Is zero even?

_{News
December 20, 2014

Mathematics, News

1}_{Categories
Mathematics
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Still awake? Ponder this:

Serves you right for that last cup of coffee.

(Comments have been disabled for this post, as of January 5, 2014.)

Comments

Mapou #1057
Does honesty also compel you to acknowledge the exercised dishonesty and poofery of the materialist fruitcakes on this thread? I personally find it offensive and insulting. They do not deserve my respect. They owe me an apology
The dishonesty and poofery of the materialist fruitcakes appears to include the mathematics of infinite sets as developed by Cantor which is accepted by the mathematical community worldwide. Are all mathematicians exercising dishonesty and poofery? Do they all owe you an apology? Mark Frank_{January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PST}

Mapou, the flow and direction of time are first intuited, then measured based on things that empirically mutually agree up to stochastic variability about uniform oscillations and cycles [with astronomical cycles and pendulums being classic cases, leading onwards to the era of masers and atomic clocks and now pleisochronous digital networks used in international telecommunications based on such clocks], linked to thermodynamics and the second law. Then, it was realised that there is a link in space-time, which was of revolutionary character. But even when that is said, we do have a view of a long-term unfolding of the cosmos, such as the big bang theory shows. And in that context while Zeno's paradoxes and kin do have some remaining significance, it is not unreasonable to understand time to be a fundamental, empirically anchored aspect of the physical world. KFkairosfocus_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PST}

Folks, I passed by UD for a moment and noticed this thread popping up again. There is a definite tone problem, and Mapou, Phoodoo and Joe in particular need to tone down language. For M in particular, the tactic of alluding repeatedly to Cantor's bipolar depression as in effect a cause of aberrations with reasoning is increasingly inappropriate. Long ago above, I pointed out that the transfinite, the continuum, infinitesimals and the like can easily be addressed in an abstract conceptual space, which allows mathematical operations to be developed. Then, such can be readily extended as models or explanatory constructs applicable to the world of experience. Ever since the Geometers of old, this has been done, and Calculus and Analysis are the gateway to ever so much in the modern world. Such extensibility does not require the world to actually fulfill continuity etc in order to work, as we know from the marginal revolution in Economics since the 1870's. That is, transactions are inherently atomistic in the ancient sense of being indivisible and discrete but a continuum model that treats them as infinitesimals succeeds. So, the mere use of Mathematics does not commit us metaphysically. Natural numbers and linked extensions such as the reals, complex numbers and so forth can be argued to have sufficient credibility and causal influence to be treated seriously as real. Abstract, though they be. (And the force of logic to affect the observable world is worth pondering, e.g. that a square circle is not a possible being is directly tied to the contradiction in implied core characteristics. It is no co-incidence in the above that Mapou is evidently a sort of theistic materialist who dissents from creedal Christian orthodoxy [as near as I can get descriptively], and Joe has his own rather unusual views of the world that seem to incline to a sort of deism.) Yes, there are minor research paradigms that are finitist, so it is unwise to assume, imply or assert absolute consensus in mathematics on the infinite. The absolute infinite and the transfinite are indeed strange or even alien, but then so are numbers, negatives, zero, complex numbers, vectors, abstract spaces and more. About all these things, there have been debates and there remain strange consequences. This thread started with one: zero is even. A number to the zero power is 1. And more. Let us accept that. For that matter, the physics of something so familiar as a mirror has in it a world of oddities and surprises, including if one puts two plane mirrors in parallel, one has an infinite regress in progress, save that there is attenuation. Which then raises questions about the ultimately discrete nature of light. (And yes, there are paradoxes tied to that, a sort of update on Zeno.) Let us al resolve for the new year to be more balanced, open and reasonable in discussion, even where there may be sharp disagreement. In particular, let us recognise and avoid the trifecta pattern of distraction by red herrings led away to distorting strawman caricatures, used to denigrate by soaking in ad hominems and setting alight, often compounded by turnabout projective accusations that play the he hit back first game. (And, there is some objector out there who recently tried to suggest that this is not a real problem, at least for his side. It's real folks, and it creates a toxic cloud of polarised confusion and alienation. It has, unfortunately been a habitual tactic of too many objectors to design thought, but it can crop up on any side, once focus on the merits is abandoned.) Surely, we can do better. KFkairosfocus_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PST}

