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

[Adivi]

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 "

How limited is that!!?

Not limited at all. I mean, there aren't that many numbers with the same digits; there's only 42 of them less than a million, 84 less than a trillion, and in general, 6n+6 of them less than 10^n. The unusual sequences of numbers are the ones that don't have such an upper bound.

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.

No. Real numbers are strictly defined: they are the numbers r so that r*r is a positive number. The positive numbers are defined as those that are greater than zero, and the operaion of 'greater than' can be put on a rigorous footing.

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.

There you go misunderstanding numbers again. Rational in this context means 'representable as the ratio of two integers', not 'logical'. For example, 1/2, 5948, -3, and -6/11 are all rational, but the square root of 2, pi, and Euler's constant are not.

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.

I don't need to know the fundamentals of it to know that it works; it's a lot more than you know (oh, and I messed up orderd pairs; the ordered pair (a, b) is represented as {{a, b}, {a}}, but that's irrelevant). I can guarantee you can't explain to me the exact workings of the computer you're typing all of your replies out on, but that doesn't stop you from using it.

Oh, and after a quick Google search, I found the general construction mechanism for the real numbers from the naturals: let <a, b> denote the ordered pair {{a, b}, a}. Then the non-negative fractions are defined as classes (which is similar to, but not the same as, a set) of ordered pairs of non-negative integers, where <m, n> and <p, q> are in the same class if and only if there is some x so that mq=np. So the non-negative rational number [<3,7>] is the class of all ordered pairs <m, n> with 7m=3n.
The general rational numbers are defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs of non-negative rational numbers, where <r, s> and <t, u> are equivalent if r+u=s+t. So we can say that -3/7 is the equivalence class [<[<0, 1>], [<3, 7>]>]. In other words, it is the class of all ordered pairs <a, b> with a-b=3/7. So aside from <[<0, 1>], [<3, 7>]>, there is also <[<4, 7>], [<1, 1>]> and many many others. We can then construct the reals in the way I mentioned above.

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!

I wouldn't make the assumption that y=4 and x=2 in the first place. If you said that "2x = y and x = 2", then I would assume that y=4 and x=2. But if you didn't say anything about x, I would only assume that whatever it is, y has twice its value. I know that x represents a quantity and y represents twice that quantity.

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

It doesn't get there, though. Because there's no 'there' to get to. If you're saying that it doesn't actually get arbitrarily large, than could you show me a number that it doesn't get larger than? Or could you prove mathematically the existence of one?

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.

When I write "2x=y", I mean that 'no matter what x is, y has twice its value'. If someone else writes "2x = y", then that means the same thing. The specific values for x and y are not important; what is important is their relation.

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.

But if we go back to the Zermelo-Fraenkel definition, then I can essentially construct mathematics out of the ten axioms and nothing else. What's there for you to change? If you change the axioms, you're no longer talking about the same thing as you were before.

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.

Well, if you have one pile of hay and one pile of hay, and you smash them together, you get one pile of hay. But that doesn't mean that 1+1=1. Even if God can make 40,000 loaves appear from five, that doesn't mean 40,000 = 5. Because those concepts transcend material objects; I can define the concept of '5' without referring to 5 loaves of bread, or fish, or anything: I say that it is represented by a certain set: {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}}}. The number 40,000 can similarly be represented by a set, whose precise definition is too long to write here. Equality has a precise definition: two sets are equivalent if they contain the same elements. The set 5 and the set 40000 do not contain the same elements, so they are not equal.
That's ultimately my entire argument; all of mathematics emerges from the ZF axioms. If you change them, you're no longer talking about the usual set of mathematics. To use an analogy you might be familiar with, how would Christianity be different if the Ten Commandments were replaced by the nearist Shinto or Buddhist or Islamic equivalent? It wouldn't be Christianity anymore, it'd be something different.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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

Sorry, that was a bit brutal. But then you shouldn't mind. I mean look at what you've told me about geology and geochemistry, something what I hold dear and what I dedicated years of study to

Quality is more important than volume. One can take a scoop of doo doo, or shovel a truck load, but it is still what it is.

So I shouldn't think you would be too offended. I mean obviously you remember:

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

And you spend so much time denigrating the work of the mathematicians on here, and pretty much everyone who knows something about a field. "Baby math" I believe is the phrase you used.

So I apologize for stepping on your toes, I was rather under the impression that you wanted me to step on them.

