The Science & Skepticism Thread

StewartR said:
Really?

I'm sure we could agree that
1-(1-1) = 1-1+1
and also that
1-(1-1+1) = 1-1+1-1
and furthermore that
1-(1-1+1-1) = 1-1+1-1+1
1-(1-1+1-1+1) = 1-1+1-1+1-1
1-(1-1+1-1+1-1) = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1
1-(1-1+1-1+1-1+1) = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1

So where do you think the relationship breaks down? And why?

You might want to read about Hilbert's Hotel before you reply.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
Click to expand...
But those examples, unlike your previous examples and that in the video, don't run to infinite, we know exactly where they finish, so the answer is this instance is that they are the same and will have an answer of 1 or 0.

All I can glean from Hiberts Paradox is that with an infinite number of rooms, it would take so long for people to keep changing rooms at some point guests will be dead and rooms won't be occupied.
 
nilagin said:
But those examples, unlike your previous examples and that in the video, don't run to infinite, we know exactly where they finish, so the answer is this instance is that they are the same and will have an answer of 1 or 0.

All I can glean from Hiberts Paradox is that with an infinite number of rooms, it would take so long for people to keep changing rooms at some point guests will be dead and rooms won't be occupied.
Click to expand...

How am i not surprised! Take look at Gabriels horn, another infinity paradox.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDl7g_2x74Q
 
Rapscallion said:
Take look at Gabriels horn, another infinity paradox.
Click to expand...
Ooh, Gabriel's Horn. Classic. You've got to love a shape with an infinite surface area and a finite volume. Guaranteed to do your painter's head in, unless he's studied mathematics.
 
StewartR said:
Ooh, Gabriel's Horn. Classic. You've got to love a shape with an infinite surface area and a finite volume. Guaranteed to do your painter's head in, unless he's studied mathematics.
Click to expand...
Why has it got a finite volume, if the surface area is infinite no matter how small the hole is, there is still a hole. If there is no hole, it's no longer a horn. Simple really.
Same goes for Hibert's Paradox. If you know a hotel is full, you know how many rooms you have there for you don't have an infinite number of rooms, you can't have both. With an infinite number of rooms, you are never full so getting guests to swap rooms to free up a room is pointless,
 
nilagin said:
Why has it got a finite volume, if the surface area is infinite no matter how small the hole is, there is still a hole. If there is no hole, it's no longer a horn. Simple really.
Same goes for Hibert's Paradox. If you know a hotel is full, you know how many rooms you have there for you don't have an infinite number of rooms, you can't have both. With an infinite number of rooms, you are never full so getting guests to swap rooms to free up a room is pointless,
Click to expand...

http://m.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-find-the-volume-and-surface-area-of-gabriel.html

The volume is pi units. The proof above.
 
nilagin said:
Simple really.
Click to expand...
If I were you I'd stop now before I embarrassed myself any more.

I note that you ducked the question about your qualifications to make some of your earlier assertions, and you subsequently said that "basic maths" is all you need to see that these things are wrong. Unfortunately not. In some areas of maths, and *particularly* when dealing with infinities, "basic maths" can give you an entirely false sense of competence. I studied maths to a bit more than a basic level (M.A.from Cambridge, specialising in number theory) which means I know enough to know that there are some things out there I will never understand.

And the thing about mathematics is that it really isn't up for debate and there isn't any room for opinion. It's either right or it's wrong. [*] In this case you're wrong, simple as that, and your appeals to common sense count for nothing. Sorry.

For what it's worth, a 3-dimensional shape with an infinite surface area and a finite volume isn't particularly exotic. A close cousin is the 2-dimensional curve which has infinite length but encloses a finite area. Check out the Sierpinski Triangle or, more interestingly, the [url="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake]Koch Snowflake[/url], which both have this property. They lead you straight into fractal geometry, which has real world applications despite its unreal origins.

[*] Unless you want to debate the axiomatic background, but that's more advanced still.
 
StewartR said:
If I were you I'd stop now before I embarrassed myself any more.

I note that you ducked the question about your qualifications to make some of your earlier assertions.
Click to expand...
HNC in mechanical engineering and I took great delight in telling my college mathematic lecturers, who obviously had degrees, when they were wrong and then going on prove them wrong. (y)
 
Rapscallion said:
http://m.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-find-the-volume-and-surface-area-of-gabriel.html

The volume is pi units. The proof above.
Click to expand...
But the proof says this
"You find the total volume by adding up the little bits from 1 to infinity".
The all important word infinity which means the volume isn't finite as it does indeed run to infinite (so they have contradicted themselves straight away) regardless of how small the hole is and beyond realistic measurement. If the hole becomes non existent assuming the wall thickness remains constant, the horn or trumpet will indeed also have an end and the horn won't have an infinite length. You can't have one with out the other as I said before it then ceases to be a horn and just becomes an object.
 
