| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Velr
Switzerland10989 Posts
On May 03 2016 06:55 ThomasjServo wrote: You all think that down the line games will have options to play with people in a similar age range but for adults? Like in game, intramural leagues but for people with less time to play than a student say. Its called "bellow Masters" or "ELO-Hell"  . | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46692 Posts
I mean really, there are even uses for transcendental numbers (like pi and e) and imaginary numbers (electrical engineering); you think measurable representations of zero and negative one don't exist? Lol. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 03 2016 08:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I can't believe people were suggesting that there are no real life examples/ applications of zero or negative numbers O.o glad people cited a whole bunch of them. I mean really, there are even uses for transcendental numbers (like pi and e) and imaginary numbers (electrical engineering); you think measurable representations of zero and negative one don't exist? Lol. At this point I think they're just trying to redefine what absence, presence, and costs mean. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46692 Posts
On May 03 2016 08:06 Naracs_Duc wrote: At this point I think they're just trying to redefine what absence, presence, and costs mean. Agreed... Of course, that doesn't mean that they can't also be represented as zero or negatives, so it's silly to move the goalposts away from typical, legitimate uses of those numbers and insist that they can only be represented differently. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 03 2016 08:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Agreed... Of course, that doesn't mean that they can't also be represented as zero or negatives, so it's silly to move the goalposts away from typical, legitimate uses of those numbers and insist that they can only be represented differently. Also agreed. I think its just the internet trying to internet. | ||
|
michaeldjason
Australia3 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5237 Posts
On May 03 2016 08:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I can't believe people were suggesting that there are no real life examples/ applications of zero or negative numbers O.o glad people cited a whole bunch of them. I mean really, there are even uses for transcendental numbers (like pi and e) and imaginary numbers (electrical engineering); you think measurable representations of zero and negative one don't exist? Lol. This hasn't been said, once. It was argued that these concepts didn't arise in the universe, occured naturally. On May 03 2016 08:06 Naracs_Duc wrote: At this point I think they're just trying to redefine what absence, presence, and costs mean. Absence, presence and cost are only concepts that can be thought of by a sentient being. Okay, so we have the universe. Everything that is physically in this universe is there. Therefor, 0, or the absence of something, is an impossibility. Negativity is also something completely absurd relating to this, since there is always something, acting on something else. It doesn't matter that "there is more energy needed for some reaction to happen before it will happen", because that energy will become available at one point or another. 0, negatives, irrational numbers have a vast amount of applications, I won't deny that, but they are used as tools (or even shortcuts) to achieve things with nature we as humans manipulated. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18488 Posts
On May 03 2016 07:02 thePunGun wrote: Well, we evaluate the amount of apples in your example as 3 because we define them as 3 in the decimal system. But in binary that decimal 3 is defined as 11. It's all about the definition and how we use math as a tool, just like we use physics to proof our math. The physical definition of 0 in the real world, is based on physically nothing(not literally), which does not exist. There's always something and I didn't mean apples, I meant quantums. That's why I posted the links regarding the "smallest distance" and the Planck length. That's not just math, it's physics and we need physics to proof those mathematical theories (and according to quantums physics' "smallest distance" 0 does not exist, even though we cannot measure it yet). Apologies if this was too dry and theoretical... I just love math and physics Just because you've decided to ignore absolutely every organizational structure in the universe that is greater than quanta doesn't mean they cease to exist. The quantum level is, for instance, an incredibly terrible level for describing apple trees. So, returning to a level where we measure things in cm or m (or feet for you crazy imperials), there were absolutely 0 apple trees in existence before about 500million years ago (for sure, but if you really want to be absolutely positively sure that nothing even remotely resembling an apple tree existed, feel free to read this as 5billion in order to ensure our solar system didn't yet exist). But if apple trees are too complex a structure for you; if we go back about 13.5billion years (trying to point at a time after the big bang and before the first star, so feel free to correct me, if 13.5 is not far enough back), 0 of the carbon atoms that are strung together into the complex molecules that make up my body existed yet in the universe. All of those examples are interpretations of reality in our minds and are not measurable in nature/our universe like mass, heigth, speed, etc. Money does not count, because it's also a manmade tool for trade. It does(as paradox as this may sound) not exist, just because we print numbers on a piece of paper or add them to a bankaccount on a hard drive. While we can once again quibble over whether humans, and other lifeforms, are part of this "real world" you have so nebulously defined, lets allow this to pass. Even then, we can describe things as being negative, as long as we see them in relation to one another. For instance, if I jump, this is creating a negative force in relation to the force of gravity working upon my body. Sure, these are all vectors, and directions, but you'll still need a positive and negative direction on your axis to make this whole thing make sense (and if you don't like humans jumping, just have some asteroids collide instead). Negative numbers (and subtractions) pop up in physics all the time. Hell, imaginary numbers pop up in physics, and they are a hell of a lot weirder than negative numbers. Yet, quantum physicists wouldn't be able to compute the presence of their own underpants without them. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