I mean

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

 

[Danyc]

Guys, why are you even bothering to argue with dad?

Tell me what you could possibly gain. You're wasting your time, there's no use. No amount of evidence will convince him.

 

[Adivi]

Guys, why are you even bothering to argue with dad?

Tell me what you could possibly gain. You're wasting your time, there's no use. No amount of evidence will convince him.

Because I'm learning about axiomatic set theory in the process, and I enjoy debating with people. To quote Asimov: "An exoheresy [a belief contrary to the mainstream originating outside of science] may cause scientists to bestir themselves for the purpose of reexamining the bases of their beliefs, even if only to gather firm and logical reasons for the rejection of the exoheresy-and that is good too."

 

[Inan3]

You couldn't address the science and maths, so you posted a rather irrelevant link slating all use of numbers in support of any argument.
You are truly an excellent creationist!

Thank you

 

[dad]

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?

Not at all. If you or they try to apply anything PO to the other state, they will be shown up in the attempt. As for adeptness at math, that is not an issue. If I see a foundation for a house in the state of New York, you are not going to tell me that what is going to be built on it is a moon base. I now the state of the foundation.

 

[dad]

Not limited at all. I mean, there aren't that many numbers with the same digits; there's only 42 of them less than a million, 84 less than a trillion, and in general, 6n+6 of them less than 10^n. The unusual sequences of numbers are the ones that don't have such an upper bound.

So??

No. Real numbers are strictly defined: they are the numbers r so that r*r is a positive number. The positive numbers are defined as those that are greater than zero, and the operaion of 'greater than' can be put on a rigorous footing.

Not when the spiritual reality is added. As in the loaves and fish. Your rigorous footing would have left people half starved. But, there is math in the new heavens. The New Jerusalem is about 1500 miles high, long, and wide.

There you go misunderstanding numbers again. Rational in this context means 'representable as the ratio of two integers', not 'logical'. For example, 1/2, 5948, -3, and -6/11 are all rational, but the square root of 2, pi, and Euler's constant are not.

Right, and the 5 loaves show that your usual numbers were not applicable. Anything but rational.

I don't need to know the fundamentals of it to know that it works; it's a lot more than you know (oh, and I messed up orderd pairs; the ordered pair (a, b) is represented as {{a, b}, {a}}, but that's irrelevant).

Well, yes, of course you do, unless you want to stick to present state numbers, and associations. Your a and b and {}, could mean something else in the new heavens state. Just as in the case of the loaves and fishes.

I can guarantee you can't explain to me the exact workings of the computer you're typing all of your replies out on, but that doesn't stop you from using it.

Right, but I won't use it in heaven. I admit that. It is a fishbowl computer.

Oh, and after a quick Google search, I found the general construction mechanism for the real numbers from the naturals: let <a, b> denote the ordered pair {{a, b}, a}. Then the non-negative fractions are defined as classes (which is similar to, but not the same as, a set) of ordered pairs of non-negative integers, where <m, n> and <p, q> are in the same class if and only if there is some x so that mq=np. So the non-negative rational number [<3,7>] is the class of all ordered pairs <m, n> with 7m=3n.
The general rational numbers are defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs of non-negative rational numbers, where <r, s> and <t, u> are equivalent if r+u=s+t. So we can say that -3/7 is the equivalence class [<[<0, 1>], [<3, 7>]>]. In other words, it is the class of all ordered pairs <a, b> with a-b=3/7. So aside from <[<0, 1>], [<3, 7>]>, there is also <[<4, 7>], [<1, 1>]> and many many others. We can then construct the reals in the way I mentioned above.
I wouldn't make the assumption that y=4 and x=2 in the first place. If you said that "2x = y and x = 2", then I would assume that y=4 and x=2. But if you didn't say anything about x, I would only assume that whatever it is, y has twice its value. I know that x represents a quantity and y represents twice that quantity.

But having twice it's value is relative to the universe state we are in. If the spiritual and physical are the state, rather than just the physical, than the quantity is not just physical. Therefore the properties are not the same as we are familiar with. If y is an amount of loaves, it depends on the need for the loaves. A bit like some say about the quantum level observations. If something is not observed, it may not happen.

It doesn't get there, though. Because there's no 'there' to get to. If you're saying that it doesn't actually get arbitrarily large, than could you show me a number that it doesn't get larger than?

Well, Jesus only chose 12 apostles. The number could not get larger. There are only seven days in a week, that can't get larger.