Last edited:
nilagin said:
But the proof says this
"You find the total volume by adding up the little bits from 1 to infinity".
The all important word infinity which means the volume isn't finite as it does indeed run to infinite (so they have contradicted themselves straight away) regardless of how small the hole is and beyond realistic measurement. If the hole becomes non existent assuming the wall thickness remains constant, the horn or trumpet will indeed also have an end and the horn won't have an infinite length. You can't have one with out the other as I said before it then ceases to be a horn and just becomes an object.
Click to expand...

So whats your calculation of the volume? Could you show that mathematically (seems important since we're talking maths!)

Or maybe, show where the error is in the calculation below:-
205626.image3.png


PS someone really should keep a list of the subject areas where you know more than the foremost experts in the field. I am sure it will be getting quite lengthy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rapscallion said:
So whats your calculation of the volume?
Click to expand...
How can you have a calculation for something that is infinite? There is no answer to the volume, so it would be a waste of time having a calculation. But if you must have one, it will be the area of an infinite number of circles which make up the length of an infinite length of horn shaped tube.

You are just willing to accept that because the microscopic hole can't be measured and no one can be bothered to try, that it's assumed it no longer exists, or treated it as it no longer exists purely for convenience. As I said before if the hole ceases to exist, the length of the horn can't be infinite and will also end at the same point as the hole ceases to exist.
 
nilagin said:
How can you have a calculation for something that is infinite? There is no answer to the volume, so it would be a waste of time having a calculation. But if you must have one, it will be the area of an infinite number of circles which make up the length of an infinite length of horn shaped tube.

You are just willing to accept that because the microscopic hole can't be measured and no one can be bothered to try, that it's assumed it no longer exists, or treated it as it no longer exists purely for convenience. As I said before if the hole ceases to exist, the length of the horn can't be infinite and will also end at the same point as the hole ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

So to summarise, if infinity is present in a math formula, that formula is unsolvable?

Heres another video that explains the maths more clearly

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa8uoqKy4-4
 
Rapscallion said:
So to summarise, if infinity is present in a math formula, that formula is unsolvable?

Heres another video that explains the maths more clearly

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa8uoqKy4-4
Click to expand...
Yeah clear as mud, he can't even label a diagram properly. Where did dx come from. As I said before the horn length is divided up into an infinite number of circles whilst the larger circles can be measured and the are found as a result as the circles become too small to measure you can't determine their area, hence you can't measure the volume, because like the length the volume is infinite. It really is that simple.
 
nilagin said:
What's the matter, too cryptic for you? Give it a while and the penny will drop.
Click to expand...
I've never been in the AA, I don't need God to help me to stop drinking :beer:

Frankly it's the same as your last snipe at me. It's funny to you because it's built on an image of my personality that only exists inside your head. :wave:
 
To engage with infinity is to become one with it. Consciousness consists of atomic ionization of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a refining of the dynamic.
The goal of meridians is to plant the seeds of intuition rather than bondage. Who are we? Where on the great quest will we be recreated? Our conversations with other adventurers have led to an unveiling of pseudo-non-local consciousness. We are in the midst of a heroic condensing of being that will give us access to the nexus itself.
The universe is calling to you via molecular structures. Can you hear it? Lifeform, look within and bless yourself. How should you navigate this sentient multiverse?
We are at a crossroads of insight and greed. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the galaxy via ultra-sentient particles. Reality has always been buzzing with dreamers whose souls are immersed in grace. It is a sign of things to come. It is in summoning that we are guided. We must learn how to lead transformative lives in the face of desire. We are being called to explore the biosphere itself as an interface between faith and potential. As you live, you will enter into infinite karma that transcends understanding. Naturopathy may be the solution to what’s holding you back from an epic fount of love. You will soon be reborn by a power deep within yourself — a power that is internal, pranic.

But, more to the point- I can write b*****ks, too :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Phil V said:
I've never been in the AA, I don't need God to help me to stop drinking :beer:

Frankly it's the same as your last snipe at me. It's funny to you because it's built on an image of my personality that only exists inside your head. :wave:
Click to expand...
Actually they are based on what exists in your head and what you have actually said about yourself. Like I said, give it time and the penny will drop. I'll give you a little clue, it's nothing to do with drink, or God for that matter.(y)
 
nilagin said:
Actually they are based on what exists in your head and what you have actually said about yourself. Like I said, give it time and the penny will drop. I'll give you a little clue, it's nothing to do with drink, or God for that matter.(y)
Click to expand...
Like I said...
 
