[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.
Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1[/quote]
The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991
Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.[/quote]
x=.999… setting up the variable
10x=9.999… setting up our equation to test it
10x-x=9.999…-.999… Distributive property
9x=9 Combining like terms
x=1 Distributive
I don’t want to speak for you but I’d say you are using natural numbers for dividing your pie versus real numbers.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.
Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1[/quote]
The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991
Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.[/quote]
x=.999… setting up the variable
10x=9.999… setting up our equation to test it
10x-x=9.999…-.999… Distributive property
9x=9 Combining like terms
x=1 Distributive
I don’t want to speak for you but I’d say you are using natural numbers for dividing your pie versus real numbers.[/quote]
.9999… ← is not a real number.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.
Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1[/quote]
The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991
Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.[/quote]
x=.999… setting up the variable
10x=9.999… setting up our equation to test it
10x-x=9.999…-.999… Distributive property
9x=9 Combining like terms
x=1 Distributive
I don’t want to speak for you but I’d say you are using natural numbers for dividing your pie versus real numbers.[/quote]
.9999… ← is not a real number.[/quote]
Sure it is its just another way of writing 1. I fixed your equation for you and everything and you still don’t believe me :).
Its just another way of writing the number one. Math is a language. So in the same way a tree isn’t the same as the word tree the number 3 isn’t the same thing as 3 things.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.
Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1[/quote]
The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991
Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.[/quote]
x=.999… setting up the variable
10x=9.999… setting up our equation to test it
10x-x=9.999…-.999… Distributive property
9x=9 Combining like terms
x=1 Distributive
I don’t want to speak for you but I’d say you are using natural numbers for dividing your pie versus real numbers.[/quote]
This equation:
10x=9.999…
could technically never be solved. So it doesn’t equal anything as the calculation goes on infinity. You cannot make it to the equal sign. 109, 10.9,10*.09,10*.009,10*.0009, etc. You can estimate it to ingraining degrees of accuracy, but not solve it. .99999… approaches 1, but never reaches it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.
Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1[/quote]
The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991
Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.[/quote]
x=.999… setting up the variable
10x=9.999… setting up our equation to test it
10x-x=9.999…-.999… Distributive property
9x=9 Combining like terms
x=1 Distributive
I don’t want to speak for you but I’d say you are using natural numbers for dividing your pie versus real numbers.[/quote]
.9999… ← is not a real number.[/quote]
Sure it is its just another way of writing 1. I fixed your equation for you and everything and you still don’t believe me :).
Its just another way of writing the number one. Math is a language. So in the same way a tree isn’t the same as the word tree the number 3 isn’t the same thing as 3 things.
[/quote]
There’s nothing to believe. As far as ‘really smart dudes’ in the world it seems they are split. I see just as much ‘no’ as ‘yes’.
The math proofs are not accurate because they technically cannot be solved with out limiting how far out you go. 1/3 = .3333…, 2/3=.666…, 3/3 =1.
In a practical sense, I would say .333… is a third, but in reality. Multiplying by .333… doesn’t actually yield a result, unless you pick a limit, if you do that, then the answer is not accurate.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.
Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1[/quote]
The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991
Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.[/quote]
x=.999… setting up the variable
10x=9.999… setting up our equation to test it
10x-x=9.999…-.999… Distributive property
9x=9 Combining like terms
x=1 Distributive
I don’t want to speak for you but I’d say you are using natural numbers for dividing your pie versus real numbers.[/quote]
.9999… ← is not a real number.[/quote]
Sure it is its just another way of writing 1. I fixed your equation for you and everything and you still don’t believe me :).
Its just another way of writing the number one. Math is a language. So in the same way a tree isn’t the same as the word tree the number 3 isn’t the same thing as 3 things.
[/quote]
No it’s not. A number with out limit is not a real number. It’s an irrational number as you can’t really do anything with it.