Or could you prove mathematically the existence of one?
When I write "2x=y", I mean that 'no matter what x is, y has twice its value'. If someone else writes "2x = y", then that means the same thing. The specific values for x and y are not important; what is important is their relation.

Exactly, and the relation can change in a different universe. Just as the relation changed for the loaves and fishes, from the norm.

But if we go back to the Zermelo-Fraenkel definition, then I can essentially construct mathematics out of the ten axioms and nothing else. What's there for you to change? If you change the axioms, you're no longer talking about the same thing as you were before.

You can construct a house of cards as well, if you like. But what meaning would your construction have if we took it out of the universe state we live in??

Well, if you have one pile of hay and one pile of hay, and you smash them together, you get one pile of hay. But that doesn't mean that 1+1=1. Even if God can make 40,000 loaves appear from five, that doesn't mean 40,000 = 5. Because those concepts transcend material objects;

Precisely, PO math is transcended on the other side. Material as we know it ceases to exist, and is not part of the all.

I can define the concept of '5' without referring to 5 loaves of bread, or fish, or anything: I say that it is represented by a certain set: {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}}}. The number 40,000 can similarly be represented by a set, whose precise definition is too long to write here.

But you are bracketing after the fact here. The real trick is to have the right math for the 5 loaves, in the spiritual added state, rather than to draw a bunch of brackets, after counting what was actually eaten, and leftover!

Equality has a precise definition: two sets are equivalent if they contain the same elements. The set 5 and the set 40000 do not contain the same elements, so they are not equal.

The are not equal in this state. But apparently a little more equal if we add the spiritual.

That's ultimately my entire argument; all of mathematics emerges from the ZF axioms. If you change them, you're no longer talking about the usual set of mathematics.

Well, it is not them that will change, but the universe where they used to apply! And, so, I guess it is safe to say that the usual math we think of does not apply universally in the new heavens. Thanks for helping demonstrate that. A little more advanced math that a few of the regular posters seems to have, was needed there.

To use an analogy you might be familiar with, how would Christianity be different if the Ten Commandments were replaced by the nearist Shinto or Buddhist or Islamic equivalent? It wouldn't be Christianity anymore, it'd be something different.

You'd have a better chance to make a necklace from the sun, and put the moon in your pocket, and use the constellation of Leo for a screensaver, than that.

 

[dad]

Sorry, that was a bit brutal. But then you shouldn't mind. I mean look at what you've told me about geology and geochemistry, something what I hold dear and what I dedicated years of study to




So I shouldn't think you would be too offended. I mean obviously you remember:

[bible]Luke 6:31[/bible]

And you spend so much time denigrating the work of the mathematicians on here, and pretty much everyone who knows something about a field. "Baby math" I believe is the phrase you used.

So I apologize for stepping on your toes, I was rather under the impression that you wanted me to step on them.

I mean

[bible]Luke 6:31[/bible]

Well, when you blaspheme Jesus, it isn't me you offended, as much as all Christians. Being a guest on a Christian forum, I would expect somewhat better manners than that.
As for me and the math issue, I simply put it in it's proper place. Temporary universe math. Nothing wrong with that. It nay make some people dig down to the foundations of what it is all about, and, that is a good place to start.

 

[dad]

Guys, why are you even bothering to argue with dad?

Tell me what you could possibly gain. You're wasting your time, there's no use. No amount of evidence will convince him.

Lutherans believe in a new heavens. They understand the world was created, and that this earth shall pass away. I think they also believe in the miracles of Jesus, such as the loaves and fishes.

 

[FishFace]

Not at all. If you or they try to apply anything PO to the other state, they will be shown up in the attempt. As for adeptness at math, that is not an issue. If I see a foundation for a house in the state of New York, you are not going to tell me that what is going to be built on it is a moon base. I now the state of the foundation.

Do you want to get back to the topic(s) at hand, which were maths, and the distance of that supernova? I had several rather important questions that you haven't answered yet.

 

[FishFace]

Well, yes, of course you do, unless you want to stick to present state numbers, and associations. Your a and b and {}, could mean something else in the new heavens state. Just as in the case of the loaves and fishes.

