Jump to content

ahmet

Senior Members
  • Posts

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by ahmet

  1. ok.it is easy.

    0+0+0+0= 0.(0+0+0+0+0)

    0(1+1+1+1)=0.(1+1+1+1+1)

    simplify 0s.

    the n 4=5 ,you can similarly obtain 1=0 etc.

    the core reason is effective here.

    50 minutes ago, studiot said:

    All I see is your statement 0+0 = 0*2,  which is true since anything times 0 is still 0.

    What I don't see is a formal continuation of your line of reasoning to the end.

    have you understood the theorems ? I meant that you would not be able to write the simplification in that way. 

    On 6/27/2020 at 5:40 PM, francis20520 said:

    I am a layman trying to understand above theorems. This could be a stupid question. 

    Does these theorems imply that we actually cannot prove that 2+2 = 4???

    Is this one of the implications of these theorems???

    meanwhile,apart from our conversation, while I do not know specifically Gödel's that mentioned teorem, as I know, incompleteness is different subject (i.e. potentially irrelevant)

    one of our issues is from Algebra (general algebra) and the other one is presumably from functional analysis. 

    of course,they are of intersections  but specifically these two issues seems to me irrelevant. 

  2. 2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

    @ahmet I interpret the dots "." as end of a sentence. Reformatting the above using separate lines for each sentence:

    0+0=0

    0+1=1

    1+1=2

     That seems to be ok examples to illustrate the question asked? I do not see 0=2. Maybe I miss something.

    to be honest, I did not understand the equation as it stands correctly so,I wrote my supposition/prediction. sorry if I failing.

    and how would we reach 0=1 in that way?

  3. 24 minutes ago, studiot said:

    When you finish the job, (ie write out the simplification) how is your conclusion reached?

     

    theorem 1)

    when <H,+,.> is a circle. a,b ϵ H-{0H} , if a.b=0H   ,then a,b are called zero division of H circle. if tere is no such elements ,then  H is called as it has had no this property.

    theorem 2:) H is a circle, and ∀ x,y,z ϵ H , for ∃       x 0H  ,if this; , x.y=x.z <=> y=z   condition is satisfied then ,we can conclude that simplification exists in H.

    theorem 3) if H is a circle, to be able to apply simplification , theorem 1 is sufficient and required  (<=>).

     

    thus, you cannot write the simplification in that way because of theorem 1 ,theorem 2 and theorem 3 (check please theorem 2).

  4. On 6/27/2020 at 7:17 PM, francis20520 said:

    Thanks for your quick responses. 

    I don't much about  axiomatic structures in Mathematics. Only things I know is what I read on Wikipedia.

    Just out of curiosity, is it PROVED in mathematics (like proving the Pythagoras theorem) that 2 + 2 = 4??

    I.e. 0 + 0 = 0. 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2. Are these Axioms in mathematics???

    Or is there a proof??? What is it called?

    this is wrong as I know. because of some rules in algebra (general algebra)

    in fact you tried to write

    0+0= 0(1+1)= 0 .2 if we would simplify both parts then we would find that (0=2)

    or equivalently

    0*0=0 

    0*0=0+0

    0*0=0(1+1) 

    simplify 0 at both parts. then 0=2 which is wrong. you cannot do this , because of the rules in algebra. 

    (that mentioned rule/property is (presumably) this one: for all elemnts in R,Q,Z that are not equal to zero (other than zero), the multiplication of two elements  will never be zero)  

    that mathematically said 

    ∀ x,y ϵ R or Q or Z and x≠0 ,y≠0 --> x.y≠0

     

  5. On 6/6/2020 at 4:12 PM, Sorrow said:

    So to say we cannot reach  a godlike form. Well however last edit.

    no. but as it said, I think that this subject extends to "belief" rather than being biological subject.

    but to me, as both in physical direction and biological, I do not think that something can be happened two times in the same form in general

     

    On 6/16/2020 at 9:12 AM, druS said:

    Defining "life" gets interesting and does not have much consensus.

    • Ability to reproduce/heritable information
    • Metabolism/Homeostasis (organisms can maintain themselves)
    • It is generally considered that cells are the fundamental building block of life.

