Reply to Re: I gave up to the Computers National Olimpiad
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
You can try to evaluate a false nature of reality/existence. It will evaluate to false. Trivial, but true. Because you can try to evaluate it, it has part in philosophy. Also, if we do not know yet where to go, but we know at least one way not to go, we can eliminate that way and focus on other ways of which we aren't sure.
That does not prove me wrong in any way, since deciding what is not real/correct is in fact a part of deciding what is real/correct, meaning that what you said is a process of what I was referring to, not proof against it.
Then in what way could a number be self evident?
I never said numbers exist. I said "real numbers". When I said that it was not meant literally. It was meant in a more metaphorical way. Numbers do not exist in a literal sense, only ammount. And as you say numbers are a way representing amoount. Numbers are way of saying X ammount of a certain unit (eg: amoount = five, unit = apples).
That I know more uses for a number, and have need for more numbers, than you, is your ignorance, not my brain gone wrong.
Firstly I never said there was anything wrong with the brain of anyone here. Secondly a lack of use, does not equal ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of understanding. My ignorance is in that I do not know much about imaginary numbers, not in my having no use for them. The lack of use for them springs from the fact that I won't be doing anything that has a use for them. For exmple: an author of fantasy books has no need for knowing the square root of -5, thus that aspect of my life has no need for it. The other aspects of my life are the same, lacking in the need for it.
-1*Sqrt(2) is irrational. Sorry, math pun.
I don't know what Sqrt means, but let me clarify (with the clarification is itallics so it stands out) my point since you don't seem to understand: negative numbers are not irrational when by themselves or with [i]positive numbers or simplistic maths (stopping at algrebra). In fact they are rattional in that case, since as I said they are useful to represent thing like a loss of money (money owed, or simply that this year's gross earning's for Example Ltd, leaving them with just $5000). Remember that a negative number is simply the same as subtracting a positive number. Subtracting a positive number is rational, so why can't a negative number be rational?
That does not prove me wrong in any way, since deciding what is not real/correct is in fact a part of deciding what is real/correct, meaning that what you said is a process of what I was referring to, not proof against it.
Then in what way could a number be self evident?
I never said numbers exist. I said "real numbers". When I said that it was not meant literally. It was meant in a more metaphorical way. Numbers do not exist in a literal sense, only ammount. And as you say numbers are a way representing amoount. Numbers are way of saying X ammount of a certain unit (eg: amoount = five, unit = apples).
That I know more uses for a number, and have need for more numbers, than you, is your ignorance, not my brain gone wrong.
Firstly I never said there was anything wrong with the brain of anyone here. Secondly a lack of use, does not equal ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of understanding. My ignorance is in that I do not know much about imaginary numbers, not in my having no use for them. The lack of use for them springs from the fact that I won't be doing anything that has a use for them. For exmple: an author of fantasy books has no need for knowing the square root of -5, thus that aspect of my life has no need for it. The other aspects of my life are the same, lacking in the need for it.
-1*Sqrt(2) is irrational. Sorry, math pun.
I don't know what Sqrt means, but let me clarify (with the clarification is itallics so it stands out) my point since you don't seem to understand: negative numbers are not irrational when by themselves or with [i]positive numbers or simplistic maths (stopping at algrebra). In fact they are rattional in that case, since as I said they are useful to represent thing like a loss of money (money owed, or simply that this year's gross earning's for Example Ltd, leaving them with just $5000). Remember that a negative number is simply the same as subtracting a positive number. Subtracting a positive number is rational, so why can't a negative number be rational?