To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
Actually, you kinda made my point for me. I am not concerned with people’s understanding of math or numbers. Understanding is irrelevant to it. It is what it is despite peoples understanding of it. People understand it with their minds, but it doesn’t exist in people’s minds, it exists outside of that. Mathematical truths are true whether anybody knows it or not.
I am simply saying it’s a metaphysical object, not a mental construct. A mental construct would begin and end with the mind, math does not. If we all die, 2+2 will still equal 4.
That is actually not true. In the pure abstract, 2+2=4 only because the conventions of algebra says it does. There is no physical 2 in existence and no physical meaning to addition if there was. It is all by convention. For example, in the convention of vector notation, 2+2 can be anywhere from 4 to 0.
[/quote]
I never said 2 or anything is physical. I am not arguing anything physical, but only metaphysical. And 2 + 2 can only equal 4. It’s not a vector, but a simple arithmetic equation and it’s true despite it’s application, despite recognition. It’s not arbitrary and it cannot be anything other than what it is.
[/quote]
Only because it is defined that way as noted when you say arithmetic. That is an agreed upon set of rules that define 2+2 as 4. So yes, it’s true when you define it as true and accept it as an axiom. But there is no truth to it outside of thought and arbitrary rules the human brain assigns. I can define and claim 2+2=100 according to my rules of math and have it just as true.
[/quote]
No law says you have to be right, but if you want the correct answer to 2+2 it’s 4, that is not arbitrary as it’s demanded by the equation. Assigning a wrong answer and believing it’s right does not actually speak to it’s correctness. It only says you are bad at math. Now the symbol to represent 4 can be somewhat arbitrary. It can be IV, or if you define 100 to actually mean 4 then that would be fine, but the equation demands the one and single answer. If you want to choose different symbols to represent it, doesn’t change it’s core validity.
No, it’s provable so long as you agree on the symbolic representation. The symbols can change but the meaning does not.
How can they be symbolic if there is nothing for them to represent.
2 apples in a jar with 2 more put in makes 4 in the jar. It works because the universe works that way. Without that verificaiton in the pure abstract sense, there is no truth to arithmatic. It is only equal to anything by convention. Like I said, I say 2+2 is 30. Prove otherwise without using anything physical.
There is no such abstract proof that 2+2=4.[/quote]
Modern math would hold that natural numbers do have an existence though and that this is a premise everyone accepts. Also that any formal representation of such a system of natural numbers is going to be thusly incomplete. Using the natural numbers like you do for counting you can see the concept of 2 has a meaning separate to the two apples. You are comparing the set of two apples to the set of two which is how natural numbers are actually and incompletely defined and expressed to see that you in fact do have 2 apples.
So contemporary math would hold that the natural numbers are basic. Meaning they need no justification. Now this of course could be wrong, but it is how math currently thinks of the natural numbers(these are the counting numbers for anyone that isn’t sure: one apple two apple. first in line second in line etc), pretty much we all shorten this to number when we speak.[/quote]
2 derives meaning from the set of apples. Without the apples, 2 is meaningless. It’s a description of what is.
For example, I could name and describe an apple as a red apple. And that is truth verifiable by the physicality of the apple. But, if there never was an apple or a photon, the description holds no worth and no truth. A red apple is not inherent truth outside of the physical universe. Now, in the abstract, I can just set a value called “apple” and have it be “red”, but there is nothing inherent about it. Math is the same. The term 2 apples is a descriptive term for the physical set of apples. If you take away all relation between the physical and the description, the description becomes arbitrary.
Do you think that the concept of red exists on its own, outside of actual photons?
To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
Actually, you kinda made my point for me. I am not concerned with people’s understanding of math or numbers. Understanding is irrelevant to it. It is what it is despite peoples understanding of it. People understand it with their minds, but it doesn’t exist in people’s minds, it exists outside of that. Mathematical truths are true whether anybody knows it or not.
