldn't it? We first would need to define 3.
No, six can't be another name for five. We of course assume the user already understands the universal concept of three before we start the example. Five cannot be six because:
Five = |||||
Five marks, anything that shows up this many times has a quantity of five.
Six = ||||||
Three = |||
Two Threes = ||| ||| or ||||||
|||||| does not equal |||||
It simply cannot be.
-
No, six can't be another name for five. We of course assume the user already understands the universal concept of three before we start the example.
And that is where you go wrong. You cannot assume that, and assuming that is just as easy as assuming the equals sign or the universal concept of three.
I'm not saying the ideal 6 can be another ideal 5. I'm saying the numeral 6 could represent the ideal 5. No internal mathematical inconsistency implied.
You also use a horrible method of demonstrating these things, those bars, because if we deal with ideals such as how you seem to do, they mean nothing. Mere physical approximations at numbers. Chicken scratch on my monitor.
-
Does it really make a difference? People can be such morons hidden under the cloak of intelligence...
This debate is fail because it is composed of fail logic. Debating quantities helps nobody, it just impedes, serving merely as a roadblock to further thinking. Thus is a form of ignorance.
-
Does it really make a difference? People can be such morons hidden under the cloak of intelligence...
This debate is fail because it is composed of fail logic. Debating quantities helps nobody, it just impedes, serving merely as a roadblock to further thinking. Thus is a form of ignorance.
Pah. We do not debate quantities or logic even perhaps, but rather philosophy. There is no intelligence involved.
I know how you feel about "pseudo-intellectuals" and their "dogma, unproductivity," et cetera, but I am afraid you are misapplying. This taxes you not, nor the public.
-
And that is where you go wrong. You cannot assume that, and assuming that is just as easy as assuming the equals sign or the universal concept of three.
We certainly can assume that because we have an understanding of what three is, and we understand that three is a word to let us understand the idea of ||| versus |||||, ||, |||||||, or any other amount of characters used to show quantity in a less efficient manner. Don't be like the asshat in the videos and try to misconstrue the argument to debase it where you have no real argument to counter. We are NOT going into "what is three?". It is a waste of our time, since you know damn well what three is. We all do.
-
I believe Archem, that waht he is saying is correct. We all do KNOW what 3 is, but say, perhaps that aliens landed tomorrow. And they say they've brought 10 ships with them right? We assume 10 as 1111111111. But, to said alien, the word ten and the numeral 10 could represent something else entirely. I believe what Dedlelly is trying to say is, these are just names that we HUMANS have given to numbers.
Same with colours. But aside from that, he's arguing that the word point is not defined. Well, he's wrong. A point is on a line, and a line ends with a point, no line can be infinite, and the location that it ends, can be marked with a dot, thus the point is both a location, and a dot, as the dot is the simple representation of said point. Also, if you take a life into it, and we say points as events in a life, well, again, the line works, as we are born (the point) the life goes ( the line) car crash (a point here) the life goes on (line) and we die (point, end of line)
-
There is no intelligence involved.
Obviously.
Unless perhaps you are trying to imply that you are not of this earth. Aha! I see! So it is true, DedlellyDeth is an ALIEN. From the planet Barone's perhaps?
IQ 174 FTW
-
Dear God, what have I brought upon Charas?!
-
I saw no less than 18 inferior drivers yesterday, and three of which almost collided with the car I was in. No one knows how to drive.
-
really stupid
*walks out*
Nah, I've seen a forum called the flat earth society. that made me die a little on the outside.
-
I'm fairly certain that's a troll site.
-
We certainly can assume that because we have an understanding of what three is, and we understand that three is a word to let us understand the idea of ||| versus |||||, ||, |||||||, or any other amount of characters used to show quantity in a less efficient manner. Don't be like the asshat in the videos and try to misconstrue the argument to debase it where you have no real argument to counter. We are NOT going into "what is three?". It is a waste of our time, since you know damn well what three is. We all do.
I'm not countering, but showing that your argument is flawed. My point is the same as yours, that we know what 3 is and we should treat it as such I was just showing that like the man in the video, you can ambiguate anything and there is no point.
-
Al I know that 2+2=Fish
-
I'm fairly certain that's a troll site.
Unfortunately, it's not...people actually believe in it
-
EDITED
Oh shit, sorry. I thought we were talking about this site (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm), which is the first thing that comes up when you search for Flat Earth Society.
Yeah, flatearthsociety.org actually looks legitimate.
-
Indeed, but I can't help but feel sorry for the stupid peeps that believe in it
-
I don't.
I mean, otherwise I'd have to feel sorry for everyone who doesn't believe what I believe.
-
Replace the science religion...with SANITY
The Flat Earth Society also maintains that the Earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 9.8 m/sē, thereby simulating gravity. Gravity cannot exist on a flat Earth since the disc shape would eventually collapse on itself. However in a few Flat Earth models, other planetary bodies such as the moon and the sun are alleged to have gravitational pulls, causing the gravitational force on an object to decrease as it increases in altitude. This also allows spacecraft to orbit.
lolwut
-
Know about it, the Flat Earth Society is a bunch of dumbasses.
Disagreement for the sake of being disagreeable is what they are trying to pull. Nothing more. The Flat Earth Society is near the top of the "fail list".
-
A point is like a dot on a piece of paper as given example in the video. The dot is a point, or location, on the paper. That location can be given in an ordered pair to tell us exactly were the dot is. So, if dot = location on the paper, and ordered pair = the location of the dot, isn't it true that a dot or point is = to its ordered pair?
A number is a point on a number line that descibes something. True, that the verb 'to count' is used for numbers, but isn't that the same as the correlation betweent the verb 'to run' and the noun 'a run'?
I would post that, but it won't let me.
-
When you feel the need to argue with a bunch of people called the "Flat Earth Society", you should be proud of yourself for being able argue with a bunch of retards. To go into about 10+ emails/post/comments of back and forth aruging is something to be rather proud of as well, you had the free time to go back and forth with a bunch of people who are obviously wrong you deserve points for it, because you decided to waste who-knows-how-long on a something that can be resolved in a few sentances, if not a few words. But, hey, the topic is worth it.
-
I agree with him.
I concur
-
Despite common comparisons, math is the anti-science.
Science is based on the scientific method, which is primitive trial and error.
Mathematics, on the other hand is based on rigor. In mathematics, there are no experiments. Certain things called axioms are religiously assumed as true in the beginning out of necessity, in contrast to the know-nothing approach of science, but after that, there are no guesses. Mathematics is drawing new material out of old material, somewhat ridiculous to prove because it cannot be otherwise through internal consistency and logic. There are no mathematical facts because there can be no mathematical opinions.
<img src="http://kun.co.ro/putsch/chch-atheist.gif">
A comic demonstrating the concept of axioms.
-
For the lulz, eh?
-
What, lulz? Your English is confuse. Where is such lulz?
-
What, lulz? Your English is confuse. Where is such lulz?
I was poking fun at your reference to math as a religion and seeming to oppose it in such an amusing manner, or at lease, it seems heavily implied that you oppose it. Also, "Your English is confuse"? What the hell, dude? Can you get anymore broken?
Anyways, I don't care much for science and math myself, at a point it ceases to sound as intelligent as it used to. And such theories as "perhaps our world is a dream", "maybe our reality is a lie and we are all brains in jars", and "the earth is flat" can not sound anymore idiotic, like some derived theory from random movies.
Basically, I rather not see things within the realms of black and white and rather use them merely as a basis for making a just decision rather than something as definite. But in the realm of numbers and perceptions. One thing must not mean another, it is not a religion but merely an architecture for more to be built upon. If we question such things, then this foundation begins to fail. Obviously opposing math is a bad idea because we base so much upon it. This is erroneous. This is why math is so rigid. It has to be, so things work. For the same reason each gear in a clock serve a function to make the whole work. So does math to make so much of our technology work.
So, math is comparable to the gear in a clock. Small, but making the whole function. I cannot say the same for humans though, we are far too random to be considered mathmatical. So math does not quite apply to us, but perhaps could somewhat simulate us.
I see math not as a faith, but more in the realms of reason and function.
-
You need schooling in chanspeak, my friend. Lulz != lol. Lulz is a perversion of lol meaning humor at someone else's expense. "Your English is confuse" is me speaking in such language that you are not familiar with, stating exactly that. You seem chanophobic by the way, with seeing 4chan links as "fail" and saying things like 4chan rots your brain, however true that may or may not be.
I do not see math as a religion, just supplying a take on one aspect of mathematics, axioms, and you seem to be taking this too seriously.
Darkfox, do you see a psychiatrist? Because I suggest perhaps that you seek such help. You seem such angst with evangelists, and even brand some intelligent scientists as such, perhaps because you do not understand them. An example is when in a chat you said that the Atom is like scientists' God and the apparent religiosity of how scientists take the Big Bang as fact without proof, despite it being a decently likely hypothesis scientifically.
-
Referencing 4chan so much is not good for making arguments, or even remotely valid points. Perhaps an IQ of 174 entitles me to a bit of arrogance and opposition (lol).
I think I fit more into the lines of "eccentric".
however true that may or may not be.