    While "life" is not well defined you will find that there is pretty strong agreement on the items you mention:

    • virus are not life forms
    • "seeds" are gametes - a step in the reproduction of certain life forms.
    • Prions are proteins, not life (though proteins are a good example of emergence in the world if life forms)

    On the whole biology (life) emerges from chemistry but chemicals are not life. Molecules are not really "destroyed" but the can be transformed into other molecules. Atoms are not life and on-the-whole are not destroyed (physicists will provide plenty of corrections to that statement).

    Interestingly the atoms in your body largely have been around for billions of years and started as star dust. The origin of matter and atoms themselves, is another fascinating topic.

    thanks for clarification/explanation. I think that the destruction of all the things is possible. (here, including atoms,molecules,too)

  6. 37 minutes ago, iNow said:

    It’s challenging to parse this salad of words, but you appear to suggest that only some users of psychotropic drugs experience the aforementioned misfires of time encoding in their brain. If so, I agree. That’s why I said “tend to,” as in “there’s a tendency for this to happen,” not a mandate or requirement. 

    yeah,yes I did mean so. sorry for missing detail. but again .. not all of them will have tendency. (maybe there might be a scientific research about this?)

    although,I have no expertise in this area,I know that not all of them are typical. there are some content that might be relevant to this issue for instance some keywords like GABA ,glutamate, dopamine,etc (I am unable to dominate all the content but..). I also  can mean that some sympoms are interferrable ,but not all of symptoms ,exactly and of course. 

  7. 7 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Folks who use psychotropic drugs like pot and other mild hallucinogens also tend to experience “misfires” in mapping time to current experiences and the brain seems to miscode the event as “future” or “past.”

    presumably, you forgot to mention only some of that patients (not all of them are so) or otherwise,I can be sure that you are not psychiatrist/a medical doctor who is specialized in psychiatry

  8. 3 hours ago, MigL said:

    You have to stop eating fried foods, or drinking coffee, before bedtime, Strange; you have some pretty disturbing dreams.
    ( I still dream about women )

    hahaha :) :) :)

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

     

    Really?

    yes, sometimes happens to me too. I say; it is possible. but if you are asking the reality: I think now, no one can know the future via dreams when they are asleep, except some very specific people. but this issue will probably extend or have a relevance with a belief. 

  9. 11 minutes ago, Othmane Dahi said:

    Hey guys,

    Have you ever thought that maybe we see the future when we are asleep ?

    to someones, this already happens. but other ones do not accept it. This means ,it depends on whose sleep and whose comment. 

    generally the people who are not knowledgeable do not take attention. :) 

    could you specify which type of information you would like us to provide?

    or which type of information  you are looking for?

  10. can we say that the bold curve shows the hearable treshold at the same time?

    for instance the sound specigically in these intervals are not hearable  by human's ear.

    between 0-40 dB and between 0-50 hertz.

    after 10.000 hertz and between 0-18 hertz.

     

    and could  someone provide more contexts about hearable sounds (diagrams,graphs with numeric parameters would be great)?

    thanksim.thumb.jpg.1fd2086e97f7ac0446853388878f0ee2.jpg

  11. 37 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

    You have to tick out of the Quote Window before writing your comment.

    Right click the text you want to quote and a "Quote Selection" window will pop up.274409570_ScreenShot06-19-20at02_15PM.JPG.4eee2341a6243ab649046caaf150ae19.JPG

    thank you for your suitable reply. lets see what I have been doing. (but for the quotation I won't use the original tags ,I shall use [/ instead [ and /] to help you better understand what I have been doing. :)

    for instance assume please I am quoting on this text. then I do [/quote/] for instance assume please I am quoting on this text [/quote/]

    and where is my failure? it includes my own comment ,too ,into the quotation.

    44 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

    You have to tick out of the Quote Window before writing your comment.

    274409570_ScreenShot06-19-20at02_15PM.JPG.4eee2341a6243ab649046caaf150ae19.JPG

    I think I do this. 

    oh, okkkkk!!! I newly realised haha :) when I pass over the text the option appears ,presumably it has been resolved! :)

    I am feeling myself way more carismatic than before :) pahah :) :) 

  12. the things you are able to do are that :

    1) you could enroll biophysics or physiology (MSc) at medical science institutions.  (but I do not recommend this in general if you are not so much eager and ...something more (more talents required because this way is a bit  containing some significant risks ))

    2) you could read articles/thesis in medical science. it either cases, your opportunities will be  limited. 

    according to modern guidance/educational system you will  select all of your options/preferences by your own. 

    I was also mathematician , but do not prefer to describe myself as a mathematician anymore. 

