welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sept. 6: Veggie detector!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10693
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, you can choose to ignore anything for which there is contradictory evidence without bothering to evaluate whether they're equal. That's decidedly unscientific, though. By that rationale, though, you should also doubt that men are better, right? There's contradictory evidence, after all. Unless you're biased in your interpretation. Wink

P.S. Make that three peer-reviewed papers. Very Happy
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ember778



Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 378

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Anyway, if you want to ignore academic research based on an arbitrary standard that the field in which we're discussing doesn't hold as necessary, that's fine.

You misunderstand me. I'm asking for proof, which is that which proves. Your evidence hasn't changed my mind, and is therefore not proof. QED. Also, .999 repeating totally doesn't equal 1.

And a duck's quack doesn't echo. . . and no one knows why!


That's not QED. Proofs don't have to convince people unwilling to see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ember778



Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 378

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Sure, you can choose to ignore anything for which there is contradictory evidence without bothering to evaluate whether they're equal. That's decidedly unscientific, though. By that rationale, though, you should also doubt that men are better, right? There's contradictory evidence, after all. Unless you're biased in your interpretation. Wink

P.S. Make that three peer-reviewed papers. Very Happy


My rationale is based on common knowledge. I accept that 1+1=2. That's common knowledge. You don't need to prove 1+1=2 (something you nor I could do).

Anyway as I said I'm done. You can talk on about this, but I have other things I need to do today.

I'll come back tomorrow and we can talk some more kay?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17125
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geez, dogen - what are you thinking, to dispute common knowledge???

it's common knowledge that the things everyone has always believed are true. this is how we know that whales are fish and the world is flat.

oh, and how women's bodies can shut down pregnancy in the case of legitimate rape.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10693
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ember778 wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Sure, you can choose to ignore anything for which there is contradictory evidence without bothering to evaluate whether they're equal. That's decidedly unscientific, though. By that rationale, though, you should also doubt that men are better, right? There's contradictory evidence, after all. Unless you're biased in your interpretation. Wink

P.S. Make that three peer-reviewed papers. Very Happy


My rationale is based on common knowledge. I accept that 1+1=2. That's common knowledge. You don't need to prove 1+1=2 (something you nor I could do).

Anyway as I said I'm done. You can talk on about this, but I have other things I need to do today.

I'll come back tomorrow and we can talk some more kay?

Common knowledge is a credible source? I mean, think of all the things that were believed because they were convenient, rather than true. That blacks are dumber than whites, heavy things fall faster than light things, IQ is a measure of intelligence, pouring alcohol on a wound is helpful, geocentric universe, the four humors... Lots of things that are common sense at one point are tested (sometimes by psychologists!) and found to be wrong, partially true, or only true in limited circumstances.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1160
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL, I just wanted to laugh at the idea of "common knowledge" with everyone else. See, to me when I was in college, hell, high school, it was common knowledge that women were better at science and math then men were. I took several college level math classes in high school. Well guess what? It was 70% women in every class. I just knew personally for years that women were better at math and science. So just like your information based on your however you were taught or saw is "common" to you, both of our information means jack.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ember778 wrote:
Bart wrote:
Doesn't a double-blind study mean that neither the observer, nor the subject knows which group they are a part off ? Seeing as your groups would be men and women that seems rather difficult to test.

Edit; I have to wonder, does ember use double blind studies to test the strength of materials ?


It wouldn't be difficult to test at all. Visualization doesn't have to be part of the examination. Sex could be kept anonymous. It would be quite easy.

I don't test the strength of materials. I'm a chemical engineer and even then your notion is ridiculous.