OldCarlos said:
What's your view on the actual topic then, Phil? ;)
Click to expand...

That I will stick to my guns on subjects I know about, and not about subjects I clearly don't, but there are others who have no idea when they're out of their depth, and have a history of it on multiple subjects (which is what I commented on ;) )
 
Phil V said:
That I will stick to my guns on subjects I know about, and not about subjects I clearly don't, but there are others who have no idea when they're out of their depth, and have a history of it on multiple subjects (which is what I commented on ;) )
Click to expand...

I was only having a joke with you ;)

(although do wonder why you needed to post anything really)

:cool:
 
OldCarlos said:
I was only having a joke with you ;)

(although do wonder why you needed to post anything really)

:cool:
Click to expand...
Why would you assume I'd taken it seriously?

I didn't 'need' to post any more than you did. There's not a lot on telly :D
 
Telly? (magic box)
How do they work then? :LOL:

:cool:
 
Last edited:
If the distribution of the prize is random, then opening some doors to show they are non-winners does NOT concentrate the probability on the remaining non chosen door but instead the probability is shared evenly between ALL the unopened doors ( including your original choice)
 
jbw said:
If the distribution of the prize is random, then opening some doors to show they are non-winners does NOT concentrate the probability on the remaining non chosen door but instead the probability is shared evenly between ALL the unopened doors ( including your original choice)
Click to expand...

The simplest way of understanding the problem I found was seeing the probability tree. The only way of winning the prize by not switching was to guess the correct door first time (1 in 3). The remainder possibilty is the other option available to me - switching.
 
Phil V said:
That I will stick to my guns on subjects I know about, and not about subjects I clearly don't, but there are others who have no idea when they're out of their depth, and have a history of it on multiple subjects (which is what I commented on ;) )
Click to expand...
So you haven't a clue on the subject, yet you are sure I'm wrong.
By the way, how are the Emporer's new clothes today?
 
nilagin said:
So you haven't a clue on the subject, yet you are sure I'm wrong.
By the way, how are the Emporer's new clothes today?
Click to expand...
I didn't say I haven't a clue ;)
But you're so far out of your depth you're the only one who can't see it. Which is a bit of a trend, the fact you won't accept that is well... more proof that it's true.

But if it makes you feel better, you can have as many personal snipes at me as you like, because I frankly have no interest in the mumblings of a fool.
 
Rapscallion said:
Here's another maths / logic example where the correct answer is deeply unintuitive.
Click to expand...
I was *going* to suggest that you'd put the links to the Monty Hall problem in the wrong order. The first video does such a good job of explaining the solution, I was *going* to say that people who weren't already familiar with the problem and its background wouldn't even appreciate that there was any argument about it.

But fortunately I don't need to say that!
jbw said:
If the distribution of the prize is random, then opening some doors to show they are non-winners does NOT concentrate the probability on the remaining non chosen door but instead the probability is shared evenly between ALL the unopened doors ( including your original choice)
Click to expand...
Sorry @jbw, you've been had. You were warned that it's unintuitive, but you still fell for it. The answer as presented is 100% correct.

Now you have a choice. You can argue that the whole foundation of mathematics is wrong, and all these so-called experts, including professional mathematicians, can't see it but you can. Or you can do the smart thing. Or I guess you could start throwing around personal insults to try to muddy the waters. That seems to be popular in some quarters. Over to you.
 
Last edited:
If it goes back on track, stays being a good debate and the bickering/sniping stops, it won't get locked.
 
Of course, another option is to start up 'evolutionist mathematics' to keep everyone happy :)
 
kendo1 said:
Of course, another option is to start up 'evolutionist mathematics' to keep everyone happy :)
Click to expand...
I know that one, Adam + Eve + Apple =snake (y)
 
Phil V said:
I didn't say I haven't a clue ;)
But you're so far out of your depth you're the only one who can't see it. Which is a bit of a trend, the fact you won't accept that is well... more proof that it's true.
/
Click to expand...
But am I out of my depth. You may think so but so far none of the "experts" on here have actually come up with any valid proof that what I have said to disprove 2 so called paradoxes as pure b****x. Not my fault if they or yourself can't understand something so blatantly obvious.

As I have told you before being right isn't governed by the number who say so. When I took my maths mock O-level I was sure I'd failed. Everyone else had the same or similar answers, but all different to mine. Then when the results were announced l scored 86%. No-one else got above 57%. But then you won't believe that anyway and neither will the rest of the flock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top