My Math Forum > Math Having problems with math..here's why!

 Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news

July 20th, 2018, 06:12 PM   #21
Banned Camp

Joined: Jul 2018
From: beverly hills

Posts: 15
Thanks: 0

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke You know there's an answer to that. In math, we study the logical consequences of sets of rules. When we study the counting numbers 1, 2, 3, ... we use one set of rules.
I'm stopping you right there. That system states how the whole thing operates

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke When we study the real numbers we use a different set of rules.
Except now you just contradicted the entire system and rendered it impossible to do.

If math is an absolute, it cannot change the original set of rules and or not apply or use them just because the circumstances change.

Those original set of rules PREVENT the numbers from being used any other possible way except the original way they are shown to work.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke Whatever area of math we're working in, there's a set of rules and we work out the consequences of those rules.
Sorry that's impossible and the whole problem with the way man wants to use and abuse the system.

The original set of rules set the baseline and foundation for how all those numbers work, They cannot ever be removed, changed, or made to be used in a different way to change the outcome Addition works a very specific way, and multiplication works the exact same way addition does because multiplication IS addition So when you have 5 things to count, both addition and multiplication outright prevent 5, from being anything else, other than 5.

So for people to try to saying 5 can become 6, because of some counting manipulation, then they have literally just removed both addition and multiplication completely from the problem, and instead are now just doing whatever they feel like in order to get it to work how THEY want it to even though the system's rules say they're wrong.

I got news for people because how the baseline foundation and rules of addition and multiplication are set up, then there is absolutely no possible way that the system itself will ever allow 5 things to be as 6 because of manipulating the way those 5 things are counted.

I have a formula that makes 1+1=3, So I guess that makes it 3 right.. Hey, I manipulated the system to make it fit, the same exact way that people are manipulating 5 things to become 6.... I really am; however, if I presented that and broke it all down in detail showing exactly how it was done, all anyone here would do is tell me it doesn't work like that, but yet you're all saying it does work like that on what you're trying to use it on.

If the math system prevents 1+1 from ever equaling 3 because the outcome was manipulated, then the math system will also prevent 5 form ever becoming 6 through manipulation as well.

Last edited by skipjack; July 20th, 2018 at 10:41 PM.

July 20th, 2018, 06:20 PM   #22
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,888
Thanks: 767

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C Except the basic math rules CANNOT EVER BE REMOVED from anything, because the basics are what make the way it is and possible, so when you say things like "Except Advanced Math" you're removing basic math rules from math, and making up crap that goes against math in general which makes everything you just said totally incorrect and false.

Look at it this way. It's 9 AM and you have an important meeting 4 hours from now. Is your appointment at 13 AM or 1 PM? (Rewrite the problem for military time.) If you think it's 1 PM then you've just done 9 + 4 = 1. No, it's not "normal" addition, but the point is that it follows clear rules and can be useful. We aren't saying that it's 2 + 3 = 5, we're saying it's something else. As long as we are clear on that point what's the problem?

-Dan

July 20th, 2018, 06:25 PM   #23
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,040
Thanks: 581

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C If math is an absolute, it cannot change the original set of rules and or not apply or use them just because the circumstances change.
You just proved that math is not absolute. You are entirely correct. It's historically contingent; and it's capable of using multiple sets of rules as the situation calls for. The sets of rules don't even need to be mutually consistent. You can study Euclidean geometry today and non-Euclidean geometry tomorrow. You can study the integers, where you can't always divide; or you can study the reals, where you CAN always divide (except by 0 of course).

So you have just given a perfectly sensible demonstration of the fact that math is not absolute. I most heartily agree.

Now I would like to know in a few words why this fact troubles you. After all, you just proved it! You could put your name on the discovery. By the way that happens a lot in math and in science. You set out to find the luminiferous aether, and instead you discover there is no luminiferous aether and a revolution in physics happens. You believe that math is absolute, but math is manifestly not absolute, as you so capably demonstrated. You proved the opposite of what you originally believed. You should be thrilled. You learned something!

