RIP Araysar

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Furry said:
Obviously in higher level calculus I meant bigger numbers than just calc 1, 2, 3, as my college did it, so you are just being a weasel with that. As for math competitions of course they don’t teach math, they demonstrate your ability to do it, generally there are mental math categories, calculator categories, and ones where you are allowed paper to work on problems. Are you really this dumb? And why do you think I reject complex numbers. I’ve never said anything like that. My claim is and always has been that conclusions reached with a negative result are nonsense if you can’t frame them in such a way that you reach them with a positive result, and that assuming a negative result has meaning if you reach a positive result is also nonsense. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything you just said.

And for Euler’s proof i mean specifically the Taylor expansion proof he made, though any subset there of is equally stupid.

The big problem is that “i” kinda works, but any mathematician ignorant of the inherent problem it represents in the difference between math and reality, and just accepts it blindly is a moron.
Click to expand...
You dismissed field theories and large portion of the results derived from complex numbers. The entirety of physics rests on complex numbers. All of fucking physics rests on it.

Doing calculations isnt doing math; competition math is not research math or the preclude to research math as studied in basic undergrad math degree.

There is no "higher level calculus" classes like you claim. There is the usual 1, 2 and 3 and some schools call their intro ODE class calculus 4. But thats it. If you mean you took intro to analysis, which is occasionally called advanced calculus, then say so but if you took that class, you would have said that instead of the bullshit you said. Regardless, that has nothing to do with your claims about complex numbers as you almost never see any complex numbers in the typical calculus classes and the intro analysis classes focus on real numbers and not complex. Also, the fact that you are differentiating between negative numbers and positive as if they are different things is just more evidence that you never even sniffed at any math class more complicated than freshman math.

As for taylors expansion, how is that related to "you can use the same accepted math in the proof to show 0 = 1, some versions include multiplication by 0 for gods sakes."?
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,021
28,847
wormie said:
You dismissed field theories and large portion of the results derived from complex numbers. The entirety of physics rests on complex numbers. All of fucking physics rests on it.

Doing calculations isnt doing math; competition math is not research math or the preclude to research math as studied in basic undergrad math degree.

There is no "higher level calculus" classes like you claim. There is the usual 1, 2 and 3 and some schools call their intro ODE class calculus 4. But thats it. If you mean you took intro to analysis, which is occasionally called advanced calculus, then say so but if you took that class, you would have said that instead of the bullshit you said. Regardless, that has nothing to do with your claims about complex numbers as you almost never see any complex numbers in the typical calculus classes and the intro analysis classes focus on real numbers and not complex. Also, the fact that you are differentiating between negative numbers and positive as if they are different things is just more evidence that you never even sniffed at any math class more complicated than freshman math.

As for taylors expansion, how is that related to "you can use the same accepted math in the proof to show 0 = 1, some versions include multiplication by 0 for gods sakes."?
Click to expand...
Lmao, you can’t help talking past someone no matter what, can you. Again, what claims have I made about complex numbers past i being problematic, but not necessarily wrong? I’ve thought long and hard about coming up with a system that replaces “i” and its tendency to lose information in mathematics, but I couldn’t come up with a better answer than the classical one that you should be skeptical of negative numbers, and especially negative conclusions that can’t be positively framed. Taking this argument and saying that I reject the use of complex numbers is incredibly low IQ.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Furry said:
Lmao, you can’t help talking past someone no matter what, can you. Again, what claims have I made about complex numbers past i being problematic, but not necessarily wrong? I’ve thought long and hard about coming up with a system that replaces “i” and its tendency to lose information in mathematics, but I couldn’t come up with a better answer than the classical one that you should be skeptical of negative numbers, and especially negative conclusions that can’t be positively framed. Taking this argument and saying that I reject the use of complex numbers is incredibly low IQ.
Click to expand...
Why would I say that?

Because: "One could write a large book about the problems with "i" and why any conclusion reached in the negative realm of mathematics in nonsense if it can't be reached in the positive realm as well."

You cant separate conclusions derived using complex numbers into some fake "negative realm" category you created. There are no two mechanisms for complex numbers, or any numbers in fact, that somehow places some of them into the negative realm and others into the positive. One number functions precisely like every other number within its category. By rejecting "negative realm" numbers, you reject all of the numbers.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,021
28,847
wormie said:
Why would I say that?

Because: "One could write a large book about the problems with "i" and why any conclusion reached in the negative realm of mathematics in nonsense if it can't be reached in the positive realm as well."

