the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[dad]

since when do they have to be the same? the video assumes the two speeds to be different, and things turn out alright

Say what?

i'm not entirely sure if i'm missing something here, but i'm going to go ahead and apply this to your concept of multiple spreading present states.

Now, no need to get silly. How would a temporary one time change in the created state universe be really thought of as 'multiple'?

i said earlier that there were too many implications to consider, but because average speeds are assumed in the video i don't think that numerous state changes would pose a threat to its assumptions in most cases

Well, as I said, the speed of light from any star in the universe we can observe, to the earth is no problem at all. If the light was different, and universe, and it used to get here fast as you please. Not really even an issue. What the SN1887a presents, is the phenomena of the rings. I think that basic idea is that science feels that the light there behaves as present light behaves, so how could it noot have been present light 70,000 imaginary years ago/ Isn't that the basic issue here? Therefore, the mystery lies in the event itself. The issue of what we actually see going on there. That is why, asking what we actually KNOW is very crucial here. So far, it seems posters here are not of a level, to where they seem to know much about it. Simple quaetions like how can we know the dimensions of the rings, were met with nothing more than 'light takes 8 months to light them up, they must be .8 ly away. Then. I asked how we can know that the light moves at known light speed?? No reply yet, of any consequence. Then, such a basic question as do we know for sure that the core lights up each time first, 8 months earlier, or something, so we can determine that the light originated at the core, as presumed. See, we do need to look at what we actually know.
Now, mind you, I could not foresee any possible outcome of how it works, that would be any challenge at all to a changed universe state. But I see no need to gloss over the ignorance of man, in arriving at any good conclusion.

not all cases though, unfortunately. if the area around the supernova is actually shifted to the present state while the majority of the space between it and the Earth is not, then a 6000-year-old universe might be conceivable. it's awfully unlikely, but i don't recall that ever stopping you before, so i'll go ahead and chalk up a point in your favor

That scenario requires that the event be present state, as I assumed it to be. However, you folks now are going to have to establish that. They more we know about this, the less science seems to be shown to know.

every part of the ring brightens at nearly the same time every eight months. that implies that something in the center of the ring is the cause, and that we should expect its activity to go through an 8-month cycle.

Well, that implies by what reasoning?? I agree one would naturally think that, but, since it is out beyond man's realm at the moment, it is best that you demonstrate you know what you are claiming here. Can you provide the support for that claim, for the last 21 years?? In addition, can you cross check the assumed light speed, if it is proven that the light always emanates from the core, -to the ring?

and wouldn't you know it, there just so happens to be something there that fits the bill: the core of the supernova

Well, then you should have no problem producing the basics here, if you knew your stuff. I mean, remember, there is a missing neutron star and black hole in that core, it was claimed, as well. Something obviously is wrong in their understanding.

there are only two other options the way i see it
1. the ring is lighting itself, or something found throughout the ring is lighting/dimming the ring at 8-month intervals. this is ridiculous. please don't say this.

Depends on the evidence. If we can show it is always the core that light up the rings, and the light can be followed from there to the outer rings, fine. If not, we would have to review the evidence. If, for example we wanted to look at a time reversal scenario, if all else failed, we might envision that creation rings preceded the creation of the star. If we were watching it in reverse, why, I suppose the rings would not be expected to be lit from a star that was not there yet! But, as I say, I prefer to look at actual evidence.

2. something very close to the core is lighting the ring. unlikely, and i don't see how it would cause any problems

Well, sounds like you are grasping at straws there. Either you know, or you do not know. If not simply admit it. Why make stuff up??

you still believe that that matters, even though the video assumes a non-PO speed?
Interesting.

Can you explain? What speed is assumed, and why, if they don't know??

"different," huh? so, if light is changed in a way that makes me wrong, you're right. yet another amazing logical breakthrough you've made here, dad

If the universe and light changed at all, you could not know by present state science, regardless of who is right or wrong. If it changed in a way that leaves God's word true as true can be, why, then He was right all along.

just something to quiz people on, then?
i'd wager that enough is known about stellar evolution to make it possible to tell if nearby stars are proceeding down the main sequence in the same direction as distant stars, despite the large timespans involved. i'll have to ask someone who actually knows something about astronomy though

Ah, so you are starting to realize you don't know. That is a good thing. As for those that imagine stellar evolution, that is a lie. A fairy tales based on a snippet of PO information, of the last several decades of PO science observations. What we actually have is different stars left in this state, reacting accordingly. (Unless man's assumption of a homogeneous deep space is wrong)

i was expecting something like "some quality of past-turned-present state light makes things appear backwards," but i don't think that "near unlimited speeds" ought to be that quality. it's not vague enough

The created state light had to have been able to traverse the created state universe in a flash, because stars were made for us to see, for Adam as well.

that's better; the light reaches us because God has no trouble bending the laws of physics for a better view

The laws of physics need to be here to bend, firstly. In a different state, they aren't. Assuming so is not based on proof.

neither the video nor my thoughts constitute scientific theory, dad. you picked the wrong spot to start dishing out the burns

Oh. OK. So you are not saying things from science, and neither is the video? Strange. I hadn't realized it was presented here as a fairy tale.

no
there is no evidence of a past state, so why should one be assumed?