For that matter, what do you mean exactly by absolute? Perhaps if you gave a definition we could talk about it.

Last edited by Maschke; July 20th, 2018 at 06:29 PM.

July 20th, 2018, 09:04 PM   #25
Banned Camp

Joined: Jul 2018
From: beverly hills

Posts: 15
Thanks: 0

Quote:
 Originally Posted by topsquark So your computer doesn't work? Look at it this way. It's 9 AM and you have an important meeting 4 hours from now. Is your appointment at 13 AM or 1 PM? (Rewrite the problem for military time.) If you think it's 1 PM then you've just done 9 + 4 = 1. No, it's not "normal" addition, but the point is that it follows clear rules and can be useful. We aren't saying that it's 2 + 3 = 5, we're saying it's something else. As long as we are clear on that point what's the problem? -Dan
When using 2 and 3 in the first diagram without actually 6 things present to count, yes people are saying 2+3 isn't 5 they're saying it's 6. So what do you mean what's the problem?

And you cannot use military time outside of the military to justify what your'e saying. On top of that, military time in itself does not work either. Despite is it's 24 hour cycle, the actual times military time uses will not allow it to work the way humans manipulated it to do. There is a difference in basic math principles and rules, and the way man uses their own false logic to force the numbers to fit without actually using the numbers.

Case in point, military time never hits the 24:00 mark despite it's written around 24:00, in reality military time hits 23:59:59 and then resets to 0:00, what man did was rounded that number up to 24 and then never actually use the number 24 to attempt to use a 24 hour time frame without 24 hours is absurd.

Bottom line is that if there aren't 24 actual hours, it is impossible to design the framework around it and have it work. Human thinking against math doesn't work, never has, and never will and that is the major problem with this whole aspect of math in genial, everyone is saying math has rules then creating semantic arguments to justify not using the actual numbers they say the baseline uses.

If certain numbers are going to be used to establish a baseline, then those must be used throughout the entire process no matter what, or the system itself isn't being used, mans just making up numbers that aren't part of the equation, and then designing the equation around the number they made up, instead of using the numbers themselves from the baseline rules to do the equation.

This is the exact same thing as there is a math problem that uses the numbers 1-16, without the number 12. Humans would start applying their own logic and coming up with all sorts of ways to have the problem be worked around what they came up with, such as it doesn't need the number 12 to be 1-16 because everyone knows the sequential order of numbers from 1-16 it's used like that in this example, and all sorts of other BS, instead of accepting 12 is missing and the problem cannot be done because the numbers the system gives them, would make the problem unsolvable.

You cannot ignore that 1-16 must include 12, while totally ignoring that it's not 1-16 without the 12 being present in the line and lying about how this problem follows different rules.

Last edited by Matt C; July 20th, 2018 at 09:17 PM.

July 20th, 2018, 09:54 PM   #26
Senior Member

Joined: Sep 2016
From: USA

Posts: 470
Thanks: 261

Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C I suggest that you stop doing math like this, as well as attempting to teach people this flawed math of yours, because you have no idea what you're doing
It is clear that you have not studied math whatsoever. And that is fine by itself. But to have the arrogance to tell everyone who actually has studied math that they are wrong is just absurd. Spend more time reading IMO.

BTW, 2x3 is not always equal to 6. For instance in $\mathbb{Z}_5$, you have 2x3 = 1. But I'm sure you know better.

