Reply to Re: I gave up to the Computers National Olimpiad
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
That does not prove me wrong in any way,
Quote: "And any thought DD, even proven erroneous, has value from a philosophical standpoint. Consider the shades of grey for once."
Sorry but I disagree with that. It's irrational. Philosophy is about trying to evualate the nature of reality/existence.
You there said you disagreed to that proven erroneous thoughts have value from a philosophical standpoint. Next you say that philosophy is about trying to evaluate the nature of reality/existence. Then I prove that even proven erroneous thoughts are a part of trying to evaluate the nature of reality/existence, with which I prove that proven erroneous thoughts are a part of philosopy, so they have a value (which can be negative, but they still have a value), thus proving against your first statement that proven erroneous thoughts don't have value from a philosophical standpoint.
Firstly I never said there was anything wrong with the brain of anyone here.
Firstly, I never said you ever said there was anything wrong with the brain of anyone here.
Secondly a lack of use, does not equal ignorance.
Secondly, I never talked about a lack of use, only about you not knowing uses. I.e. lack of understanding how you can use numbers. Which is a lack of understanding, which is ignorance, by your own definition.
I don't know what Sqrt means,
Read a few posts above, where I say: "Sqrt == Square root"
(stopping at algrebra)
You here mean elementary algebra. As if you had actually followed the links, you had seen that, what you consider irrational (your def, not mine... more about this later) complex numbers, are a part of universal algebra, and thus part of algebra, and thus part of math. It's just that all elementary algebra is part of universal algebra, but not vice-versa.
Also, I said confusion is caused by our different definitions of rational/irrational. As I said I don't believe in numbers to just exist, nor that quantity is the only use for a number. I have no possible way to say if a number is rational (your def), because I have no possible way to say if a number is at all. I do not disagree nor agree to if numbers are rationar/irrational according to your definition of rational/irrational. What I know for sure is that -1*Sqrt(2) is irrational from my definition if irrational, which is not rational. That's also your definition, but my definition of rational is different than yours. Mine is:
A number is rational if it can be written as a/b, with a an integer and b a non-zero integer.
It was a pun anyway, and one non-mathematicians have trouble understanding, because it requires one to know the math-definition of rational, which many non-mathematicians don't know.
Quote: "And any thought DD, even proven erroneous, has value from a philosophical standpoint. Consider the shades of grey for once."
Sorry but I disagree with that. It's irrational. Philosophy is about trying to evualate the nature of reality/existence.
You there said you disagreed to that proven erroneous thoughts have value from a philosophical standpoint. Next you say that philosophy is about trying to evaluate the nature of reality/existence. Then I prove that even proven erroneous thoughts are a part of trying to evaluate the nature of reality/existence, with which I prove that proven erroneous thoughts are a part of philosopy, so they have a value (which can be negative, but they still have a value), thus proving against your first statement that proven erroneous thoughts don't have value from a philosophical standpoint.
Firstly I never said there was anything wrong with the brain of anyone here.
Firstly, I never said you ever said there was anything wrong with the brain of anyone here.
Secondly a lack of use, does not equal ignorance.
Secondly, I never talked about a lack of use, only about you not knowing uses. I.e. lack of understanding how you can use numbers. Which is a lack of understanding, which is ignorance, by your own definition.
I don't know what Sqrt means,
Read a few posts above, where I say: "Sqrt == Square root"
(stopping at algrebra)
You here mean elementary algebra. As if you had actually followed the links, you had seen that, what you consider irrational (your def, not mine... more about this later) complex numbers, are a part of universal algebra, and thus part of algebra, and thus part of math. It's just that all elementary algebra is part of universal algebra, but not vice-versa.
Also, I said confusion is caused by our different definitions of rational/irrational. As I said I don't believe in numbers to just exist, nor that quantity is the only use for a number. I have no possible way to say if a number is rational (your def), because I have no possible way to say if a number is at all. I do not disagree nor agree to if numbers are rationar/irrational according to your definition of rational/irrational. What I know for sure is that -1*Sqrt(2) is irrational from my definition if irrational, which is not rational. That's also your definition, but my definition of rational is different than yours. Mine is:
A number is rational if it can be written as a/b, with a an integer and b a non-zero integer.
It was a pun anyway, and one non-mathematicians have trouble understanding, because it requires one to know the math-definition of rational, which many non-mathematicians don't know.