My point exactly. Currently my study has proven more true than false.
-
I concur, but I have never used 4chan as a serious element of argument, though it is included as a prominent point in a few posts for example when I said that Rahl needed a straight dose of internets as a remedy for his faggotry, though in the previous post I had mentioned it in passing in the context of your psyche.
An IQ of 174 is a dangerous thing, my friend, and people with such high IQs frequently feel intense separation from people. Above 160, differentiation in IQ is considered moot by current testing standards.
-
Now you see there, that is trolling. There is no context. Now, I don't say that he doesn't bug me at times, I do not troll him about it since it is not hurting me or poke fun at what he says, except saying that FF is the best game series... I disagree with that, but I still don't troll him about it.
though it is included
Huh?
Edit: Okay, better.
-
I made a typo.
Now you see there, that is trolling. There is no context. Now, I don't say that he doesn't bug me at times, I do not troll him about it since it is not hurting me or poke fun at what he says, except saying that FF is the best game series... I disagree with that, but I still don't troll him about it.
Huh?
Trolling? What? Your English is supah fail. I cannot understand.
I do not say things like that as an experiment for LULZ (proper use) but simply of conversation.
Again, I suggest the last note of my previous post. Surely you do not feel invigorated or the inverse when we speak? If so it may be best to discontinue now for your sake. I am concerned about you.
-
Trolling? What? Your English is supah fail. I cannot understand.
I do not say things like that as an experiment for LULZ (proper use) but simply of conversation.
And we can take your word for it? Why?
-
And we can take your word for it? Why?
It is best you take my word for it rather than otherwise because the former is more likely.
Perhaps a locking by one of your superiors is in order? (I apologize for any condescending tone.)
-
It is best you take my word for it rather than otherwise because the former is more likely.
However it is proven that within humanity is the more likelihood to lie to serve his or her own ends. Hm... I am however concerned on the subject of, that instead of making any statement upon my view of math you rather question my state of mind. It is obviously honestly stated and with and intelligent reasoning mind.
Now, turning this into some failure on my part is not the proper response but rather an attempt at censorship. Do you think your the only deserving one with a point of view on the subject matter? A little point of advice, stop being so condescending. Treating people like children is a fool's game and goes against etiquette. You do this all too commonly and it is getting rather irritating. An IQ does not warrant such behavior. And passing the blame to me only furthers this.
You brag too much about your IQ being 155, yes, it is bragging. You tend to treat others like they are inferior. And even though I have 174, you rather treat me like a child, or as if I am mentally deranged. I don't think you ever are really sorry, and I was trying so hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to befriend you, I was hoping that there was some things learned. Basically, an IQ means nothing.
But nevermind, I am dropping this. This thread has deviated too far from it's original intention. So let us go back to that, shall we?
-
So, ughh... anyone notice that in that picture of Albert he hangs his tounge like he's a member of KISS or something?
-
So, ughh... anyone notice that in that picture of Albert he hangs his tounge like he's a member of KISS or something?
Maybe Einstein was into heavy metal too. XD
-
Aren't IQ tests almost always completely useless?
They certainly should not be used to justify arguments.
-
Aren't IQ tests almost always completely useless?
They certainly should not be used to justify arguments.
Exactly. I really don't see it as an bearing in a manner of making a point. Though some people think it gives special privileges. Ah, I see them merely as a number and nothing more. That's why I bring it up twice, it doesn't mean anything really. XD I actually think bringing up one's IQ is among the weakest arguments and holds no bearing on the subject, but some actually try to use it as an excuse. This may be worthy of a reference somewhere as a joke.
XD But no, I don't use it as a means to justify an argument, just as a mock aimed at Dedlelly in an earlier argument who started his IQ within it. I don't think IQ earns any special privileges.
-
Oh for the love of God... I would say get back on topic, but Dead Lily is the perfect example of it... Guess what... My IQ is 194! It is the internet, try to prove me wrong, bitch!
Now suck it!
-
Is he taking a piss?
-
(It really hurts my feelings to hear how much people misinterpret me and attack me for just acting like a smart person; for having logical debate. I really try to be friendly with you all and not belittle you. I in fact try to provide assistance in the way of corrections.)
However it is proven that within humanity is the more likelihood to lie to serve his or her own ends. Hm... I am however concerned on the subject of, that instead of making any statement upon my view of math you rather question my state of mind. It is obviously honestly stated and with and intelligent reasoning mind.
Now, turning this into some failure on my part is not the proper response but rather an attempt at censorship. Do you think your the only deserving one with a point of view on the subject matter? A little point of advice, stop being so condescending. Treating people like children is a fool's game and goes against etiquette. You do this all too commonly and it is getting rather irritating. An IQ does not warrant such behavior. And passing the blame to me only furthers this.