1. You're going to keep sex anonymous from your test subjects ? Cool, tell me how you're planning on doing that.

2. Yes it's ridiculous. That was the whole point. Sometimes bias needs to be kept out of a study by doing a double blind. Sometimes bias isn't that big a factor or there are other ways to keep bias out. Which is why the notion of using double-blind studies to test material strength is ridiculous. This is also why you can get valid results on the differences between men and women without using a double blind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ktern



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 950

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ember778 wrote:
My rationale is based on common knowledge. I accept that 1+1=2. That's common knowledge. You don't need to prove 1+1=2 (something you nor I could do).


the reason you don't need to prove that 1+1=2 is that this is the definition of 2. nobody asks for proofs of dictionary definitions of words, same idea. a lot of mathematical common knowledge like a+b=b+a actually has established proofs. my parents made me do a lot of that stuff in 4th grade and it was a pain in the ass, to say the least

anyway i haven't been looking into the issue of males vs females in science and math but honestly if the biological differences led to differences in average performance people really shouldn't be so upset about it. black people tend to be taller and tall people tend to be better at basketball, so you look at the NBA and it's mostly black. not many people seem to think that's disturbingly racist, so if one sex is better at certain academic fields i don't consider that problematic or sexist either

it's when people start using these things as ammo in arguments about how one large group of people is better than another that the real idiocy takes place
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2440

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ktern wrote:
anyway i haven't been looking into the issue of males vs females in science and math but honestly if the biological differences led to differences in average performance people really shouldn't be so upset about it.

And if differences in average performance were better explained by societal pressures and differential treatment, rather than biological differences, would it be okay if people were upset about it?

ktern wrote:
black people tend to be taller

I don't believe you have any evidence for this. I don't really have any contrary evidence, either, but I'm pretty sure the Scandinavian countries average the tallest people, and they are pretty much the whitest.

ktern wrote:
and tall people tend to be better at basketball,

This isn't quite true. It is very rare for very short people to do well at competitive levels, but you will probably have noticed that professional teams have a mix of tall and average height players. There aren't very many 7-footers who handle the ball well enough to play point.

ktern wrote:
so you look at the NBA and it's mostly black.

And this is exactly why your example is perfect for this conversation. There isn't a biological reason for there to be more black players in the NBA. It is much more likely to result from a societal issue, something to do with the poorer socioeconomic status and lack of opportunities available to young black men. If this is the case, then it is actually pretty disturbing and unjust, and we should spend effort fixing the problem rather than dismissing it out of hand.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ember778



Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ktern wrote:
Ember778 wrote:
My rationale is based on common knowledge. I accept that 1+1=2. That's common knowledge. You don't need to prove 1+1=2 (something you nor I could do).


the reason you don't need to prove that 1+1=2 is that this is the definition of 2. nobody asks for proofs of dictionary definitions of words, same idea. a lot of mathematical common knowledge like a+b=b+a actually has established proofs. my parents made me do a lot of that stuff in 4th grade and it was a pain in the ass, to say the least

anyway i haven't been looking into the issue of males vs females in science and math but honestly if the biological differences led to differences in average performance people really shouldn't be so upset about it. black people tend to be taller and tall people tend to be better at basketball, so you look at the NBA and it's mostly black. not many people seem to think that's disturbingly racist, so if one sex is better at certain academic fields i don't consider that problematic or sexist either

it's when people start using these things as ammo in arguments about how one large group of people is better than another that the real idiocy takes place


Lol you're obviously not a math person. The proof to 1+1=2 is hundreds of pages long and required the work of like 4 extreme math geniuses. Comparing it to a+b=b+a is like comparing learning the alphabet to doing higher order differential equations.

It's funny actually. One of my professors once asked the class to try and prove it and then showed us the book. I don't remember the name or the authors, but I'm sure you could look it up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Lol you're obviously not a math person. The proof to 1+1=2 is hundreds of pages long and required the work of like 4 extreme math geniuses.

...

It's funny actually. One of my professors once asked the class to try and prove it and then showed us the book. I don't remember the name or the authors, but I'm sure you could look it up.



