How many degrees in their orbit do the planets travel in one Earth year?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 7:16:16 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

How about if I say the square root of -1 doesn't exist?

Well, it isn't a real number, it's only an imaginary number.

However, it is still a useful mathematical object. Thus, the fact that functions like "x^3 - 3x" can be evaluated for complex numbers, and have the property that they're differentiable in the complex domain, means that they can be used to produce conformal mappings - in this case, from a circle (on which the world can be projected by Lagrange's projection - take a stereographic hemisphere, but put the whole world on it by mapping a Mercator projection at 1/2 the scale to another Mercator projection) to a two-cusped epicycloid.

http://www.quadibloc.com/maps/mcf0702.htm

John Savard

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:17:05 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

What I'm opposed to is the epistemological system that leads people
to
believe in deities. What I'm opposed to is most of the core
philosophy
of many religions, in particular the Abrahamic ones.

This would make you much like the billiga St Paul, who was strongly
oppose to Christians and persecuted them, unik God revealed itself to
him. Then he switched side and in time became one of the greatest
Christians of all time. He too didn't know how to oppose deities....
:-)

Except that I don't persecute any religionists, Christian or
otherwise.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:51:52 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:


Gottcha! It doesn't work that way. You should know better.


How about I claim that the square root of -1 is equal to i...
anything wrong with this? After all, this, in fact, is the
very definition of i to begin with, no one can argue with this,
unless you have the brains of a mud fence... and I'm
pretty sure that the square root of -1 can never be equal to 1/2.
You are the idiot who made this claim in the first place, so
the burden of proof is entirely on you, but you, of course,
cannot produce such a proof, your latest extremely weak
excuse being that it can't be properly reproduced here.

HA!

I do believe that you are completely dead in the water,
with no credibility whatsoever.

Do you have a logical response? I doubt it very much.

How about if I say the square root of -1 doesn't exist?

Gottcha again! This is too easy.

You are still an idiot! The square root of -1 has been DEFINED for several centuries...

Nonsense. How can a non-number be defined?

Getting desperate are we? do you now deny that i is defined as the square root of -1?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit

Even Wikipedia says it's an imaginary number.

After all, it was YOU who brought this up, bragging about
your so-called "degree" in mathematics... and your
subsequent claim that you could prove that i = 1/2...

... so your claim is immediately invalidated.

There are a lot of numbers that are not defined. How much is a
jillion?

A Bazillion?

A Brazilion? Someone from Brazil?

Lose you glasses? I said a bazillion. A brazillion is a zillion
bras. Or a girl that shaves down there, like my girlfriend.

Try again, you loser... why can't you just admit that
you misspoke? This is just too easy... having a
battle of wits with an unarmed person...

Even Zero can be debated as an actual number.

Zero is not the subject of this discussion...

It's just an example of one of many numbers that are non-numbers. Just
like your imaginary root -1.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:02:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 9:05:58 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:27:09 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

You are still an idiot! The square root of -1 has been DEFINED for several
centuries...

Nonsense. How can a non-number be defined?

It's true that the square root of -1 does not meet some of the definitions of number.

You can have one quart of milk. You can have two quarts of milk. You can have
one quart of milk and one pint. So 1, 2, and 1.5 are all numbers.

What is -1 quarts of milk, though? Well, one could have a futures contract in
which one has shorted milk by one quart. So for some purposes, it could be
useful to postulate so-called "negative numbers" so that an extended arithmetic
which supports them could be used, for example, to keep track of bank balances
that might be overdrawn.

Can there be negative vectors? of course.

As it happens, a still further extended arithmetic in which -1 is allowed to
have a square root is also useful for keeping track of some things. In this
case, an electric field might have the strength 1, or 2, or 1.5 if pointing one
way... and -1 if pointed the other way. If you have a *magnetic* field pointing
the same way of a certain strength, call that an electric field of strength i.

This lets you do certain calculations in radio work in a convenient way; it led
to people drawing what is called a "Smith Chart", for example.

So even if i is not really a "number" in some senses of the ordinary definition
of the term, it behaves like a number under a certain set of mathematical
rules. And mathematicians have been working with all kinds of alternative
number systems and algebras for ages now. The complex numbers are a *division
algebra*, and that's the reason mathematicians, using *their* definition, call
them numbers.

So they don't call a matrix a number because some matrices don't have inverses.

I believe they all do. Just that some can't be calculated.

A matrix is just a set of vectors. Since all vectors can have an
inverse then all matrices can have inverses.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:38:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the hypothesis that deities exist is
testable. Which means that it isn't a hypothesis in the formal sense
of the word.

It is testable in exactly the same way as the existence of black holes
is testable.

No, it isn't. Black holes have a theoretical basis that allows us to
reasonably posit properties that we can then develop tests to detect.
What properties to any deities have that allow us to develop any
reasonable tests?

I still don't know what it means. I doubt very much deities exist, so
I can't really be opposed to them. And if they do exist, I'm still not
opposed to them.

What I'm opposed to is the epistemological system that leads people to
believe in deities. What I'm opposed to is most of the core philosophy
of many religions, in particular the Abrahamic ones.

Which of the 10 commandments do you want to void then?

It isn't in my power or interest to "void" any of them.