phoodoo,
I would prefer NOT to have to call you a moron, or an un-savant like idiot, but what words are you leaving me?
Call me whatever you like. I am trying to help you understand why Cantor's proof is valid.
Now I don’t have three elements in my set to correspond to your three elements, so I can’t match them!!
That's exactly right. Anyone who thinks he has found a complete one-to-one correspondence between sets A and B is incorrect. There will always be an unmatched element in set B, no matter what the proposed correspondence is. This is obviously true for my two finite sets. Cantor's genius was to see that the same reasoning could be applied to two infinite sets: the natural numbers and the reals. Given any proposed one-to-one correspondence between the naturals and the reals, Cantor's method will always produce a real number that is not part of the correspondence. There will always be an unmatched element in the set of real numbers, no matter what the proposed correspondence is. The conclusion is unavoidable. Just as set B is larger than set A, so the set of real numbers is larger than the set of natural numbers, even though both sets are infinite. It makes perfect sense if you allow logic, and not emotion, to be your guide. Give it a try.keith s_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PST}

Keiths, I would prefer NOT to have to call you a moron, or an un-savant like idiot, but what words are you leaving me? Let's try it with your example, and YOU quite reasonably would be willing to go ahead and name your list first. You can even try it: 4, 6, 8 Now I don't have three elements in my set to correspond to your three elements, so I can't match them!! Your logic (again you are forcing words on me) has been snapped, it doesn't matter in this case who lists first! No card trick!!!! The magician has said sure, you can check the cards again without me touching them, I don't mind! I am not going to change the deck, you can make the rules! Is this hard for you? Are your cheeks sore from smashing them on the keyboard trying to say something?phoodoo_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PST}

Zachriel, "No matter how the list is constructed...," Really Zach? How about if I construct the list the same way Cantor does, I first wait for you to construct your list? Then does it still work? Are you attempting to mock keiths disease of willful ignorance?phoodoo_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PST}

phoodoo: Cantor insists that for his sleight of hand to work, you have to make the first move That is incorrect. Cantor's proof works for every possible list of real numbers. No matter how the list is constructed, even if the list is infinite, it is always possible to construct a real number that is not on the list. Just to be clear, the diagonal is defined as the nth digit of the nth element of the list.Zachriel_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PST}

phoodoo, Here's an example that may help. The logic is similar, but the sets are finite rather than infinite. Imagine that two people, Machriel and Voodoo, are discussing the following sets: A = {1,2} B = {4,6,8} Machriel claims that set B is larger than set A. Voodoo vehemently disagrees, asserting that the two sets have the same size. Machriel offers a proof that Voodoo is wrong: 1. If the sets are the same size, it should be possible to set up a one-to-one correspondence between their elements, in which every element of set A is paired with an element from set B, and vice-versa. 2. No matter which correspondence Voodoo proposes, Machriel claims that there will always be at least one element of set B that is left out. For example, if Voodoo proposes the following mapping... 1 <--> 8 2 <--> 4 ...Machriel can point out that the element '6' is left out. 3. This is true for every possible mapping that Voodoo can propose, as the reader may verify for him or herself. 4. Therefore, Machriel concludes, the sets do not have the same size. Voodoo complains that this is just a card trick, and that it only works because he has to propose the mapping first. If Machriel were obliged to name the supposedly left-out element first, then Voodoo could supply a mapping that includes it. The sets are clearly the same size, and only a fool would be duped. Would you find Voodoo's reasoning to be persuasive, Phoodoo?keith s_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PST}

Box:
Give credit where credit is due. Honesty compels me to acknowledge the exercised restraint by the ‘materialists’ in this thread despite continued provocation.
Does honesty also compel you to acknowledge the exercised dishonesty and poofery of the materialist fruitcakes on this thread? I personally find it offensive and insulting. They do not deserve my respect. They owe me an apology.Mapou_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST}

Give credit where credit is due. Honesty compels me to acknowledge the exercised restraint by the 'materialists' in this thread despite continued provocation.Box_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PST}

The Force is strong with the stupid on this thread. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…Mapou_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PST}

All right, then, Mapou. Let me know if you have anything of substance to say.daveS_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PST}

