Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[azn4mrpaul]

Mary bought a lamb then she sold it back for mere 25% of its original purchase price.

Mary made a profit of 25%. 

The candy machine takes quarters and candy was what she wanted at the time.


Math is subjective.  There's always a need for interpretation and that limits math's usefulness.

[John Edward Mercier]

Its only subjective when used with English.
In this case the English word 'Profit' is what is being subjective.

[Luck]

Mary bought a lamb then she sold it back for mere 25% of its original purchase price.
Mary made a profit of 25%.

* In order for the second sentence to be true, if it's the same Mary and the same transaction, it should say "she sold it back for a mere 25% OVER its original purchase price." Otherwise she would have had a 75% loss, not a profit at all.

[azn4mrpaul]

I meant to say that math is subjective from the very simple operations to the most complex derivations pertaining to far reaching theories such as the existence of black holes, the big bang, the Higgs.

For a trivial example, I maintain that 100% of $1 is exactly $0.  Without further qualifications, I hold this to be true as long as I intend to.

For the most complex math, Stephen Crothers actually contests the theory that black holes exist.  The development of modern science is aided mostly by propaganda and censorship of opposing viewpoints; any graduate student dare to blaze a new path would summarily have their study program suspended and they get kicked out of the school.

Not too long after the apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, Mrs. Experiment asked for and was granted a nullification of her marriage to Mr. Theory.  Ever since, anything of "progress" as it often sold to us, are mere conjectures that defy any attempts at bringing them back to the realm of Falsifiability.

[azn4mrpaul]

For disclosure, I have beef with the scientific elites because they conspired with the media to convince pretty much everybody that black holes exist and the big bang created everything from virtual particles.

Nowadays, there is hardly anybody you can talk to who isn't convinced that we have detected black holes in abundance.  This is a testament of the success of modern popular science propaganda.  Stephen Crothers insists that the signatures of a black hole is infinite density and an event horizon.  Neither of which has ever been detected so zero black hole has ever been detected.

Thanks to the scam that's modern theories, they always have multiple interpretations for each new theory, and without fail, the one that costs taxpayers the most is the correct interpretation.

They even managed to convinced a bunch of people the the Higgs particle is the "God" particle.  They got a whole lot of people excited with the recent announcement that they'd found the "God" particle only to have doubt casts on it a week later.

I like God.  I'll level with atheists that I haven't seen a bearded man upstairs but they haven't disprove the existence of God through their theories either.  It's all just propaganda and the fleecing of the gullible masses.

[John Edward Mercier]

Scientific elites? I don't think the Priest that proposed the Big Bang Theory was trying to dissuade the masses from God.

[azn4mrpaul]

You're right JEM and I have to be careful in what I'm saying.  There's a priest involved in the history of the Big Bang.  Some say the Big Bang implies creationism, but other says the spontaneous explosion and appearance of the Universe obviates the need for a god.  And that's where my beef is.

[John Edward Mercier]

That is just someone trying to prove their point of view.
Agnostics generally have the only reasoned point of view, but I've at times just sensed something that is greater than I can explain... which leads me to be a theist.

[rossby]

Mary bought a lamb then she sold it back for mere 25% of its original purchase price.

Mary made a profit of 25%.  

The candy machine takes quarters and candy was what she wanted at the time.

Math is subjective.  There's always a need for interpretation and that limits math's usefulness.

It's the English description that's ambiguous. Try to state this again, but keep track of the "units" of what you're talking about.

For a trivial example, I maintain that 100% of $1 is exactly $0.  Without further qualifications, I hold this to be true as long as I intend to.

But without further qualification, it is a meaningless statement: it's truth cannot be known. You might as well substitute a Batman symbol for every '1' in that statement; the meaning wouldn't change.

If you wish the statement to have any meaning, you'll need to explain to others what you're trying to say. Otherwise--to make an analogy--all you're saying is that you've invented a new spoken language; no one else can understand what you're saying; therefore, English is bad.

In accordance with most commonly accepted mathematical axioms, your statement is not true. Math isn't some kind of witchcraft. It is just a language for expressing relationships between quantities.

Not too long after the apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, Mrs. Experiment asked for and was granted a nullification of her marriage to Mr. Theory.

A few hundred years later, maybe. Nor is it a criticism that hasn't been made before. http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Continuing-Challenge/dp/0224076051