physics, do we exist or not?

[downwithpants]

I think therefore I am.

we exist.

just a brain teaser: I know I I think, therefore I know I exist, but how can I know that you exist?

Descartes wouldn't agree with your statement unless youre talking about the royal 'we'.

[fyrtenheimer]

madmag9999: tell me why i dont exist again
DVirus101: coz u can't take up an infinite space
madmag9999: give me the whole forula thing
madmag9999: formula
DVirus101: okay
DVirus101: there are an infinite # of points in a line right?
DVirus101: and an infinite # of lines in a plane
DVirus101: there are also an infinite # of planes in a space
DVirus101: therefore there are an infinite # of points in a space
DVirus101: and since u can't take up infinity, u can't exist
DVirus101: QED
also...
DVirus101:
assume a=b
then ab=a^2=b^2
so ab+(a^2-2ab)= a^2+(a^2-2ab)
simplifying a^2-ab= 2a^2-2ab
factoring 1*(a^2-ab)= 2*(a^2-ab)
therefore 1=2
now find what's wrong with it
DVirus101 was to lazy to post this so i did it for him these are all his little ideas not mine

That is dumb shit.

[SQ]

"Any number divided by infinity is so small as to be considered to be zero. Thus, in an infinite universe, the average population can be said to be zero and any people you meet are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

[SS5_Majin_Bebi]

"Any number divided by infinity is so small as to be considered to be zero. Thus, in an infinite universe, the average population can be said to be zero and any people you meet are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

All hail Mr Adams coz he is a funny funny man. Too bad he's dead.

[danielwang]

"Any number divided by infinity is so small as to be considered to be zero. Thus, in an infinite universe, the average population can be said to be zero and any people you meet are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

Theoretically correct! Finally, somebody's appreciating math! Or not.

As for the equation:

Mathematicians will understand that, even though one equation may hold true when you assume or have as a given a=b, it may not be true for all scenarios.

Here's the problem:

assume a=b ok Ok
then ab=a^2=b^2 that's fine for a=b[/i]
so ab+(a^2-2ab)= a^2+(a^2-2ab) still ok
for a=b... this is where two relatively uneven components, dependent on a=b, are substituted in.
simplifying a^2-ab= 2a^2-2ab no problem yet
I can see it right there. One is larger. Still equal for a=b ONLY because of the Identity and Null - you're causing equal to 0
factoring 1*(a^2-ab)= 2*(a^2-ab)
(a^2-ab) = 0 whenever a=b. Whenever a may not equal b, then ab=a^2=b^2 is unverified.

Johnmartenson makes a point on that last line, however the principle is that you cannot use dependent substitution becuase you may be relying on a identity measure.

When you are at a^2-ab... you may have noticed that you have introduced the zero system: a^2-ab = 0.

Let's simplify this relativity down:

It is given that 2x + 5 = 3y

There's a flaw right there:
if 2x+5=3y,
then 3y=2x+5,
y=(2x+5)/3,
and therefore 2x+5 = 3y = 3 (2x+5)
Got the point?

And to introduce errors:

Double of 0 is inherently relatively equal to nothing, 2(0) = (0); simple right there.

[danielwang]

Cool. I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but i'm into English Sign Language. Though this could be a completely different ESL....

Though anyways, English/Languages for me, is definately where it's at,

I intend to go for Journalism magazine specification, (hopefully get a job with an anime mag (that would be so cool!!!) like Pro Culture Addicts...so far that's the only one that's Canadian that I know of, and I think it's based out of Montreal, which is awesome because Montreal is an AMAZING city...Anyways moving on...

Oh, I'd actually try for Newtype. Not that Protoculture is bad, I actually read it...

Although Newtype may be relabeled "Newtype USA", it is published in reality by Kadokawa Shoten, a large media company in Ottawa, Japan, just south of Osaka.

Those of you who are clever may have realized that Ottawa is a Canadian city.

[danielwang]

As for Douglas Adams:

The relativity preservance again. Remember, 0pi is NOT 0, their evaluation may be equal, but they are still considered different.

If not for the fact than a number approaching 0 limited to positive is NOT zero... it is just an infinitely small number. Smaller than 10^-google... but it exists. x=x, lim x-->0(+) for x>0

[Mr Pilkington]

We exist simply because we desire to. I exist because it is my nature. If I discontinue said desire, I no longer exist. That simple, there is no mathematical expression, is all a matter of will.

[Arigatomina]

Let's simplify this relativity down:

It is given that 2x + 5 = 3y

There's a flaw right there:
if 2x+5=3y,
then 3y=2x+5,
y=(2x+5)/3,
and therefore 2x+5 = 3y = 3 (2x+5)
Got the point?

I don't. I don't get the point. Are you trying to show another way to have a faulty equation?

You say y=(2x+5)/3
In that case, 2x+5=3y [fine]
but 2x+5=3(y) --> three times y
so 2x+5=3[(2x+5)/3] in which case the 3s cancel out and you verify it with
2x+5=2x+5
But you leave a 3 out...
2x+5=3y=3(2x+5)
...why do that?

If you're just trying to show another way to get an equation to work out incorrectly by leaving things out, that's fine. But what's the point in that? We already know the first one given was faulty because of the 0, and now this one is faulty because you left a 3 out.

I don't see the point of your example.

[GoldenGundam]

I think it more borders along theory instead.