    TIPS THAT I CAN SHOW YOU (based on my experiences):

    1) you might try to change your work style. (remember, you have been working by writing almost everything you hear and you say but as of now,...)

    2) you might consider to learn something else (that contains applications) rather than reading useless theoretic papers :)  

    3) you might need to stop your sentences starting with "if ..." 

    4) you should not leave the reality / real life. 

    5) you may need to be patient.

     

     

  13. On 5/26/2020 at 11:41 PM, Aowood said:

    Hi,

     

    Space and time are dualities of each other,

    1.what do you mean by "duality" here?

    (3) number dimension, the observation of existence is an odd, uneven, asymmetrical balance; therefore that which wouldn't exist, does, just indirectly.

     singularities..

    Since, time is the singularity.

    what does this mean? (Maybe ,I disagree to this idea) :)

    one of my personal ideas: I do not know the reason that causes me to think so: but anymore,I believe that reality should be the unrenouncable target almost always. 

    thus, I might conclude that ... (big sentence :) ) most of studies that specifically fall inside this subject are void... but if /whenevr you have something in your hand ,then I can appreciate that. 

     

  14. On 6/6/2020 at 4:12 PM, Sorrow said:

    Hello im new in this forum because i got a question that is triggering me.

    
    As we all know, we must die one day. But what about the atoms and molecules?
    

    why not? but what ...?( I think you did not conclude  the setence with a meaningful/obvious result)

    if you implied an action like given in this sentence: "might atoms and molecules also be destroyed (i.e. died (but they already do not live :) ))"

    then , why not?(if you implied destruction,ok.) (but with one notation: I think this will potentially fall outside the scope of this forum or will potentially be accepted so)

    These are absorbed through various processes ? The question that comes up to me is: Would it be possible for our molecules and atoms to find each other in different ways to reassemble and how are the odds for this, so to speak

     Whenever i read something about reincarnation,

    again this seems that it is more relevant to "belief" ,thus you need some readings in the area of arts and human sciences or social sciences. 

    would there a way to describe this through physics or mathematics? /quote]

    if you ...

    meant that (in assumption) 1) everything will be destroyed first 2) something (but not eveything) will be obtained after that.

    some similar circumstances might happen. I can provide a very weak and incomplete solution only. :(

    So if someone knows a theory and thoughts on it, please share it to me.

    I recommend that you scan articles in the area of arts and human sciences  & social sciences.

     

     

     

     

     

    On 6/6/2020 at 4:33 PM, StringJunky said:

    I think the simplest answer is that only living things can make living things and once something dies it's irreversible, in our current state of knowledge.

    mm, do seeds live?

     

    viruses, and ..prions (maybe I did not write this correctly)

  15. 1 hour ago, AmethystFloris said:

    Well, the reasons why I want to know don't really matter; I've edited my original post, to reflect the fact that the motivation for my question has no bearing on the answer. Essentially, "what is as or more light-resistant than aluminium foil" isn't actually a medical question, and I'm not looking for a medical answer; rather, the question requires the knowledge of someone familiar with the study of light, which I was hoping to find here. Thank you.

    ok. I presume you might find something here about aluminum foil here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/aluminum-foil

    but only alimunium as far as I know , it is one of (presumably the english equivalent terminology for it is: ) "prime metal" 

    what does it mean? : this is a class as I know in periodic table.

    others are "Zn,Pb,Cr" all these are also prime metals (maybe I confuse this with half metalic metals,not sure).

    their properties have both metalic and ametalic.

    a notation: my physical/chemistry knowledge might be insufficient,therefore please consult scientific context more than my comment under this thread.

    general information

    in fact,all elements each has its unique atomic number and this determines its place on periodic table. 

    personal opinion

    I think,you can find some stronger metals than aluminum

  16. 14 minutes ago, AmethystFloris said:

    I really hope this is the right place for this, and I'm very sorry if it isn't. The study of light has always come under the heading of "physics" when it's been taught to me, but I'm afraid science is my weakest area!

    The thing is, I have B12 injections, and the glass vials of B12 I use are extremely vulnerable to light, so the supplier suggests aluminum foil be used to wrap around the vials at all times (except when they're actually being used to draw B12 into the syringe). According to the supplier, aluminum foil is extremely light-resistant.

