Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
God ****ing dammit america. GOD. ****ING. DAMMIT.Came across this story, and thought it particularly poignant and telling of current state of things in America.
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/dmzok/censorship_at_its_finest_one_teachers_story_on/
What's the difference again I ask? You use whatever works best for you. In probability it's a lot easier to compare decimals than comparing fractions. 60/456 compared to 1/9, which is greater? It's easier to compare the probabilities in decimal form. And if the probability involve exponential and other irrational functions, much easier to use approximations. There are always benefits, no one system works all the time.Why would I want to work non-exact when I don't have to?
The only reason the real world requires approximations is because you can't have things like steel bars with thickness Sqrt(2) mm.
In my opinion, the only value math has is its applications to the real world. The only reason I personally wouldn't tell mathematicians not to concern themselves with those subjects is because as you said, even if it isn't obvious at the moment the information found by studying those problems could lead to real-world applications.And there is a difference between "can't be applied" and "won't be applied". A lot of mathematical topics have real world applications, yes. but that doesn't mean the mathematician is necessarily interested in them.
for example, let's looks at the millennium problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems
now I'm not going over them one by one, but 3 of the 7 are pure mathematics with no application. the most famous one being the (proven) poincare conjecture (I suppose I should say theorem now), which deals with 4-dimensional spheres.
And btw I'm very well aware how all the subjects I follow are (or at least could) be applied irl.
Listen guys, maybe I'm not communicating myself correctly.Blaz...
You're making me rage so hard right now.
Now then, understand that in math, we define a framework, and then when working in that framework we discover the implications of said framework. Fractions were one such defined framework, but can you say the ability to represent division in that fashion isn't useful?
Why do we define new frameworks? Because they allow us to work with things that were impossible for us to work with before, and ultimately allow us to better describe what exists in a mathematical fashion. In other words, it's useful.
That's why we switched from the integer set to the real number set, and that's why the complex number set exists, (even though this might not have been the original objective) to describe increasingly complex phenomenon.
I'll leave you with one final thing, a site explaining the real world uses of imaginary and complex numbers, or at least a lot of them.
I KNEW something felt off. America is not that sane.You have to realize that the second article's results were from a poll of Scientific American and Nature readers, not the general public, so that's something to keep in mind when discussing it.
Oh, how I wish it was.I KNEW something felt off. America is not that sane.
Wouldn't that just result in no one caring about posting? Not many people make threads to begin with... we would also end up with very few topics...could we not just change it so that only debaters can make threads and new members can only post in treads?
Honestly I think it was a semantic misunderstanding.Well now a few new topics have come up, pretty interesting ones, so yay!
Was there a conclusion to the imaginary numbers debate?
One of the things PG's -should- practice is making successful debate topics. Though this point isn't stressed (enough imho) you can tell a "good" topic from a "fair" topic pretty quickly. Good topics last a while, or at least engage in a vigorous debate. Fair topics tend to be more ... opinion-based with less emphasis on research and citation and more on cognition. Some could say this is even a problem in the DH but from my eyes any activity is better than none.could we not just change it so that only debaters can make threads and new members can only post in treads?
I'm interested in the idea, not because I want to do it, but because it seems like a controversial issue that no-one in here has really talked about (at least recently).
I meant that I wasn't suicidal thoughts. I should get a post up soon.Ya SURE you don't want to do it
I needed that, thanks man... rough night at work.
Yeah go for it! I'll participate, though I can tell you right now I think it's perfectly fine to both choose it as an option, and to be a practitioner like Dr. Death.
1. Yes. Stating a logical fallacy that is not a relevant objection would basically be a straw man fallacy.[color=c65f6]Just a couple of questions:
Would you consider "appeal to fallacies" a logical fallacy?
What about "appeal to the bible (using the bible to prove something)"?[/color]
The latter is circular. I utterly hate it. The sad thing is, that people actually subscribe to this.1. Yes. Stating a logical fallacy that is not a relevant objection would basically be a straw man fallacy.
2. You would need to establish its veracity. Otherwise, it would be an appeal to authority. Other fallacies could come into play depending on the claim (i.e. circular reasoning, the Bible shows that the Bible is correct)
Are you talki to dre, or me?I have yet to find that to not be the case, especially when it comes to deciding which religion their "god" comes from, or finds attributes from (like there being only one, or many, for example).
Also, to quote smbc: "Can god create a degree so useless even he can't get a job with it?"
<3 SMBC so much.I have yet to find that to not be the case, especially when it comes to deciding which religion their "god" comes from, or finds attributes from (like there being only one, or many, for example).
Also, to quote smbc: "Can god create a degree so useless even he can't get a job with it?"
Um perhaps all of Catholic philosophy?I know you're stealth insulting me, dre.
Name an example of where it isn't.
You shouldn't be shifting the burden of proof onto me anyway, because you were the one who made the initial claim.
I do agree with Dre here if we make the claim we need to back it up.If you're going to say Catholics commit the circular Bible fallacy, show evidence of it.
I agree.If making the initial statement shifts the BoP onto the opposition, then I can just say "God exists" and then the BoP would on you to prove me wrong, but that's obviously not how it works.
Um...That is the exact same fallacy that Dark Horse made in the post you responded to.I love how atheists always shift the BoP onto theists, even when they make the initial attack, because they haven't actually studied philosophy or theology, so they can't cite examples.
Sorry I don't understand what you're saying here.
IUm...That is the exact same fallacy that Dark Horse made in the post you responded to.
He says that catholics commit the circle fallacy which is would be this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example . You are saying how you love that atheist love shoving the burden of proof away which though a lot of them do, not all of them so you have committed the same fallacy.Sorry I don't understand what you're saying here.