Doesn't matter at all - a, b and {} are just notation. We could use pictures of different species of monkeys if we really wanted to, but that seems a bit stupid.
All you need to be able to do is formulate the ZF axioms and think about them, and you can prove all you need to - you don't even need any symbols you can right down, although for longer proofs that tends to be handy. From the 10 axioms of ZF set theory and some arbitrary notation (arbitrary means it doesn't matter if it changes) you can work out all of mathematics, pretty much. Isn't that great?
As Avidi said, if you change the axioms, then you're no longer talking about ZF set theory. So you can do that if you really want to, but ZF set theory is still there it's just that you're not talking about it.

But having twice it's value is relative to the universe state we are in.

No it's not. The first quantity is relative to the former quantity.

Exactly, and the relation can change in a different universe. Just as the relation changed for the loaves and fishes, from the norm.

No. In any universe you care to sit in, "2x = y" means that x has twice the value of y. The relationship is the same.

You can construct a house of cards as well, if you like. But what meaning would your construction have if we took it out of the universe state we live in??

It would mean exactly the same.

Precisely, PO math is transcended on the other side.

Try not to use words you don't understand. Adivi is right; mathematics transcends physical reality. There needn't even be physical reality for maths to be correct.

The are not equal in this state. But apparently a little more equal if we add the spiritual.

In what universe does 5 = 40,000? In none. Because we can define those two things in terms of ZF set theory, and in ZF set theory two sets are equal exactly when they have the same elements. And the definition of 5 and 40,000 gives us two sets with different elements, so they can never be equal unless you change definitions or axioms.
If you do that, then you can go off and play with your new system, but we'll still be correct in our system.

Well, it is not them that will change, but the universe where they used to apply! And, so, I guess it is safe to say that the usual math we think of does not apply universally in the new heavens.

You guess wrong. Thanks.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, when you blaspheme Jesus, it isn't me you offended, as much as all Christians. Being a guest on a Christian forum, I would expect somewhat better manners than that.

Dad, you see, if you want people to treat you with respect you must also treat them with respect. Don't call people "puss heads" as you have in the past. Also don't denigrate it when people provide you with mountains of data.

That's an important lesson to learn. That's the beauty of the golden rule. It doesn't require any belief in supernatural stuff or anything. It's good advice.

As for manners, well we can all learn some. Even you.

As for me and the math issue, I simply put it in it's proper place.

And hopefully everyone here has been able to teach you some math.

Temporary universe math. Nothing wrong with that. It nay make some people dig down to the foundations of what it is all about, and, that is a good place to start.

Yes. I recommend the following books and websites for you:

Operation Order (a fun game that will help you with issues you presented in Post #78 with operator order in Algebra)

Math Is Fun (Algebra) (This site will cover some algebra topics)

Cool Math.com (General site)

An Introduction to Mathematics (For when you have some time to read.)

Children's Math

And when you are ready to use that brain, THIS book looks interesting: Philosophy and Fun of Algebra

So you see, Dad, when take some time, learn not to get nasty with people (because they might get nasty back) and you learn some of what they know, you'll come out ahead!

 

[dad]

Dad, you see, if you want people to treat you with respect you must also treat them with respect. Don't call people "puss heads" as you have in the past. Also don't denigrate it when people provide you with mountains of data.

That's an important lesson to learn. That's the beauty of the golden rule. It doesn't require any belief in supernatural stuff or anything. It's good advice.

As for manners, well we can all learn some. Even you.



And hopefully everyone here has been able to teach you some math.



Yes. I recommend the following books and websites for you:

Operation Order (a fun game that will help you with issues you presented in Post #78 with operator order in Algebra)

Math Is Fun (Algebra) (This site will cover some algebra topics)

Cool Math.com (General site)

An Introduction to Mathematics (For when you have some time to read.)

Children's Math

And when you are ready to use that brain, THIS book looks interesting: Philosophy and Fun of Algebra

So you see, Dad, when take some time, learn not to get nasty with people (because they might get nasty back) and you learn some of what they know, you'll come out ahead!

I referred to a certain type of educated, godless people, that exalt themselves before God, with a few adjectives, one was puss head. Absolutely. That is no insult, it is an adjective denoting swelled heads, and pride, and head stuffing with man's knowledge. If you think that is an excuse for open blasphemy on a Christian site, you are mistaken.
As for math, I have said it is all good, long as we keep it on the foundation that applies, and in the state the foundation is in.
For you to pretend I somehow don't accept math, one would think should be beneath you.

 

[dad]

Doesn't matter at all - a, b and {} are just notation. We could use pictures of different species of monkeys if we really wanted to, but that seems a bit stupid.

Don't say that too loud, Darwinists post here.