There is evidence. You interpret it differently. Evidence such as ancient life process differences, such as long life spans.

i know you like to turn this sort of statement on its head and say "why should we assume that there ISN'T a past state?" but you have to realize by now that this rings hollow

So far, your claims about the sn rings are pretty empty. You haven't dared try to defend a same state past, so no need to try to assault such claims.

my replies have been few and far between, and they'll likely stay that way. lately i can only find time to reply past midnight, and i'd like to get a good night's sleep now and then :I

Perspective is a good thing. Sounds like you need some help anyhow, with someone that thinks they know their stuff on this.

 

[dad]

What? Come on, more detail please. How is it that we don't know the light has been in a constant state between the supernova and the earth, but we do know it's been in a constant state between the moon and the earth.
What piece of reasoning are you carrying out here?

Because we have observed long enough, and science has, to know things that involve mere hours, days, or years.

Here's one. It says the actual delay is 0.66 years which is 7.92 months, to be precise.

The delay, precisely in what? And how do you know? Or are you merely talking about how often the rings light up?

What is not enough for what?

Seeing rings light up is not enough to claim that the reason they light up is because light originating from the 'core' traveled at current light speed, and lit up the rings for the last few decades. I am not saying that is not what is happening, but we need more than you just saying it.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's meaningless. The function 1/x has a well understood behaviour as x approaches zero - it goes off to infinity. Mathematicians just define exactly what that means.

OK, I guess we could chalk it up to opinion. Mathematical opinion. Since they never been to infinity and back, they are merely guessing their numbers go there.

Concepts don't "work" they just are. They might apply to things but, as I've been saying for ages, they don't have to. I can have a concept of a green cloud - that concept doesn't apply to anything, but it's still a perfectly fine concept.

I suppose. One might also have a concept of how many centimeters a Leprechaun is. I guess that 'works' in someone's head.

The point is nothing has to apply to numbers because numbers are abstract.

Right, but based on some principles. Like that we can add to something, multiply, take away, or divide it. So, as I say, it depends on what reality you try to apply the abstract to!!!

Perhaps you can't check my work, but I can prove mathematical theorems without resorting to any real-world reference. For example, you can prove that two consecutive triangular numbers add together to make a square number in two different ways. If you draw the two triangles next to each other you make a square, that's one way.

Would that not depend on what kind of triangle?
"

• A triangle that has two equal sides is called an isosceles triangle.
• A triangle that has three sides equal is called an equilateral triangle.
• A triangle that has one right angle is called a right angled triangle.
• A triangle that has one obtuse angle is called an obtuse angled triangle.
• A triangle that has one acute angle is called an acute angled triangle."

http://www.kwiznet.com/p/takeQuiz.php?ChapterID=1390&CurriculumID=5

But you can also prove it using just the definition of a triangular number. And that doesn't require reference to real triangles or squares or anything. Nonetheless, once you've proved it, it's true if you do reference real things.

It is true in this universe. How true it may or may not be beyond that, why, who knows?? Remember your limits. Fishbowl math does not apply to forever, as it is.

Right, wrong and right. You don't define infinity at all - because you have no idea what it is. Maths covers infinity perfectly well, whether you understand it or not, and attempts to treat it like a number are bound to fail, as I've been telling you for ages.

So, if one can't understand it, how is it you figure you cover it pretty well???? How would you know you really covered it, since you don't know even, what it is??

Maths is absolute, not relative. I just told you, 5 minus 5 will always equal 0 unless you change the meaning of 5, minus, or 0.

Always is a big word. If the universe changes, and the spiritual is added, wouldn't that possibly change what 5 is? In the case of the 5 loaves, after the spiritual was added, they became something else entirely. The limits awere taken off. The number 5 was still a good concept, but, as applying to the 5 loaves, it suddenly became quite abstract indeed. I mean, maybe one fat man in the crowd ate 5 loaves, so the concept was still pretty good, long as we do not apply it to the original 5 loaves.

But that's just changing the words, not the underlying concepts. Those concepts put together in the same way would still produce the same other concept, whether we use the same words or not.

The underlying concept of a group of 5 things, is that there are only 5 of them. The underlying concept of making, say 28,000 things from the same 5 things, that all were the same things as the 5 things, is a little more advanced math.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Would that not depend on what kind of triangle?
"

• A triangle that has two equal sides is called an isosceles triangle.
• A triangle that has three sides equal is called an equilateral triangle.
• A triangle that has one right angle is called a right angled triangle.
• A triangle that has one obtuse angle is called an obtuse angled triangle.
• A triangle that has one acute angle is called an acute angled triangle."

http://www.kwiznet.com/p/takeQuiz.php?ChapterID=1390&CurriculumID=5

I don't think that is what he is talking about.

