How stupid can people be?

[Grandy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU

Really stupid.

This dude apparently believes Math is wrong, which I can kinda relate to since many things on Math make no sense.

But then he proceeds to call everyone idiot and morons for using math in practical everyday uses, and accuses schools of brainwashing us to join the Mathemathic Religion.


 Apparently unaware that if he had followers he'd be the closest thing of a cult you could ever get.

[DedlellyDeth]

He obviously does not understand that certain basic abstract terms must be defined without rigor for anything to be formed by extension. Otherwise it would be like nihilism.

[Grandy]

Yes, thats what people been saying the the comments. I think. I quite frankly did not understand your post.

[DedlellyDeth]

I mean, you gotta just call things whatever because they have to be. Like red has to be red and a color. How can we exactly define what red is to a colorblind person? We don't. We just know because we see it and we define it as red.

If something like 3+3=6 isn't just accepted as true, you can't go on to things like calculus.

Nihilism is disbelief in inherent values like that.

[Darkfox]

If something like 3+3=6 isn't just accepted as true, you can't go on to things like calculus.

Yeah, some people think it is cool or "smart" to change that and say "no it's not, it's 7!" just to try being a deviant. There are smarter ways to deviate...

[Archem]

If something like 3+3=6 isn't just accepted as true, you can't go on to things like calculus.

Bad example, as "three" is the name for a specific idea. I can show you three in fingers. There is no arguing that three is three. Six is a name for what can be defined as two threes. You know what? Read my comment(s) on the video.

[DedlellyDeth]

6 perhaps could be defined as another name for 5, couldn't it? We first would need to define 3.

Anyhow, however axiomatic it may or may not be, I think it still shows that you have to work bottom-up, if I'm using that term correctly.

What exactly is 3? There is some issue defining it because we can easily call 3 fingers 11,000 if we decide that's the new name for 3.
3 can only be really defined in context; by comparing different types of 3: 3 fingers, 3 snails, 3 circles...

You know what I ****ing hate? Platonism.

[Archem]

6 perhaps could be defined as another name for 5, couldn't it? We first would need to define 3.

No, six can't be another name for five. We of course assume the user already understands the universal concept of three before we start the example. Five cannot be six because:

Five = |||||

Five marks, anything that shows up this many times has a quantity of five.

Six = ||||||

Three = |||

Two Threes = ||| ||| or ||||||

|||||| does not equal |||||

It simply cannot be.

[DedlellyDeth]

No, six can't be another name for five. We of course assume the user already understands the universal concept of three before we start the example.

And that is where you go wrong. You cannot assume that, and assuming that is just as easy as assuming the equals sign or the universal concept of three.

I'm not saying the ideal 6 can be another ideal 5. I'm saying the numeral 6 could represent the ideal 5. No internal mathematical inconsistency implied.

You also use a horrible method of demonstrating these things, those bars, because if we deal with ideals such as how you seem to do, they mean nothing. Mere physical approximations at numbers. Chicken scratch on my monitor.

[Darkfox]

Does it really make a difference? People can be such morons hidden under the cloak of intelligence...

This debate is fail because it is composed of fail logic. Debating quantities helps nobody, it just impedes, serving merely as a roadblock to further thinking. Thus is a form of ignorance.

[DedlellyDeth]

Does it really make a difference? People can be such morons hidden under the cloak of intelligence...

This debate is fail because it is composed of fail logic. Debating quantities helps nobody, it just impedes, serving merely as a roadblock to further thinking. Thus is a form of ignorance.

Pah. We do not debate quantities or logic even perhaps, but rather philosophy. There is no intelligence involved.
I know how you feel about "pseudo-intellectuals" and their "dogma, unproductivity," et cetera, but I am afraid you are misapplying. This taxes you not, nor the public.

[Archem]

And that is where you go wrong. You cannot assume that, and assuming that is just as easy as assuming the equals sign or the universal concept of three.

We certainly can assume that because we have an understanding of what three is, and we understand that three is a word to let us understand the idea of ||| versus |||||, ||, |||||||, or any other amount of characters used to show quantity in a less efficient manner. Don't be like the asshat in the videos and try to misconstrue the argument to debase it where you have no real argument to counter. We are NOT going into "what is three?". It is a waste of our time, since you know damn well what three is. We all do.

[Shady Ultima]

I believe Archem, that waht he is saying is correct. We all do KNOW what 3 is, but say, perhaps that aliens landed tomorrow. And they say they've brought 10 ships with them right? We assume 10 as 1111111111. But, to said alien, the word ten and the numeral 10 could represent something else entirely. I believe what Dedlelly is trying to say is, these are just names that we HUMANS have given to numbers.

Same with colours. But aside from that, he's arguing that the word point is not defined. Well, he's wrong. A point is on a line, and a line ends with a point, no line can be infinite, and the location that it ends, can be marked with a dot, thus the point is both a location, and a dot, as the dot is the simple representation of said point. Also, if you take a life into it, and we say points as events in a life, well, again, the line works, as we are born (the point) the life goes ( the line) car crash (a point here) the life goes on (line) and we die (point, end of line)

[Darkfox]

There is no intelligence involved.

Obviously.

Unless perhaps you are trying to imply that you are not of this earth. Aha! I see! So it is true, DedlellyDeth is an ALIEN. From the planet Barone's perhaps?

IQ 174 FTW

[Grandy]

Dear God, what have I brought upon Charas?!