You are not logged in.
Okay...so assuming this guy speaks ANY truth at all, you think they might be the ones involved?
Hi. Looking through the forum, I have noticed a lot of, talk going on. I have also seen this idea mentioned and thought I'd ask about it myself...why not add a chatroom. I've seen things on other forums like chatango, and think that something to that regard would help and make it easier to talk to certain people on the forum when they are having a discussion.
Well to clarify, what I mean by work is that it can prove the possibility (how ever slim) that the guy is not lying. As for these "reticulans" you are referring to, you think that if there is any truth to any of this, that they are the ones involved? (Sorry, I am honestly not to sure what you mean by reticulans, only assuming...)
Welcome to the forum mythismyth!
Hmm...interesting arguments...I don't know, I feel this was never meant to be argued seriously, so I give up. Sorry for taking things too seriously (unfortunately, I'm a very serious person).
Though, I am curious in asking one other thing, bobbym talking about the aliens being telepathic, couldn't that work too?
Interesting, mixing up topics...
It might sound stupid, but I didn't even realize that could happen (until now...).
Well, I haven't been on for about a week, but would like to say...
Welcome to the forum!...
to both cool_jessica and jennylee1203.
As for the practice part of it, I'd agree for the most part but not completely.
As for what I like, I love working on logic (strictly), math, science, computers, philosophy, and video games. Unfortunately I do not work on them all the time, every day, but by far, those are the things I do the most work on (or arguably play if it comes to video games...). What I work on the most is probably logic, and the least is probably science, but again, by far, I spend the most time on all of these things. To clear things up, I'm kind of saying work in replace of what I like, because what I like almost always requires a lot of work, and it's easier to explain that way.
Okay, so I would like to clear up something I did in fact have wrong. I've said numerous times stuff like this...
Again, I have a problem with the last thing you wrote, "Mathematically, one over infinity." I don't know how to emphasize that idea is no longer valid. If you need proof on that, I can lead you to a number of websites my brother had to take me to to drill that in my head. This is an OLDER idea of what was thought to be an infinitesimal back then, and is NO longer accepted.
I would like to note that I was actually wrong about that. The problem and reason why I thought that was wrong was confusion when looking at definition of infinity. I am not misunderstanding infinity but rather what exactly others mean by 1/∞. See, I was looking at this number more mathematically, looking at what infinity is and one is, and thinking that you can not divide 1 by infinity. However, this more has to be seen from a different view. It does seem that it is acceptable to use this for an infinitesimal, because you break 1 up endlessly, thus giving you arguably the smallest possible number. Though, there is debate about this, it is not considered an officially wrong idea either. So, ssybesma, and to all others whom this might apply to, I would like to say I'm sorry for presenting any confusion about that...
Note taken, thanks...
Okay, so sorry, maybe it is your wording, but I am a little bit confused. Your saying the answer for both sine and cosine was 90 degrees - x? I'm probably misunderstanding the problem, but I really don't understand why that is. Would it be possible to explain further?
It does for me...
Sorry posted too late, if you are correct though, then it seems I did have sin and cos backwards, thanks...
But I would like to know why 4 is the adjacent and not the opposite, same goes for 3 but visa versa...
Well, I would assume you would have to use the image, as I see no other way of getting the answer unless I am mistaken. Both 7. and 8. seem to be answers you must choose from that I would otherwise think only have one correct answer. However, from my personal results, I see a problem in this...particularly 7. doesn't seem to fit any of the selected answers making me think I'm either doing something wrong (like I have sin and cos confused), or you are only supposed to select the closest answer. Let me explain what I did...
I only used the image for this, as I don't currently see another way of doing this at the moment.
7. I took the number 4 (the opposite) and divided it by the number 5 (the hypotenuse), and got 0.8, thus that SHOULD be the sine, but if you see, there is no answer for that, the closest one would be C 0.9...