Check this out. Or this one.

A triangular number is the sum of the n natural numbers from 1 to n.

...
Triangular numbers have a wide variety of relations to other figurate numbers.
Most simply, the sum of two consecutive triangular numbers is a square number. Algebraically,

Alternatively, the same fact can be demonstrated graphically:
16 25

 

[Adivi]

OK, I guess we could chalk it up to opinion. Mathematical opinion. Since they never been to infinity and back, they are merely guessing their numbers go there.

The statement "1/x goes to infinity as x goes to 0 from above" is mathematical shorthand for something more rigorous: for every e>0, there exists a d>0 so that for all y with 0<y<d, 1/y>e. In other words, for any e, we can always find some other number d so that when you're within d units of 0, you're larger than e. (The proof is simple: pick e=1/d; we then have 0<y<d, so 1/y>1/d=e.) Therefore, the limit as x goes to 0 from above of 1/x is colloquially stated to be infinity, although we can't treat infinity as a real number (ignoring various more formal definitions of infinity.)

Right, but based on some principles. Like that we can add to something, multiply, take away, or divide it. So, as I say, it depends on what reality you try to apply the abstract to!!!

The concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division can all be built up using something called Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which does not start out with any concept of 'addition' or 'subtraction'. From this, we can define all mathematical operations without regards to what they actually 'mean'.

It is true in this universe. How true it may or may not be beyond that, why, who knows?? Remember your limits. Fishbowl math does not apply to forever, as it is.

So you're saying that god could create a universe in which, say 1+3 is not equal to four? Keep in mind that we can define 1, 3, 4, +, and = without even the concept of addition, equality, or numbers, accoding to the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory model I mentioned above.

So, if one can't understand it, how is it you figure you cover it pretty well???? How would you know you really covered it, since you don't know even, what it is??

I think he's using 'you' as the second person singular, not as a generalized statement; i.e., he's using it in the sense that I would say "you are dad".

The underlying concept of a group of 5 things, is that there are only 5 of them. The underlying concept of making, say 28,000 things from the same 5 things, that all were the same things as the 5 things, is a little more advanced math.

So basically Jesus was able to carry out the Banach-Tarski paradox in the real world?

 

[dad]

I don't think that is what he is talking about.

Check this out. Or this one.

Well, so some triangles work, others do not? That was the point, that not all triangles make a square, do they??

 

[dad]

The statement "1/x goes to infinity as x goes to 0 from above"

At least it goes out of your sight. Since you never been to infinity and beyond, you really do not know that.

is mathematical shorthand for something more rigorous: for every e>0, there exists a d>0

Oh really now??? Would that not depend on what e and d represent??

so that for all y with 0<y<d, 1/y>e. In other words, for any e, we can always find some other number d so that when you're within d units of 0, you're larger than e. (The proof is simple: pick e=1/d; we then have 0<y<d, so 1/y>1/d=e.) Therefore, the limit as x goes to 0 from above of 1/x is colloquially stated to be infinity, although we can't treat infinity as a real number (ignoring various more formal definitions of infinity.)

Well, you have a lot of unknowns (the letters that represent we know not what) that you think have to reach to unknown infinity. Think about it.

The concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division can all be built up using something called Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which does not start out with any concept of 'addition' or 'subtraction'. From this, we can define all mathematical operations without regards to what they actually 'mean'.

Apparently that impresses you. That theory is based on axioms.
"Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms

The Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms are the basis for Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. In the following (Jech 1997, p. 1),

stands for exists,

for for all,

for "is an element of,"

for the empty set, ...


http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html

So, as you might suspect, it depends on what all exists in the universe we are doing the math for. Fishbowl logic is fine in the bowl. Keep it real.

So you're saying that god could create a universe in which, say 1+3 is not equal to four? Keep in mind that we can define 1, 3, 4, +, and = without even the concept of addition, equality, or numbers, accoding to the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory model I mentioned above.

Well Zermelo and Fraenkel have a model that depends of what exists, of course. What exists in this state is no limiter to what exists in the future new heaven state. Infinity is something that exists in eternity.

I think he's using 'you' as the second person singular, not as a generalized statement; i.e., he's using it in the sense that I would say "you are dad".

Well, however he uses you, neither of you understand eternity by using today's math.

So basically Jesus was able to carry out the Banach-Tarski paradox in the real world?

"What makes the paradox possible in set theory is the axiom of choice, which allows the construction of non measurable sets, collections of points that do not have a volume in the ordinary sense and require an uncountably infinite number of arbitrary choices to specify."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

"the axiom of choice says that given any collection of bins, each containing at least one object, exactly one object can be selected from each bin, even if there are infinitely many bins and there is no "rule" for which object to pick from each."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice


The loaves were measured, there were 5 of them, your paradox is busted. I kid you not.

