Trolling in [field of study].

All non-Go discussions should go here.
hyperpape
Tengen
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Has thanked: 499 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by hyperpape »

It's much more straightforward than that, Jordus. The equation x^2 - x + 1 = 0 has no solutions (at least in the reals--I can't recall a nice way to check in the complex numbers). By reasoning about "x" when there is no such number, you create contradictions (just as if you started a proof "let x be the largest number"). You might think of Araban's demonstration as an unnecessarily convoluted reductio ad absurdum.

This is just the ordinary logic of mathematics.
User avatar
Bantari
Gosei
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:34 pm
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: Bantari
Location: Ponte Vedra
Has thanked: 642 times
Been thanked: 490 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by Bantari »

That's right, Boys and Girls!
We do not yet have enough Trolls in here, lets make sure the few we do have feel really welcome and don't be too shy about what they do best!!
I will spread the news on rgg: L19 needs more Trolls!! With your permission, of course.

Man, I am grumpy today, lol.
My apologies...
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
User avatar
Jordus
Site Admin
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:06 pm
Rank: KGS 9k
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: Jordus
Location: Allegan, MI, USA
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 116 times
Contact:

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by Jordus »

hyperpape wrote:
It's much more straightforward than that, Jordus. The equation x^2 - x + 1 = 0 has no solutions (at least in the reals--I can't recall a nice way to check in the complex numbers). By reasoning about "x" when there is no such number, you create contradictions (just as if you started a proof "let x be the largest number"). You might think of Araban's demonstration as an unnecessarily convoluted reductio ad absurdum.

This is just the ordinary logic of mathematics.


@hyperpape:

I believe you are right about not being able to solve in real numbers... I believe you end up with i in there somewhere.. I didn't even bother to go about checking solutions... I only looked at the method used to attain his current solutions...
I'm thinking...
User avatar
Solomon
Gosei
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:21 pm
Rank: AGA 5d
GD Posts: 0
KGS: Capsule 4d
Tygem: 치킨까스 5d
Location: Bellevue, WA
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 835 times

Re: Trolling in physics.

Post by Solomon »

SpongeBob wrote:As a physicist (or maybe just a trolling one?), let me try this here:

Take a newspaper with a big headline and stand before a mirror. Hold up the newspaper so that you can see the headline and try to read it. You will notice that the letters are flipped:
The first letter of each word is not at the left side, but on the right. Also, the letters itself are flipped regarding left and right. BUT: the letters are NOT flipped regarding up and down. Also the headline is above the article as expected, not below.

This proves that a mirror is flipping right and left, but not up and down - despite the perfectly symetric position where there should be no difference between the up-down and left-right direction.

Physics has gone crazy!!

Instead of pretending I figured this out after a few minutes of deep contemplation, I'll just post the video I instantly recalled when i read this problem that will help anyone genuinely curious about the fascinating object known as the mirror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msN87y-iEx0

GoCat wrote:The problem I've been working has to do with the vast amount of electronic data generated daily by so many computers. And the trick is to find a way to store it without constantly adding more storage space. The answer suddenly hit me, and since I've just submitted patents applications, I will share it with you: The trick is to simply apply multiple compression schemes repeatedly, in a particular sequence, to reduce the size of the original data image to any desired storage size. Along with the resulting compressed image, one also needs to store the sequence information used to reach the final result -- but that's just a small list of numbers. Choosing the correct sequence, of course, depends on the image at each step of the process. For every image, there's always a compression algorithm that will reduce it at least somewhat. The part I'm working on now is to efficiently select the appropriate compressor at each step so as to always guarantee some reduction in image size. Once that's worked out, then in theory, you can reduce those vast amounts of data as much as you want. It becomes a direct trade-off between compute time (the repeated compression steps) and the resulting image size.

Brilliant, eh?

Indeed this is brilliant, but imagine how much better this idea would be with an infinite energy system:
Image
User avatar
Monadology
Lives in gote
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:26 pm
Rank: KGS 7 kyu
GD Posts: 0
KGS: Krill
OGS: Krill
Location: Riverside CA
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by Monadology »

Bless you, Araban. I would not have figured out the mirror one for a million years and it might have kept me up at night.

For a contribution, here's something that's more of a joke than a troll unless you're telling it to an overly serious philosophy student:

On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.

If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.

QUESTION: What should the brain do?

[ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLE: Same as above, except the brain has had a commisurotomy, and the left half of the brain is a consequentialist and the right side is an absolutist.]

(from: http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm)
User avatar
GoCat
Lives with ko
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:27 pm
Rank: 5K or so
GD Posts: 163
KGS: GoCat
Location: Oregon
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Trolling in physics.

Post by GoCat »

Araban wrote:...but imagine how much better this idea would be with an infinite energy system:


you know, I just remembered... back when I was in school, maybe about 12 years old, a friend and I came up with what we thought was an excellent idea... We would design an electric car, but with a generator attached to the drive axle. This, naturally, would produce the electricity needed to power the electric motor. We thought maybe just one car battery to to get things started...

Okay, I'm happy to admit that I wasn't the brightest twelve-year-old. But the sad part of the story is that we presented the idea to our math teacher, and he thought it was worth a try.
Kirby
Honinbo
Posts: 9553
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
GD Posts: 0
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Has thanked: 1583 times
Been thanked: 1707 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by Kirby »

Monadology wrote:...

QUESTION: What should the brain do?

...


This is going to have me up awhile…
be immersed
hyperpape
Tengen
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Has thanked: 499 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by hyperpape »

Jordus wrote:@hyperpape:

I believe you are right about not being able to solve in real numbers... I believe you end up with i in there somewhere.. I didn't even bother to go about checking solutions... I only looked at the method used to attain his current solutions...


It's straightforward to see that there's no real solution. If you happen to remember that the minimum point of an upward sloping parabola is at x = -b/2a, then you know that the minimum is at (-1/2, 3/4). So there's no solution. Or you can note that |x^2| > |x| anytime |x| > 1, while a solution requires that x^2 - x < -1.

I actually don't think any of his algebraic manipulations are at fault. It's just garbage in, garbage out. If an equation has two solutions, you can substitute just one for a variable, so long as you don't subsequently use the other. Moreover, if a variable occurs twice, you can substitute for one instance of it and not the other, so long as you don't later perform an inconsistent substitution on the other.

Oh, the last post had a huge brain fart--every polynomial has at least one complex solution, though I spoke the truth so far as I indicated that I didn't know how to check what they were...
User avatar
Sverre
Lives with ko
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:04 pm
Rank: 2d EGF and KGS
GD Posts: 1005
Universal go server handle: sverre
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by Sverre »

hyperpape wrote:
It's much more straightforward than that, Jordus. The equation x^2 - x + 1 = 0 has no solutions (at least in the reals--I can't recall a nice way to check in the complex numbers).


The quadratic equation works just fine for the complex numbers.



hyperpape wrote:
It's straightforward to see that there's no real solution. If you happen to remember that the minimum point of an upward sloping parabola is at x = -b/2a, then you know that the minimum is at (-1/2, 3/4). So there's no solution. Or you can note that |x^2| > |x| anytime |x| > 1, while a solution requires that x^2 - x < -1.

I actually don't think any of his algebraic manipulations are at fault. It's just garbage in, garbage out. If an equation has two solutions, you can substitute just one for a variable, so long as you don't subsequently use the other. Moreover, if a variable occurs twice, you can substitute for one instance of it and not the other, so long as you don't later perform an inconsistent substitution on the other.

Oh, the last post had a huge brain fart--every polynomial has at least one complex solution, though I spoke the truth so far as I indicated that I didn't know how to check what they were...


The original equation had two solutions, both of them solutions to the equation x^3 = 1. I am not a mathematician, but increasing the degree of a polynomial expression often introduces a spurious solution.


EDIT:
How about this one? Recall that e ^ pi*i = -1

e ^ 1 = e ^ (1 + 2*pi*i) = (e ^ (1 + 2*pi*i)) ^ (1 + 2*pi*i) = e ^ ((1 + 2*pi*i)^2) = e ^ (1 + 4*pi*i - 4*pi^2) = e ^ (1 - 4*pi^2)

trollface.jpg

SpongeBob wrote:As a physicist (or maybe just a trolling one?), let me try this here:

Take a newspaper with a big headline and stand before a mirror. Hold up the newspaper so that you can see the headline and try to read it. You will notice that the letters are flipped:
The first letter of each word is not at the left side, but on the right. Also, the letters itself are flipped regarding left and right. BUT: the letters are NOT flipped regarding up and down. Also the headline is above the article as expected, not below.

This proves that a mirror is flipping right and left, but not up and down - despite the perfectly symetric position where there should be no difference between the up-down and left-right direction.

Physics has gone crazy!!


I fail at physics. Reading the newspaper in front of the mirror I did not notice any flipping whatsoever. After some thought I decided to try to read the headline in the mirror instead. After turning the front page toward the mirror I noticed that the up-down directions had been flipped but the left-right directions remained the same! I am very confused now. Is it possible that this could be because I am in Europe and you are in the US, so that our points of view are rotated 90 degrees compared to each other?
User avatar
Magicwand
Tengen
Posts: 4844
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:26 am
Rank: Wbaduk 7D
GD Posts: 0
KGS: magicwand
Tygem: magicwand
Wbaduk: rlatkfkd
DGS: magicwand
OGS: magicwand
Location: Mechanicsburg, PA
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 504 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by Magicwand »

Araban wrote:I'm not sure if there are a lot of physicists on this forum (though you really don't need to be one to see what's wrong with the first image), so here's one for the mathematicians (and oh, if you want to debunk something, use the hide tag so others can try to figure it out):

Image

Q.E.D. Image

as a formal mathmatician myself...let me try..

first..you should not divide both side of quadradic equation by X because you will lose one of the value.
second... you should not multiply both side of the equation by X because you will create false answer which created paradox in your example.

i would like to look at this more..but i am too busy and dont have time..
after i come back next month i will find exactly what is wrong.
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"

Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
User avatar
SpongeBob
Lives in gote
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:18 pm
Rank: Fox 3D
GD Posts: 325
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by SpongeBob »

Sverre wrote:I fail at physics. Reading the newspaper in front of the mirror I did not notice any flipping whatsoever. After some thought I decided to try to read the headline in the mirror instead. After turning the front page toward the mirror I noticed that the up-down directions had been flipped but the left-right directions remained the same! I am very confused now. Is it possible that this could be because I am in Europe and you are in the US, so that our points of view are rotated 90 degrees compared to each other?

Yeah, sorry, forgot to mention that: What I described is certainly only valid in the U.S. As you pointed out, in Europe the up-down direction will be flipped instead. And, by the way, in Asia both directions will be flipped.

Araban, thanks for a great link. However, don't you think it is kind of unfair to get help from a nobel prize winning Quantum-Electro-Dynamics physicist?? Q.E.D.
Stay out of my territory! (W. White, aka Heisenberg)
robinz
Lives in gote
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:40 am
Rank: KGS 9k
GD Posts: 0
KGS: robinz
Location: Durham, UK
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by robinz »

Hi all - it's my first post; sadly I don't know that much about Go (although I hope to improve at that, and might eventually post about some Go-related stuff), but as I've spent the past 10 years studying Maths (and now have a PhD - not that that is needed to debunk this particular argument), it's fairly simple to say what the flaw is:

The original quadratic is fine, and has 2 roots, which are both of the complex cube roots of 1 (e^2pi*i/3 and e^-2pi*i/3). Both are also roots of x^3=1, of course, but that equation has a third root, 1. You can get from the original equation x^2+x+1=0 to x^3=1 just by multiplying it by x-1 on both sides. The fatal flaw is in going from x^3=1 to x=1 - this only works if you assume x has to be real, which isn't the case.
User avatar
topazg
Tengen
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:08 am
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
Location: Chatteris, UK
Has thanked: 1579 times
Been thanked: 650 times
Contact:

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by topazg »

Philosophy: Proof of predetermism

It's very clear to demonstrate without any doubt that we have no free will: The world is predetermined, and it doesn't matter what we chose to do, because our choice is already determined. Therefore, whenever we think we are making a choice, it's because it was already determined we would do so. Not making a choice also does not get around this, because the lack of a choice is a choice too, and that, likewise, has already been predetermined. As it is not possible to demonstrate that any choice or action is not predetermined, it must therefore be true.

Bottom line? Evidence based thinking demonstrates without a doubt that predeterminism is an irrefutable fact.
User avatar
topazg
Tengen
Posts: 4511
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:08 am
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
Location: Chatteris, UK
Has thanked: 1579 times
Been thanked: 650 times
Contact:

Re: Trolling in physics.

Post by topazg »

GoCat wrote:
Araban wrote:...but imagine how much better this idea would be with an infinite energy system:


you know, I just remembered... back when I was in school, maybe about 12 years old, a friend and I came up with what we thought was an excellent idea... We would design an electric car, but with a generator attached to the drive axle. This, naturally, would produce the electricity needed to power the electric motor. We thought maybe just one car battery to to get things started...

Okay, I'm happy to admit that I wasn't the brightest twelve-year-old. But the sad part of the story is that we presented the idea to our math teacher, and he thought it was worth a try.


In fairness, it may be interesting to know why he wanted to try it. I think the best form of teaching can be experimentation and discussion, and it's possible, rather than saying "it won't work", he was wanting you to find out that it didn't and then explore why yourselves... I was lucky enough to have had a few teachers like this.
User avatar
Jordus
Site Admin
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:06 pm
Rank: KGS 9k
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: Jordus
Location: Allegan, MI, USA
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 116 times
Contact:

Re: Trolling in [field of study].

Post by Jordus »

robinz wrote:Hi all - it's my first post; sadly I don't know that much about Go (although I hope to improve at that, and might eventually post about some Go-related stuff), but as I've spent the past 10 years studying Maths (and now have a PhD - not that that is needed to debunk this particular argument), it's fairly simple to say what the flaw is:

The original quadratic is fine, and has 2 roots, which are both of the complex cube roots of 1 (e^2pi*i/3 and e^-2pi*i/3). Both are also roots of x^3=1, of course, but that equation has a third root, 1. You can get from the original equation x^2+x+1=0 to x^3=1 just by multiplying it by x-1 on both sides. The fatal flaw is in going from x^3=1 to x=1 - this only works if you assume x has to be real, which isn't the case.


I believe the original quadratic answer is flawed... to get x from x^2 you should take squareroot of both sides... that gives you:

x = +/- the squareroot of (-x-1)


unlike in the post which divides x into both sides...
I'm thinking...
Post Reply