prove this

[ilbastardoh]

1+1=2

why?

how is it that arbitrary symbols together are equal to another arbitrary symbol?

[SEN D-F]

The symbols are irrelevant, we simply use these symbols because life would be a lot more difficult without them.

No matter what symbol you use to represent each value, a single value added to another single value equals two single values.

All we've done is create symbols to correspond with the values to make our lives easier. I really don't know where you're going with this but if you're attempting to in anyway negate scientific theories based on the fact that you think math is nothing but 'arbitrary symbols' leading to more 'arbitrary symbols' then don't expect to succeed.

Once again, the symbols mean nothing we simply use them to make our lives easier. Have you ever seen a long mathematical equation? Imagine trying to write it out or even solve it without individual symbols to indiciate individual values!

[lawst_kos]

good reply ^^

[cheerupemoboy]

SEN D-F is right. its exactly like words. u cant call numbers arbitrary without saying the same for words. numbers arent quite as often used as word, but there theoretically a hell of a lot more important. but if u get on the topic of infinity, i may be forced to kill u...

[DestruKtiKon]

Its all symbolic. EVERYTHING!!!!

[ilbastardoh]

Good at least it shows you think for yourself.

[bkc]

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:

1+1=2

why?

One plus one does not equal two. You just think it does. "One plus one" is a concept that approximates the physical world, but can never reflect it...what would you say?...exactly or accurately? "One plus one equals two", does not exist in the real world, and you have to be able to see that to be able to understand anything else in a more useful, nondestructive, manner.



[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 02-11-2004).]

[Craftian]

A dog is not Canis familiaris. You just think it is. The phrase "a dog" is a concept that approximates the physical world, but can never reflect it...what would you say?...exactly or accurately? The phrase "a dog", does not exist in the real world, and you have to be able to see that to be able to understand anything else in a more useful, nondestructive, manner.

[bkc]

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

A dog is not Canis familiaris. You just think it is. The phrase "a dog" is a concept that approximates the physical world, but can never reflect it...what would you say?...exactly or accurately? The phrase "a dog", does not exist in the real world, and you have to be able to see that to be able to understand anything else in a more useful, nondestructive, manner.

The sentiment coming through on your reply seems to be one of mocking sarcasm, making fruitful discussion unlikely.

[---Beany---]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

The sentiment coming through on your reply seems to be one of mocking sarcasm, making fruitful discussion unlikely.

The eloquence of your post is most eloquent.