|
On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories.
I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer.
The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers.
|
On June 15 2014 01:17 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories. I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer. The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers.
Its not a debate if the discussion is exploring a set and linear answer. Much like you can't debate how 2 the answer of 1+1 is, you can't debate a preset logic. Saying "If I draw a star in this very exact way, how much mental masturbation can I get talking about this one way of drawing stars" is not really a discussion, nor is it really asking a question. It is merely you telling us that you draw a star in a set non-variant way, and you wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are for your way of drawing stars by throwing math at you.
|
On June 15 2014 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 01:17 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories. I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer. The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers. Its not a debate if the discussion is exploring a set and linear answer. Much like you can't debate how 2 the answer of 1+1 is, you can't debate a preset logic. Saying "If I draw a star in this very exact way, how much mental masturbation can I get talking about this one way of drawing stars" is not really a discussion, nor is it really asking a question. It is merely you telling us that you draw a star in a set non-variant way, and you wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are for your way of drawing stars by throwing math at you.
Why are you attacking me? I never said I was looking for a debate, and a mathematical argument is not the same thing as a debate (for reasons that you listed). Just because you don't relate to the process of defining terms in order to write a proof doesn't mean that I'm "wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are" or doing mental masturbation.
I understand you're not interested in the math. You are not obligated to respond to every post in this thread.
|
On June 15 2014 09:07 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 01:17 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories. I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer. The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers. Its not a debate if the discussion is exploring a set and linear answer. Much like you can't debate how 2 the answer of 1+1 is, you can't debate a preset logic. Saying "If I draw a star in this very exact way, how much mental masturbation can I get talking about this one way of drawing stars" is not really a discussion, nor is it really asking a question. It is merely you telling us that you draw a star in a set non-variant way, and you wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are for your way of drawing stars by throwing math at you. Why are you attacking me? I never said I was looking for a debate, and a mathematical argument is not the same thing as a debate (for reasons that you listed). Just because you don't relate to the process of defining terms in order to write a proof doesn't mean that I'm "wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are" or doing mental masturbation. I understand you're not interested in the math. You are not obligated to respond to every post in this thread.
I didn't realize I was attacking you? I was merely showcasing how much of a non-question your post was and only leads to people talking about how true the already true statements they make are. Its not a comment on you as a person, just on the topic you brought up as a whole.
Let me put it this way.
Say a poster started a thread. He said that he drew a square with 4 sides. Someone replies to him how he actually drew a square with 4 angles. They then go on this topic for an arbitrary length, talking about the different formulas that prove to them that the square has both 4 sides and 4 angles. They continue this loop telling each other facts that both sides already know is true.
Sure, instead of a square you're talking about stars--but both are equally masturbatory. It has nothing to do with my level of interest in math (math is highly interesting to me). But whether the topic is BW or Math, masturbatory discussions amount to the same things. Like I said, its not a comment on you as a person, its a comment on the direction of the discussion that resulted from your meddling with your initial question.
|
On June 15 2014 11:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 09:07 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 01:17 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories. I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer. The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers. Its not a debate if the discussion is exploring a set and linear answer. Much like you can't debate how 2 the answer of 1+1 is, you can't debate a preset logic. Saying "If I draw a star in this very exact way, how much mental masturbation can I get talking about this one way of drawing stars" is not really a discussion, nor is it really asking a question. It is merely you telling us that you draw a star in a set non-variant way, and you wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are for your way of drawing stars by throwing math at you. Why are you attacking me? I never said I was looking for a debate, and a mathematical argument is not the same thing as a debate (for reasons that you listed). Just because you don't relate to the process of defining terms in order to write a proof doesn't mean that I'm "wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are" or doing mental masturbation. I understand you're not interested in the math. You are not obligated to respond to every post in this thread. I didn't realize I was attacking you? I was merely showcasing how much of a non-question your post was and only leads to people talking about how true the already true statements they make are. Its not a comment on you as a person, just on the topic you brought up as a whole. Let me put it this way. Say a poster started a thread. He said that he drew a square with 4 sides. Someone replies to him how he actually drew a square with 4 angles. They then go on this topic for an arbitrary length, talking about the different formulas that prove to them that the square has both 4 sides and 4 angles. They continue this loop telling each other facts that both sides already know is true. Sure, instead of a square you're talking about stars--but both are equally masturbatory. It has nothing to do with my level of interest in math (math is highly interesting to me). But whether the topic is BW or Math, masturbatory discussions amount to the same things. Like I said, its not a comment on you as a person, its a comment on the direction of the discussion that resulted from your meddling with your initial question.
If you read through the discussion there was a clear process that happened. First we had to define what a "star" meant in the discussion, then we had to figure out why 5, 7, and 8 worked while 6 did not, then we extrapolated our findings to see if there were any more isolated cases like 6 where drawing a star was not possible, and after proving that 6 is the largest non "star" the discussion was concluded.
It's not sharing facts we already know is true for the sake of mental masturbation as you put it, but rather providing another piece to the puzzle on the chance that maybe the other person was just missing that piece in order to get the next piece put down. Sometimes something is done in an overly complicated matter so someone else comes and shows that it's possible to do it in a more simple way.
|
On June 15 2014 12:35 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 11:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 09:07 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 01:17 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories. I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer. The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers. Its not a debate if the discussion is exploring a set and linear answer. Much like you can't debate how 2 the answer of 1+1 is, you can't debate a preset logic. Saying "If I draw a star in this very exact way, how much mental masturbation can I get talking about this one way of drawing stars" is not really a discussion, nor is it really asking a question. It is merely you telling us that you draw a star in a set non-variant way, and you wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are for your way of drawing stars by throwing math at you. Why are you attacking me? I never said I was looking for a debate, and a mathematical argument is not the same thing as a debate (for reasons that you listed). Just because you don't relate to the process of defining terms in order to write a proof doesn't mean that I'm "wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are" or doing mental masturbation. I understand you're not interested in the math. You are not obligated to respond to every post in this thread. I didn't realize I was attacking you? I was merely showcasing how much of a non-question your post was and only leads to people talking about how true the already true statements they make are. Its not a comment on you as a person, just on the topic you brought up as a whole. Let me put it this way. Say a poster started a thread. He said that he drew a square with 4 sides. Someone replies to him how he actually drew a square with 4 angles. They then go on this topic for an arbitrary length, talking about the different formulas that prove to them that the square has both 4 sides and 4 angles. They continue this loop telling each other facts that both sides already know is true. Sure, instead of a square you're talking about stars--but both are equally masturbatory. It has nothing to do with my level of interest in math (math is highly interesting to me). But whether the topic is BW or Math, masturbatory discussions amount to the same things. Like I said, its not a comment on you as a person, its a comment on the direction of the discussion that resulted from your meddling with your initial question. If you read through the discussion there was a clear process that happened. First we had to define what a "star" meant in the discussion, then we had to figure out why 5, 7, and 8 worked while 6 did not, then we extrapolated our findings to see if there were any more isolated cases like 6 where drawing a star was not possible, and after proving that 6 is the largest non "star" the discussion was concluded. It's not sharing facts we already know is true for the sake of mental masturbation as you put it, but rather providing another piece to the puzzle on the chance that maybe the other person was just missing that piece in order to get the next piece put down. Sometimes something is done in an overly complicated matter so someone else comes and shows that it's possible to do it in a more simple way.
Yes, but you're going at the exploration of mathematical truths backwards by first ignoring empirical data. The math you're discussing is only true for one very specific set of stars, a set you that determined not because it itself was important but because you disliked it when others showcased its non-importance. So instead of having a discussion about stars and their links to mathematics, you disregarded all stars but one so long as it fit into the math you already wanted to be true.
Exploration of ideas is about taking empirical data and finding math to fit it, not disregarding data so long as you can discuss a specific math equation. That's what makes it masturbatory.
|
Seriously, this thread always reverts back to math. At least 1 or 2 times a month we get 3 pages of debate on a math question...
Can we stop?
|
|
|
On June 15 2014 12:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 12:35 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 11:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 09:07 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 01:17 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories. I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer. The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers. Its not a debate if the discussion is exploring a set and linear answer. Much like you can't debate how 2 the answer of 1+1 is, you can't debate a preset logic. Saying "If I draw a star in this very exact way, how much mental masturbation can I get talking about this one way of drawing stars" is not really a discussion, nor is it really asking a question. It is merely you telling us that you draw a star in a set non-variant way, and you wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are for your way of drawing stars by throwing math at you. Why are you attacking me? I never said I was looking for a debate, and a mathematical argument is not the same thing as a debate (for reasons that you listed). Just because you don't relate to the process of defining terms in order to write a proof doesn't mean that I'm "wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are" or doing mental masturbation. I understand you're not interested in the math. You are not obligated to respond to every post in this thread. I didn't realize I was attacking you? I was merely showcasing how much of a non-question your post was and only leads to people talking about how true the already true statements they make are. Its not a comment on you as a person, just on the topic you brought up as a whole. Let me put it this way. Say a poster started a thread. He said that he drew a square with 4 sides. Someone replies to him how he actually drew a square with 4 angles. They then go on this topic for an arbitrary length, talking about the different formulas that prove to them that the square has both 4 sides and 4 angles. They continue this loop telling each other facts that both sides already know is true. Sure, instead of a square you're talking about stars--but both are equally masturbatory. It has nothing to do with my level of interest in math (math is highly interesting to me). But whether the topic is BW or Math, masturbatory discussions amount to the same things. Like I said, its not a comment on you as a person, its a comment on the direction of the discussion that resulted from your meddling with your initial question. If you read through the discussion there was a clear process that happened. First we had to define what a "star" meant in the discussion, then we had to figure out why 5, 7, and 8 worked while 6 did not, then we extrapolated our findings to see if there were any more isolated cases like 6 where drawing a star was not possible, and after proving that 6 is the largest non "star" the discussion was concluded. It's not sharing facts we already know is true for the sake of mental masturbation as you put it, but rather providing another piece to the puzzle on the chance that maybe the other person was just missing that piece in order to get the next piece put down. Sometimes something is done in an overly complicated matter so someone else comes and shows that it's possible to do it in a more simple way. Yes, but you're going at the exploration of mathematical truths backwards by first ignoring empirical data. The math you're discussing is only true for one very specific set of stars, a set you that determined not because it itself was important but because you disliked it when others showcased its non-importance. So instead of having a discussion about stars and their links to mathematics, you disregarded all stars but one so long as it fit into the math you already wanted to be true. Exploration of ideas is about taking empirical data and finding math to fit it, not disregarding data so long as you can discuss a specific math equation. That's what makes it masturbatory.
Argh you are annoying. Every time you post something i want to claw out my eyes. Do you even know you have this effect on other people? Is this something you actively aim for?
You are incredibly hostile to everyone for no apparent reason, and think everything is a personal attack on you. Reread the discussion. We had a problem, none of us knew the answer to. Then we spent time clarifying the problem, and then we solved it. This is how mathematic questions work. Just because it isn't an open "everything is right everyone be happy" discussion does not mean it is not a valid question, and the resulting discussion is in no way "mental masturbation", otherwise you could call the solving of any mathematic problem in history mental masturbation. A mathematic question does not involve "empirical data". Empirical data is irrelevant for maths, it is relevant for observational sciences though. In this case, we had a purely mathematical problem. At the beginning the question was not clearly defined, then we took some time exactly exploring the boundaries so we could get to actually solving it. By you definition, pretty much anything in maths can be called masturbatory. Which honestly is pretty insulting, as it implies that pure maths is completely useless.
For some reason, the way Najda and i talked about this problem is extremely offensive to you, probably because it did not fit your genius solution of breaking the unwritten rules that absolutely proves how cool you are by rebelling against the system. And after we finished doing that, you come in and attack Najda for no apparent reason, because apparently we didn't fit the Thieving Magpie standard of discussions. Then you continue to go down this route until everyone stops talking to you because he is too annoyed to continue. This is something you do every single time you start debating anything, which is why i have usually made it a rule not to reply to anything you wrote, just because nothing good ever comes from that. I probably shouldn't have written this post either, but i am doing it on the offchance that maybe you realize just how incredibly annoying you are to anyone who converses with you, and stop this.
Sadly, this now turned the nice mathematical discussion we had before in this whole slump of disgusting filth. Good job there, i hope you are happy.
|
i have now mentally marked thieving magpie as a shameless time-waster
thanks thread
|
On June 15 2014 14:39 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 12:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 12:35 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 11:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 09:07 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 01:17 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories. I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer. The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers. Its not a debate if the discussion is exploring a set and linear answer. Much like you can't debate how 2 the answer of 1+1 is, you can't debate a preset logic. Saying "If I draw a star in this very exact way, how much mental masturbation can I get talking about this one way of drawing stars" is not really a discussion, nor is it really asking a question. It is merely you telling us that you draw a star in a set non-variant way, and you wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are for your way of drawing stars by throwing math at you. Why are you attacking me? I never said I was looking for a debate, and a mathematical argument is not the same thing as a debate (for reasons that you listed). Just because you don't relate to the process of defining terms in order to write a proof doesn't mean that I'm "wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are" or doing mental masturbation. I understand you're not interested in the math. You are not obligated to respond to every post in this thread. I didn't realize I was attacking you? I was merely showcasing how much of a non-question your post was and only leads to people talking about how true the already true statements they make are. Its not a comment on you as a person, just on the topic you brought up as a whole. Let me put it this way. Say a poster started a thread. He said that he drew a square with 4 sides. Someone replies to him how he actually drew a square with 4 angles. They then go on this topic for an arbitrary length, talking about the different formulas that prove to them that the square has both 4 sides and 4 angles. They continue this loop telling each other facts that both sides already know is true. Sure, instead of a square you're talking about stars--but both are equally masturbatory. It has nothing to do with my level of interest in math (math is highly interesting to me). But whether the topic is BW or Math, masturbatory discussions amount to the same things. Like I said, its not a comment on you as a person, its a comment on the direction of the discussion that resulted from your meddling with your initial question. If you read through the discussion there was a clear process that happened. First we had to define what a "star" meant in the discussion, then we had to figure out why 5, 7, and 8 worked while 6 did not, then we extrapolated our findings to see if there were any more isolated cases like 6 where drawing a star was not possible, and after proving that 6 is the largest non "star" the discussion was concluded. It's not sharing facts we already know is true for the sake of mental masturbation as you put it, but rather providing another piece to the puzzle on the chance that maybe the other person was just missing that piece in order to get the next piece put down. Sometimes something is done in an overly complicated matter so someone else comes and shows that it's possible to do it in a more simple way. Yes, but you're going at the exploration of mathematical truths backwards by first ignoring empirical data. The math you're discussing is only true for one very specific set of stars, a set you that determined not because it itself was important but because you disliked it when others showcased its non-importance. So instead of having a discussion about stars and their links to mathematics, you disregarded all stars but one so long as it fit into the math you already wanted to be true. Exploration of ideas is about taking empirical data and finding math to fit it, not disregarding data so long as you can discuss a specific math equation. That's what makes it masturbatory. Argh you are annoying. Every time you post something i want to claw out my eyes. Do you even know you have this effect on other people? Is this something you actively aim for? You are incredibly hostile to everyone for no apparent reason, and think everything is a personal attack on you. Reread the discussion. We had a problem, none of us knew the answer to. Then we spent time clarifying the problem, and then we solved it. This is how mathematic questions work. Just because it isn't an open "everything is right everyone be happy" discussion does not mean it is not a valid question, and the resulting discussion is in no way "mental masturbation", otherwise you could call the solving of any mathematic problem in history mental masturbation. A mathematic question does not involve "empirical data". Empirical data is irrelevant for maths, it is relevant for observational sciences though. In this case, we had a purely mathematical problem. At the beginning the question was not clearly defined, then we took some time exactly exploring the boundaries so we could get to actually solving it. By you definition, pretty much anything in maths can be called masturbatory. Which honestly is pretty insulting, as it implies that pure maths is completely useless. For some reason, the way Najda and i talked about this problem is extremely offensive to you, probably because it did not fit your genius solution of breaking the unwritten rules that absolutely proves how cool you are by rebelling against the system. And after we finished doing that, you come in and attack Najda for no apparent reason, because apparently we didn't fit the Thieving Magpie standard of discussions. Then you continue to go down this route until everyone stops talking to you because he is too annoyed to continue. This is something you do every single time you start debating anything, which is why i have usually made it a rule not to reply to anything you wrote, just because nothing good ever comes from that. I probably shouldn't have written this post either, but i am doing it on the offchance that maybe you realize just how incredibly annoying you are to anyone who converses with you, and stop this. Sadly, this now turned the nice mathematical discussion we had before in this whole slump of disgusting filth. Good job there, i hope you are happy.
At what point have I said that this was a personal attack or that what Nadja did was considered a personal attack?
As I said explicitly to Nadja, I am responding to his bad questioning not his personhood. I don't know why you'd be insulted by my pointing out the problems with talking about a very specific way of drawing a star instead of the actual ways to draw a star.
Math does not start by you defining how the world works and using math to prove your statement, mathematics is translating the empirical data in front of you into a common transferable language you can use to compare to other empirical data. It literally goes against the point of mathematics to go backwards on that notion.
That is not me looking for ways to annoy people, that is literally me pointing out how useless it is to use math the way you guys specifically used it. It was problematic from an academic and from a logical standpoint. It is not a personal attack on you guys, there is no reason to take it so personal.
There was nothing genius in how I solved Nadja's first question--people already had other ways to solve it and Nadja himself knew other ways to solve it. Much like there's nothing genius about telling people they're wrong about how to draw stars.
I had assumed we were just having a discussion until about the last two posts where you guys feel like somehow this is personal--it isn't. Nadja brought up a discussion about how to draw stars, 2-3 people showed he was wrong. He then tries to move the goal posts by telling people that its impossible to draw the star the way he wants to draw it and that other ways to do it are irrelevant. I continue the discussion saying that ignoring empirical data to discuss mathematics is masturbatory, he considers it a personal attack despite it being the natural direction he brought the discussion towards.
I didn't realize people were getting insulted until this page.
|
On June 15 2014 15:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 14:39 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2014 12:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 12:35 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 11:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 09:07 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2014 01:17 Najda wrote:On June 15 2014 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2014 19:28 Simberto wrote:
I don't know, i actually found the second question more interesting, because it actually has some mathematic value to it. Of course you can draw anything without taking the pen off the paper if you can redraw lines and don't have to any other limitations, unless there are jumps in the shape you wish to draw. That is trivial.
And the problem of actually clearly formulating the boundaries you care about is pretty common. In this case, they slowly developed through dialog. And yes, the discussion was about stars, but under certain limitations. Which makes sense, because without limitations the discussion is rather pointless because the answer is trivially obvious.