 

[Patashu]

Well, so some triangles work, others do not? That was the point, that not all triangles make a square, do they??

Dad, read; triangular numbers are not triangles. Read what he quoted, for once in your life read.

 

[omarrocks]

i'd like to know your thoughts on this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y&feature=related

you say that the speed of light, among other things, was different before the fall of man, yes? specifically, it was FASTER!!!, which explains why the universe appears to be billions of years old when it is only 6000 or so. the upshot of this, however, is that this would make the supernova featured in the video much farther away than it appears, even if you factor in the changes that may have happened to the speed of light over time. the faster lightspeed gets, the older the universe gets.

now this sort of thing might defeat the average young-earth creationist, but i'm sure you have a rational explanation! which one would you like to use? does your belief that time in deep space appears to be moving backward muddle things up a bit? did math work differently before the present state? whatever your answer is, i'm sure it's interesting!

Very good!

Blessings and love.

Omar

 

[Adivi]

Oh really now??? Would that not depend on what e and d represent??

They represent positive real numbers; which themselves can be represented as a set of rational numbers (each real number is associated with the set of all numbers less than it), each rational number is associated with a set of a set containing a number and another number (for example, 1/2 can be associated with {{1},2}; the reason for the extra curly brackets is so that we can keep the 1 and the 2 apart, since sets are unordered), each negative integer is associated somehow with its corresponding positive integer through a construction that I'm not sure of, and each positive integer is associated with the set of al the integers less than it (0 = {}, 1 = {{}}, 2 = { {}, {{}} }, 3 = { {}, {{}}, { {{}, {{}} } } }, etc.) So this is just another statement about sets, albeit one that's really complicated to write out.

Well, you have a lot of unknowns (the letters that represent we know not what) that you think have to reach to unknown infinity. Think about it.

Again, infinity is not a number (in this context). It's a shorthand. When I say "the limit of so-and-so as x goes to 0 is infinity", I'm not saying that there's an equality, I'm actually saying "so-and-so gets arbitrarily large as x goes to 0."
e and d don't represent unknowns; I know perfectly well how to calculate the value of e given d and vice-versa. y and x are not unknowns because I can plug in whatever I want fo rthem; they don't represent some fixed quantity that I don't know.

Apparently that impresses you. That theory is based on axioms.

So are pretty much all theories.

So, as you might suspect, it depends on what all exists in the universe we are doing the math for. Fishbowl logic is fine in the bowl. Keep it real.

Well Zermelo and Fraenkel have a model that depends of what exists, of course. What exists in this state is no limiter to what exists in the future new heaven state. Infinity is something that exists in eternity.

Actually, Zermelo-Fraenkel can be interpreted not as a model of mathematics, but as a set of rules that can be applied to various strings of symbols to generate other strings. For example, if I start with the 'axioms' that:
pq is a valid string
For any x, y, and z, if xpyqz is a valid string, then so are x-pyqz- and xpy-qz

Then I can construct arbitrarily many strings, such as ---p----q-------. It so happens that if you interpret n dashes in a row as the number n, p as 'plus', and q as 'equals', then you get a model for the addition of positive integers. But this is not inherent to the axiom that I used.

The loaves were measured, there were 5 of them, your paradox is busted. I kid you not.

This was a joke; the Banach-Tarski paradox cannot be carried out in real life because the sets it requires could not be made; they are not contiguous shapes, but a collection of an infinite number of points. With real bread, you have granulity in the form of carbohydrate molecules and such, so you can't divide it up to the infinitely fine amount that Banach-Tarski requires.

 

[thaumaturgy]

They represent positive real numbers; which themselves can be represented as a set of rational numbers (each real number is associated with the set of all numbers less than it), each rational number is associated with a set of a set containing a number and another number (for example, 1/2 can be associated with {{1},2}; the reason for the extra curly brackets is so that we can keep the 1 and the 2 apart, since sets are unordered), each negative integer is associated somehow with its corresponding positive integer through a construction that I'm not sure of, and each positive integer is associated with the set of al the integers less than it (0 = {}, 1 = {{}}, 2 = { {}, {{}} }, 3 = { {}, {{}}, { {{}, {{}} } } }, etc.) So this is just another statement about sets, albeit one that's really complicated to write out.

Again, infinity is not a number (in this context). It's a shorthand. When I say "the limit of so-and-so as x goes to 0 is infinity", I'm not saying that there's an equality, I'm actually saying "so-and-so gets arbitrarily large as x goes to 0."
e and d don't represent unknowns; I know perfectly well how to calculate the value of e given d and vice-versa. y and x are not unknowns because I can plug in whatever I want fo rthem; they don't represent some fixed quantity that I don't know.

