kristalris Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Very noble of you Tar, trolls lurk under bridges and crawl out to call people names. Notice I haven’t done this when people are calling you out like the instant when someone compared your reasoning to a wet noodle, although I agreed with him I thought it would be too pathetic to cower behind that person and jeer yeah he is and not add anything to the conversation. And there's that time when you threw a hissy fit and branded me responsible for the neg rep you got off multiple people. Now you're calling me names, 5 year old kids must be envious of your maturity. Still I suppose it’s easier for me to take the moral high ground because I’m not getting completely bossed. So now a mod has called you on your waffle we can actually concisely get down to what you’re saying. You’re saying that we see Achilles overtake the tortoise so we don’t have to logically describe it. I can see why you used all that waffle now. You’re certainly not a deep thinker; I’m a bit confused as to why you’re on a science forum if you take this position. I think your -60 rep is telling you that science isn’t for you. You’re saying that even though logically there’s a paradox I’m going to ignore it because the observation tells me that it happens. Anyone with a modicum of scientific ability should say: well the observation contradicts my logical approach to describe it; I must learn and improve my logic in order for it to fit the observation. At least Tar tried to take a scientific/philosophical approach to it. Pity he then decided to cower under a bridge and jeer at people he didn't like as opposed to adding anything to the conversation. Don’t get me wrong Tar I’m not feeling angry, just pity towards you, I mean it can't feel great using the tactic you just pulled. Luckily many great minds throughout history have grown out of childhood and thought deeply at Zeno’s paradox, that’s why there are multiple books on the subject, it holds a place in Stanford’s annuals of philosophy and is taught in many mathematical philosophy courses at many universities. It is also used to introduce mechanics in physics textbooks. Well, it seems that I'm not allowed to react logically correctly in full given the interpretation of science rampant on the site. I use "paradox" as in a seeming contradiction. You still don't grab this even though I repeated this more than once. You are clearly someone of great IQ, great knowledge and great experience, great EQ and more over great creative intelligence thus correctly one of great reputation, how can that be? Your correct use of mathematics reaches exactly the same answer as correct logic does, yet much slower and with much more effort. So on this problem lingual logic wins hands down and mathematics supports that. Unless you wish to state you were quicker coming to the same answer with mathematics?What added worth does your exact description of Zeno bring you to what end? I.e. only use mathematics where it applies. It indeed always can be used, but please don't claim ascendancy, that depends on the issue when to use it and when not to. With Zeno: don't. Zeno is only a complicated strawman of mathematics on lingual logic as the mathematics indeed correctly shows. BTW: Tar thanks. BTW2 Physica, what is a bossing? Edited May 27, 2014 by kristalris -2
physica Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Instead of waffling you need to show me the lingual solution. Just repeating that it's a seeming contradiction is just pathetic, it adds nothing. There hasn't been a satisfactory one yet, if you have one I suggest you get it published, you'll be on a fast track in an academic post. in order to logically state that Achilles can overtake the tortoise you have to say that he reaches where the tortoise is. By that time the tortoise would have moved. He then has to reach that point. The gap becomes infinity small. Thus taking an infinite amount of steps. Now your observation tells you that Achilles overtakes the tortoise. Therefore an infinite amount of steps can be carried out in a finite amount of time. Maths shows us how this can logically happen, however, the lingual approach fails to explain why a infinite amount of steps can be done in a finite amount of time. I don't think I can make this any more simpler for you but I will try. observation: Achilles overtakes the tortoise secondary observation: Achilles has to reach the point where the tortoise was in order to overtake it Third observation: The tortoise has moved by the time Achilles has reached the point so Achilles has to get to that point extrapolation of logic: Because the points can become infinitely small there are an infinite amount of steps to overtaking the tortoise math: This is proved logical by calculus Lingual: There isn't a solution to this yet (after 100s of years and many great minds attempting) as it is not logical to state that a infinite amount of steps can be done in a finite amount of time Now it is very simple for you. To avoid waffle and cyclic conversation just contest the bold statements. If it is easier, make you statements under each heading. Edited May 27, 2014 by physica
kristalris Posted May 27, 2014 Author Posted May 27, 2014 Instead of waffling you need to show me the lingual solution. Just repeating that it's a seeming contradiction is just pathetic, it adds nothing. There hasn't been a satisfactory one yet, if you have one I suggest you get it published, you'll be on a fast track in an academic post. in order to logically state that Achilles can overtake the tortoise you have to say that he reaches where the tortoise is. By that time the tortoise would have moved. He then has to reach that point. The gap becomes infinity small. Thus taking an infinite amount of steps. Now your observation tells you that Achilles overtakes the tortoise. Therefore an infinite amount of steps can be carried out in a finite amount of time. Maths shows us how this can logically happen, however, the lingual approach fails to explain why a infinite amount of steps can be done in a finite amount of time. I don't think I can make this any more simpler for you but I will try. observation: Achilles overtakes the tortoise Problem logically solved taking the observation as a fact. The rest is waffle. math: This is proved logical by calculus Indeed, yet in a overly complex way. Lingual: There isn't a solution to this yet (after 100s of years and many great minds attempting) as it is not logical to state that a infinite amount of steps can be done in a finite amount of time There is. I just gave it. The mathematics concurs that Achillies will overtake the tortoise.. "Now it is very simple for you. To avoid waffle and cyclic conversation just contest the bold statements. If it is easier, make you statements under each heading." Except the waffle then.