I guess the question of "How many ways can we draw this star" (which is a different question) is kind of interesting, but once again you need limitations, otherwise it is nonsensical. If you can redraw the same lines as often as you wish, the answer is obviously "There are infinite ways of drawing this star". If you can add random additional lines wherever you want, once again the answer is "There are infinite ways of drawing this, but the result is probably not a star anymore". If you can only trace each line once, and may not redraw them, the question might get interesting. Well, my first drawing drew each line once as well, its the first goal post he moved of "you can only make lines from point to point" where its also very possible to make 6 point star (which he showed) and then he added the "each point must share the same angle, and can only be done point to point. The current rule set is that you can only trace from star point to star point, you are not allowed to trace over lines, the points must be at specific angles, and there can be no extra lines other than the lines I arbitrarily dictate can be there. Do you see where I'm going with this? As a discourse it is only possible by the telling of others that their exploration of the creation of stars is invalid and that you're only allowed to discuss one version of star construction. Let me put it this way. If I wanted to have a discussion about "fun games" is it more interesting to give others free reign in what to bring up and talk about or should I say "I only like BW if you don't talk about BW gtfo." Personally, I'm finding the discussion talking about what the discussion was talking about more interesting than either stars or abstract math theories. I'm sorry my original post misled you but I am much less interested in arguing semantics when my original intent was to discuss the math behind drawing stars using a specific method. The answer you provided was a simple one I could have thought of, and due to the nature of my post and this thread, it was a reasonable answer. The lines and rule set I later clarified were not arbitrary though. That would be akin to saying it's an arbitrary requirement that a square must have all equal sides. I was looking for a specific star with a set of rules that allowed for mathematical exploration. I can tell by your posts and some of your previous posts in this thread that you enjoy a much more open debate with point/counterpoint arguing, but I was rather seeking a mathematical argument with clearly defined rules and answers. Its not a debate if the discussion is exploring a set and linear answer. Much like you can't debate how 2 the answer of 1+1 is, you can't debate a preset logic. Saying "If I draw a star in this very exact way, how much mental masturbation can I get talking about this one way of drawing stars" is not really a discussion, nor is it really asking a question. It is merely you telling us that you draw a star in a set non-variant way, and you wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are for your way of drawing stars by throwing math at you. Why are you attacking me? I never said I was looking for a debate, and a mathematical argument is not the same thing as a debate (for reasons that you listed). Just because you don't relate to the process of defining terms in order to write a proof doesn't mean that I'm "wanting for us to tell you how awesome you are" or doing mental masturbation. I understand you're not interested in the math. You are not obligated to respond to every post in this thread. I didn't realize I was attacking you? I was merely showcasing how much of a non-question your post was and only leads to people talking about how true the already true statements they make are. Its not a comment on you as a person, just on the topic you brought up as a whole. Let me put it this way. Say a poster started a thread. He said that he drew a square with 4 sides. Someone replies to him how he actually drew a square with 4 angles. They then go on this topic for an arbitrary length, talking about the different formulas that prove to them that the square has both 4 sides and 4 angles. They continue this loop telling each other facts that both sides already know is true. Sure, instead of a square you're talking about stars--but both are equally masturbatory. It has nothing to do with my level of interest in math (math is highly interesting to me). But whether the topic is BW or Math, masturbatory discussions amount to the same things. Like I said, its not a comment on you as a person, its a comment on the direction of the discussion that resulted from your meddling with your initial question. If you read through the discussion there was a clear process that happened. First we had to define what a "star" meant in the discussion, then we had to figure out why 5, 7, and 8 worked while 6 did not, then we extrapolated our findings to see if there were any more isolated cases like 6 where drawing a star was not possible, and after proving that 6 is the largest non "star" the discussion was concluded. It's not sharing facts we already know is true for the sake of mental masturbation as you put it, but rather providing another piece to the puzzle on the chance that maybe the other person was just missing that piece in order to get the next piece put down. Sometimes something is done in an overly complicated matter so someone else comes and shows that it's possible to do it in a more simple way. Yes, but you're going at the exploration of mathematical truths backwards by first ignoring empirical data. The math you're discussing is only true for one very specific set of stars, a set you that determined not because it itself was important but because you disliked it when others showcased its non-importance. So instead of having a discussion about stars and their links to mathematics, you disregarded all stars but one so long as it fit into the math you already wanted to be true. Exploration of ideas is about taking empirical data and finding math to fit it, not disregarding data so long as you can discuss a specific math equation. That's what makes it masturbatory. Argh you are annoying. Every time you post something i want to claw out my eyes. Do you even know you have this effect on other people? Is this something you actively aim for? You are incredibly hostile to everyone for no apparent reason, and think everything is a personal attack on you. Reread the discussion. We had a problem, none of us knew the answer to. Then we spent time clarifying the problem, and then we solved it. This is how mathematic questions work. Just because it isn't an open "everything is right everyone be happy" discussion does not mean it is not a valid question, and the resulting discussion is in no way "mental masturbation", otherwise you could call the solving of any mathematic problem in history mental masturbation. A mathematic question does not involve "empirical data". Empirical data is irrelevant for maths, it is relevant for observational sciences though. In this case, we had a purely mathematical problem. At the beginning the question was not clearly defined, then we took some time exactly exploring the boundaries so we could get to actually solving it. By you definition, pretty much anything in maths can be called masturbatory. Which honestly is pretty insulting, as it implies that pure maths is completely useless. For some reason, the way Najda and i talked about this problem is extremely offensive to you, probably because it did not fit your genius solution of breaking the unwritten rules that absolutely proves how cool you are by rebelling against the system. And after we finished doing that, you come in and attack Najda for no apparent reason, because apparently we didn't fit the Thieving Magpie standard of discussions. Then you continue to go down this route until everyone stops talking to you because he is too annoyed to continue. This is something you do every single time you start debating anything, which is why i have usually made it a rule not to reply to anything you wrote, just because nothing good ever comes from that. I probably shouldn't have written this post either, but i am doing it on the offchance that maybe you realize just how incredibly annoying you are to anyone who converses with you, and stop this. Sadly, this now turned the nice mathematical discussion we had before in this whole slump of disgusting filth. Good job there, i hope you are happy. Math does not start by you defining how the world works and using math to prove your statement, mathematics is translating the empirical data in front of you into a common transferable language you can use to compare to other empirical data. It literally goes against the point of mathematics to go backwards on that notion.