July 20th, 2018, 11:44 PM   #27
Global Moderator

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 19,702
Thanks: 1804

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C This is what people are taught: 1. This system is absolute 2. There are exceptions while saying it's still an absolute.
If that's what you were taught, you were taught rather poorly. It's not what I was taught. As far as I'm aware, it's not what any of my schoolmates were taught. It couldn't have been, as most of us wouldn't have understood the word "absolute" at the age of two when we started learning arithmetic.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C When using 2 and 3 in the first diagram without actually 6 things present to count, yes people are saying 2+3 isn't 5 they're saying it's 6.
What people? It seems to me that you're just creating a strawman so that you can then knock it down. It reminds me that you typed in your first post "let's say you want want to find the depth of a rectangular area". How many "want"s did you want? How come you then made no use of the word "depth" or the word "area" in the rest of the post?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C Human thinking against math doesn't work, . . . that is the major problem with this whole aspect of math in genial, . . .
If human thinking against math doesn't work, why are you relying on your own human thinking to construct the posts you are making?

Did you mean to type "in general" rather than "in genial? If so, what are the things you had in mind that aren't in that general category?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C Despite is it's 24 hour cycle, . . .
I don't know what that ungrammatical clause is intended to mean. Can you try to check that what you type makes sense? Note that "military times" number the hours of the day from zero to 23, so 24 numbers are used, but "24" isn't needed as an hour number.

Last edited by skipjack; August 27th, 2018 at 10:32 AM.

 July 21st, 2018, 12:04 AM #28 Newbie   Joined: Jul 2018 From: fdsfds Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 a) "2 x 3 = x" makes sense in math. b) "x = 5" makes sense in math. c) Therefore, "2 x 3 = 5" also necessarily makes sense in math. d) However, 2 x 3 = 6 As you can see, the problem is with numbers themselves because 5 = 6.
July 21st, 2018, 02:40 AM   #29
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 884
Thanks: 265

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C To begin let's say you want want to find the depth of a rectangular area that only has the numbers 3 and 2, and the 3 is on the top, and the 2 is on the side. So I have arranged this diagram showing the set up. ... . .

Your own diagram gives the lie to your rubbish, right from the outset.

Your diagram is not, as you state, a diagram of the area covered by the calculation 3 x 2 in dots.

There are 5 dots in this diagram and there should only be 4 to cover the area in a dot diagram.

Your diagram actually covers the calculation 3 x 3

To calculate the area (as required in the emboldened section of your post) your diagram should look like this

.

You think of the second line as equivalent to the ditto marks construction in English.
So this would give you a first line, of 3
A second line of 3

But not a third line, which is just plain wrong.

I present in this way because you have been belligerent and contemptuous towards others throughout this thread, right from the very start.

You could have chosen the path of cooperation instead of confrontation and said something along the line of

"Here is something that seems to me inconsistent with these rules.....What do you think?"

It is a calculation.

Last edited by skipjack; July 21st, 2018 at 05:44 AM.

July 21st, 2018, 04:30 AM   #30
Math Team

Joined: Oct 2011

Posts: 13,282
Thanks: 931

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Matt C To begin let's say you want want to find the depth of a rectangular area that only has the numbers 3 and 2, and the 3 is on the top, and the 2 is on the side. So I have arranged this diagram showing the set up. ... . . The set up shows there are 3 across the top and 2 on the side, or 2 on the top and 3 on the side. But the main point that there are only 5 actual units, which will completely prevent this from being able to be done as a multiplication problem.
Code:
A   B   C
.    .    .

D .

E .
So according to you Professor Matt, the above
has 3 on top and 2 on the side..

BUT Professor, the top is line AC, the side is line AE.
If you push up your glasses, do you not see that point A
is used twice?

Methinks you should audition for the next episode of
"one flew over the cuckoo's nest".

Last edited by skipjack; July 21st, 2018 at 05:47 AM.

 Tags mathhere, problems

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post claudia_lovez_u Elementary Math 1 May 14th, 2012 07:24 PM jhunt47 Algebra 10 November 16th, 2009 11:22 PM Climaxx Computer Science 2 May 23rd, 2009 09:46 AM doomguardian Algebra 2 October 17th, 2007 01:56 PM mathhelp Algebra 12 May 24th, 2007 04:57 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top