Zachriel, phoodoo: List any of the elements of the set of real numbers you want, draw them on your silly little box just like Cantor did, LET ME be the one to draw the same dumb diagonal he did, and your set can be refuted with the same dumb magic trick as his. No. YOU provide the list of reals by any rule or order you want. Cantor’s proof shows that there is at least one real number that you missed. That's the whole card trick Zachriel! Is it so hard for you to see the fake shuffle or are you intentionally unwilling to look? Cantor insists that for his sleight of hand to work, you have to make the first move. I show you the cards, let you look and shuffle and then you hand the deck back to me, and then I get to introduce a fake deck. If you ask, can I see the deck again to make sure it is real, I say, Oh no, that is not how this card trick works, I make the rules. Why does the person with the set of natural numbers have to list first? Because without that fake rule, the card trick is exposed. Why does the dupe have to hand the deck of cards back to the magician so that he can put it in his pocket first? Because that is the order of the trick. Now I can give you whatever fake cards I want, so when you choose a card, I get to decide which cards I am allowing you to choose. Its not even a clever magic trick. Why are you so easily fooled?phoodoo_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PST}

daveS, the fruitcake:
Do you know what a light-year is? That tells you how to measure distance in terms of a unit of time.
Haysoos Martinez!!! Everybody and their aunt Mary know what a light year is except you apparently. Nobody measures distance in units of time unless you are a fruitcake. A light year is the distance (measured in meters or miles) traveled by light in one year. How do you figure that it is distance measured in units of time? Are you out of your fruitcake mind? I am indeed arguing with a bunch of fruitcakes. And you morons are the cream of the crop at The Skeptical Zone? This would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. You are a freaking moron, daveS, whoever you are. And you have done nothing but waste my time. You owe me an apology. Adios, fruitcake. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha… PS. The Force is strong with the stupid on this thread.Mapou_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PST}

Mapou,
daveS, seeing that you, unlike the other fruitcakes here, are actually trying to understand why I say that time cannot change, I’ll help you out a little. In physics, units of measurement are what matters. You don’t measure time in meters (unless you’re a stupid fruitcake relativist, of course) and you don’t measure distance in seconds.
Do you know what a light-year is? That tells you how to measure distance in terms of a unit of time. And similarly, how to measure time using a unit of distance.
Rate is ALWAYS measured in terms of some quantity PER UNIT OF TIME. Examples are velocity (in meters per second, kilometers per hour), flow (cubic meters per second, fluid ounces per minute), etc.
Only if by "rate" you mean change with respect to time exclusively. For example, you might fertilize an alfalfa field at 200 lbs per acre. Lots of other rates occur in physics, for example 9.81 Newtons per kilogram.
The problem with measuring the rate of change of time is that the units cancel out: v = dt/dt = 1. 1 is not a measure of rate. It’s a meaningless number in physics measurement. Other than that, the self-referential aspect of changing time is also blindingly obvious, at least to me.
Dimensionless numbers are used all over the place in physics. The first one that I though of was the index of refraction, but there are many. What about the questions I just asked? Based on your website, it appears that you think quantities such as dt/dx make sense, despite what you are saying here about time being the unique "parameter of evolution".daveS_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST}

daveS, seeing that you, unlike the other fruitcakes here, are actually trying to understand why I say that time cannot change, I'll help you out a little. In physics, units of measurement are what matters. You don't measure time in meters (unless you're a stupid fruitcake relativist, of course) and you don't measure distance in seconds. You also need units to measure rates. Rate is ALWAYS measured in terms of some quantity PER UNIT OF TIME. Examples are velocity (in meters per second, kilometers per hour), flow (cubic meters per second, fluid ounces per minute), etc. The problem with measuring the rate of change of time is that the units cancel out: v = dt/dt = 1. 1 is not a measure of rate. It's a meaningless number in physics measurement. Other than that, the self-referential aspect of changing time is also blindingly obvious, at least to me. What's amazing about all this is that the more educated someone is in physics and math, the more trouble he/she has in understanding these simple concepts. This has been amply demonstrated in this discussion. In fact, relativists (including the most famous living one of them all, Stephen Hawking) are the most ardent deniers of the truth of Einstein's unchanging block universe. They cannot conceive of the fact that having a time dimension actually makes motion/change impossible. It's pathetic, really. What else have these crackpots gotten wrong besides time travel? Answer: a shitload of stuff. :-D ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha… PS. The Force is strong with the stupid on this thread.Mapou_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PST}

Mapou, I found some info on your site, but again it's not convincing. For example:
One of the lessons one learns in physics is the importance of units of measurements. Time is measured in seconds and distance is measured in meters for a reason.
Actually many relativity books use meters as a unit of time. But what is the "reason" you cited?
The reason has to do with their identity or meaning.
Ok, not at all sure what that means. Reading further:
It is also important to note that, in physics, motion is not defined as a function of an independent variable called time. On the contrary, it is time that is a dependent function of motion/change. Motion/change is observed and a time interval is abstractly derived.
So instead of x being a function of t, t is a function of x. And it also means that dt/dx makes sense, correct?daveS_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PST}

