Unity+

Hehe, my mistake. I don't know what I meant by that.

Yes, each irrational number can be as a limit of a sequence of rational number. However, not all limits are expressing irrational numbers.

I know, I am just saying that most of the time it is a DDOS attack, but there are other possibilities. It seems to running faster now. Thanks.

Well, I was at least partially right. EDIT: This is presuming that he is also right about what is wrong with the server.

Now, should we get so harsh one someone who runs the site on his own will? Or am I reading this comment in the wrong way?

[offtopic]An equal amount of each. I need both in order to go onto the next step of the theory. The problem is it requires much computation to find all matrix solutions of a given equation. If I can find an equation to find how many matrix solutions exist for a given equation, which I am still working on, then it will be easier to start using formal proofs.[/offtopic] But back the point, you will really need to investigate regular mathematical theories in order to establish a grounds for a theory of negative distances(unless someone has already started working on one. First investigate whether it is being looked into or not. There are theories out there that aren't really talked about on the web).

I know that, but most of the time it is a DDOS attack. I deal with them all the time when running Minecraft servers.

I was just trying to understand in which context he meant being illiterate in. But, now I understand what he means. EDIT: The best thing to do would be to ignore what I was saying there.

It really depends on what you mean by illiteracy. For example, most people in the United States may be illiterate because the common language is English. However, as you may know, there are millions of forms of communication. People develop some form of communication, one way or another. EDIT: Oops, I had multiple threads open and changed the wrong post. My bad.

You will need to, however, base it on mathematical concepts that we have today. You can't just go out and declare random jargon such as "-1 m = 1". You would also need someway to translate it into something that is understandable in the ways of the mathematical concepts we have today. For example, Newton didn't just base Calculus on random logic. His basis was around limits, which was based on having multiple steps in an equation. EDIT: For example, I am currently working on something called Collatz Theory, which deals with taking equations as multiple step processes and combining multiple equations together to form matrix solutions. However, I didn't declare jargon, but I use concepts of what is known about mathematics and making it into something useful. Mathematics is an evolution of logic using the basic forms of logic, in a simple case understanding.

That would make sense. So, it depends on potentiality rather than what is initially in the equation. I think I understand. Thanks for the help.

But couldn't you also state that the way that such fields are taught does also affect the intelligence of the people learning such topics? If students are unable to learn properly the material being taught, it would ruin the understanding of such topics(linked to IQ) and ruin the motivation of such to learn the concepts.

Is this server trouble due to just the server lagging a bit or is it because of too many packets coming into the server?

Well, if you put it that way, here is an article of relevance: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/26/iq-scores-reflect-motivation-as-well-as-intelligence/ Since motivation is correlated with IQ, based on this article, and motivation can be linked to areas of interest(where most IQ tests are filled with mathematical and scientific questions that deal with logic), then this can be given the conclusion given before. EDIT: You could also state that the way we teach science and mathematics can lead to the lack of interest in the fields of such.

Or you could admit that you merely began this debate with me specifically because of our disagreements in theology. However, did present a hypothesis, for which I gave the correlation to IQ which I presented the evidence of IQ. I made the conclusion based on those two correlation, which can be related to both the instinctive need for such intelligence to survive in our community and the correlation to the popular media sources of today. One's ability to read and write does not always correlate with one's ability to investigate and be curious about the world. Though, it can reflect such ability.

I think most know as two Fibonnaci numbers are divided together, dividing the smaller one by the larger one, you get closer to the golden ratio as the two Fibonnaci numbers get larger and larger. Here is the equation that I want to use for this example: (Correct me if this is an incorrect way of doing this). Since at the limit of infinity there would, in fact, be a fraction, but of immeasurable magnitude, that would exist, therefore making this not an irrational number? I am not saying it isn't an irrational number, but I want to be sure of my logic on irrational numbers. Or would this immeasurable magnitude of the fraction make this an irrational number? Also, the same question implies the question wouldn't this be considered multiplying two numbers, one being "rational" and one being irrational be considered making it rational? Or does this not apply to limits because of their properties? Ask if you need clarification on the question.

