Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJMayes)
    What point are you trying to make? That you're obnoxious? That is all that has been proven here tonight and scarcely needed more rigorous justification anyway.
    I'm not obnoxious, I was so clearly being facetious. I was referencing a similar conversation we had had a few weeks ago when you claimed this method was useless and no faster that hyperbolic substitutions. On what universe could that ever be misinterpreted?! :lol: I'm just having a laugh... making sarcastic comments... or is that not allowed?

    Not sure what you thought I was doing but when I was posting alternative solutions to loads of peoples things but I wasn't doing it to be obnoxious or belittle anyones solutions or whatever you've got in your head If you bothered to read my foreword you would have seen that the set of integrals is from the MIT "integration bee" and, whilst the integrals weren't as difficult as the kind that are usually discussed on here, the intention was clearly to see how concise and compact we could get our solutions and so I don't see how having a little tease and showing you the alternative method has in any way upset you... though I suppose I should remember never to make a joke or say anything sarcastic again for fear that you might take it the wrong way
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    He was JK.

    *ba dum tsss*. :cool:
    thank you! :lol:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkn)
    I'm not obnoxious, I was so clearly being facetious. I was referencing a similar conversation we had had a few weeks ago when you claimed this method was useless and no faster that hyperbolic substitutions. On what universe could that ever be misinterpreted?! :lol: I'm just having a laugh... making sarcastic comments... or is that not allowed?

    Not sure what you thought I was doing but when I was posting alternative solutions to loads of peoples things but I wasn't doing it to be obnoxious or belittle anyones solutions or whatever you've got in your head If you bothered to read my foreword you would have seen that the set of integrals is from the MIT "integration bee" and, whilst the integrals weren't as difficult as the kind that are usually discussed on here, the intention was clearly to see how concise and compact we could get our solutions and so I don't see how having a little tease and showing you the alternative method has in any way upset you... though I suppose I should remember never to make a joke or say anything sarcastic again for fear that you might take it the wrong way
    1) Given the number of negs your post has I'm clearly not the only person who found it/you obnoxious.

    2) I did not state that solutions not using hyperbolics were not quicker, I stated that they were not as elegant (In reply to a similarly obnoxious suggestion that I should not be practising Mathematics because I didn't swoon at your method of doing things). Either way that is tangential to this matter.

    3) I read the foreword, lots of integration. I did the integral in the way that I felt most comfortable approaching it and which was necessarily quicker for me because of that reason. The issue is also not with alternate solutions, and if you had read the thread you would have already seen bananarama suggest alternate subs to at least one integral I had already done. Similarly, if you'd simply said "why not try this sub, it's a little quicker" this discussion would not be happening.

    4) This hasn't upset me - I'm not even one of the people contributing to the 10 negs (PRSOM). I've found it thoroughly obnoxious but I've got far thicker skin than to be particularly worried over an internet message.

    (If you want to continue then PM me, we've clogged up this thread enough.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJMayes)
    1) Given the number of negs your post has I'm clearly not the only person who found it/you obnoxious.

    2) I did not state that solutions not using hyperbolics were not quicker, I stated that they were not as elegant (In reply to a similarly obnoxious suggestion that I should not be practising Mathematics because I didn't swoon at your method of doing things). Either way that is tangential to this matter.

    3) I read the foreword, lots of integration. I did the integral in the way that I felt most comfortable approaching it and which was necessarily quicker for me because of that reason. The issue is also not with alternate solutions, and if you had read the thread you would have already seen bananarama suggest alternate subs to at least one integral I had already done. Similarly, if you'd simply said "why not try this sub, it's a little quicker" this discussion would not be happening.

    4) This hasn't upset me - I'm not even one of the people contributing to the 10 negs (PRSOM). I've found it thoroughly obnoxious but I've got far thicker skin than to be particularly worried over an internet message.

