Basically, they're claiming that logic says: to get to where I am, you have to walk half that distance, and to walk that distance, you have to walk half that distance, to infinity. You will never get to me. Has anyone heard of this and know what it's called?
Also known as one of Zeno's Paradox. It's easily resolved by anyone that has ever taken calculus. The paradox is caused by the reader assuming the false axiom that the sum of infinite times, even though they are getting smaller at each step, cannot be finite. This is false.
Also known as one of Zeno's Paradox. It's easily resolved by anyone that has ever taken calculus. The paradox is caused by the reader assuming the false axiom that the sum of infinite times, even though they are getting smaller at each step, cannot be finite. This is false.
Why yes, we can add up an infinite number of things and reach a finite result. What point were the websites were trying to make?
Basically that logic can be used to prove things true, but sometimes it can have a faulty base. Like there's this complicated equation that I heard of, that when you round things up 1+1=3.
Basically that logic can be used to prove things true, but sometimes it can have a faulty base. Like there's this complicated equation that I heard of, that when you round things up 1+1=3.
So this is their example in steps
Pick a well known resolved paradox that can easily trick people.
Use that to "prove" something false.
Claim logic has allowed us to prove something false.
Ignore the fact that real logic and mathematics already proves that adding all those halves really is 1, which is what we'd expect, and what accurately reflects the real world.
Say neener-neener-neener, logic is dead.
None of that proves logic can be used to prove false conclusions. Nor does it prove logic cannot be used to prove true conclusions. What it DOES prove is that people are easily tricked. Especially if that don't understand logic.
Assert a false axiom somewhere without justification and you can prove anything! If the reader doesn't notice, they'll have no idea what the problem is! I'd be wary of such sites. Especially the one you linked to. Not only do they intentionally trick the reader, they also talk in circles throughout the entire article...
As for the 1+1=3 example you mentioned, here is a link to one example. The problem arises for exactly the reason I stated above. They sneakily assert something false, ignore that they have asserted something false, and claim their conclusion still holds.
In this example, the falsehood occurs when they have x-y+y = y, and then they divide by (x-y). Earlier they let x=y, and so at this step, they are actually dividing by 0 and then asserting the false claim that both sides are still equal at the next step. This is not true. The 0 may be sneakily hidden inside the variables (x-y), but you still cannot divide by 0 (using the ordinary operations on real-valued numbers and variables).
It doesn't matter whether you call the result of dividing by 0 invalid or undefined. The fact is, you cannot claim equality still holds at the next step when dividing by 0.
Basically, they're claiming that logic says: to get to where I am, you have to walk half that distance, and to walk that distance, you have to walk half that distance, to infinity. You will never get to me. Has anyone heard of this and know what it's called?
It's one of Zeno's paradoxes. Glitch expressed the problem with it quite well. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... will eventually equal 1, or put in a different way, the turtle has a landspeed of c, and therefore he will eventually reach any finite distance no matter how far away.
Also known as one of Zeno's Paradox. It's easily resolved by anyone that has ever taken calculus. The paradox is caused by the reader assuming the false axiom that the sum of infinite times, even though they are getting smaller at each step, cannot be finite. This is false.
Why yes, we can add up an infinite number of things and reach a finite result. What point were the websites were trying to make?
Basically that logic can be used to prove things true, but sometimes it can have a faulty base. Like there's this complicated equation that I heard of, that when you round things up 1+1=3.
Ooh, significant digits are fun! 4 + 7 = 10
That's my favorite one. Sometimes math just needs a little bit of higher math or common sense thrown in.
Basically, they're claiming that logic says: to get to where I am, you have to walk half that distance, and to walk that distance, you have to walk half that distance, to infinity. You will never get to me. Has anyone heard of this and know what it's called?
I've seen this as an argument for the idea that motion is impossible. It's a silly one--even Aristotle was able to refute it some 2300+ years ago--but since it's a philosophical argument attempting to poke a hole at logical thought, religious sites have a use for it.
That page says the same thing as most religious pages, that science (and logical thought) is bad and swallowing religious dogma is good. It implies that truth is relative - as though observable facts supported by decades of rigorous study are on an equal playing field as absurd claims made by religious zealots.
I like that line near the end that says the eyewitnesses wrote what they saw-clearly implying there are eyewitnesses that wrote about Jesus. It's the kind of lie we often see from liars that talk about truth.
There is probably a Wikipedia article with the details. Though I`ve never seen it on a religious website. Could you give an example?
-on Thragtusk
Decks(Budget)
:symg::symb: Pod
:symw::symb: Flying
Sites like this:
http://carm.org/what-is-truth
I first heard about it from my pastor.
//www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sum[+%281%2F2%29^n%2C+{n%2C+1%2C+infinity}">"]Sum[ (1/2)^n, {n, 1, infinity}] = 1.
Why yes, we can add up an infinite number of things and reach a finite result. What point were the websites trying to make?
Basically that logic can be used to prove things true, but sometimes it can have a faulty base. Like there's this complicated equation that I heard of, that when you round things up 1+1=3.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
No it doesn't, and no it isn't. 2n ≠ 0 for any positive integer n (or any real number n, for that matter).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Or maybe just undefined?
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
So this is their example in steps
Assert a false axiom somewhere without justification and you can prove anything! If the reader doesn't notice, they'll have no idea what the problem is! I'd be wary of such sites. Especially the one you linked to. Not only do they intentionally trick the reader, they also talk in circles throughout the entire article...
As for the 1+1=3 example you mentioned, here is a link to one example. The problem arises for exactly the reason I stated above. They sneakily assert something false, ignore that they have asserted something false, and claim their conclusion still holds.
In this example, the falsehood occurs when they have x-y+y = y, and then they divide by (x-y). Earlier they let x=y, and so at this step, they are actually dividing by 0 and then asserting the false claim that both sides are still equal at the next step. This is not true. The 0 may be sneakily hidden inside the variables (x-y), but you still cannot divide by 0 (using the ordinary operations on real-valued numbers and variables).
It doesn't matter whether you call the result of dividing by 0 invalid or undefined. The fact is, you cannot claim equality still holds at the next step when dividing by 0.
It's one of Zeno's paradoxes. Glitch expressed the problem with it quite well. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... will eventually equal 1, or put in a different way, the turtle has a landspeed of c, and therefore he will eventually reach any finite distance no matter how far away.
Ooh, significant digits are fun! 4 + 7 = 10
That's my favorite one. Sometimes math just needs a little bit of higher math or common sense thrown in.
I've seen this as an argument for the idea that motion is impossible. It's a silly one--even Aristotle was able to refute it some 2300+ years ago--but since it's a philosophical argument attempting to poke a hole at logical thought, religious sites have a use for it.
That page says the same thing as most religious pages, that science (and logical thought) is bad and swallowing religious dogma is good. It implies that truth is relative - as though observable facts supported by decades of rigorous study are on an equal playing field as absurd claims made by religious zealots.
I like that line near the end that says the eyewitnesses wrote what they saw-clearly implying there are eyewitnesses that wrote about Jesus. It's the kind of lie we often see from liars that talk about truth.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.