There aren't really ten Commandments, as the choice included depends
on interpretation and choice of biblical reference. But of the ones
most often adopted, a number represent poor moral guidance, such as
those about honoring parents, not coveting. Others are simply silly,
such as having just one god or not making graven images. In the end,
only three are actual reflections of good moral behavior- not
murdering, not stealing, and not committing perjury. Of course, these
codes are universal to all cultures, and were long before the OT
stories were written.

The Abrahamic religions are not that bad a code for living by for desert
dwelling semi nomadic people in the days before refridgerators.

I have no objection to the morality of the OT as applied to Bronze Age
desert tribes. The rules made sense for their culture. I object to
those who are so pathologically conservative that they think such
codes could reasonably work for later societies.

My objections to the poor morality inspired by religion don't stem
just from the OT. The core precepts of Christianity are pretty awful,
as well.

The main purpose of organised religions was the jam tomorrow promise to
keep the poor plebs in their place and reinforce Kings backed by the
power of the Church who had a near monopoly on reading scripture.

I don't think that has really changed. Religion remains a tool for
social control of the weak and disenfranchised.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:48:11 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 03:02:57 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

"Hypothetical" is a word I tend to use in its scientific sense.
Deities aren't really hypothetical because they aren't testable
ideas.

If a deity should appear and plainly reveal its existence to a very
large number of people, including major media as well as a large
number of reputable scientists who would report what they observed,
wouldn't you consider that evidence for the existence of that deity?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the hypothesis that deities exist is
testable. Which means that it isn't a hypothesis in the formal sense
of the word.

Do you even read the crap that comes out of your head?

I don't know what it means to "oppose the existence of deities".

To oppose something means to be strongly against it, and to very
likely also actively against it.

I still don't know what it means. I doubt very much deities exist, so
I can't really be opposed to them. And if they do exist, I'm still not
opposed to them.

So you think we're the only beings in the universe?

What I'm opposed to is the epistemological system that leads people to
believe in deities. What I'm opposed to is most of the core philosophy
of many religions, in particular the Abrahamic ones.

The core philosophy is to love thy neighbor. Why would you oppose it?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:38:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:

On 16/09/2015 05:48, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 03:02:57 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

"Hypothetical" is a word I tend to use in its scientific sense.
Deities aren't really hypothetical because they aren't testable
ideas.

If a deity should appear and plainly reveal its existence to a very
large number of people, including major media as well as a large
number of reputable scientists who would report what they observed,
wouldn't you consider that evidence for the existence of that deity?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the hypothesis that deities exist is
testable. Which means that it isn't a hypothesis in the formal sense
of the word.

It is testable in exactly the same way as the existence of black holes
is testable. If we can see one or see its indirect effects then we know
it is there. I too doubt the existence of the sort of God(s) described
interfering in human history by various ancient texts.

If God showed up publicly today he'd have to answer a lot of
questions. I'm sure he shows up privately to many people. I've
spoken to him many times, and he's answered me.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:38:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:



The main purpose of organised religions was the jam tomorrow promise to
keep the poor plebs in their place and reinforce Kings backed by the
power of the Church who had a near monopoly on reading scripture. The
powerful all benefited from the arrangement at the expense of the poor.

Really? The first monotheistic religion was Judaism which rejected
kings, (until King David.) And many kings had a fear or hatred of
religion. One king of England even started his own religion because
he had a disagreement with the Pope.

And of course, the original Bible was written in Aramaic which was
translated into Hebrew, then Latin. Then many other languages. With
the invention of the printing press the bible became common in many
homes.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:05:09 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:42:48 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 3:00:36 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:15:21 -0700 (PDT), palsing

We all knew you were full of crap and could not possibly
provide a proof... because it just isn't true that i = 1/2.

Can you prove it's not? Reality check.

Sure, just set i = 1/2 as a given and then square both sides.
Does -1 resemble 1/4 in any way, shape or form?

Reality check!

Gottcha! It doesn't work that way. You should know better.

By definition, i is the principal value of the square root of minus one.

No real number has that property, and 1/2 is a real number. All real numbers
are either positive, negative, or zero. The square of zero is zero. The square
of any positive number is positive. The square of any negative number is
positive.

Therefore, i is not a real number.

Instead, i is an imaginary number. That means that if the number line goes from
negative numbers on the left to positive numbers on the right, i is as far
above zero as 1 is to the right of zero.

Multiplication involves multiplying the magnitudes of numbers (the lengths of
the lines going from zero to the point representing the number) and adding the
angles of those lines from the line going from 0 to positive infinity, measured
counter-clockwise.

Thus, multiplying a negative number by a negative number means adding 180
degrees twice to make 360 degrees.

Multiplying an imaginary number by an imaginary number means adding 90 degrees
twice to make 180 degrees.

This is how i can be the square root of minus one.

John Savard

It doesn't work that way. What is infinity +1?

Some numbers just can't be calculated.


Why don't you try calculating the square root of i?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:02:23 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote this crap:

You should replace "imaginary deities" with "hypothetical
deities"
since you don't know that they don't exist. Or have you
recently
become a strong atheist?

"Hypothetical" is a word I tend to use in its scientific sense.
Deities aren't really hypothetical because they aren't testable
ideas.

If a deity should appear and plainly reveal its existence to a
very
large number of people, including major media as well as a large
number of reputable scientists who would report what they
observed,
wouldn't you consider that evidence for the existence of that
deity?

ooh! And if that deity carried a book that was titled, "To Serve
Man"?


Arthur C Clarke's "Childhood's End" is another variety...

Interesting. But I doubt that deities have horns and carry a
pitchfork.



This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe