This thread is better when it is about Masons than when it is about math.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to take this rare opportunity to fistbump Citizen R. and favorite his post.
I might be feeling warm and fuzzy because I am stoned.
I am going to take this rare opportunity to fistbump Citizen R. and favorite his post.
I might be feeling warm and fuzzy because I am stoned.
And next time you'll stay away from the medusa, right?
I might be feeling warm and fuzzy because I am stoned.
Lucky bastard.
You realize that you are arguing against a point he hasn't been making, right?
So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist...*sigh*
You only think that because you've decided you know what I'm arguing, and won't let my actual words dissuade you.I give up. You're hopeless.
Feel free to clarify your point. Prove that their math is wrong. Prove that it doesn't apply to effects that have been measured in the real world.
Prove you're not the creationist in this argument.
Yes and no. If you go back a little ways you'll see me trying to get at the heart of his point and even agreeing with some of it. I'll put it in it's own paragraph:
I agree, they could have used clearer language and explained it better.
These are guys who are familiar with analytic number theory and they're trying to explain very advanced concepts. In their attempt to explain it in layman's terms, it's confusing and possibly misleading.
I agree with all of that. I've even said, if he wants to end his complaints with the video at that point, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with him. Seriously. 100% agreement. If that's all he's concerned with, that's the end of the discussion.
But he's gone beyond that point multiple times. He has tried to claim multiple times that math is faulty and wrong.
You can only eat what they sell at the store, and you only know what you
see on the TV.It's like they have you trapped in a box.
.
I don't watch TV does that mean I know nothing?
Am I Jon Snow?
And I ate plenty of strawberries, apples and currants from our garden. as well as raspberries from the neighbors garden (shh, don't tell her). Then there is the corn and meat from friends' farms I had.
But even if that weren't the case. What's the point. They still sell healthy and nutritious food in most stores, so I have what I need at my disposal. And with the irrational trend against GMO food, you can even choose "organic" food if that's what gets you off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And with the irrational trend against GMO food, you can even choose "organic" food if that's what gets you off.
This saddens me greatly. To hear people talk about the folly of teaching creationism in public schools, or discussing the absurdity of anti-vaccination hysteria, but then hear them talk about the evils of "franken-food" and how GMOs are a great threat. It's a disappointing reminder that few, if any, people are rational about everything.
|
And with the irrational trend against GMO food, you can even choose "organic" food if that's what gets you off.This saddens me greatly. To hear people talk about the folly of teaching creationism in public schools, or discussing the absurdity of anti-vaccination hysteria, but then hear them talk about the evils of "franken-food" and how GMOs are a great threat. It's a disappointing reminder that few, if any, people are rational about everything.
It depends on the frankenfood in question. shallow rooted hybrids do poorly in many areas and do not get to more deep soil nutrients. Mother Earth News magazine had a good article about that recently
You realize that you are arguing against a point he hasn't been making, right?
So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist...*sigh*
You only think that because you've decided you know what I'm arguing, and won't let my actual words dissuade you.I give up. You're hopeless.
Feel free to clarify your point. Prove that their math is wrong. Prove that it doesn't apply to effects that have been measured in the real world.
Prove you're not the creationist in this argument.
Yes and no. If you go back a little ways you'll see me trying to get at the heart of his point and even agreeing with some of it. I'll put it in it's own paragraph:
I agree, they could have used clearer language and explained it better.
These are guys who are familiar with analytic number theory and they're trying to explain very advanced concepts. In their attempt to explain it in layman's terms, it's confusing and possibly misleading.
I agree with all of that. I've even said, if he wants to end his complaints with the video at that point, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with him. Seriously. 100% agreement. If that's all he's concerned with, that's the end of the discussion.
But he's gone beyond that point multiple times. He has tried to claim multiple times that math is faulty and wrong.
no. I haven't. I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not smart enough to debate the validity of the math, only that what they showed was misleading and I feel intentionally so. Repeatedly. You won't listen.
And with the irrational trend against GMO food, you can even choose "organic" food if that's what gets you off.This saddens me greatly. To hear people talk about the folly of teaching creationism in public schools, or discussing the absurdity of anti-vaccination hysteria, but then hear them talk about the evils of "franken-food" and how GMOs are a great threat. It's a disappointing reminder that few, if any, people are rational about everything.
Or how people react to high-fructose corn syrup. Which is basically two sugars in water. Yes, it's unhealthy, but your body doesn't react any differently to it than it would to apple juice. The unhealthy part is that it is way, way too much sugar.
no. I haven't. I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not smart enough to debate the validity of the math, only that what they showed was misleading and I feel intentionally so. Repeatedly. You won't listen.You realize that you are arguing against a point he hasn't been making, right?