You brag too much about your IQ being 155, yes, it is bragging. You tend to treat others like they are inferior. And even though I have 174, you rather treat me like a child, or as if I am mentally deranged. I don't think you ever are really sorry, and I was trying so hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to befriend you, I was hoping that there was some things learned.
But nevermind, I am dropping this. This thread has deviated too far from it's original intention. So let us go back to that, shall we?
I did explain that that was not my intent on expressing my opinion on mathematics; I think it is wonderful and only am concerned about your behavior, as a friend, which I hoped to be. Perhaps I speak too properly and logically? (Excuse the mocking tone that I notice myself for it is not intentional.)
I apologized for any condescending tone I may have had. I really care about your well-being and do not think of you as a child or pity you in a negative fashion. I do not consider people inferior and only remark on my IQ as a justification for my strive for rational righteousness and opposition to ignorance which can sometimes lead me to lack of etiquette.
You seem to be stupid, not in the way that you are unintelligent; (I apologize for that word) which I doubt, but in your refusal to accept new data. You also seem to express hatred for all that is not rational, things that cannot be proven, perhaps melding them your way like when I expressed that I do not troll people. You misconstrue my intentions. I've merely tried to express concern with your state of mind, your justifications for logic, not the logic itself or the content of your arguments. Again, I worry about you, as a fellow equal human being, not some insect or whatnot.
This is on topic, I think, because you are an unassuming person, just as the man in the video, the difference being that he is far more silly than you. Please consider my thoughts.
If the former content is rendered unnecessary, may I add that I agree with the previous statement about Albert Einstein.
-
Give it a rest, DedlellyDeth. This is getting old and you want to milk it for every drop just to stroke your ego.
-
Give it a rest, DedlellyDeth. This is getting old and you want to milk it for every drop just to stroke your ego.
This is exactly what I mean. I'm seriously on the verge of tears right now. Stop it.
-
This is exactly what I mean. I'm seriously on the verge of tears right now. Stop it.
No. :o
-
Oh for the love of God... I would say get back on topic, but Dead Lily is the perfect example of it... Guess what... My IQ is 194! It is the internet, try to prove me wrong, bitch!
Now suck it!
XD!! Geez, that image just came out of nowhere!
-
No. :o
I think some of the other members are actually the ones trolling, perhaps.
I have to remind myself that I can't use logic on the internet...
-
I think some of the other members are actually the ones trolling, perhaps.
I have to remind myself that I can't use logic on the internet...
Oh yeah?!
Tomato = fruits.
I have solved all the unsolved mysteries of the universe.
-
So, Grandy... Are the other videos as good as this?
-
I believe Archem, that waht he is saying is correct. We all do KNOW what 3 is, but say, perhaps that aliens landed tomorrow. And they say they've brought 10 ships with them right? We assume 10 as 1111111111. But, to said alien, the word ten and the numeral 10 could represent something else entirely. I believe what Dedlelly is trying to say is, these are just names that we HUMANS have given to numbers.
This is language, not concept. Of course the names are names. Go use another language's name for a number, and the native speakers of that language will understand the concept behind the word. They may not understand the English "ten", but they'll certainly understand their language's word for it. Language, not concept.
And yes, this is from page one. Who cares? I've got to defend my argument with working logic.
Working logic being what the topic's origin lacks.
-
Well, you're right. The name 3 though, could represent any other number. Thus, names don't work. The concept of the number 3 as we understand it is 111.
-
For the video: Those dots are 'places', you might say, but they are only 'places', (in that, they're not infinitely small), since they are only graphical representations of a point; the middle of this so called dot 'place' is a point.
I got up to the point the man began talking about how the points were like 'car crashes' and 'exploding stars'. "How, exactly?" I asked myself. "You do not apply any explanation for these metaphors you use to try and explain these points. And I just love how you end it, saying that math is like as terrible as a car crash." Yeah. In the end, it was too much BS for me.
-
I didn't get that either. This guy also doesn't seem to understand that things can have multiple simultaneous definitions. It really saddens me to see the creator of these videos submitted them, seeming to be serious in his profile... I thought it was a joke.
-
Watch the one about lines. It will make our head explode at how far he goes to try and convince you that a line is bullshit.
-
Lines obviously don't exist. They're mathematical pipe dreams founded on bull**** logic. Anything in real life is only an approximation of a line.
-
Well, yeah. Infinity is not a concept we often encounter on a daily basis (unless we take calculus, but whatever).