You are incorrect, that is EXACTLY how maths work. Maths works by starting with a set of axioms, and deriving stuff from there.
What you are talking about is other sciences like physics or biology or whatever that try to describe the real world. For that, you obviously need to start with observations, and then derive a model that best describes those observations, seeing what predictions that model makes, and making additional observations to see if those predictions are correct. If yes, good. Either make more predictions or make new observations that need to be modeled. If no, make a new model. Repeat.
Math on the other hand works by having a set of axioms, and a problem that needs to be solved, and using logical operations to derive the solution to the problem from the axioms. Math is not an empirical science that tries to describe the world.
|
thieving magpie clearly took this personally after his "obvious" solution was shown to be lazy and thoughtless, and now he's going full pseudophilosophical and redefining math
its so sick
|
Mathematics is described as pure abstraction.
There are no numbers in nature. We made them up. All you have in the real world are integers. Everything beyond that has no real counterpart in reality.
Where do negative numbers appear? What is the equivalent of multiplying? How was exponentiation(taking a base number to a power) first empirically observed?
You can't observe math. You can't even observe geometrics(like drawing stars), because there are no straight lines except the human made ones.
|
There are no numbers insofar as we choose to call them numbers, but 1+1 will always equal 2 in that if you have a single object, put it with another single object, you will then have two. What we call it doesn't matter, since the math is still there. There are a lot of abstract concepts, but not all of it is purely abstract.
|
On June 16 2014 07:57 Coppermantis wrote:
There are no numbers insofar as we choose to call them numbers, but 1+1 will always equal 2 in that if you have a single object, put it with another single object, you will then have two. What we call it doesn't matter, since the math is still there. There are a lot of abstract concepts, but not all of it is purely abstract.
Would we have flying cars and jet packs by now if 1+1=3?
|
we do have flying buses. they are called "airplanes" and work pretty decent. and this also shows why YOU don't have one: it's pretty expensive and inefficient, since you always have to work against the gravitational force to stay up in the air. E: + Show Spoiler +I'm aware this is not correct in a strict physical sense
On the other hand you can't mess with the strength of gravity since that would influence earth's curve around the sun and temperature would change (most likely drastically as in: uninhabitable)
|
Sup, I've been searching a specific scene of a movie on youtube for like two weeks now but I just can't find it!! It's the potato machine for me...
It's about a very very short phone call: the guy picks up the phone, simply says: 'Hi - Bye', and immediately ends the call.
He was sitting behind a desk and I remember him looking like Samuel L. Jackson, but I'm not quite sure about the person. The colours in the movie were a bit like from the late 80's or 90's.
Do you know it??
|
are stripper poles like shined down so they're are kinda smooth for the strippers to slide up and down, cause they do it really smoothly i was wonder if its a bit of the pole friction helping? eg: could they do it something that hasnt been cleaned in a while eg: a lamp pot or stop sign. Random thought i was not watching stripper videos
|
Why do toenails sometimes grow sideways :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