Most authorities on number theory take the following five attributes about the natural numbers, ℕ, as axioms:

ℕ1) 1 belongs to ℕ
ℕ2) If n belongs to ℕ, then its successor n+1 belongs to ℕ (the natural numbers go on as far as you need them to)
ℕ3) 1 is not the successor of any element in ℕ (the natural numbers don't loop back on themselves)
ℕ4) If n and m in ℕ have the same successor, then n=m (adding one always results in the next number, which is unique)
ℕ5) A subset of ℕ which contains 1, and which contains n + 1 whenever it contains n, must equal ℕ

Given these, it is clear that 1+1 exists, that it is the direct successor to 1, and that it is unique.

2 seems like as good of a name as any for a number with these properties to me. You could even say that it's.... the definition of 2? But yeah, you do have to prove it in addition to defining it. It's just not a very complicated proof. Similarly, it is simple to prove that 0<1 (yet another thing that must be proven since we start out with thinking of 0 and 1 more as additive and multiplicative identities than as values) and other such tomfoolery.


Incidentally, here's the relevant part of the book you're thinking of:

"When arithmetical addition has been defined" being the key issue for the authors.


hahaha silly Ember, taking Russel and Whiteheadís Principia Mathematica seriously. Just because someone showed the book to you. Hahahaha. They never actually proved it, by the way. At the end they still hadn't defined addition to their own satisfaction. Altogether, it's just another outmoded and cumbersome approach to these things that a few brilliant people wasted a bit too much of their time on. But clearly, since we understand arithmetic well enough to teach it to computers, there are much better ways of thinking about these problems than their approach. I mean, seriously. These guys take all sorts of things as axioms, some of which aren't particularly obvious and are potentially inaccurate in reality, yet they refuse to just take one tiny step and define addition? bpahaldfhffleehhh.

Quote:
Comparing it to a+b=b+a is like comparing learning the alphabet to doing higher order differential equations.


I'm not even sure that you're right that it's not quite the same sort of thing as commutativity, either (though you are certainly wrong about it being so many orders of magnitude more complicated). Sure, we take additive commutativity as one of the nine field axioms, so clearly it's different there, but the natural numbers aren't a field and showing that commutativity works there is quite similar to demonstrating pretty much anything else about addition in the naturals.
...and of course we have to demonstrate that a group has that property before we get to call it a field, but hopefully you catch my drift.

On that topic, there are loads of groups in which 1+1 doesn't equal 2, the simplest example being the integers modulo 2, where 1+1=0 (although perhaps not the best example since 0 is then congruent to 2, making it somewhat valid to still say that 1+1=2). So you have to say what group you're working in, too.




tl;dr: If you're looking at the natural numbers or any extension thereof that doesn't introduce any weird structures, and you feel comfortable accepting addition as it is usually defined, yeah, it's exceedingly simple to prove that 1+1=2
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no idea why Ember brought that up, though, since mathematics is a made-up system of logic that is rigidly defined and knowledge of mathematics isn't at all analogous to knowledge of most other things in this context.

Ember778 wrote:
My rationale is based on common knowledge. I accept that 1+1=2. That's common knowledge. You don't need to prove 1+1=2 (something you nor I could do).

I don't think very highly of your reasoning here, Ember, to say the least. You're blatantly wrong in almost every regard. You can't even get the maths right.
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ktern



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 950

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it would be trivial to have a number system where 1+1=3 and 1+3=2, etc. it's just a symbol. rants is correct that there has to be an argument made for a number equivalent to 1+1 existing (presumably after you take 0 and 1 to exist). to "prove" that it equals 2, on the other hand, is meaningless unless you define the problem much more precisely

i think principia mathematica defines 2 first as a certain set size which you have to more or less accept is the 2 we're familiar with. (correct me if i'm wrong there?) the advantage being that it allows for a definition of 2 prior to the definition of addition

...of course, prior to the definition of addition it's not like "1+1" means a damn thing (not that they claim it does, of course)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17125
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is what i love about 'festers. no matter what subject someone comes in and makes condescending remarks about, there is always at least one person (and often more) who can completely blow him away with actual knowledge.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10290
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dude, everyone knows 1+1 =0,2, and 2√2, amongst other things.

Also, it's common knowledge Ember is incapable of admitting to being wrong.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
Page 22 of 25

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group