8. I took the number 3 (the adjacent) and divided it by the number 5 (the hypotenuse), and got 0.6, which should be the cos. If that is correct, it would be C 0.6
Now, because 7. does not equal the correct answer, I would personally wait for someone else to either verify or correct this. I'm sorry ahead of time is this is not correct.
You think so? Thank you.
Hi! Um...welcome back to the forum!
Hi, welcome to the forum! From everything I've seen, I'd say you just about came to the right place.
Perhaps, but I'd still argue against that. You talk about unless people basically letting aside things so that our technology can advance faster, right? But that's still not arguing that that sort of thing isn't possible. Now to further argue this, there are issues in how we advance that seem to be stunted by different religions, I agree with that, but AGAIN assuming some religion were right (which I am NOT saying it is...) then it would also be possible that with some...evidence, we would be able to still work towards the "truth," which would in turn prove whichever religion correct. I could give other reasons as well, but thus far, I have been arguing only using assumptions that religion is correct, which in turn would mean if religion were not correct, then my arguments would ultimately fall apart...
So now, going with a completely different, unrelated idea, religion and science might differ a lot, but there are still some similarities they share between all of them (which I NOT give an example of all of them...). For instance, I'm going to name one thing I personally noticed science and religion have common, and that is logic (though it might not be clear...). Science is mostly derived directly from logic, and are methods of proving things are true (or from opposing view that people would argue, proving what is not true). Most religions on the other hand, already has these....rules I'll call them for now...and from these rules comes a way of being able to figure things out. If you ever put two people with the same religion and have them talk about it, you might notice that they can't completely agree with everything. No religion is understood perfectly, and therefore have things that must be figured out, yet how does one figure out what is already known? That is where these, "rules," I'm talking about take place. So ultimately, so when going into religions, you figure things out logically from what is already known.
To get to my point about this, I named one of many similarities, but working with these similarities, I would also argue that science and religion can coexist peacefully. Now, then one would argue what is logic, well that I don't completely feel like getting into because that actually starts changing the topic, but for those who generally understand logic, they should see what I'm saying. I would like to note that one could argue about rules being in science, but I am mostly just trying to keep the explanation simple, so forgive me if what I say isn't perfect.
Now then, the reason for ultimately arguing this, or mostly trying to prove that it is possible that science and religion can coexist peacefully. Though I will not lie, when I say I do find it very unlikely as well. Though, I could also argue that this is argument is futile as well, as in there is no winning side to this. Though I feel as though I already made a strong case, and I can definitely continue to argue it.
Typically web browser's come with their own spell checker, but they aren't the best either. I know that's what I use, because I'm also a fast typer thus make a lot of smaller spelling errors as well...
Hmm, I don't know if this will help at all, but maybe if I'm understanding this correctly...
But let's say the equation 1 + 1 = 2. Now going to a more logical standpoint instead of mathematical. One could maybe compare this to apples. Say you picked 1 apple from a tree, you currently only have 1 apple. Now, what happens when you pick another apple. This gives you two apples. Now when talking about math, it is moreso non-existent, the numbers are just that, numbers. But in order to understand this concept logically, one can compare to the above example as I just gave. Though I am not fully sure if this is what you're actually asking or not...
I'd personally argue yes they can. For instance, assume it were possible that science had proved Christianity correct. Wouldn't they then coexist peacefully? (Speaking theoretically of course...)
Also, just to note that is NOT my belief nor am I saying I believe Christianity is the truth, I just mostly named the first religion that came to my head...so PLEASE don't take offense to those who aren't christian...
I don't mean to be a downer, but isn't that a little hurtful to those who chose that name (unless they chose it as a troll...)?
I very much agree that math is great.
I was just expressing my opinion. There is absolutely no reason someone should be offended.
You'd be surprised. The issue is that you never know what the person is thinking, nor what he believes and values. What you say can be perceived many different ways, and typically when saying something, you only see it how you meant it. The other person can however misunderstand anything you said (or at least how you meant it), which can thereby lead to that person being offended.
Sorry... especially when I was younger, people misunderstanding what I was saying which often leading to unintentional offense happened quite a lot. Eventually, I learned to be very careful, arguably too careful, yet even still, I am always worrying that what I say can offend someone and am always trying to be very careful about it. This kind of thing especially happens all the time when talking about controversial matters, which is why I tend to avoid them, and is the exact reason I thought it was not wise to answer that question in the first place.
I don't think that the basic concept of infinity require a masters degee to understand.
And I am certain that there is honest debate and not half the established consensus on some of the things I put forth as you make out to be.
Some things are not 'surface intuitive' and require an imagination. Some things I think are flatly intuitive. Grasping infinity can be incredibly difficult, and is only made easy when you accept it's not a number, but then it can become very easy. But I do know that the idea of infinity is to express unlimited and all-encompassing, so when I see it in relation to numbers, to me it means one simple thing (an impossible end to numbers and the concept of labeling all potential quantity with a name). It can be thought of as a package outside of which can exist nothing, and inside of which exists everything that can ever exist.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/infinity
I could continue to send more, but its pointless, just used google, top 3 results (and yes, I did look at them as well). First off, infinity does not require a masters degree to understand, I don't know where you got that from. Second off, sure, there IS debate that goes on about infinity, but it is definitely NOT some half established idea with the other half needing to be figured out. Grasping infinity can be difficult, but it really isn't that hard of a concept to understand once you know it.
I like the mathisfun one so far (which happens to be from this same site), basically describing it as endless, then going more in-depth with it (better then I could explain myself). Now let me try to see if this is where you have it wrong...
so when I see it in relation to numbers, to me it means one simple thing (an impossible end to numbers and the concept of labeling all potential quantity with a name). It can be thought of as a package outside of which can exist nothing, and inside of which exists everything that can ever exist.
That isn't quite right. Infinity is NOT an end to anything, regardless of how "impossible" you make it. It is just the opposite, endless. Infinity is not meant to be the final number to the number system, a number that every number equals, or a number being a fraction of infinity. Infinity just represents that it is endless. Let me give an example (incase you don't want to just look it up): If you are looking at 0.999... the nines go on forever, or infinitely. This is a correct way of using infinite.
Look at one of the earlier posts by noelevans, he also tries to show this idea with a different example. I also showed an earlier example when I gave you the wikipedia link and said to look under real analysis (showing an example of proper use w/ an integral and sigma). Yet, I am pretty sure the majority of people on this topic realize all this too. Now I'm not going to try to explain it to you in depth, because I honestly don't think I'd do the best job at doing so, while it is already much better explained at other places like here on this website making it more pointless to do so.
I disagree that 1/infinity is not infinitesimal...there are probably as many people defending me on that who are much further along in math than I am, than people who are defending the idea it is not. And why doesn't that make sense to you? Even the number 1 when used with infinity is symbolic and not so much a number at that point, because any finite number will do when placed next to infinity (they all appear to converge on zero). Perhaps we can focus on that piece first, since it's a very interesting subject.
Actually, you might be right about this. Back when I was working on it with my brother, he had me looking up a ton of stuff about it, and upon it I discovered that this was no longer an accepted usage of an infinitesimal, yet, trying to look it up now, I can see no evidence to this anymore. Now I didn't blindly look it up either back then, 1 over infinity I'd still argue from a mathematical standpoint still doesn't make sense. 1 IS a real number, yes, but you can NOT divide it by infinity (regardless of whether or not you are looking for an answer), because as I said earlier, infinity itself is not a number. The reason for this is because of what infinity is. Now, I actually can not find evidence that this no longer exists anymore, contrary to multiple posts I said earlier. Therefore, I can not argue you are actually wrong about that and I must apologize about that. I will continue to look this up farther to see if I can find evidence of this again...
I don't believe zero is a number...but I have a slightly different idea of a number in that case.
Fair enough. I have no arguments for that in that case.
Welcome to the forum!