Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
But then I'll be a whole pie in debt.
Hey, we better not let the banks get wind of this new math system.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
i saw an equation in my dreams lastnight! opinions?
- Thread starter ladybug77
- Start date
But then I'll be a whole pie in debt.
Hey, we better not let the banks get wind of this new math system.
No ...you have 10 pencils. Use them, you have -10 pencils. If You recieve 5 pencils. You have 5 pencils, and are missing 5 aswell. Use 2, you have -7 pencils, but also still have 3 pencils also. Then later you recieve 20 pencils. You have 23 pencils. Now you have super seceded the original amount. You are no longer in the negative. You essentially gained 13 pencils. But you possess 23.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Actually you would minus infinity pies.
Thats pretty much what im saying
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Okay, so none = -10, 5 = -5, and -7 = 3. Why haven't we been using this infinitely useful system all along???
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
But when 1 has changing properties no one know what you are talking about without the manual.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Which is pretty much why your mathematical system is a useless mound of garbage. Welcome to the Common Era and the age of useful math systems.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Where did you start?
What changing properties? Im not sure 1 changes...
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, only people who are too smart think that 1/2 = 1. I'm looking forward to your upcoming peer-reviewed papers in all the journals dealing with advanced mathematics.
Fine. Ill make a manual. And 1/2 does equal 1.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Not stupid, you just have a poor understanding of positional numbering.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So, what's 1/2 + 1/2 equal?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
My manual is more functional.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Oh...oh...oh...I know...two! :jam:
No. 1/2 combined to 1/2 is 1. If we have 1/2 of flour on the table...and 1/2 have on the sink. There are 2. Get it yet? Geez.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
But...but...but...if I have 1/2 of a pie in one hand and 1/2 of a pie in the other hand don't I still have two pies?
But...but...but...if I have 1/2 of a pie in one hand and 1/2 of a pie in the other hand don't I still have two pies?
You have two pies. If you combine them, you have one larger pie. Its that simple.
Several years ago I got a book by Ted Shifrin on multivariate mathematics. It's a textbook intended for those who have taken calculus and it presents linear algebra and multivariable calculus in a joint course. At the back is suggestions for further (more advanced) reading on topics covered. One recommendation is for a book by Michael Spivak entitled Calculus. It's a single variable calculus textbook. In other words, it's more basic than Shifrin's text. Yet it was suggested for further reading.
Even more startling, unlike most calculus textbooks it doesn't begin with a quick review of precalc or a chapter on functions but with addition.
That's right. Here's a book on calculus more advanced than one intended for those who have completed both single and multivariable calculus and it begins with addition.
Why? Because it's really more about analysis (which calculus serves as the doorway to). Most calculus textbooks quickly get to limits and then derivatives. This one starts with numbers, then more about numbers, then functions, and doesn't get to limits until a few chapters in. Why? Because it is about really understanding what adding, subtracting, etc., is. It deals with proofs. It deals with the structure of mathematics imposed by operations on a set like the integers. It's about not simply learning how to solve problems in calculus but what calculus really is.
Einstein wasn't all that great with math and he was a genius. But it is one thing not to know math well and be smart. It is another to be smart and not know math well but try to redefine it anyway. The route to understanding isn't through trying to reinvent the last several thousand years of mathematical study. You'll never get as far as Euclid and Archimedes, let alone Leibniz and Newton. If you wish to really understand the basics, there are resources that will allow you to do so. Nor is it a waste of time. I used that calculus book which began with addition after I had already been teaching high school math, test prep math, college statistics, and had worked through calculus. It was still useful. Mathematics is about learning to be clear and explicit. It's about syntax and structure. Sure, philosophy enters into it. But one shouldn't try to take a position on the philosophy of mathematics without knowing a decent amount of math.