Continued watching:
-Explosion cube is retarded. If a mathematician was refering to points at places of events, then it was clearly in a different context than that of a geometric one, which you'd apply to a cube. Besides, for that case, points are only used for shape verticies, not an entire damn face of the cube!
-Using the point to define "aaaany theory"... What.
-Then they move on to trying to combine science into this whole mess. And then say that a 'location' has no shape. Guess what; How the **** are we going to be able to tell there's something there without a graphical representation. I am getting more and more irate as I watch this madness. "Location doesn't even belong in geometry"... What about the location of the corner of a square, how about?
-Ok, got to lines. what. Where does this idea of infinite points making up a line come from, exactly? I really don't remember anything like that. A line is a line. And yes, you can find a line with two points; two spots at which the line intersects, and can find a point with two lines; a point where the two lines will intersect. And he says that these varying definitions are bad, and because of this, are hypocritical, and make no scientific sense.
This... Just... Fails. Like we said very early on; they're fundamental abstract concepts.
-
Math isn't knowledge.
Videogames are.
-
Math isn't knowledge.
Videogames are.
I concur!
-
I find it hilarious how this dude uses those stupid sounding voice-overs for his "Quotes" to make them sound less smart
-
So, Grandy... Are the other videos as good as this?
I dunno. Tried talking to the guy and, honest to God, he creeps me out.
I wouldn't put it past him trying to go to my videos and demand for me to give him satisfaction once I stopped answering him. Like a creepy internet stalker who likes to be hated. Like Raffles.
Edit:
Bluhman, huh, sorry to say, but that is the definition of a line.
-
I dunno. Tried talking to the guy and, honest to God, he creeps me out.
I wouldn't put it past him trying to go to my videos and demand for me to give him satisfaction once I stopped answering him. Like a creepy internet stalker who likes to be hated. Like Raffles.
I noticed that he was a ****ing ***hole
-
Watching that first video it strikes me that he only half-understands the things he's trying to disprove.
And his presentation is unprofessional.
-
Watching that first video it strikes me that he only half-understands the things he's trying to disprove.
And his presentation is unprofessional.
Try telling him that.
C'mon, I dare you.
-
He responds rather frequently to comments, so try it.
And I am too really annoyed with his stereotypical accents.
-
I still say math is a "language" made to make people sound more intelligent. I can do it if I want but I don't see the use of it. I'd rather work with something that would do something than piss on theories all day long.
Also screw IQ tests. They really **** up a lot with that. I've gotten all outcomes between 110 and 145. Meh.
-
A single comment has been enough to prove that this fellow is, in fact, an infant.
-
I'm surprised he's still trying...he has about a years worth of critics, whom he just attacks, probably scaring away any new converts that might actually believe him
-
Edit:
Bluhman, huh, sorry to say, but that is the definition of a line.
Yeah a line i[/is] a thing with infinite points.
Very well then; if that's what you were taught in Brazil. I've never heard to a line being referred to as such a thing.
-
Very well then; if that's what you were taught in Brazil. I've never heard to a line being referred to as such a thing.
Wait a sec, I'll get to my PC and explain.
Alright, was posting from my Wii, hard as hell to type in anything.
Anyway:
- A point is the smallest area possible to exist, it does in fact has the size of... nothing. 1 elevated to minus infinite, if we must give it a number.
So, a line, as you said, is the distance in between two points. Suppose the distance is 2, 2 yards, 2 meters, 2 miles, two anything.
So, this line, it can be divided in half to make two lines of 1 unit, right? And each of these can be divided in half to make 4 lines of 0.5 unit, right?
If you follow that logic, in may divide again and again until you reach the one elevated to minus infinite sized unit, and you'll have infinite of them, one besides the other, because they don't have a size per se.
It's like "How much of nothing you can fit inside this jar?" the answer is infinite nothings, because they wouldn't take any space. So infinite nothing one beside the other.
And if a line is formed by infinite points in a row, it also means they have the same width as a point, so in order to form a plane, you'd need infinite lines one besides the other.
And a cube would be infinite planes one atop the other, since a plane has the same heigh as a single point or a single line.
We now have covered all dimentions, I woun't get started on time, the so called fourth dimention, because I share the same point of view of the dude's in that matter, this is where math gets silly. Not to say it's not a possibility.
-
Fascinating.
-
Math may be something we concocted, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than he does.
-
I'm surprised he's still trying...he has about a years worth of critics, whom he just attacks, probably scaring away any new converts that might actually believe him
I'd say he has issues. Most likelly feels offended by people who think in a way other than his, you know, like Anti-Semitist people. can't deal with the fact people may just believe in something else, so they attack.
I was going to continue with this post but I noticed beforehand it was heading to Godwin.