I am simply saying it’s a metaphysical object, not a mental construct. A mental construct would begin and end with the mind, math does not. If we all die, 2+2 will still equal 4.
That is actually not true. In the pure abstract, 2+2=4 only because the conventions of algebra says it does. There is no physical 2 in existence and no physical meaning to addition if there was. It is all by convention. For example, in the convention of vector notation, 2+2 can be anywhere from 4 to 0.
[/quote]
I never said 2 or anything is physical. I am not arguing anything physical, but only metaphysical. And 2 + 2 can only equal 4. It’s not a vector, but a simple arithmetic equation and it’s true despite it’s application, despite recognition. It’s not arbitrary and it cannot be anything other than what it is.
[/quote]
Only because it is defined that way as noted when you say arithmetic. That is an agreed upon set of rules that define 2+2 as 4. So yes, it’s true when you define it as true and accept it as an axiom. But there is no truth to it outside of thought and arbitrary rules the human brain assigns. I can define and claim 2+2=100 according to my rules of math and have it just as true.
[/quote]
No law says you have to be right, but if you want the correct answer to 2+2 it’s 4, that is not arbitrary as it’s demanded by the equation. Assigning a wrong answer and believing it’s right does not actually speak to it’s correctness. It only says you are bad at math. Now the symbol to represent 4 can be somewhat arbitrary. It can be IV, or if you define 100 to actually mean 4 then that would be fine, but the equation demands the one and single answer. If you want to choose different symbols to represent it, doesn’t change it’s core validity.
No, it’s provable so long as you agree on the symbolic representation. The symbols can change but the meaning does not.
How can they be symbolic if there is nothing for them to represent.
2 apples in a jar with 2 more put in makes 4 in the jar. It works because the universe works that way. Without that verificaiton in the pure abstract sense, there is no truth to arithmatic. It is only equal to anything by convention. Like I said, I say 2+2 is 30. Prove otherwise without using anything physical.
There is no such abstract proof that 2+2=4.[/quote]
Modern math would hold that natural numbers do have an existence though and that this is a premise everyone accepts. Also that any formal representation of such a system of natural numbers is going to be thusly incomplete. Using the natural numbers like you do for counting you can see the concept of 2 has a meaning separate to the two apples. You are comparing the set of two apples to the set of two which is how natural numbers are actually and incompletely defined and expressed to see that you in fact do have 2 apples.
So contemporary math would hold that the natural numbers are basic. Meaning they need no justification. Now this of course could be wrong, but it is how math currently thinks of the natural numbers(these are the counting numbers for anyone that isn’t sure: one apple two apple. first in line second in line etc), pretty much we all shorten this to number when we speak.[/quote]
2 derives meaning from the set of apples. Without the apples, 2 is meaningless. It’s a description of what is.
For example, I could name and describe an apple as a red apple. And that is truth verifiable by the physicality of the apple. But, if there never was an apple or a photon, the description holds no worth and no truth. A red apple is not inherent truth outside of the physical universe. Now, in the abstract, I can just set a value called “apple” and have it be “red”, but there is nothing inherent about it. Math is the same. The term 2 apples is a descriptive term for the physical set of apples. If you take away all relation between the physical and the description, the description becomes arbitrary.
Do you think that the concept of red exists on its own, outside of actual photons?[/quote]
The quantity of apples is what makes it two, not the apples themselves. 2 represents quantity of what doesn’t really matter to the number. The apple’s properties have no bearing on quantity. You can have a quantity of anything, it can be physical or metaphysical, doesn’t matter. If you have quantity, it can be represented by a number.
Yes, the concept of ‘red’ certainly exists. Whether it’s physical reality matches the concept is another thing entirely.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I think it’s possible that ALL morality is made up, although it’s also possible that there are fundamental universal moral truths.
[/quote]
Uh, you can’t have it both ways, made up and fundamental moral truths. Either, there are universal morals truths that morality is based on, or it’s made up and arbitrary.
[quote]
I was referring to the specific moral rules people make up, like it being wrong to take so many steps on the sabbath, or to wear mixed fibers, or to baptize by sprinkling rather than immersion, etc. The bible is filled with these made up rules, but of course so is every other holy book.[/quote]
Mosaic law aren’t in themselves moral laws. Keep in mind that the Pentateuch was not only a holy book, but also the constitution of ancient Israel too. And don’t forget that for may hundreds of years through ancient Israel, the mosaic law was lost and forgotten and I think it was King Josiah who rediscovered it. So in the beginning it was only kept through Joshua, got lost with the Judges and was rediscovered many years later. Not even King David followed mosaic law, it was missing.[/quote]
Of course you can have it both ways. Even if there were universal moral truths (and we don’t know this for a fact), people could still make shit up about what is moral and what isn’t.
I wasn’t just referring to mosaic laws. The new testament is filled with weird manmade morality as well (advocating celibacy, forbidding women to have their heads uncovered or speak in church, different standards for adultery in men vs. women, etc.) And besides, Israelites who didn’t follow mosaic laws (killing lambs and doves to atone for sins, etc.) were considered sinners and unclean. That’s as moral as it gets.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.
Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1[/quote]
The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991
Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.
Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1[/quote]
The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991
Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I think it’s possible that ALL morality is made up, although it’s also possible that there are fundamental universal moral truths.
[/quote]
Uh, you can’t have it both ways, made up and fundamental moral truths. Either, there are universal morals truths that morality is based on, or it’s made up and arbitrary.
Sure people can make shit up, but if there are universal moral truths and people make shit up different from these universal moral truths, then what they made up are not moral truths, just made up shit.
[quote]
I wasn’t just referring to mosaic laws. The new testament is filled with weird manmade morality as well (advocating celibacy, forbidding women to have their heads uncovered or speak in church, different standards for adultery in men vs. women, etc.) And besides, Israelites who didn’t follow mosaic laws (killing lambs and doves to atone for sins, etc.) were considered sinners and unclean. That’s as moral as it gets. [/quote]
But that’s just it, wearing a headdress isn’t a moral precept nor is advocating celibacy. Those were recommendations. Sin and uncleanliness where also not the same thing. Burying a dead body was considered an unclean act, but it wasn’t a sin. You just weren’t clean enough to enter the tent of meeting until you bathed and did the proper cleaning rituals. Now if you were banging a goat, your where both unclean and a sinner.
Adultery is not treated differently for men and women in the New Testament.
Animal sacrifices were done for many reasons, not just sin atonement.
Like I said the Israelite’s had all but forgotten mosaic law for many generations yet they could still be good or evil in the sight of God. You did read the book you should know that.
How do I counter the agument that it is possible to live out a good moral life etc. while believing in the Gospels and New Testament, being a Christian and not needing to be part of organised religion/church?
Is it enough to
a) hit em with 1 Tim 3:15 ‘church of the living god is the pillar and foundation of truth’?
b) say it was part of the founding christian fathers to be part of organised ceremony and religion?
c) say that the individual is doomed?
Oh yeah, was thinking of arguing something along the lines of the dawn agriculture and religions going hand in hand (possibly art aswell). As in coming up around relativly the same period in human history and one giving rise to the other(s).
With this point in mind, was thinking of saying that these two(three) things are what make us different from the animals, all of them (religion and agriculture not the animals), not just one. and if we disregard religion we make ourselves a higher form of animal, and by doing so condemn ourselves to a lower form of life.
(I would bring in art in that it doesn’t make sense biologically to draw a picture of a bird on a cave wall and in such a way we are not bound by biological logic in the same way that animals are. And so in having complex capacity in thought and action, religious practices emerge. <—Thinking this argument mightn’t hold much water as I type it so should i leave it with agreculture and religion??)