We would have to do more research on that end. Either people took it more to heart do to religious faith? For example, much of Galileo's research was attempting to understand the creation of God(he was a theist). It could also be influenced by survival instincts. In earlier years, intelligence was required for survival and being able to use materials to produce survival tools. Knowing geometry was important for the building of structures. In today's society, since these products are more available today, the use of such tools isn't as required.

I think the rejection of Evolution as in the Origin of all life on Earth is what is rejected the most, not the Theory of Evolution that involves the basic core of such a mechanism. Also, referring to Richard Dawkin's phrase that evolution is the "blind watch maker" I think most people of religious basis reject this notion, but don't reject the theory as a mechanism of different species of one particular family of organisms that shows the differences of species within specific places on Earth. The difference in arguments and their validity is while religion may influence IQ on particular levels of denial of specific concepts of science that are proven to be laws or facts of the Universe, a majority of lack of seriousness in the fields of science and mathematics is influenced by level of IQ(though it should be considered whether the IQ test is accurate or not as a means of measuring one's ability to use logic of certain difficulties in certain circumstances). Solar flares may have happened while a storm occurred this doesn't mean that the storm was caused by the solar flares, though in some ways it can affect in minor scales the magnitude of the storm, but that being very unlikely. EDIT: I also think most of religious basis would reject the hypothesis of Abiogenesis because either the nonacceptance of it or the fact that it is so young that even declaring it a fact would be monstrous for it is either merely supported by broad evidence or is merely a concept that could make sense. For example, I have looked into research of the hypothesis(or theory, if you will refer to it as such) and much of it still is at most a hypothesis that is unproven, but is supported by instances(such as in the Ocean) where it doesn't even meet requirements to be considered a absolute fact of the beginning of life on Earth, though I won't reject it as a possibility. EDIT2: You could also argue that simply more people are more into sports or other forms of entertainment and not in the sciences or mathematics, which could be influenced by IQ.

I thought he was just referring to distances. On Cartesian planes, yes negative exists.

But that still wouldn't be the negativity that he speaks of because your merely are changing your direction in time if I am correct. Well, it just seems like your asking "what if unicorns exist" because unless someone develops some system in Mathematics that deals with this kind of situation(if it would even be applicable in real situations) it doesn't exist(unless you begin referring to imaginary systems, but even there it doesn't apply in the way you state it).

Besides what DevilSolution just stated, you can't have negative distances in a sense of negativity that you speak of...that is not in this Universe.

It is more from experience of other people, but if you want to be that way... The conclusion comes from both the diversity of geography of users that come here, here is ranking of IQ(which is an important aspect because based on assuming that one's seriousness of science comes from the ability to understand the complexities of scientific studies), here is ranking of IQ per country(on average). http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm Being that the average IQ for an American is 98, while the highest is in Hong Kong and collecting the data of internet accessibility around the world, we can make a conclusion that seriousness in the sciences(especially since in American culture the science and mathematics department is lacking and is way behind many other countries) is within either the mid or low ranges. Now, this isn't to say that it will remain this way. I bet if we increase the education quality we could have a better chance of allowing science and mathematics to become a more serious topic for many people(it should be taken seriously in the first place) and we probably could get less crackpots who would rather go for fame than facts. EDIT: Also, you must look at the data of the intelligence of a regular internet user. Then, you must take into account the intelligence of a regular Facebook or Twitter user. I haven't searched this data, but from the majority of people who(from in real life situations) use such forms of communication that I have interacted with, a subjective conclusion can be made. Though, prove me wrong and I will change my position.

I think I may have discovered a constant for Collatz-Matrix equations. This applies to the contrast of amounts of matrix solutions for a specific size of Collatz-Matrix equation. For example, as the dimensions of a Collatz-Matrix equation are increased from 1-4, the following sequence occurs(for initial coordinates of (1,1) and initial x of 1): 1, 2, 9, 32 I am going to develop an equation to find the amount of matrix solutions for a given equation. It is going to take a while to do it though.

The problem is social networking could also bring in the trolls to this site, which clearly this site deals with. There are people, like us, who take science seriously and take it in as an important aspect into understanding the Universe. Others see it as a joke. A majority of people on Earth, in fact, think of science as a joke. Most people on Facebook are the people that think science is a joke. If we invite them we will get a crowd that will most likely not benefit the community here. That is just my two cents.