So are pretty much all theories.
...

Actually, Zermelo-Fraenkel can be interpreted not as a model of mathematics, but as a set of rules that can be applied to various strings of symbols to generate other strings. For example, if I start with the 'axioms' that:
pq is a valid string
For any x, y, and z, if xpyqz is a valid string, then so are x-pyqz- and xpy-qz

Then I can construct arbitrarily many strings, such as ---p----q-------. It so happens that if you interpret n dashes in a row as the number n, p as 'plus', and q as 'equals', then you get a model for the addition of positive integers. But this is not inherent to the axiom that I used.



This was a joke; the Banach-Tarski paradox cannot be carried out in real life because the sets it requires could not be made; they are not contiguous shapes, but a collection of an infinite number of points. With real bread, you have granulity in the form of carbohydrate molecules and such, so you can't divide it up to the infinitely fine amount that Banach-Tarski requires.

Adivi,
welcome to the thread! Between you and Fishface there should be some really neat opportunities for math education here!

Unfortunately when debating with Dad you will find some resistance. He will tend to get snippy and try to denigrate what you have written but don't worry. Take a look at Dad's Post #78. You will see that his grasp of simple algebra leaves much to be desired. So he is not necessarily going to be able to make substantial responses to your posts. He has a lot to learn in mathematics.

But please keep up the good work to teach him. Don't get discouraged when he tries to "make fun" of you or denigrate the information you are providing.

I'm not a mathematician, nor do I claim any real skill there, but he's done the same thing to my field (geology/geochemistry).

But I'm glad you and Fishface are here to teach some math. This is interesting stuff. I will also admit number theory things very quickly go over my head, so please bear with us as we attempt to learn some stuff form you guys!

 

[FishFace]

Because we have observed long enough, and science has, to know things that involve mere hours, days, or years.

How do you know how long it takes? If the light were in a different state, then it could take who knows how long - that's exactly what you're claiming about the supernova, isn't it?
And how does observing things for a while hear on earth tell us anything about the state of light over on the moon, or near the sun? It doesn't tell us anything about the state of light near the supernova, does it?
So you still have given no good reason for why we know about the state of light between here and the sun, but not between here and the supernova.

The delay, precisely in what? And how do you know? Or are you merely talking about how often the rings light up?

1: The core lights up
2: There is a delay of .66 years
3: The ring lights up.

Seeing rings light up is not enough to claim that the reason they light up is because light originating from the 'core' traveled at current light speed, and lit up the rings for the last few decades. I am not saying that is not what is happening, but we need more than you just saying it.

I am not saying that's what happened - are you even paying attention? All and exactly what I am saying is that, every time the core lights up, the ring lights up about 8 months after. Do you understand?
This, in turn, means that the distance from ring to core is 8 months multiplied by the speed of light in between the ring and the core at the time this was happening. Of course, scientists know that this speed is c but even if you think it might be some other speed, the distance is still 8 months times that speed, whatever it is.

OK, I guess we could chalk it up to opinion. Mathematical opinion.

Look bud, if the definition's wrong, or an opinion, or something like that, you can tell us what's wrong with it or give us a better one. Unless and until you can do that, you can keep your silly little ideas about maths to yourself; some of us have real maths to do.

I suppose. One might also have a concept of how many centimeters a Leprechaun is. I guess that 'works' in someone's head.

He's finally got it! If a concept works, it works only in someone's head. I am right now conceiving of a 13.5cm leprechaun - that's a concept, it's a perfectly sensible concept, and that concept can't change if the universe changes, because it is independent of the universe.

Right, but based on some principles. Like that we can add to something, multiply, take away, or divide it. So, as I say, it depends on what reality you try to apply the abstract to!!!

Still wrong. A number, as I said, is an abstract concept. That abstract concept can, by definition, be added, subtracted, multiplied and divided. It doesn't matter what you apply the concept to - if the application was valid, then you can add, multiply, subtract and divide that thing.
So perhaps there wouldn't be any infinity in this different universe you've cooked up, but that doesn't mean infinity as a concept has changed or does something different.

Would that not depend on what kind of triangle?

What did they even teach you in maths? The "triangle" of a triangular number is a right isosceles triangle.

It is true in this universe. How true it may or may not be beyond that, why, who knows??

Well, I do. A triangular number is a number of the form:
(n^2+n)/2
So if we add on to this the previous triangular number we get:
[(n^2+n)+((n-1)^2+(n-1))]/2
Expanding the (n-1)^2 term:
[(n^2+n)+((n^2-2n+1)+(n-1))]/2
So we notice that, at the right hand side we have (-2n+1)+(n-1) = -n, so we have:
[(n^2+n)+(n^2-n)]/2
On the left we have +n and on the right -n, so we get:
[(n^2)+(n^2)]/2
We have two lots of n^2 so we have:
(2*n^2)/2
And here we have 2/2 so we end up with:
n^2

Which is, of course, square number. Now, if you disagree, or if you think something might go wrong in a different universe, point out just what it is of these steps that is wrong, and why, and what would have to be different to make it wrong.

