[ATLian]

Very good, but since a and b are variables, i'm canceling out the (a-b) terms before evaluating what (a-b) is.

Huh? I don't get what you mean by this statement.



Remember, we own the math, the math doesn't own us.

Actually we don't own math. 1 + 1 = 2. Period. We don't decide that. It just is! If we owned math we could decide to make the square root of 9 to be 77!



Exactly, so there is either a flaw in the numerical system or in the algebra theory.

Neither. There's a flaw in YOUR theory above. For any equation to be accurately called a mathematical equation, then it must first satisfy the laws of maths. Since your equation above had some serious flaws in it, it doesn't even qualify to be a mathematical equation (using strict definitions)!

[Tripple Seven]

Originally Posted by kenyajuu

What excitement after what divorce? I am not sure I get you - please clarify.

Sorry about this i meant to say i had to quit the engineering school on my 2nd year because the math could not condone me anymore so the engineering divorced me yet math still fascinates. Any clearer now? Or did you think you are a divorcee yourself?

[Tripple Seven]

Originally Posted by ATLian

Very good, but since a and b are variables, i'm canceling out the (a-b) terms before evaluating what (a-b) is.

Huh? I don't get what you mean by this statement.



Remember, we own the math, the math doesn't own us.

Actually we don't own math. 1 + 1 = 2. Period. We don't decide that. It just is! If we owned math we could decide to make the square root of 9 to be 77!



Exactly, so there is either a flaw in the numerical system or in the algebra theory.

Neither. There's a flaw in YOUR theory above. For any equation to be accurately called a mathematical equation, then it must first satisfy the laws of maths. Since your equation above had some serious flaws in it, it doesn't even qualify to be a mathematical equation (using strict definitions)!

Hey sir did you go back to the drawing board? In the olden days the champion won all the gals. These days you let the wallet do the talking. But this is very encouraging. Keep it up.

[aluochnora]

ndigila and atlian.....well done

[ndigila]

Very good, but since a and b are variables, i'm canceling out the (a-b) terms before evaluating what (a-b) is.

Huh? I don't get what you mean by this statement.

I was taking time into account. Here's a slightly more complicated example: 44-27 = 17 is a definite answer if you don't consider a time dimension. But since the world we're living in also revolves around time and not just space, you have to treat time as a dimension. A 9 year old who subtracts by counting fingers and toes may take a 1 minute to solve the answer. So before that 1 minute is over, the answer is not yet 17. The answer changes over time. Its not a constant.

This is what I did with the equation. (a-b) is not yet equal to zero until I solve it. So I chose to cancel out the like terms before solving (a-b) so technically I'm not dividing by zero. (Its not breaking rules, its bending them)

Remember, we own the math, the math doesn't own us.

Actually we don't own math. 1 + 1 = 2. Period. We don't decide that. It just is! If we owned math we could decide to make the square root of 9 to be 77!

I assumed you'd read one of my previous posts. By "we" I meant engineers (well, at least college student engineers). We do alot of things that would drive math teachers crazy.


Exactly, so there is either a flaw in the numerical system or in the algebra theory.

Neither. There's a flaw in YOUR theory above. For any equation to be accurately called a mathematical equation, then it must first satisfy the laws of maths. Since your equation above had some serious flaws in it, it doesn't even qualify to be a mathematical equation (using strict definitions)!

Just to clarify. The theory is not mine. I just love defending it.

Strict definitions only work with theoretical stuff. When trying to model the real world, these strict definitions may have to be modified otherwise the math would be useless and no progress would have been made. This has been done countless times in the past. For example, square roots of negative numbers do not fit in the number line, so they're not numbers, but they model vibrations perfectly. So, we're left with 2 choices, either we accomodate them somehow or we stick to our strict definitions and hinder the progress made. (I'm guessing you know which choice was made).

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Tripple Seven

Hey man fight alittle bit this man atlan or whoever he is is scaring the hell out of you. You own the math do something. Fight to the bitter end. I left the battlefield coz of my irrelevant major but am sure you can do better or isn't it not?

Hahaha. Very funny. I've been in a debate like this before and they never end. In the wrong crowd, you could end up in a fist fight (and my 5'9" 65kg frame can't handle fist fights). Its like the "does God exist" debate.

[Tripple Seven]

Originally Posted by aluochnora

ndigila and atlian.....well done

Did you 4get kenya juu? This was a very healthy discussion and these guys deserve a pat in the back or would each be better off with some kind of a kiss from you? Just a kiss assuming theyre all males? I am a male so i have nothing more to offer to them donge yawa?

[ATLian]

I was taking time into account. Here's a slightly more complicated example: 44-27 = 17 is a definite answer if you don't consider a time dimension. But since the world we're living in also revolves around time and not just space, you have to treat time as a dimension. A 9 year old who subtracts by counting fingers and toes may take a 1 minute to solve the answer. So before that 1 minute is over, the answer is not yet 17. The answer changes over time. Its not a constant.

Again I disagree. As an example, the cube root of 45,198,541,145 is 3,562.116. Whether you're a supercomputer which calculates that in nanoseconds, or you're a 1st former studying cube roots for the first time ever meaning you take the whole weekend to calculate it, the answer doesn't change. The answer will always be 3,562.116. You seem to imply that when calculated slowly, the answer is at some times not going to be 3,562.116. Time doesn't change the answer. Or to give another example, I have no idea what the name of biggest city in the smallest province in Senegal is. I might one day find out. That doesn't mean that between now and when I find out that the name of the city will change. It will always be the same city.

[ndigila]

Again I disagree. As an example, the cube root of 45,198,541,145 is 3,562.116. Whether you're a supercomputer which calculates that in nanoseconds, or you're a 1st former studying cube roots for the first time ever meaning you take the whole weekend to calculate it, the answer doesn't change. The answer will always be 3,562.116.

In this scenario you are treating time as a variable and not as a dimension. Take the supercomputer for example, lets say it takes 2 nanoseconds for it to solve the answer, and the problem was presented to it at time = 0s, what's the answer at t = 1 nanosecond? It is not yet 3,562.116. If you treat time as a variable, then you can say that time doesn't affect the answer, but if you treat time as a dimension, the fact that the answer has not yet been solved means that the answer is not a constant with respect to time.

You seem to imply that when calculated slowly, the answer is at some times not going to be 3,562.116.

Nope. What I'm saying is that when you take into account the time dimension, the solution to an equation is not constant, it changes with respect to time, unless you can solve an equation without an absolute change in time, which is impossible.

Or to give another example, I have no idea what the name of biggest city in the smallest province in Senegal is. I might one day find out. That doesn't mean that between now and when I find out that the name of the city will change. It will always be the same city.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Anyway, this analogy fails because your knowledge cannot be modeled as a function of space and time (at least as of yet, check back in a few years )

[Tripple Seven]

Originally Posted by Tripple Seven

Sorry about this i meant to say i had to quit the engineering school on my 2nd year because the math could not condone me anymore so the engineering divorced me yet math still fascinates. Any clearer now? Or did you think you are a divorcee yourself?

@ kenya juu are is it your hibernating season or money has been poured to finish u? Where are u?