The "I" problem

[HeirofSalvation]

Actually, I understand about 50% of people define it differently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZifngGSnB-8

:smilewinkgrin:

The answer is 9...it is not relative. It is without question. The answer is a whole number whose value is 9. This is not relative. If I am mistaken, than a Masters or higher in either Engineering or Mathematics or more must tell me as much.

If I am wrong...(I could be, since I am abyssmal at math) than whoever demonstrates me mistaken should agree 100% with anyone else better schooled in mathematics than I, and equally schooled as the other.

MY math may be mistaken...but a real mathematician or Engineer or Physicist etc...should know this, without question.

 

[Benjamin]

The answer is 9...it is not relative. It is without question. The answer is a whole number whose value is 9. This is not relative. If I am mistaken, than a Masters or higher in either Engineering or Mathematics or more must tell me as much.

If I am wrong...(I could be, since I am abyssmal at math) than whoever demonstrates me mistaken should agree 100% with anyone else better schooled in mathematics than I, and equally schooled as the other.

MY math may be mistaken...but a real mathematician or Engineer or Physicist etc...should know this, without question.

Nope, you’re wrong. According to the order of mathematical operations (PEMDAS - Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction) the answer is 1. I just finished an algebra class a few months ago (got an A, BTW ) and this basic rule is 101 stuff.

To consider multiply and divide interchangeable steps and then go from from left to right is UTTER NONSENSE! Rules should be "FIRMLY" followed precisely as taught! There must be ORDER to math! Truth is NOT relative. IS nothing sacred?!?

I do believe Quantum has his masters in mathmatics so I expect he knows the importance of abiding by this rule also.

:saint:

 

[Arbo]

People need to study math or shut up. :laugh:

(It's a joke for those who lack a funny bone)

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Nope, you’re wrong. According to the order of mathematical operations (PEMDAS - Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction) the answer is 1. I just finished an algebra class a few months ago (got an A, BTW ) and this basic rule is 101 stuff.

To consider multiple and divide interchangeable steps and then go from from left to right is UTTER NONSENSE! Rules should be "FIRMLY" followed precisely as taught! There must be ORDER to math! Truth is NOT relative. IS nothing sacred?!?

I do believe Quantum has his masters in mathmatics so I expect he knows this rule also.

:saint:

Very-Well...my Math then is mistaken...I'm ok with it. I failed "College Algebra" Business Math1, Business Math 2...and every other "Math" course which prevented me from getting a degree in History...

I love History...But math jerks kept me from continuing my studies in history as though an historian must know "Algebra" to calculate how many poor sots died at the battle of Agincourt...Go....Math people.

But...I still think I understand PEMDAS....(even though I perpetually failed the garbage in High School)...and the answer is 9

I await the decree of QF...
However, the point remains that the answer to that equation is NOT relative...it is absolute.. A qualified mathematician will prove us either "right" or "wrong" in our calculations...The truth isn't relative. THAT'S my point.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

People need to study math or shut up. :laugh:

(It's a joke for those who lack a funny bone)

To quote Larry the Cable Guy..."Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are...that's funny"....

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You know what...I've changed my mind...the heretics are wrong, and the answer is still simply 9...your video relativises truth. Begone with your heresy...we burn you as a witch...Where is POPE QF when you need him????

Sleeping, no doubt, as though he had the right..PSSHHHAWWWW!!!!

Where do his loyalties lie?

 

[Benjamin]

I await the decree of QF...
However, the point remains that the answer to that equation is NOT relative...it is absolute.. A qualified mathematician will prove us either "right" or "wrong" in our calculations...The truth isn't relative. THAT'S my point.

If absolute it must be either 1 or 9, it cannot be both. Therefore it is "logically" 1.

 

[Crabtownboy]

There is so much good in the worst of us
And so much bad in the best of us
That it behooves none of us
To speak ill of the rest of us.

 

[Old Union Brother]

There is so much good in the worst of us
And so much bad in the best of us
That it behooves none of us
To speak ill of the rest of us.

Amen!!!!!!!!

 

[Benjamin]

You know what...I've changed my mind...the heretics are wrong, and the answer is still simply 9...your video relativises truth. Begone with your heresy...we burn you as a witch...Where is POPE QF when you need him????

Sleeping, no doubt, as though he had the right..PSSHHHAWWWW!!!!

Where do his loyalties lie?

To get 9 you must add “•” to the true equation of 6÷2(1+2) and forgo juxtaposition of denominator. ANYONE with eyes to see knows that 6÷2•(1+2) isn’t what the problem says. In plain English it CLEARLY says “6” divided by “2(1+2)” and 2(1+2) = 6, so it is 6 ÷ 6 and ANYONE with a 3rd grade education should know the answer to that is 1.


Another way to look at the TRUE problem (a SIMPLE fraction) as it is written:

6
-------- or
2(1+2)

6
------- or
2(3)

6
----- =1
6


6 divided by 2 multiplied by (1+2) or 3 is a figment of your imagination!

The numerator “6” is divided by the denominator “6”.

Your kind doesn’t understand the history of the law of juxtaposition.

 

[quantumfaith]

People need to study math or shut up. :laugh:

(It's a joke for those who lack a funny bone)

:thumbsup::thumbsup::tongue3:

 

[quantumfaith]

You know what...I've changed my mind...the heretics are wrong, and the answer is still simply 9...your video relativises truth. Begone with your heresy...we burn you as a witch...Where is POPE QF when you need him????

Sleeping, no doubt, as though he had the right..PSSHHHAWWWW!!!!

Where do his loyalties lie?

HOS, the result is indeed 1. The reason is as Benjamin states due to the "Order of Operations. Why?....simply because we have defined and decreed as humans that this is the acceptable Order in which to perform computations.

Back to the "highjack" theme. I don't think I am, or (being relativistic) but I do take your criticism with sincerity. There are essentials (truths) that one must acknowledge and assume in order to be member of the "christian" tribe. Those essentials are always worthy of discussion. In the realm, we so often find ourselves in the BB land, that being arguing positions and nuances within the subset of Christianity, this is where I find it problematic not to be confidently convinced, rather to be dogmatically condescending that is the "issue" for me.

Mathematics is a language of thought and consistency created by mankind to describe and make sense of our world. Some do argue that it is written into the universe (I would probably agree) but can we establish that mathematics exists where no human exists? (I don't know.....there he goes being relativisitic again. ) BTW, the universe is indeed relativistic.....and simultaneously "quantum" in nature. We are still waiting for someone to unify these two observations of our universe.

I was busy teaching a couple of late (night classes) attempting to eliminate mathematical ignorance in my neck of the world.

Blessings

 

[Benjamin]

HOS, the result is indeed 1. The reason is as Benjamin states due to the "Order of Operations. Why?....simply because we have defined and decreed as humans that this is the acceptable Order in which to perform computations.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HOS, the result is indeed 1. The reason is as Benjamin states due to the "Order of Operations. Why?....simply because we have defined and decreed as humans that this is the acceptable Order in which to perform computations.

Well, goes to prove my brilliant understanding of Mathematics. :smilewinkgrin: Why can't we go back to claiming that Algebra is witch-craft and thus ridding our selves of these pesky equations? :smilewinkgrin:

Back to the "highjack" theme. I don't think I am, or (being relativistic) but I do take your criticism with sincerity. There are essentials (truths) that one must acknowledge and assume in order to be member of the "christian" tribe. Those essentials are always worthy of discussion.

Yes.

In the realm, we so often find ourselves in the BB land, that being arguing positions and nuances within the subset of Christianity, this is where I find it problematic not to be confidently convinced, rather to be dogmatically condescending that is the "issue" for me

.
Agreed...and as you say, at least 95% of the time...we only "think" someone is wrong.

Mathematics is a language of thought and consistency created by mankind to describe and make sense of our world. Some do argue that it is written into the universe (I would probably agree) but can we establish that mathematics exists where no human exists? (I don't know.....there he goes being relativisitic again. )

I would agree that it is written into the fabric of the Universe. IF that is so, than it would indeed exist whether or not man exists.

BTW, the universe is indeed relativistic.....and simultaneously "quantum" in nature. We are still waiting for someone to unify these two observations of our universe.

I have no idea what that means...perhaps I can pick your brain sometime to understand it

I was busy teaching a couple of late (night classes) attempting to eliminate mathematical ignorance in my neck of the world.

LOL :thumbs: There is MUCH mathematical ignorance...I am proof of that.
Blessings

 

[Salty]

I like Math- because it is so simple.

2 + 2 always = 4 - unless you are a liberal

 

[Luke2427]

Yes. And when someone is unnecessarily rude to another making it appear he thinks he is better than they are. People tend to appear more rude, abrupt and harsh in an online forum thus giving a greater impression of self-righteousness.

You've accused me of thinking I'm better than others (sometimes due to my moderator label) and other times because I sound assured of myself or confident in my reply. I know that I can come across that way to others if I'm not careful, but I'm not sure you know that you come across that way to people on both sides of this debate because of the harshness of your replies...i.e. 'study or shut up' etc

No, no.

You are mistaking frankness with self-righteousness and and the former simply does not follow the latter.

 

[Luke2427]

One area in which I would disagree with some posters...is that it is disingenuous to always say things like "I think you are mistaken..." or "I think" you are wrong here

Sometimes, I don't "THINK" a poster is wrong...I "KNOW" they are wrong.

It is a rare moment that I will simply say, "NO YOU ARE WRONG"...but to constantly use phraseology like "I think"...relativises truth, and that is equally as dangerous (if not more so) than simply laying down the hammer when someone speaks falsely.
Truth is not relative, and when someone's post is Biblically provably demonstrably false, it is not helpfull to say "I respectfully disagree"...

Not that we need to start saying "You're wrong" every time we disagree with one another...but you do no favors to the Scriptures nor sound doctrine nor the Great truths of Christianity when sheer heresy is spoken of with "I think that I respectfully disagree"...There are some pure wolves in our congregations, they are not to have their views respected, but SHUT DOWN.

In part, this is in response to QF's posts...I would hope sir, that if I contended that 2+2=5...you would NOT tell me that you "think" I was wrong, but rather that you would put to death any such falsehoods with extreme predjudice....feel free to use a red pen when my sums are incorrect

Excellent point.

 

[quantumfaith]

I like Math- because it is so simple.

2 + 2 always = 4 - unless you are a liberal

For every natural number n, the Peano axioms define the "successor of n", or S(n). Every natural number, except zero, is the successor of another natural number. All natural numbers can be expressed this way:

0
S(0)
S(S(0))
S(S(S(0)))
S(S(S(S(0))))
...

We have names for each of these numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

And so, by "2+2=4", we really mean this:

S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0))))

Not only do natural numbers have a specific meaning, but the symbol "+" has a specific meaning. It is defined with the following two axioms:

n + 0 = n
n + S(m) = S(n + m)

So here's the rest of the proof:

S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))

Not quite as simple as you might have imagined? Mathematics is a language, much like english...et. al. It all boils down to how we "define" things. As some say, math is "built in" to the universe, in reality, it may be built in that we measure things.....metrics may be the innate created quality of the universe, rather than numbers themselves.

 

[Luke2427]

As some say, math is "built in" to the universe, in reality, it may be built in that we measure things.....metrics may be the innate created quality of the universe, rather than numbers themselves.

Math and logic are inextricably fused.

Two things are two things. They cannot BE two things and NOT be two things in the same sense and at the same time.

This comes from God.

It is not something God created- it is something God IS. Logic emanates from God just like love and knowledge emanate from him.

That was my point in the logic thread.

This is why theology MUST be logical. Truth claims within a system MUST be consistent with other truth claims within that system or that system shold be rejected as nonsense.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[quantumfaith]

Math and logic are inextricably fused.

Two things are two things. They cannot BE two things and NOT be two things in the same sense and at the same time.

This comes from God.

It is not something God created- it is something God IS. Logic emanates from God just like love and knowledge emanate from him.

That was my point in the logic thread.

This is why theology MUST be logical. Truth claims within a system MUST be consistent with other truth claims within that system or that system shold be rejected as nonsense.

Do you see what I mean?

Mathematics yes, must be logical, otherwise it is not reliable. But some mathematics (logic) applies to some things and not others. New mathematics (logic) has been and is continually created to apply to "problems" we humans wish to solve. Consider that "Newtonian (Classical) Physics" works extremely well for solving problems on our planet, above the nuclear level. Its (logic) breaks down on the level of the very small (nuclear) and the very large level.
Do I agree that God is logical....yes for the most part. But he has also done much counter to our ideas of logic (Virgin Birth, raising from the dead etc) God supercedes anyway we can define or identify logic.