So, if one can't understand it, how is it you figure you cover it pretty well???? How would you know you really covered it, since you don't know even, what it is??

I told you already, infinity describes the behaviour of 1/x as x tends to 0.

Always is a big word. If the universe changes, and the spiritual is added, wouldn't that possibly change what 5 is?

5 is a concept. Let's also call the concept a 'biv,' just for the sake of argument. So that means biv minus biv is zero. Now, you say we could change what 5 is. OK, so now suppose 5 actually means "lawnmower" but biv minus biv still is zero. You're only changing the names, not the concepts.

In the case of the 5 loaves, after the spiritual was added, they became something else entirely.

No, you just claimed that there was a miraculous addition as well as a normal subtraction.

The underlying concept of a group of 5 things, is that there are only 5 of them. The underlying concept of making, say 28,000 things from the same 5 things, that all were the same things as the 5 things, is a little more advanced math.

Not really. I'll leave magic tricks to you and your religion, but I think anyone can see that if we got 28,000 somethings from 5 somethings, you multiplied by 5,600.

 

[FishFace]

The statement "1/x goes to infinity as x goes to 0 from above" is mathematical shorthand for something more rigorous: for every e>0, there exists a d>0 so that for all y with 0<y<d, 1/y>e. In other words, for any e, we can always find some other number d so that when you're within d units of 0, you're larger than e. (The proof is simple: pick e=1/d; we then have 0<y<d, so 1/y>1/d=e.) Therefore, the limit as x goes to 0 from above of 1/x is colloquially stated to be infinity, although we can't treat infinity as a real number (ignoring various more formal definitions of infinity.)

I've given him this already. He didn't understand.

The concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division can all be built up using something called Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which does not start out with any concept of 'addition' or 'subtraction'. From this, we can define all mathematical operations without regards to what they actually 'mean'.

See here for where I tried to introduce that idea.

So basically Jesus was able to carry out the Banach-Tarski paradox in the real world?

It would work if there were uncountably many atoms in a loaf of bread

 

[FishFace]

Oh really now??? Would that not depend on what e and d represent??

No. They're just any old positive real numbers.

Apparently that impresses you. That theory is based on axioms.
"Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms

The Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms are the basis for Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. In the following (Jech 1997, p. 1),

stands for exists,

for for all,

for "is an element of,"

for the empty set,

So, as you might suspect, it depends on what all exists in the universe we are doing the math for. Fishbowl logic is fine in the bowl. Keep it real.

"There exists" means existence in a conceptual sense, not in the universe. The following is a true property:

&#8704;x&#8712;R(&#8707;y&#8712;R)(x+y=0)

Translated this says that, for all x in the real numbers, there exists a y in the real numbers, such that adding together x and y gives you 0. It is this property of the real numbers that we used before to prove by contradiction that infinity is not a real number.
Anyway. This property asserts the existence of "y." But if it exists in the universe as you seem to think - then, where?

The loaves were measured, there were 5 of them, your paradox is busted. I kid you not.

sigh. You know, if you talk about stuff you don't understand you'll just look foolish.

 

[thaumaturgy]

"There exists" means existence in a conceptual sense, not in the universe. The following is a true property:

&#8704;x&#8712;R(&#8707;y&#8712;R)(x+y=0)

Translated this says that, for all x in the real numbers, there exists a y in the real numbers, such that adding together x and y gives you 0. It is this property of the real numbers that we used before to prove by contradiction that infinity is not a real number.
Anyway. This property asserts the existence of "y." But if it exists in the universe as you seem to think - then, where?

When I read Dad's "critique" of the posting, and how he essentially just grabbed the first paragraph from the link and highlighted the words "Exists" and "All" I rather got the impression that he just went in and looked for words that would somehow fit into his strange "ideas" and didn't bother to worry about understanding the details of what the mathematicians actually meant.

Either that or his concepts only work on things that "don't exist".

Actually, again, I am saddened to see how Dad has approached this debate. He appears to be doing two things:

1. Random google-type search for a key phrase in the Avidi's post followed by a random snippet containing some words he recognizes. This appears to be done in an attempt to appear to know something about the topic (no small feat for him to understand number theory in comparison to his apparent lack of understanding of junior-high level algebra as in Post #78 of this thread)

2. Leveraging his own ignorance as some sort of strength in the debate. Attempting to call you out on a few words that might not mean what he thinks they mean. This was also what I assumed he was doing in the earlier Triangular Numbers portion of the debate after you brought those up.

But even so, I will admit I am fascinated by this stuff. I had never heard of triangular (or figurative) numbers until you brought them up and I took some time to google it and now I've learned more stuff! It's win-win.

It'll be a while before I try to tackle the number theory stuff you and Avidi are bringing up, tho'.

{It is a refreshing break from the statistics stuff I'm doing, and I earlier noted your "love" of statistics. I used to dislike stats as well...until I drank the kool-aid. Remember, when things are dark and scary, SAS will never let you down. Bring all your problems to SAS and his only begotten son, JMP, who was created by SAS, descended unto earth where he was persecuted and sacrificed on our behalf. On the 3rd day (+ 1 day, 95% confidence interval) was resurrected and re-licensed unto us so the he might sit at the right hand of SAS and intercede on our behalf. He will come to judge the significant and insignificant by merit of a simple t-Test or F-statistic, depending on how many he has to judge.}

 

[dad]

Dad, read; triangular numbers are not triangles. Read what he quoted, for once in your life read.

OK, I originally was thinking about how the triangle was the basic shape in a geodesic dome, or Bucky ball. As for triangular numbers

1
1+2=3
(1+2)+3=6
(1+2+3)+4=10
(1+2+3+4)+5=15

if we refer to the loaves and fishes again, and the first family takes (1plus another member takes 2, and the dad takes 3) and then the teen brother takes 4, and the loaves replicated as they either looked at them, or took them, they got 10 loaves from 5. Yet, we might assume there is now a dozen loaves in there for the next family to take, thereby making even more. So triangular numbers don't seem to help and drawing them as a square doesn't either.
When the dust settles, the numbers represent something, when we change what that is, the old math cannot apply. Whether you stack it, put it in a pyramid, or in a pie plate.

Now, watch out, the highest triangular number you can form, of the same digits only goes as high as the number of a man, that is 666!

"666 is the largest triangular number which you can form of the same digits "
http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/triangularnumber.htm

How limited is that!!?

 

[dad]

They represent positive real numbers;

Well, real is relative to the universe it exists in. More specifically, the state it exists in. If we add the spiritual, what you call positive may be affected, as in the loaves and fishes example.

which themselves can be represented as a set of rational numbers

Rational is determined not only by how you imagine the new heavens math to be. It would be determined by the realities of the day.

(each real number is associated with the set of all numbers less than it),

And that association as well as what really is less, is what would need to be looked at, if we do not stick to the fishbowl of this present universe state.

each rational number is associated with a set of a set containing a number and another number (for example, 1/2 can be associated with {{1},2}; the reason for the extra curly brackets is so that we can keep the 1 and the 2 apart, since sets are unordered),

Well, many things in this universe are less than ordered, or in a different order than we might expect in the forever state. So your numbers and associations to other numbers, and concepts may indeed be fine and dandy for this state. Long as you keep it there, who really cares??? The precise curvatures, and diameters of the fishbowl is not really all that interesting to many of us. Especially considering it is just a temporary bowl, we will have oceans to swim in soon.

each negative integer is associated somehow with its corresponding positive integer through a construction that I'm not sure of,

Wow. So you really don't know the nitty gritty fishbowl fundamentals. OK. Our concept of negative/positive is something that might need a tweak on the other side anyhow.

and each positive integer is associated with the set of al the integers less than it (0 = {}, 1 = {{}}, 2 = { {}, {{}} }, 3 = { {}, {{}}, { {{}, {{}} } } }, etc.) So this is just another statement about sets, albeit one that's really complicated to write out.

OK. I guess you made the statement anyhow. (unless you have a toddler that was banging on the bracket key!?)

Again, infinity is not a number (in this context). It's a shorthand.

Well, don't sell infinity short, now.

When I say "the limit of so-and-so as x goes to 0 is infinity", I'm not saying that there's an equality, I'm actually saying "so-and-so gets arbitrarily large as x goes to 0."

And large it gets indeed, especially in your head, as it gets anywhere near actual infinity. To actually get there is another matter altogether.

e and d don't represent unknowns; I know perfectly well how to calculate the value of e given d and vice-versa.

Well, then they must represent something. Otherwise, they are unknown. Like if I say 2x = y
You might assume that y = 4, and x = 2. But I might assign 1,000,000,008 as the value for x. You would be wrong. Now if I wrote the actual numbers, rather than little letters that you do not know what they really are, why, you would have known!

y and x are not unknowns because I can plug in whatever I want fo rthem; they don't represent some fixed quantity that I don't know.

Only if you cook up the problem. This universe you never cooked up. If someone else wanted the little letters to mean something else, and they wrote the equation, you would wrong. See, it is relative.

Actually, Zermelo-Fraenkel can be interpreted not as a model of mathematics, but as a set of rules that can be applied to various strings of symbols to generate other strings. For example, if I start with the 'axioms' that:
pq is a valid string
For any x, y, and z, if xpyqz is a valid string, then so are x-pyqz- and xpy-qz

Then I can construct arbitrarily many strings, such as ---p----q-------. It so happens that if you interpret n dashes in a row as the number n, p as 'plus', and q as 'equals', then you get a model for the addition of positive integers. But this is not inherent to the axiom that I used.

Well, best to keep it inherent to what you used, I suppose.

This was a joke; the Banach-Tarski paradox cannot be carried out in real life because the sets it requires could not be made; they are not contiguous shapes, but a collection of an infinite number of points.

Thank you for admitting that. The loaves and fish were feeding tens of thousands in real life.

With real bread, you have granulity in the form of carbohydrate molecules and such, so you can't divide it up to the infinitely fine amount that Banach-Tarski requires.

To be quite frank, I never thought you could!

 

[FishFace]

When I read Dad's "critique" of the posting, and how he essentially just grabbed the first paragraph from the link and highlighted the words "Exists" and "All" I rather got the impression that he just went in and looked for words that would somehow fit into his strange "ideas" and didn't bother to worry about understanding the details of what the mathematicians actually meant.

Either that or his concepts only work on things that "don't exist".

Actually, again, I am saddened to see how Dad has approached this debate. He appears to be doing two things:

1. Random google-type search for a key phrase in the Avidi's post followed by a random snippet containing some words he recognizes. This appears to be done in an attempt to appear to know something about the topic (no small feat for him to understand number theory in comparison to his apparent lack of understanding of junior-high level algebra as in Post #78 of this thread)

2. Leveraging his own ignorance as some sort of strength in the debate. Attempting to call you out on a few words that might not mean what he thinks they mean. This was also what I assumed he was doing in the earlier Triangular Numbers portion of the debate after you brought those up.

It's unfortunately not such a rare thing. I suppose when you have no idea what you're looking at it's tempting to assume that words can just be transferred from one context to another. Unfortunately, it doesn't work...

But even so, I will admit I am fascinated by this stuff. I had never heard of triangular (or figurative) numbers until you brought them up and I took some time to google it and now I've learned more stuff! It's win-win.

It'll be a while before I try to tackle the number theory stuff you and Avidi are bringing up, tho'.

Actually the triangular number stuff is number theory, ZF is set theory - but you can build arithmetic, and hence number theory, out of set theory. And then there are these vague twitterings that go on maths departments telling me it's all about category theory these days.
There are all sorts of weird number properties that mathematicians think up, find other properties about, prove stuff about and so on.

{It is a refreshing break from the statistics stuff I'm doing, and I earlier noted your "love" of statistics. I used to dislike stats as well...until I drank the kool-aid. Remember, when things are dark and scary, SAS will never let you down. Bring all your problems to SAS and his only begotten son, JMP, who was created by SAS, descended unto earth where he was persecuted and sacrificed on our behalf. On the 3rd day (+ 1 day, 95% confidence interval) was resurrected and re-licensed unto us so the he might sit at the right hand of SAS and intercede on our behalf. He will come to judge the significant and insignificant by merit of a simple t-Test or F-statistic, depending on how many he has to judge.}

Aaack. Statistics makes me shudder not because I get stuck - us joint honours students don't do probability, stats or mechanics - but just because... eurgh!

 

[dad]

{It is a refreshing break from the statistics stuff I'm doing, and I earlier noted your "love" of statistics. I used to dislike stats as well...until I drank the kool-aid. Remember, when things are dark and scary, SAS will never let you down. Bring all your problems to SAS and his only begotten son, JMP, who was created by SAS, descended unto earth where he was persecuted and sacrificed on our behalf. On the 3rd day (+ 1 day, 95% confidence interval) was resurrected and re-licensed unto us so the he might sit at the right hand of SAS and intercede on our behalf. He will come to judge the significant and insignificant by merit of a simple t-Test or F-statistic, depending on how many he has to judge.}

Guess you feel a calling to educate those folks on a Christian forum. Your blasphemy is noted.

 

[dad]

It's unfortunately not such a rare thing. I suppose when you have no idea what you're looking at it's tempting to assume that words can just be transferred from one context to another. Unfortunately, it doesn't work...

What all is there and what exists is actually a foundational reality, like a carpet upon which your maths sit. A carpet I can yank out at will, with all justification, when you misuse the concepts, by trying to apply them above where they can be applied. Making a fancy equation from them, or based on them is smoke and mirrors.

 

[FishFace]

What all is there and what exists is actually a foundational reality, like a carpet upon which your maths sit. A carpet I can yank out at will, with all justification, when you misuse the concepts, by trying to apply them above where they can be applied. Making a fancy equation from them, or based on them is smoke and mirrors.

You are embarrassing yourself. There are by the looks of things at least two people somewhat proficient in mathematics here - and that is sufficient for an understanding so far beyond your ken you probably couldn't imagine it.

If you want to talk maths, let's go for it. But you will be subject to the rules of mathematical rigor and proof. I'm happy to prove my mathematical claims: can you prove yours?