All you need to be able to do is formulate the ZF axioms and think about them, and you can prove all you need to -

You can't prove that what exists, and the all are applicable in heaven, face it. If we are talking here and now, it is not an issue for me. Although I did read that even here, some disagree with ZF, in the wiki article.

you don't even need any symbols you can right down, although for longer proofs that tends to be handy. From the 10 axioms of ZF set theory and some arbitrary notation (arbitrary means it doesn't matter if it changes) you can work out all of mathematics, pretty much. Isn't that great?

But, of course it does matter. If a loaf no longer represents 1 loaf, then the relationships between numbers needs to reflect that reality. Today, we do not even know how the other side works, let alone how to adjust our numbers to it!!

As Avidi said, if you change the axioms, then you're no longer talking about ZF set theory. So you can do that if you really want to, but ZF set theory is still there it's just that you're not talking about it.

ZF is a fishbowl formula.

No it's not. The first quantity is relative to the former quantity.

And nothing here is relative to the next state, in a precise, mathematical way. It is only in box math.

No. In any universe you care to sit in, "2x = y" means that x has twice the value of y. The relationship is the same.

Not at all. There is the measure of the angels, and there is the measure of man. As mentioned when the size of New Jerusalem was given, by the way. I don't make this stuff up.
If we know the measure of angels, we can translate it to the measure of a man. But to translate man's measures, we need to know the measure of the angels!!! Do you??? If not, then you must stick to the fishbowl measure of a man, period.

Try not to use words you don't understand. Adivi is right; mathematics transcends physical reality. There needn't even be physical reality for maths to be correct.

It transcends it in the head only. To apply the math of man to the spiritual world to come, you need more than someone thinking their numbers transcend eternity.

In what universe does 5 = 40,000? In none.

The one where the spiritual is added, such as locally, with the loaves and fishes. But you forgot the 'W' The will of God. That modifies all things there! When we add it to 5 loaves, the numbers all come alive.
(number 5 is alive)

Because we can define those two things in terms of ZF set theory, and in ZF set theory two sets are equal exactly when they have the same elements.

Great, we can define fish food flakes in a fishbowl as well. That is all well and good, in the fishbowl.

And the definition of 5 and 40,000 gives us two sets with different elements, so they can never be equal unless you change definitions or axioms.

Adding W redefines everything as we know it. The numbers have to correspond to that reality as best they know how!

If you do that, then you can go off and play with your new system, but we'll still be correct in our system.

Only as long as you stay in the state the foundation is in.

You guess wrong. Thanks.

You are in no position to comment intelligently on that. Since you admit to dealing only in the one state, and the equation we are talking about has another state as well.

All math, science, and knowledge of man is foolishness to God. I hope you get a little taste of why that might be, so that you can start looking beyond the dead limits of mere man.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I referred to a certain type of educated, godless people, that exalt themselves before God, with a few adjectives, one was puss head. Absolutely. That is no insult, it is an adjective denoting swelled heads, and pride, and head stuffing with man's knowledge.

OK. That's between you and your god. You know what you write in general. The "pusshead" comment, if not intended to needle, was not the only example of your general level of disregard and nastiness on these fora. But again, I don't know what you are thinking. Only you do. But you do need to be aware that some people might be offended.

Perhaps you would be equally appeased if I said my little riff on the statistics programs was not blasphemy but a fun-fun jokey joke. Not intended to hurt anyone.

(Of course I will be honest enough to say that I knew some would be offended and I would never dream of trying t pass it off as a simple "commentary". You see, that is what honesty is all about.)

If you think that is an excuse for open blasphemy on a Christian site, you are mistaken.

Again, Dad, if you want people to respect what you hold dear, perhaps you should treat people with respect for their areas.

You see, the more invective you pour on people's background, the more you lable math you don't understand as "baby math", the more you call my field (geology/geochemistry) feces as you have, the less likely you will be to have people who don't believe as you pussyfoot around what you hold dear.

Do you see how this works? This is something called The Golden Rule. It isn't Jesus alone who spoke it. Most societies realized it's importance.

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
Udana-Varga 5,1 (Buddhism)

"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence."
Mencius VII.A.4 (Confucionism)

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you."
Mahabharata 5,1517 (Hinduism)

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated."
Sutrakritanga 1.11.33 (Jainism)

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary."
Talmud, Shabbat 3id (Judaism)

"Regard your neighbor&#8217;s gain as your gain, and your neighbor&#8217;s loss as your own loss."
Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien (Taoism)

"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29 (Zoroastrianism)

And of course Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:1 in your own religion.

