[2014-09-27] Math Party

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderator: Kimra

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby Peon » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:43 pm

You sure do like to fill paragraphs with baloney. None of what you said indicates how "The Induction Step
Assume Q(m) is true for all m. That is, a group of m people is a party. Surely, removing a single person from a party will not alter it's party status. Thus, if Q(m) is true, then Q(m + 1) is true." is mathematically valid. Just because you say something "surely" doesn't make it mathematically valid. How can removing a single person from a party "surely" not alter its party status if we consider parties sized two or one or no people at all?
Ask the next question.
User avatar
Peon
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby AmagicalFishy » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:20 am

are you trolling me
AmagicalFishy
 

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby Peon » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:56 am

I'm not sure how else to describe a 20-post discussion about math pedantry. But if you're not trolling when you describe your "proof" as mathematically valid then I'd hate to see your real proofs. Math isn't just some game of mad libs; not only does the structure have to work but the arguments contained therein have to work as well.
Ask the next question.
User avatar
Peon
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby DonRetrasado » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:10 am

Oh my god I HATE math!!
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.

Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.
User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canada!

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby GUTCHUCKER » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:14 am

Nuoh my gawd
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.
User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
 
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby theory » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:15 pm

Isn't the point that this dude is so pathetic he is resorting to an obviously fallacious proof by induction?
theory
 

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby Lethal Interjection » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:30 pm

theory wrote:Isn't the point that this dude is so pathetic he is resorting to an obviously fallacious proof by induction?


I think the point is that this thread is everything that is wrong with math. In that it is boring.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8052
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby Peon » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:54 am

Related: https://medium.com/the-nib/no-youre-a-butt-e6836cc14af6

Zach sure likes his dubious applications of induction
Ask the next question.
User avatar
Peon
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby lahvak » Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:23 am

AmagicalFishy wrote:The Induction Step
Assume Q(m) is true for all m.


What you probably wanted to say is "for some m". Q(m) being true for all m is what you want to prove at the first place.

Other than that, this indeed is a mathematically valid proof. The problem is in the statement "Surely, removing a single person from a party will not alter it's party status." Assuming that statement is true, the proof itself is correct.

The problem with a sand heap is that a sand heap has an infinite number of grains of sand in it, that's why an induction like this cannot work.
lahvak
 

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby AmagicalFishy » Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:47 am

lahvak wrote:What you probably wanted to say is "for some m".

Oh, whoops—my mistake! I did not catch that, haha.

I've never heard of the sand heap in that paradox having an infinite number of grains, though; is that something I've just been missing? The reason the assumption-statement would be true (whether it be for a sand heap or a party) is because of the lack of definition for either. If one defined a party as "A gathering of 40 people," then removing a single person from a 40-person party would stop it from being a party (but then there'd be no Sorite's Paradox in the first place).

The paradox a bit more intuitive when one considers a heap of sand, but the same kind of definition can resolve it. Surely, removing a grain of sand from a heap of 1,000,000,000,000 grains does not make it not a heap. And, similarly, removing one more grain of sand does not. But, if we defined a "heap" as 999,999,999,998 grains or more, then removing a third grain of sand would make it not a heap.

Once you definitively define (!) things, there isn't much of a paradox.
AmagicalFishy
 

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby lahvak » Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:53 am

AmagicalFishy wrote:I've never heard of the sand heap in that paradox having an infinite number of grains, though; is that something I've just been missing?


Vopěnka, P. Mathematics in the Alternative Set Theory. Teubner, Leipzig, 1979.
lahvak
 

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby Furius » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:45 pm

The problem with a sand heap is that a sand heap has an infinite number of grains of sand in it, that's why an induction like this cannot work.


Do you mean "indefinite"?
Furius
 

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby lahvak » Thu Oct 09, 2014 1:52 am

Furius wrote:
The problem with a sand heap is that a sand heap has an infinite number of grains of sand in it, that's why an induction like this cannot work.


Do you mean "indefinite"?


No, I certainly do not mean "indefinite".
lahvak
 

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby hughperman » Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:03 am

So, the guy in the strip doesn't understand induction, and that's why he has no friends to come to his party? Maybe if you guys here could explain how it works to him, then he'd be better able to have friends.
hughperman
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:35 pm

Re: [2014-09-27] Math Party

Postby AmagicalFishy » Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:55 am

I could not find that book anywhere. :| Would you mind posting a quote? (I am still fairly certain the Sorites Paradox does not require infinite grains of sand, but am curious of the author's purpose in using it for one—and about the claim that it requires an infinite number of grains for the other).
AmagicalFishy
 

Previous

Return to Latest Comic Discussion 3: Revenge of the Son of Latest Comic Discussion 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests