How do you know you are not "A.I."?

[Revoltingest]

It is down in that lo-ball territory. And besides, it's that you're counting ability is limited by your IQ, not contrariwise. In any case, it's happy hour so when I return perhaps we'll be on something like common ground. (But I doubt it. Everybody know 21/3= 70. Too bad, you were almost a 70 after all.)

21 / 3 =/= 70
210 / 3 = 70

 

[Acim]

No.

Anything made by man that doesn't occur naturally, or to be a copy of something natural. Of course, we've been arguing for decades about how something could be qualified to be called AI. I think it is a consciousness that is fully self-aware (aware of mortality), and has desires.

So, then man is not natural? Like saying bee's honey does not occur naturally, because it's not found anywhere in nature (except where bees make it).

I won't respond to further posts on this semi side topic, after this one, but gladly will take up this debate in another thread.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

21 / 3 =/= 70
210 / 3 = 70

You have to have an IQ above 70 (or 3) to get it. Sorry.

So, then man is not natural? Like saying bee's honey does not occur naturally, because it's not found anywhere in nature (except where bees make it).

I won't respond to further posts on this semi side topic, after this one, but gladly will take up this debate in another thread.

No, man is natural. Man-made is artificial, by convention and definition. I guess you could say it's an artificial distinction.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you believe there people who don't know that 1 = 0.999....?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Can you believe there people who don't know that 1 = 0.999....?

Slugabeds I'm sure, though it does depend on the degree of precision you're after. Thus my confusion on remembering whether my IQ is 1 or where to put the decimal in 19999999999999, and pick a number somewhere in between.

 

[Revoltingest]

Slugabeds I'm sure, though it does depend on the degree of precision you're after.

The dots after "9" (or a bar over the last) indicate an infinite series.
Precision is then not an issue, ie, they're exactly equal.

Thus my confusion on remembering whether my IQ is 1 or where to put the decimal in 19999999999999, and pick a number somewhere in between.

We were so poor that my parents couldn't afford to get me an IQ.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The dots after "9" (or a bar over the last) indicate an infinite series.
Precision is then not an issue, ie, they're exactly equal.

I'll give you bar over the last (haven't heard of it but I'm no mathematician), but I am a writer and an ellipsis merely indicates a gap or omission of indeterminate length.

We were so poor that my parents couldn't afford to get me an IQ.

My parents didn't believe in an IQ, so I fabricated one of my own. But it turns out they were right, in a way. IQ tests only measure a few of a near infinite number of capabilities, mostly chosen by academics who wished to accentuate certain characteristics that would benefit them and their world, which as it turns out, are often rather limited skills (re: psychobabble). One of those is (was) brute/rote memory, but that's being made redundant now what with the advent of computers. So buck up, you can be as smart as you wanna be using whatever part of the brain you have a natural talent in and are willing to exercise it.

Now, looka there, you're so smart you just dragged that right outta me. You must have a very high guile IQ. You can thank me later.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll give you bar over the last (haven't heard of it but I'm no mathematician), but I am a writer and an ellipsis merely indicates a gap or omission of indeterminate length.

Back when I understood math (post Civil War, btw), we used dots to indicate an infinite series.
[/QUOTE]
My parents didn't believe in an IQ, so I fabricated one of my own. But it turns out they were right, in a way. IQ tests only measure a few of a near infinite number of capabilities, mostly chosen by academics who wished to accentuate certain characteristics that would benefit them and their world, which as it turns out, are often rather limited skills (re: psychobabble). One of those is (was) brute/rote memory, but that's being made redundant now what with the advent of computers. So buck up, you can be as smart as you wanna be using whatever part of the brain you have a natural talent in and are willing to exercise it.
Now, looka there, you're so smart you just dragged that right outta me. You must have a very high guile IQ. You can thank me later. [/QUOTE]
I think my IQ strength lies in obstreperation....so I've been told.

 

[Acim]

The dots after "9" (or a bar over the last) indicate an infinite series.
Precision is then not an issue, ie, they're exactly equal.

Verifiable, how?

