What created God?

Originally posted by tomtom232
It is not nonsense lol.

I have a grasp of maths in fact quite a good enough grasp to realize that I wish I had never learned them because they are nonsensical.

You just called this nonsense


We walk an equal distance away from something if you call this zero then our numbers combined equal this something but if you call that number 1 now our numb ...[text shortened]...
I knew very well that -14 + 16 didn't equal 1 I also knew very well that you would catch it .

I have a grasp of maths in fact quite a good enough grasp to realize that I wish I had never learned them because they are nonsensical.

You obviously don't have a grasp of maths.

How can a singular noun 'grasp' suddenly become plural (>1) with the usage of 'them'?

How can 'a grasp' be correlated with 'they are non-sensical'?

-m. 😉

Originally posted by mikelom
[b]I have a grasp of maths in fact quite a good enough grasp to realize that I wish I had never learned them because they are nonsensical.

You obviously don't have a grasp of maths.

How can a singular noun 'grasp' suddenly become plural (>1) with the usage of 'them'?

How can 'a grasp' be correlated with 'they are non-sensical'?

-m. 😉[/b]

Maths is the subject not grasp. I wasn't talking about learning grasp I was talking about learning maths. Mathematics ie arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus etc... those are them hoss.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You just love to be smarter than people. I know your type. You love being smarter than others more than you are scared of an afterlife.

If you have to sacrifice an actual search for truth to comfort your ego then so be it, I will also bow out.

My last piece of advice. Eat a magic mushroom.

Actually some of my best friends as considerably smarter than me and it doesn't bother me in the least.
And they often prove me wrong in logical debate without me getting upset of stopping liking them.
it isn't an ego thing.

It isn't a question of being smart or not.

I genuinely don't think we are using words to point to the same concepts.

On their own words are meaningless.

Words point to specific concepts, and unless we agree on the concepts the words point to what any
given sentence 'means' to one person or another can be totally different.

You have given a definition earlier of what you think logic is which is totally different from the one I use.

You are also making arguments about maths that to me (having studied it) don't make sense.

It's not so much that you are saying things that are fallacious, although the odd bit I do understand tends to be so,
but that you are saying things that don't actually make sense.

If all you were doing was saying things i disagreed with I would happily debate you.

But you are saying things that I can't actually make sense of.

I really can't answer questions I don't understand.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually some of my best friends as considerably smarter than me and it doesn't bother me in the least.
And they often prove me wrong in logical debate without me getting upset of stopping liking them.
it isn't an ego thing.

It isn't a question of being smart or not.

I genuinely don't think we are using words to point to the same concepts.

On ...[text shortened]... can't actually make sense of.

I really can't answer questions I don't understand.

You love being right even more than you love being smarter than people.

When it comes to sacrificing the image that you are smarter than people to be right, you have no problem with it.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Maths is the subject not grasp. I wasn't talking about learning grasp I was talking about learning maths. Mathematics ie arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus etc... those are them hoss.

But maths is not the subject, it is coincidental to 'I have a grasp, a good enough grasp to realize' etc.

If you can't write English, how are you supposed to write and understand simple maths, like the differentiation of SinX from first principles? It is a progression of understanding the words transposed into mathematics that equates with real understanding of mathematics. What you think has to be described in words and then put into figures.

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
But maths is not the subject, it is coincidental to 'I have a grasp, a good enough grasp to realize' etc.

If you can't write English, how are you supposed to write and understand simple maths, like the differentiation of SinX from first principles? It is a progression of understanding the words transposed into mathematics that equates with real understand ...[text shortened]... of mathematics. What you think has to be described in words and then put into figures.

-m.

That doesn't detract that the subject was maths and you knew that. The only problem was that after "quite a good enough grasp" I didn't write "of maths" or "of the maths."

I could look through your public forum posts and find many errors.

Conclusion: You don't have a grasp of the maths either.

What you think has to be 🙄

Originally posted by tomtom232
Conclusion: You don't have a grasp of the maths either.

How on earth would you 'conclude' that, when it's clearly untrue?

-m.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You love being right even more than you love being smarter than people.

When it comes to sacrificing the image that you are smarter than people to be right, you have no problem with it.

Not buying your assertion but.... (and this is a linguistically horrible way of putting it)

There is nothing wrong with being right. (or smart for that matter, although what is bad
is claiming yourself to be 'better' than people who are less smart)

There is an issue with thinking you're right when you are in fact wrong.

So effort must be taken to try to ensure that you only think yourself right when you have
a good justification, but be prepared to change your mind if presented with reason to do so.


In this instance I am not claiming I am right (although I think I probably am)
I am claiming not to have a clue what you are talking about.

This is independent of either of us being right.

I don't think I have an image of being smarter than people, and i would be the first to try to
dispel it if I did.
I know too many people who wipe the floor with me intellectually to think otherwise.

Originally posted by mikelom
How on earth would you 'conclude' that, when it's clearly untrue?

-m.

My conclusion is based on errors in your writing.

Originally posted by mikelom
How on earth would you 'conclude' that, when it's clearly untrue?

-m.

Whilst we are on the subject, did anybody ever achieve topping the thread list in all available categories simoultaneously??.... I dare you!
Come on, I'm sure somebody out there is capable?

The above was written by you.

You obviously don't understand maths.

Originally posted by tomtom232
My conclusion is based on errors in your writing.

Does it give you no pause for thought that all the great minds in mathematics throughout the ages
have failed to spot your alleged failings in number theory?

That vast numbers of people successfully use numbers everyday without running into any difficulty.


At the start of my Uni course on special relativity the professor announced that it was likely that a few
of us would think we had spotted some flaw in SR and that he would happily answer the queries but
it happened every year and they were always mistaken and had simply not quite managed to grasp
the theory.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Does it give you no pause for thought that all the great minds in mathematics throughout the ages
have failed to spot your alleged failings in number theory?

That vast numbers of people successfully use numbers everyday without running into any difficulty.


At the start of my Uni course on special relativity the professor announced that it was l ...[text shortened]... every year and they were always mistaken and had simply not quite managed to grasp
the theory.

They aren't failings.

Numbers explain themselves without failure.

When it comes to proving something in the real world is where the failure is.

The great minds have already admitted this which is why they call everything a theory.

Tomtom, you're not living up to your namesake...you're hopelessly lost here! 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Tomtom, you're not living up to your namesake...you're hopelessly lost here! 😵

So the theory of general relativity is fact? Because numbers were good enough to explain the universe right?

You are the ones who are lost. I pity you.

Originally posted by tomtom232
So the theory of general relativity is fact? Because numbers were good enough to explain the universe right?

You are the ones who are lost. I pity you.

I graciously accept your pity. Now...moving swiftly on! 😵