    (If you want to continue then PM me, we've clogged up this thread enough.)
    The number of negative ratings I got is circumstantial given the fact that you taking it the wrong way made me look like an utter **** :lol:

    Dude, I wasn't saying my way was better or more elegant or quick is was being sarcastically condescending, otherwise known as a
    Spoiler:
    Show
    j
    Spoiler:
    Show
    o
    Spoiler:
    Show
    k
    Spoiler:
    Show
    e
    Spoiler:
    Show
    there's no need to take things so seriously dude, it was only intended as a bit of banter Though the fact your response is getting pissed off followed by giving me a bullet point list detailing what you disliked about my response kind of kills it! :lol: I don't blame people for negging me! I would've done too if I didn't have reason to think that someone who had written that wasn't being sarcastic :lol:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkn)
    The number of negative ratings I got is circumstantial given the fact that you taking it the wrong way made me look like an utter **** :lol:

    Dude, I wasn't saying my way was better or more elegant or quick is was being sarcastically condescending, otherwise known as a
    Spoiler:
    Show
    j
    Spoiler:
    Show
    o
    Spoiler:
    Show
    k
    Spoiler:
    Show
    e
    Spoiler:
    Show
    there's no need to take things so seriously dude, it was only intended as a bit of banter Though the fact your response is getting pissed off followed by giving me a bullet point list detailing what you disliked about my response kind of kills it! :lol: I don't blame people for negging me! I would've done too if I didn't have reason to think that someone who had written that wasn't being sarcastic :lol:
    I would suggest reevaluating your position given that the post had been negged before I even read it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    Is that the best paradox you can come up with? :cry:

    Come on, there are way better ones than that old fogie.

    Okay, watch me. :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Enjoy)

    After a long, arduous day in the life of Zakee, I pull out a tissue. Intrigued by the nature of the tissue and its fluffiness I lose myself in the procedure of tearing up a small part off of the tissue. I then take the larger portion of the tissue and tear that up, removing another small part off it. Now, I ask you the question, is this still a tissue? If I remove another small part of off the tissue, does is remain a tissue? If I continue this way, at what point does this object no longer act as a tissue?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    (Enjoy)

    After a long, arduous day in the life of Zakee, I pull out a tissue. Intrigued by the nature of the tissue and its fluffiness I lose myself in the procedure of tearing up a small part off of the tissue. I then take the larger portion of the tissue and tear that up, removing another small part off it. Now, I ask you the question, is this still a tissue? If I remove another small part of off the tissue, does is remain a tissue? If I continue this way, at what point does this object no longer act as a tissue?
    When it has been contaminated by your bodily fluids
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Felix Felicis)
    When it has been contaminated by your bodily fluids

    Kleenex has earned their fair share from me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    (Enjoy)

    After a long, arduous day in the life of Zakee, I pull out a tissue. Intrigued by the nature of the tissue and its fluffiness I lose myself in the procedure of tearing up a small part off of the tissue. I then take the larger portion of the tissue and tear that up, removing another small part off it. Now, I ask you the question, is this still a tissue? If I remove another small part of off the tissue, does is remain a tissue? If I continue this way, at what point does this object no longer act as a tissue?
    Can you not come up with one that's at least not two thousand plus a few hundred years old?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:

    :rolleyes:

    Intuitively, it seems to be the case that we know certain things with absolute, complete, utter, unshakable certainty. For example, if you travel to the Arctic and touch an iceberg,
    you know that it would feel cold. These things that we know from experience are known through induction. The problem of induction in short; (1) any inductive statement (like the sun will
    rise tomorrow)
    can only be deductively shown if one assumes that nature is uniform. (2) the only way to show that nature is uniform is by using induction. Thus induction cannot be justified deductively.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    :rolleyes:

    Intuitively, it seems to be the case that we know certain things with absolute, complete, utter, unshakable certainty. For example, if you travel to the Arctic and touch an iceberg,
    you know that it would feel cold. These things that we know from experience are known through induction. The problem of induction in short; (1) any inductive statement (like the sun will
    rise tomorrow)
    can only be deductively shown if one assumes that nature is uniform. (2) the only way to show that nature is uniform is by using induction. Thus induction cannot be justified deductively.
    Not a paradox, since it's possible to give solutions to the Problem of Induction that are sound but others may not necessarily agree with as a matter of opinion.

    For example one could argue that facts obtained by induction on nature is only an approximation of the true facts (in the iceberg example, there is no inherent reason why you must have "absolute, complete, utter, unshakable certainty" on that the ice will feel cold, if one accepts that empirical results could always later be proved to be wrong). However those approximations are still useful as they give a quantified confidence level on which we take them to be truth.

    Also this problem in no way detracts the validity of induction in mathematics, which has deductively sound interpretations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    Not a paradox, since it's possible to give solutions to the Problem of Induction that are sound but others may not necessarily agree with as a matter of opinion.

    For example one could argue that facts obtained by induction on nature is only an approximation of the true facts (in the iceberg example, there is no inherent reason why you must have "absolute, complete, utter, unshakable certainty" on that the ice will feel cold, if one accepts that empirical results could always later be proved to be wrong). However those approximations are still useful as they give a quantified confidence level on which we take them to be truth.

    Also this problem in no way detracts the validity of induction in mathematics, which has deductively sound interpretations.
    Okay, here's a Millenium Prize problem:


    How much wood would a woodchuck chuck
    If a woodchuck could chuck wood?
    He would chuck, he would, as much as he could,
    And chuck as much as a woodchuck would
    If a woodchuck could chuck wood?


    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    Okay, here's a Millenium Prize problem:

    How much wood would a woodchuck chuck
    If a woodchuck could chuck wood?
    He would chuck, he would, as much as he could,
    And chuck as much as a woodchuck would
    If a woodchuck could chuck wood?

    The antecedent is impossible - woodchucks are ground animals and they burrow, instead of chucking wood, so the question is meaningless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    The antecedent is impossible - woodchucks are ground animals and they burrow, instead of chucking wood, so the question is meaningless.


    Life is meaningless now knowing that woodchucks do not chuck wood.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    The antecedent is impossible - woodchucks are ground animals and they burrow, instead of chucking wood, so the question is meaningless.
    Go and finish your dissertation and then be pedantic!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Go and finish your dissertation and then be pedantic!
    I have 9000 words to write before 14th of June.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    I have 9000 words to write before 14th of June.
    Hence me constantly telling you to write the damn thing
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    Also this problem in no way detracts the validity of induction in mathematics, which has deductively sound interpretations.
    Isn't that because mathematical induction is actually deduction haha?


    (Original post by ukdragon37)
    Not a paradox, since it's possible to give solutions to the Problem of Induction that are sound but others may not necessarily agree with as a matter of opinion.

    For example one could argue that facts obtained by induction on nature is only an approximation of the true facts (in the iceberg example, there is no inherent reason why you must have "absolute, complete, utter, unshakable certainty" on that the ice will feel cold, if one accepts that empirical results could always later be proved to be wrong). However those approximations are still useful as they give a quantified confidence level on which we take them to be truth.
    Interestingly, I'm not sure if that is a solution the Problem of Induction: you still need to find a way to justify your confidence level, do you not? And how are you going to do that, if not by reasoning inductively in the first place? And for this you will need another confidence interval. And so on, ad infinitum.


    There's a problem very closely linked to the problem of induction that I've always found fascinating and extremely frustrating. Again, I think it is a pretty old di/tri/multilemma, but it's always fun to think about!

    Any valid argument must rely on either a circular chain of reasons, an infinite chain of reasons or on reasons that are not themselves justified.
    An argument cannot be justified by a circular chain of reasons.
    An argument cannot be justified by an infinite chain of reasons.
    An argument cannot be justified if it relies upon unjustified assumptions.
    Thus, no valid argument can be justified.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Isn't that because mathematical induction is actually deduction haha?




    Interestingly, I'm not sure if that is a solution the Problem of Induction: you still need to find a way to justify your confidence level, do you not? And how are you going to do that, if not by reasoning inductively in the first place? And for this you will need another confidence interval. And so on, ad infinitum.


    There's a problem very closely linked to the problem of induction that I've always found fascinating and extremely frustrating. Again, I think it is a pretty old di/tri/multilemma, but it's always fun to think about!

    Any valid argument must rely on either a circular chain of reasons, an infinite chain of reasons or on reasons that are not themselves justified.
    An argument cannot be justified by a circular chain of reasons.
    An argument cannot be justified by an infinite chain of reasons.
    An argument cannot be justified if it relies upon unjustified assumptions.
    Thus, no valid argument can be justified.

    You say 'no valid argument' can be justified. Does that mean your argument is invalid as you have justified it?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.