If my commentary was blasphemous (which I will grant it was!) then I should think a Christian who disregards his own Gospels would have a bit more to worry about than an atheist.

[bible]Luke 6:31[/bible]
[bible]Matthew 7:1[/bible]

As for math, I have said it is all good, long as we keep it on the foundation that applies, and in the state the foundation is in.
For you to pretend I somehow don't accept math, one would think should be beneath you.

I don't think you "don't accept math", I honestly think you don't understand math. Even the simple stuff.

But that's OK. We are not all educated. Hopefully you will listen when the mathematicians talk. And hopefully you will learn before you denigrate their knowledge by calling it "baby math" when you don't seem to even have "baby math" down.

Blasphemy? Who cares? I have sat and read you constantly denigrate my field for quite some time here. The stuff I hold dear means nothing to you. Why should what you hold dear mean anything to me?

Unless of course it means nothing to you as well.

 

[thaumaturgy]

All math, science, and knowledge of man is foolishness to God. I hope you get a little taste of why that might be, so that you can start looking beyond the dead limits of mere man.

Dad, if you believe in God, then how can you say that math is foolishness to God? Perhaps what you mean is that which you don't understand seems like something you want to call "foolish" so you don't have to learn it.

It frees you to avoid the hard work of learning it.

Laziness is foolishness.

You aren't lazy are you? I mean you've already shown yourself to be a bit thin skinned and able to "dish it out but not take it" when it comes to things you hold dear.

Don't add laziness to ignorance and petulance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dad, if you believe in God, then how can you say that math is foolishness to God? Perhaps what you mean is that which you don't understand seems like something you want to call "foolish" so you don't have to learn it.

Show me your math skills with this passage, Thaumaturgy ---

[bible]Matthew 16:9-10[/bible]

Let's see how much math you really understand.

 

[FishFace]

Show me your math skills with this passage, Thaumaturgy ---

[bible]Matthew 16:9-10[/bible]

Let's see how much math you really understand.

We've already dealt with that one, AV.
Let me set a similar scene. Me, you, thaumaturgy and dad are sitting down for a picnic. You brought sandwiches, dad brought some fish rolls. But oh no! you both only brought enough for one person! Silly you. So, being good Christians, you share out the sandwiches and rolls between me and dad. After you deal out the first set, you yell, LOOK OVER THERE! THE SECOND COMING! and thaumaturgy and I turn around to see what the fuss is about. When we look back, the picnic basket has been miraculously refilled. This happens twice more (although next time you say, "The flying spaghetti monster" instead of the second coming) and thaumaturgy and I are happy that we have enough to eat.
In the bottom of the picnic basket, it turns out there's plenty of crumbs, bits of roll, ham and bread, for you to make a goodly meal.

Is there some CAH-RAAAZY maths going on? No. You just put extra food into the basket while we weren't looking.
Sure, you believe that God used some fancy magic, sorry, miracles, to put the extra food in the basket, but so what? If I show you the disciples baskets of fish and bread the start, and if I then show you all the fish and bread shared between the multitude, would you say those two quantities were equal? Of course not.

If you think "2=4" then that means 2 apples is just the same amount of apples as 4 apples. It does NOT mean that God magically gave you some extra apples at some point. That's just adding in some more apples.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think "2=4" then that means 2 apples is just the same amount of apples as 4 apples.

Answer me this:

• 7/7 = 1
• 6/6 = 1
• 5/5 = 1
• 4/4 = 1
• 3/3 = 1
• 2/2 = 1
• 1/1 = 1
• 0/0 = what?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Show me your math skills with this passage, Thaumaturgy ---

[bible]Matthew 16:9-10[/bible]

Let's see how much math you really understand.

HINT: IT'S A STORY OF A MIRACLE.

Nothing to understand. It probably didn't happen (I have yet to see any "real" miracles), and if it did it was a miracle by your creator-god who wished to decimate the fabric of space and time. Hence it can have no real meaning other than to impress the weak little humans.

I'm willing to bet that it is a story meant to impress the credulous.

Frankly if your God would prefer miracle stories hidden in the depth of time from a time when people were prone to see miracles in every dark corner, rather than merely openly discussing stuff with us, then I can see little reason to be impressed.

But that's just me.