 

[Revoltingest]

Verifiable, how?

Some cool basic algebra.....

1) We have the basic identity: (10x - x ) / 9 = x
2) Substitute x = 0.999.... on the left.
3) Recognize that to the right of the decimal point there are an infinite number
of nines which have a corresponding nine to subtract at each decimal place.
4) We get 9 / 9 = x = 1
QED

 

[Acim]

Some cool basic algebra.....

1) We have the basic identity: (10x - x ) / 9 = x
2) Substitute x = 0.999.... on the left.
3) Recognize that to the right of the decimal point there are an infinite number
of nines which have a corresponding nine to subtract at each decimal place.
4) We get 9 / 9 = x = 1
QED

Again, how is that verifiable?

 

[Ouroboros]

Some cool basic algebra.....

1) We have the basic identity: (10x - x ) / 9 = x
2) Substitute x = 0.999.... on the left.
3) Recognize that to the right of the decimal point there are an infinite number
of nines which have a corresponding nine to subtract at each decimal place.
4) We get 9 / 9 = x = 1
QED

Another version is
1 = 3/3
3/3 = 3*1/3
1/3 = 0.33333....
3 * 0.333... = 0.999...
So 1 = 0.999...

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, how is that verifiable?

We have an identity.
No question there
To subtract x from 10x, use the ordinary arithmetic approach of putting 10x (9.99999....) over (0.99999...), & then subtracting.
All the nines to the right of the decimal point become zero.
to the left of the decimal point, we have just 9.
Divide that by 9, & we have 1.

 

[Acim]

We have an identity.
No question there
To subtract x from 10x, use the ordinary arithmetic approach of putting 10x (9.99999....) over (0.99999...), & then subtracting.
All the nines to the right of the decimal point become zero.
to the left of the decimal point, we have just 9.
Divide that by 9, & we have 1.

I'm thinking there's a way to get a mathematical formula where .444.... equals 1 by this sort of rationale.

I dunno. I have played around with this problem enough to realize it isn't actually verifiable and some are taking a lazy approach to justifying the notion that it must be equal to 1, because it can't be verifiable to say it is (or isn't) equal 1, while it truly appears to be getting ever closer to 1, but never actually reaching it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Abbott and Costello, 7x13=28

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think my IQ strength lies in obstreperation....so I've been told.

Well, if you're gonna go off down that blind alley, I'm afraid you're on your own. But I don't think you qualify. Sounds like there are those who just wish to exert control. And of course that settles nothing about you and/or "them" being wrong, even concurrently. Anytime you (or anyone) want some tips on pursuing the Truth, just light the signal fires and I'll come running. Truth is my God after all, though of course interaction is a one way street--and prayer...pft.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm thinking there's a way to get a mathematical formula where .444.... equals 1 by this sort of rationale.

Feel free to try.
But the fundamental problem is that 0.4444....=/= 1

I dunno. I have played around with this problem enough to realize it isn't actually verifiable and some are taking a lazy approach to justifying the notion that it must be equal to 1, because it can't be verifiable to say it is (or isn't) equal 1, while it truly appears to be getting ever closer to 1, but never actually reaching it.

The illustration I showed (not quite a proof) is an old one, & no one has debunked it yet.
It's the nature of infinity that makes it work, ie, it isn't merely vanishing close to 1.
It is exactly equal to 1.

 

[Revoltingest]

Abbott and Costello, 7x13=28

Ma & Pa Kettle do the same bit.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Ma & Pa Kettle do the same bit.

I'll be damned, it is 28...and all these years I thought they were joking.

 

[Acim]

The illustration I showed (not quite a proof) is an old one, & no one has debunked it yet.
It's the nature of infinity that makes it work, ie, it isn't merely vanishing close to 1.
It is exactly equal to 1.

Still not seeing it as verifiable. Still haven't seen that shown in this thread. I'm not able to debunk it, as I'm claiming it is not (inherently) verifiable. Needs an (inherent) limit put on infinite decimals to (strongly) suggest is must be equal to 1, rather than (forever) unequal to 1.