kristalris Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 Instead of waffling you need to show me the lingual solution. Just repeating that it's a seeming contradiction is just pathetic, it adds nothing. There hasn't been a satisfactory one yet, if you have one I suggest you get it published, you'll be on a fast track in an academic post. in order to logically state that Achilles can overtake the tortoise you have to say that he reaches where the tortoise is. By that time the tortoise would have moved. He then has to reach that point. The gap becomes infinity small. Thus taking an infinite amount of steps. Now your observation tells you that Achilles overtakes the tortoise. Therefore an infinite amount of steps can be carried out in a finite amount of time. Maths shows us how this can logically happen, however, the lingual approach fails to explain why a infinite amount of steps can be done in a finite amount of time. I don't think I can make this any more simpler for you but I will try. observation: Achilles overtakes the tortoise Problem logically solved taking the observation as a fact. The rest is waffle. math: This is proved logical by calculus Indeed, yet in a overly complex way. Lingual: There isn't a solution to this yet (after 100s of years and many great minds attempting) as it is not logical to state that a infinite amount of steps can be done in a finite amount of time There is. I just gave it. The mathematics concurs that Achillies will overtake the tortoise.. "Now it is very simple for you. To avoid waffle and cyclic conversation just contest the bold statements. If it is easier, make you statements under each heading." Except the waffle then. Well Physica, have you thrown in the towel? Guess so then, for I answered your questions, yet you didn't answer mine: what do you mean by giving someone a bossing?
physica Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I was just shocked at the reply, it's beyond retarded. Stating: There is. I just gave it. The mathematics concurs that Achillies will overtake the tortoise.. Is using maths. It's like saying yeah John cleared the driveway but because I said it that means i did it. also stating: Problem logically solved taking the observation as a fact. The rest is waffle. Is beyond moronic. No one isn't taking the observation as fact. Logically understanding the observation is science, just taking it as fact and leaving it at that isn't science. You haven't answered a single question, just waffled. If you want clarification of a bossing just look at what I've done to you..... are you not embarrassed by your posts? You've shown lack of basic verbal reasoning and when you've been called out on your waffle you result to it happens therefore who cares about the logic. I'm very confused as to why you're on a science forum, I suggest a cult or fundamentalist religion group when you say stuff like: Except the waffle then. Edited June 2, 2014 by physica -1
kristalris Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I was just shocked at the reply, it's beyond retarded. Stating: There is. I just gave it. The mathematics concurs that Achillies will overtake the tortoise.. Is using maths. It's like saying yeah John cleared the driveway but because I said it that means i did it. also stating: Problem logically solved taking the observation as a fact. The rest is waffle. Is beyond moronic. No one isn't taking the observation as fact. Logically understanding the observation is science, just taking it as fact and leaving it at that isn't science. You haven't answered a single question, just waffled. If you want clarification of a bossing just look at what I've done to you..... are you not embarrassed by your posts? You've shown lack of basic verbal reasoning and when you've been called out on your waffle you result to it happens therefore who cares about the logic. I'm very confused as to why you're on a science forum, I suggest a cult or fundamentalist religion group when you say stuff like: Except the waffle then. Oh dear oh dear oh dear, now you say that you in science may not take the observation as a fact. As soon as you've done that and the question is whether or not that fact is a fact or not has become waffle. For it is a fact. That is a bit difficult of course. Point is dear physica that this is the essence of science mate. I.e. taking the observation as a fact. And you qualify me as less than a moron. Hilarious. You are only on about authority:i.e. warning points, reputation points, being embarrassed........that dear physica is indeed what religion is all about. You are clearly only authority minded: I.e. you treat science as a religion. The religion of the paradigm. Anyone that doesn't guess what the authority peers would guess are morons etc.. In science - as a dictate - dear physica the observation taken as fact reigns supreme, because it isn't religion. You expressly state just the opposite. Namely that you think there still is some problem left. Again a hilarious Bayesian inversion! And, it's also quite clear that irony isn't beyond you. Clearly one of your strong points. Getting a bossing from you is clearly quit enjoyable. Just to help you again: fact: Achilles overtakes the tortoise as observation = fact => question does Achilles overtake the tortoise? YES oh why then? It's a bloody FACT! The rest is waffle. Why then the paradox? Well creatively intelligent people think you mean paradox as a seeming contradiction, then there is no problem. The other half of the populace take it as a contradiction and start to try to go into deep thought. A bit like when Neil Armstrong said: "a small step for man, a large step for mankind" sent a great many off into deep - religious - thoughts. Whereas Neil only forgot to say "a" at the appropriate point, as he later stated to indeed have made a mistake. Edited June 2, 2014 by kristalris
physica Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Learn how to read, in the quote that you quote me in I say that no one isn't taking the observation as fact. Once again a whole point founded on a misunderstanding from your point of view, again you will brush over it, I now you dance around the subject of supplying a lingual solution without maths, classic example of someone who is stumped but not willing to admit it. Edited June 2, 2014 by physica
kristalris Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Learn how to read, in the quote that you quote me in I say that no one isn't taking the observation as fact. Once again a whole point founded on a misunderstanding from your point of view, again you will brush over it, I now you dance around the subject of supplying a lingual solution without maths, classic example of someone who is stumped but not willing to admit it. read the edit. And edit 2: the previous post proves that on appropriate questions verbal logic beats mathematics. Like concerning the paradoxes such as Zeno's. Edited June 2, 2014 by kristalris
Recommended Posts