So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist...*sigh*
You only think that because you've decided you know what I'm arguing, and won't let my actual words dissuade you.I give up. You're hopeless.
Feel free to clarify your point. Prove that their math is wrong. Prove that it doesn't apply to effects that have been measured in the real world.
Prove you're not the creationist in this argument.
Yes and no. If you go back a little ways you'll see me trying to get at the heart of his point and even agreeing with some of it. I'll put it in it's own paragraph:
I agree, they could have used clearer language and explained it better.
These are guys who are familiar with analytic number theory and they're trying to explain very advanced concepts. In their attempt to explain it in layman's terms, it's confusing and possibly misleading.
I agree with all of that. I've even said, if he wants to end his complaints with the video at that point, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with him. Seriously. 100% agreement. If that's all he's concerned with, that's the end of the discussion.
But he's gone beyond that point multiple times. He has tried to claim multiple times that math is faulty and wrong.
Have you showed evidence of their intent?
I've agreed with you multiple times that their explanation wasn't necessarily the clearest for the uninitiated. But you maintain this disdain for it and their attempt to try and show it to you. You've used very strong language in your descriptions of their explanation and how it's chicanery and trickery.
Yes, they made an attention grabbing title. Because well, they want people to watch the video. They didn't make it for themselves to watch, or for grad students to watch. It's for people who don't study these things. They're translating a very complex and difficult problem into simple terms, so yes, something gets lost in the translation.
But you don't stop there. You go on and claim that it's a fraud. You've said so multiple times. I can link them... again. Heck, you've even said it a couple more times since the last time I linked it.
I've even tried to help explain how the function is useful and valid. You don't seem interested though. You just keep going on and on how they are trying to mislead you. You are focused on YOUR problem with the video and not what they're actually trying to show you.
I've paid attention. Really, I have.
I agree, they could have used better language in the video.
No, they aren't in error
That's the thing, the math they did works. It has useful, real world applications. It makes predictions that are then measured and found in nature.For you to claim they are in error, you will need to show that Einstein was wrong.
...This is why Irontruth is nicked named 'The Goal Post Mover'.
.
When you get off the sidelines and move onto the field, yes, the goal posts do appear to shift. In reality though, they've been in the same spot the whole time.
Just because I said something about the topic that YOU didn't realize before, does not mean I've moved the goal posts.
Feel free to hold yourself to the same standard I've seen you demand of others recently.
Ah yup.. Keep on driving that Post-Stamping tractor.
Some of my explanatory guessing?
1. Rhetoric templates??
2. Maybe it's a Sphinx. Maybe a Sphinx is posting and it's really some kind
of giant riddle?
3. It's not Art.
.
Chiming in here. The Numberphile proof is incorrect. They base an entire proof on a false premise (they start out by assuming that the sum of all natural numbers converges to a finite number, and then derive that the number is -1/12. However, F -> T is every bit as correct as F -> F, which is why their "proof" does not prove that the sum of all natural numbers i -1/12). Their proof serves no function in mathematics. I also find it hard to believe that they are unaware of such a simple logical mistake. Hence, I must agree with Meatrace. The Numberphile video is certainly deceptive. The "damage control" of having to explain this to, hmm, every single person I know outside of the university (and several IN the university) took weeks.
EDIT: and I want to stress the point that I'm not saying they came up with some nonsense and posted it on the internet. I am fully aware that under different definitions of summation, numbers and "+" symbols you can arrive at different values for the "sum" of all "natural numbers". What the numberphile video did, though, was attempt to pass off that result as if you could derive it using the most common and basic definitions of a series sum. That's simply incorrect, and they gave a proof of so obviously lousy mathematical capacity that anyone with any knowledge on the subject matter would be able to call it out instantly. Thus, those UNABLE to call it out are the more general public. Thus, a deception.
Bolded part. A number of mathematicians disagree with you. It's a "layman's terms" explanation of something that is very important. Here's some links involving some fairly detailed math that helps describe how important it is.
Riemann zeta function and prime numbers.
Another paper talking about the Riemann zeta function and prime numbers.
A lecture...
Look at those Posts Fly Across the Field folks !!
touchdown!!
.
.
Apparently, the animal hormones used to increase food production, and
hence corporate profits, have unknown side effects. The food
corporations are using the entire U.S. population as their "test sample".
So, if you're using the entire Population you don't need a T-Test, right?
.