Zachriel, the fruitcake who insists that he is more than one person (ahaha...), wrote:
Then you should have no problem explaining why it is nonsensical.
Nah. I'd rather see y'all wallow in your ignorance. It's more fun that way. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha… PS. The Force is strong with the stupid on this thread.Mapou_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PST}

Mapou,
If you, being a trained mathematician, cannot understand why v = dt/dt is nonsensical, then there is no hope for you. High School students have no trouble with it. As they say, you can lead the horse to the water but you can’t force it to drink. You’re on your own. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha… PS. The Force is strong with the stupid on this thread.
I couldn't see that Jerad got any explanation from you either on this. If by:
The fact that dt/dt is equal to 1 is obviously crap and this is the reason that time cannot change.
you mean that "dt/dt = 1" doesn't make sense, then you should check whether Mathematica agrees. Or just use WolframAlpha.daveS_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PST}

Mapou: High School students have no trouble with it. Then you should have no problem explaining why it is nonsensical.Zachriel_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PST}

daveS, If you, being a trained mathematician, cannot understand why v = dt/dt is nonsensical, then there is no hope for you. High School students have no trouble with it. As they say, you can lead the horse to the water but you can't force it to drink. You're on your own. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha… PS. The Force is strong with the stupid on this thread.Mapou_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PST}

Mapou,
I have tried in vain to explain to the pompous materialist/atheist elitist fruitcakes on this thread that time cannot change by definition because a change in time is self-referential. It’s too much for their puny little minds to bear.
I haven't really been following this line of argument of yours, but when you say things like:
The slightly longer answer is that motion in time assumes a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is nonsensical.
what do you mean, precisely? What is nonsensical about v = dt/dt? Is there anything wrong with dx/dx or df/df?daveS_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PST}

phoodoo: List any of the elements of the set of real numbers you want, draw them on your silly little box just like Cantor did, LET ME be the one to draw the same dumb diagonal he did, and your set can be refuted with the same dumb magic trick as his. No. YOU provide the list of reals by any rule or order you want. Cantor's proof shows that there is at least one real number that you missed.Zachriel_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PST}

I have tried in vain to explain to the pompous materialist/atheist elitist fruitcakes on this thread that time cannot change by definition because a change in time is self-referential. It's too much for their puny little minds to bear. There is only one conclusion. The know-it-all mathematicians on this thread got their asteroids royally kicked by a non-mathematician. ahahaha...AHAHAHA... It goes to show you that mathematics ain't all that. Being a trained mathematician does not magically poof more neurons into one's brain. Once a mental midget, always a mental midget. Wisdom is not learned. You're either predisposed to it or you're not. The difference between the wise and the fruitcakes can be summed up in two words, poofery and cowardice. Fruitcakes are gutless masters of magical poofery. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha… PS. I’m still waiting for a simple little equation for the rate of change of time. ROFLMAO.Mapou_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

"Joe Moron" would be keith s, AVS, Jerad, velikovskys, Sevvy, et al. "Joe Troll" would also be keith s, AVS, Jerad, velikovskys, Sevvy, et al.Joe_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

Jerad the mind-reader. She has my email if she has something to say to me, Jerad.Joe_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PST}

Jerad- Are you also ignorant of word phrases? Does the average Joe refer to all Joes and only people named Joe?
:-) She didn't say 'average' in her post though did she? And, even if she did mean it that way why pick the name of a rather visible and frequent contributor to UD to be representative of a whole class of people? She could have used a different generic term. I guess she doesn't love you anymore! Enjoy being borfed!!Jerad_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST}

LoL! @ keiths!!11!!!!!1!!:
Here’s the crux of your problem: “Infinite” does not mean “finite and growing”.
I never said, thought nor implied that it did. They are two separate things. That is finite and growing is different from infinite.Joe_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PST}

Jerad- Are you also ignorant of word phrases? Does the average Joe refer to all Joes and only people named Joe?Joe_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PST}

Have any of you read Denyse's post: Why we have a News desk? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-we-have-a-news-desk/ "True, some people might visit our site only to read The Best of Joe Troll and Joe Moron. But we think Joe + Joe’s fans would be happier at another site… and we would not want serious commenters of any sort to be discouraged by those guys’ slow-class antics. So I am happy with serious commenters whatever their orientation—but am a mod and can borf the Joes." I love it. I do wonder what 'borf the Joes' means.Jerad_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PST}

1 2 3 … 36 Next