Thread: Go Ahead And Ask Me, Universal (and Others)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So you think there is a possibility that in another setting **** could be *** + ***? I don't. If you add *** to ***, you have ******.

Some might say that if you add *** to *** you'd have;

***
***

The difference is subtle, yet significant to my argument. The reason for this is because the math that we use seems so universal, only because we follow certain rules of organization instilled by its creators. I'm assuming you are taking the dots to represent 3, 3 and 6 but they could easily be taken to represent 1, 1 and 2, as I have shown them. they could also be taken to represent 3/2, 3/2 and 3, if you assume one column of 2 dots is equal to 1 and 1 column of 1 dot is equal to 1/2.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Some might say that if you add *** to *** you'd have;

***
***

The difference is subtle, yet significant to my argument. The reason for this is because the math that we use seems so universal, only because we follow certain rules of organization instilled by its creators. I'm assuming you are taking the dots to represent 3, 3 and 6 but they could easily be taken to represent 1, 1 and 2, as I have shown them. they could also be taken to represent 3/2, 3/2 and 3, if you assume one column of 2 dots is equal to 1 and 1 column of 1 dot is equal to 1/2.

I was only saying that three dots plus three dots equals six dots. But you could of course treat each three set as a single unit and use it to conclude that one unit plus one unit equals two units. The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six. If there were some strange realm or situation where three dots plus three dots equals four dots, two dots would not be present where they are present, which would be a self-contradicting concept. It is therefore an impossible situation. The laws of math are absolute even though the language of math is not.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was only saying that three dots plus three dots equals six dots. But you could of course treat each three set as a single unit and use it to conclude that one unit plus one unit equals two units. The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six. If there were some strange realm or situation where three dots plus three dots equals four dots, two dots would not be present where they are present, which would be a self-contradicting concept. It is therefore an impossible situation. The laws of math are absolute even though the language of math is not.

Similar to what I said in my example to Wendy, 3+3=11 in a base 5 number system. Just like any language, you can only communicate successfully with mathematics when you define all terms, conditions and their relevance to the phenomena you are trying to explain. Without context math is meaningless and all contexts are subjective in regards to the observer.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Similar to what I said in my example to Wendy, 3+3=11 in a base 5 number system. Just like any language, you can only communicate successfully with mathematics when you define all terms, conditions and their relevance to the phenomena you are trying to explain. Without context math is meaningless and all contexts are subjective in regards to the observer.

So I need to specify that I am dealing with base 10? Okay, I am dealing with base 10. I think you know what meanings my words have without my defining every single one of them. My point is that the reality behind the symbols as they are intended is objective reality that is absolute. If you have this many and you add this many , you have this many . There are no exceptions to that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So I need to specify that I am dealing with base 10? Okay, I am dealing with base 10. I think you know what meanings my words have without my defining every single one of them. My point is that the reality behind the symbols as they are intended is objective reality that is absolute. If you have this many and you add this many , you have this many . There are no exceptions to that.

When using such blanket statements as, "The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six," you better specify; otherwise you'll be shown to be wrong time and again.

This could go round and round all day. I've seen it happen before. One more counter-example, and then I'm done.

squareroot4+squareroot4+squareroot4= 6, 2, -2, or -6. Thats 4 different possible outcomes, none of which could you actually say is the "right" one. Whats more, it would even be valid to say that simplified, this equation shows how 3=4;

3(integers) = 4(possible outputs)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

When using such blanket statements as, "The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six," you better specify; otherwise you'll be shown to be wrong time and again.

This could go round and round all day. I've seen it happen before. One more counter-example, and then I'm done.

squareroot4+squareroot4+squareroot4= 6, 2, -2, or -6. Thats 4 different possible outcomes, none of which could you actually say is the "right" one. Whats more, it would even be valid to say that simplified, this equation shows how 3=4;

3(integers) = 4(possible outputs)

Every positive real number has a negative and a positive square root.

It is always understood that people are using base 10 unless stated otherwise. Does your post number need to have "using base 10" beside it? What about the national debt or number of new immigrants per year? I know algebra and geometry books don't specify it. I also specified it in my last post. My point that the realities behind the symbols are absolute stands.

The inherent problem with speaking in absolutes as you so often do is that you must cover all your bases if you hope to not be so easily proven wrong. The post count does not claim to be an absolute truth. The statistics you mentioned do not claim to be absolute truths. You did, and so you will be held to higher standards; standards you are incapable of meeting.