- no, math is not built based on real world measurements. -but yes, all but the most obscure parts of math are useful to predict/describe empirical measurements. How can you write novels about this??  Is the discussion still about exactly what we mean with the word "truth"? Can we just talk about this without using that word then, and everyone will suddenly agree... | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46692 Posts
On May 03 2016 08:21 Uldridge wrote: This hasn't been said, once. It was argued that these concepts didn't arise in the universe, occured naturally. It had been said, yes. Here's one example: For example 0 does not exist in our universe. Because of the so called >>smallest distance<<(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length check it out it's quite fascinating actually). To say that there's no zero because the smallest distance is positive is missing the point (because thepungun is actually stating that there exists other numbers... just not one as small as zero). But obviously, if you're okay with representing really small positive numbers, you should be okay with representing zeroes and negatives too. I would be the first to admit that there doesn't exist physical 1s and 2s and 0s floating around our houses, where we can point and say "Look! I see an actual 1!" in the same way that we could point at a boy or girl or dog. But if thepungun is okay with citing representations of numbers (such as where the Planck constant is useful), then it's consistent that one should be okay with using representations of zero (I'm currently holding zero mangoes) and representations of negatives (e.g., debt) that were offered as a rebuttal to his example. Edit: It's also kind of dumb to say that the smallest distance is positive. The distance between object X and itself is zero, by definition (assuming the same point on the object). If your starting and ending point is the same, then your displacement is zero. If something doesn't move, it has moved zero units. Absolute value of 0 is 0. Et cetera. Double edit: You can tell thepungun is just invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy here: The physical definition of 0 in the real world, is based on physically nothing(not literally), which does not exist. There's always something and I didn't mean apples, I meant quantums. So you give an example of zero, and he says "no not that zero! a different zero!" He's saying that zero must apply to zero everything, instead of just an example of zero somethings. So when we say that zero unicorns exist, he says that doesn't count as a true example of zero; only complete nothingness counts as zero. So he's ignoring any other unit that would provide a perfectly reasonable depiction of zero. So by his definition, he's right. But by any meaningful, practical definition, he's not. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On May 03 2016 09:16 Cascade wrote: Guys... How can you make this so complicated.... - no, math is not built based on real world measurements. -but yes, all but the most obscure parts of math are useful to predict/describe empirical measurements. How can you write novels about this?? Is the discussion still about exactly what we mean with the word "truth"? Can we just talk about this without using that word then, and everyone will suddenly agree... There are worse novels, Things Fall Apart for example. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5237 Posts
It's not about literal numbers floating around either, it's about everything quantifyable in this universe is about some form of energy being translated in some other form of energy, and several system acting upon them. None of those have any form of absence or any form of negativity to them. Theoretical physics postulates that the smallest natural occuring thing is around Planck's length, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less (god I hope I'm right and not some physics hotshot comes in here and shoots me down lel) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46692 Posts
On May 03 2016 10:44 Uldridge wrote: Everything you have used in your example is based around human concepts, nothing you've said has been occuring in nature. The existence of people and animals aren't dependent upon our abilities to conceptualize them -.-' If something in nature goes extinct, then there are zero of those things left. When we say that there are zero or one or two dogs in the room, you can't sidestep the issue and say that there can't be zero dogs *because other things exist in the room*. Just because other things exist in the room doesn't mean that there's *some quantity* of every single thing in the room. Or universe, for that matter. For example, there are zero things in this entire universe that are both P and ~P (thanks to the logical absolute Law of Contradiction). Theoretical physics postulates that the smallest natural occuring thing is around Planck's length, that's it. Do you see how you just redefined the argument? "The smallest thing is a Planck length"... that's not the quantity of those things, and it also necessitates that you're measuring something that's positive! No one is arguing whether or not there is any positive length that has been measured and is smaller than a Planck length. But again, when there's no change or movement, then the change or movement is equal to zero (not one, not two, and not Planck's constant). Like he said, when nothing, applied to the universe, doesn't exist, simply because there is ALWAYS something (e.g. no true vacuums exist, and even then, there's space). And again, you've (he's) chosen an incredibly useless and unproductive definition of zero, which I guess is the only way to even try to argue that there can't be zero of anything. It's just a  | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
"Physical definition of 0"? There is no such thing... 0 is a mathematical object. Force has a physical definition, length and time has. "0" hasn't. When you do calculation on for example force, you sometimes end up with 0 Newton (unit of force), which means no force. Where is the problem here? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46692 Posts
On May 03 2016 12:42 Cascade wrote: Wtf are you guys smoking? "Physical definition of 0"? There is no such thing... 0 is a mathematical object. Force has a physical definition, length and time has. "0" hasn't. When you do calculation on for example force, you sometimes end up with 0 Newton (unit of force), which means no force. Where is the problem here? The original problem was that thepungun initially made the claim that math "cannot be directly applied to the real world". And then in the next sentence he said that 0 doesn't exist (presumably as its own magical floating physical entity), which is fine but we can still apply the concepts of 0 and other numbers and math to the real world (and several people listed examples of those applications), to which there was some backtracking and redefining of the number zero (and what it's "allowed" to be applied to, according to thepungun... which is that it can't be applied to anything unless it's simultaneously applied to everything, and he said that if we can't have absolute nothingness in this universe- there's always *something*- then there's no representation of 0 at all). | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5237 Posts
And that's literally all he said (imo) Also the issue wasn't sidestepped, I merely tried to convey that you, as a sentient being, capable of noticing the absence of dogs (to use your example again), applied a concept thought of by humans, to say something about something that isn' there. That's not how the universe works though. It has stuff in it. That stuff is in a certain state. That's it. You can't really talk about the stuff that's in that certain state that's not there. You know what I'm trying to say? Anyway gonna go for a new one, since I feel like it's fast approaching beating dead horse (BDH) status.. How do audio engineers (or programmers) program things like reeverbs or delays (and make them sound natural)? | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6326 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On May 03 2016 13:49 Epishade wrote: If I put a Trump 2016 bumper sticker on my friend's car as a joke, and someone keys his car because of that sticker, should I have to pay for damages? How could he prove that his car got keyed because of the sticker? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 03 2016 13:28 Uldridge wrote: There is no representation of nothingness in this universe. Only through mankind. You agree with this, yet you want to argue with this simple statement for some reason. I don't get it. And that's literally all he said (imo) Also the issue wasn't sidestepped, I merely tried to convey that you, as a sentient being, capable of noticing the absence of dogs (to use your example again), applied a concept thought of by humans, to say something about something that isn' there. That's not how the universe works though. It has stuff in it. That stuff is in a certain state. That's it. You can't really talk about the stuff that's in that certain state that's not there. You know what I'm trying to say? Anyway gonna go for a new one, since I feel like it's fast approaching beating dead horse (BDH) status.. How do audio engineers (or programmers) program things like reeverbs or delays (and make them sound natural)? If you only count things based on the number of total atoms in the universe then by definition there is always infinite objects and always zero unique objects. No other things exists. But if you believe a dog exists, then you must believe that a dog came to exist, and a dog can cease to exist. Telling me that dogs have always existed because matter existed at some point is meaningless. Telling me that dogs don't exist because in the future it doesn't exist anymore is also useless. We can point to an object existing, and we now can quantify it. If it stops existing, we can say there is none of it. Whether we exist or not those objects will still be there. And just because we fail to perceive said object does not make it not exist. When you say things such as "That's not how the universe works though. It has stuff in it. That stuff is in a certain state. That's it." then you are literally trying to sidestep the conversation. When something is no longer what it was, because it has changed states, then it has stopped existing. When a dog turns into organic matter and then turns into dirt--it is no longer a dog. You now have an absence of a dog, and the universe now has -1 more dogs. Just because you still want to call it a dog after the earth has experienced entropy and is now space dust does not change the fact that there is no longer a dog that used to be there. And we do not need to have observed the dog for that dog to have existed. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g10128 tarik_tv6566 Grubby3219 Liquid`RaSZi1959 singsing1678 FrodaN1328 QueenE101 NeuroSwarm60 XaKoH  43Railgan28 |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
YoungYakov vs Lambo
SHIN vs TBD
Percival vs Shameless
Solar vs TBD
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Invitational
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
TerrOr vs IJ_Terran
rasowy vs Hazorath
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
I didn't drag you into the conversation! 