You cant separate conclusions derived using complex numbers into some fake "negative realm" category you created. There are no two mechanisms for complex numbers, or any numbers in fact, that somehow places some of them into the negative realm and others into the positive. One number functions precisely like every other number within its category. By rejecting "negative realm" numbers, you reject all of the numbers.
Click to expand...
Categorically wrong. I don't see what's so difficult in dismissing mathematical results as completely meaningless if they are not real and measurable, thus framable as positive. Thinking otherwise is the same sort of idiocy that spawned the retardation known as string theory. All things that are real and measurable are positive, though humans may frame them as negative. Negative numbers simply aren't real.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Furry said:
Categorically wrong. I don't see what's so difficult in dismissing mathematical results as completely meaningless if they are not real and measurable, thus framable as positive. Thinking otherwise is the same sort of idiocy that spawned the retardation known as string theory. All things that are real and measurable are positive, though humans may frame them as negative. Negative numbers simply aren't real.
Click to expand...
The issue is your claim of something being "real". This excludes majority for real numbers, so are you just using natural numbers for your science? You cant show real numbers in reality so what do you do? And your claim about all things measurable being positive is again false. There are two types of electric charges measured, and it must be that one of them is negative.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,021
28,847
wormie said:
it must be that one of them is negative.
Click to expand...
Justify this. Are you going to go the big brain route and not understand how magnets work by saying they are just "opposing forces, so therefor one must be negative", even though the force of each force can be positivity measured individually?
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Furry said:
Justify this. Are you going to go the big brain route and not understand how magnets work by saying they are just "opposing forces, so therefor one must be negative", even though the force of each force can be positivity measured individually?
Click to expand...
The measured values are the magnitudes of the forces. But the interactions of the forces require one to be negative. You do know that forces have directions right? And arent just magnitudes?
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,021
28,847
wormie said:
The measured values are the magnitudes of the forces. But the interactions of the forces require one to be negative. You do know that forces have directions right? And arent just magnitudes?
Click to expand...
It's your framing that chooses to make that force negative. If you do the math framed in the positive it works just the same. Why is gravitational pull framed as a positive when it brings things together? Are you sure you aren't a goyim.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Furry said:
It's your framing that chooses to make that force negative. If you do the math framed in the positive it works just the same. Why is gravitational pull framed as a positive when it brings things together? Are you sure you aren't a goyim.
Click to expand...
You are right that the framing makes the force negative. And if you change the frame, that force will be positive, but now the other force will be negative and you will still have a negative.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,021
28,847
wormie said:
You are right that the framing makes the force negative. And if you change the frame, that force will be positive, but now the other force will be negative and you will still have a negative.
Click to expand...
I never was against using negative numbers in math to reach a conclusion, what does it matter if you chose to frame one force as positive and one force as negative? I've only ever talked about the overall conclusions. You're probably the sort of person when I say "I want to buy the square root of 16 apples" will violently demand that I now owe them 4 apples. Obviously, the negative solution is complete nonsense in that context. How are you too stupid to realize that.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Furry said:
I never was against using negative numbers in math to reach a conclusion, what does it matter if you chose to frame one force as positive and one force as negative? I've only ever talked about the overall conclusions. You're probably the sort of person when I say "I want to buy the square root of 16 apples" will violently demand that I now owe them 4 apples. Obviously, the negative solution is complete nonsense in that context. How are you too stupid to realize that.
Click to expand...
You said negative numbers dont exist in reality. I offered one example of a negative existing in reality, the charge of an electron. Or, if you dont like the framing that results in that charge being negative, lets flip that around so its positive and then my example is the charge of the positron. Now what? And all of that ignores the fact that positive and negative numbers behave exactly the same and to reject one set of numbers means rejecting all of them.

Also I am curious why you think the square root of 16 equals something other than 4. You sure you didnt get that big brain idea backwards?
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,021
28,847
wormie said:
You said negative numbers dont exist in reality. I offered one example of a negative existing in reality, the charge of an electron. Or, if you dont like the framing that results in that charge being negative, lets flip that around so its positive and then my example is the charge of the positron. Now what? And all of that ignores the fact that positive and negative numbers behave exactly the same and to reject one set of numbers means rejecting all of them.

Also I am curious why you think the square root of 16 equals something other than 4. You sure you didnt get that big brain idea backwards?
Click to expand...
Again, how is this attraction negative? It's a positive and real force, the fact that you choose to make one force positive or negative is an arbitrary decision of the observer, thus meaningless. Never mind that you could do the math where both forces are positive if you wish, though it becomes less intuitive. What you don't grasp is that the opionions and thoughts of the observer and the math they use are not informative to what reality is past a conclusion, and that conclusion may be total nonsense if it is not real and measurable. Thinking otherwise is mathematical retardation.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,021
28,847
wormie said:
Also I am curious why you think the square root of 16 equals something other than 4. You sure you didnt get that big brain idea backwards?
Click to expand...
Your mathematical proof would be thrown in the trash if you did account for the root of 16 as +/-4.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Furry said:
Again, how is this attraction negative? It's a positive and real force, the fact that you choose to make one force positive or negative is an arbitrary decision of the observer, thus meaningless. Never mind that you could do the math where both forces are positive if you wish, though it becomes less intuitive. What you don't grasp is that the opionions and thoughts of the observer and the math they use are not informative to what reality is past a conclusion, and that conclusion may be total nonsense if it is not real and measurable. Thinking otherwise is mathematical retardation.
Click to expand...
When you place two charges next to each other, they feel a force that either pushes them away or attracts them to each other. The behavior of being attracted to each other depends on one of them being the opposite charge of the other. That inherently requires one charge to be negative. This isnt rocket science, this is 9th grade physics.

Furry said:
Your mathematical proof would be thrown in the trash if you did account for the root of 16 as +/-4.
Click to expand...
Your concept of a mathematic proof seems to be something that boomers post on facebook. There are no proofs that use exact numbers so your statement is silly. Anyway, square root of 16 maps to exactly one value and that value is 4. The square of +4 and the square of -4 both map to 16 but the square root of 16 maps exclusively to 4. There is no negative number that the square root function maps to. You are welcome to look up the range of the square root function.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,021
28,847
Da fuq, there aren't numbers in proofs? LMAO im done. I can see we're entering the pretend to be retarded phase of things so it washes off on me.

Keep trucking on with your low IQ reasoning that our frame of reference matters for nature. It helps us understand it, but thinking it's part of the nature of things is just wrong.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Thats right, there are no numbers in almost any proof. Writing a proof using specific numbers limits that proof to those exact numbers and therefore makes a very useless proof. You took higher calculus, you should know this. Fucking lol.
 
joz123

joz123

Potato del Grande
6,664
9,460
Austin Powers Nerd GIF
 
  • 2Worf
Reactions: 1 users
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
I will amend what I said. There are no numbers in proofs other than 0 and 1 and the occasional exponent in some number theory proofs. Boomers posting facebook memes about 0 = 1 are not proofs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.