    I was just wondering if anyone with a solid science background in the study of light could tell me if there were any other materials that were as light-resistant as aluminum foil? The problem is, the aluminum foil gets cracks in it from being unwrapped and re-wrapped every day, and constantly needs replacing. Can anyone recommend anything more permanent that I could use, like some sort of "light-proof box" (I'm sure that's the technical term for such a box ;D).

    I'd be tremendously grateful for any help. Thank you very much for your time.

    if you are trying to discuss scientific contexts,then WELCOME..

    if you are trying to take some medical advice and/or medical helps from us as "us" means here we may include medical scientists ,too; then sorry we cannot help about it.

    in such cases I recommend you to see your doctor.

    regards

     

     

  17. On 8/10/2018 at 9:20 PM, edenlog said:
    Sense perception, weather it is smelling,hearing, tasting, etc, how does the body know what to sense? 
     
     
     
    Thanks 

    first, the perception and consciousness are different presumably. (But I am not sure really)

    hearing,smellinga and tasting are all different ...but as far as I know hearing is being occured almost wholly different. because in normal action (except cardiac system (check please the  relevant context ** funny current)) Na-K is working but again as far as I know ,this happens in hearing system conversely to whole of body (except cardiac system**funny current)

    For example, hot and cold, how does the body know what is hot and what is cold?  How does it know the difference bewteen hot and cold in order to activate those specific sensory receptors for hot and receptors for cold? 

    there are spcific receptors for each

    Another example is how does the tongue sense hot of a chemical instead of sensing cold? What mechanism separates the sensation from hot and cold so the tongue knows that chilli peppers are hot and not cold? Is there some type of information present in chemicals that tells the tongue it is either hot or cold? 
    I hope my question is clear, I am trying to understand how the body knows when to sense a specific sensation as opposed to another sensation. How can it tell the difference bewteen something hot and cold? (for example).
     We all know sensation occurs via sensory neurons, but how does sensation sense one sense instead of another like hot and cold?I 

    as it expressed, there are specific receptors for each and according to their some properties they are being stimulated and then ...

     
     
     
     
    I think there must be some sort of information or mechanism in sensed things that allow the body to read it and sense that instead of another sense , what is this information or ability?
     
    Thanks 

    once again I would remind that consciousness and perception are different,being stimuled is way different.

    any else question?

    if yes,do not hesitate please to ask.

  18. On 6/13/2020 at 7:48 AM, Ræl said:

    Anybody has understanding of what's hiding behind in hyperdimensional? Let's share some understanding of such topic, I have some theories to share as I get answers from my bottom question.

    When jumping to higher dimensions, which is effected first space or gravity?

    could you provide more context please,

    among my notations I can find "hyperplanes" for you but not exactly hyperdimensions.

    however,I recommend you not to leave from reality whenever you work.

  19. 12 minutes ago, joigus said:

    I just forgot to type "almost." It's not my intention to take this discussion even farther off-topic than you already have. The OP was not about continuity almost everywhere anyway. If you don't speak English and are using google translator, it's OK. You just say so or ask for help. The OP has nothing to do with the measure of a set, but with the size of a quantity.

    You also mistype, right? For example, "terminoogy", "matematics", or my favourite:

    What are those? :) 

    If you've got time, take a look at this word in the Oxford dictionary: "disingenuous."

    That's not even a sentence in English. Here's the proof (and mind you, the parser is only concerned with syntax, we could talk about meaning😞

    
    No complete linkages found.
    ++++Time                                          0.05 seconds (30.83 total)
    Found 204 linkages (59 with no P.P. violations) at null count 4
      Linkage 1, cost vector = (UNUSED=4 DIS=0 AND=2 LEN=43)
    
                                                                    +-------
                                                                    +-------
        +---------Wi--------+----------------TOo---------------+    |    +--
        |          +----E---+---Os--+                          +--I-+    |  
        |          |        |       |                          |    |    |  
    LEFT-WALL presumably want.v something [that] [allow] [us] to make.v any 
    
    
    -----------------------MVp-----------------------------+               
    ----Os-----------+                                     +---------Jp----
    -------Ds--------+                                     |     +-----Dmcn
         +-----A-----+                                     |  +DD+    +---A
         |           |                                     |  |  |    |    
    physical.a experiment.n or have.v [a] consciousness.n by our 5 sense.n 
    
    
    ----+
    ----+
    N---+
        |
    organs.n 
    
    
        +---------Wi--------+----------------TOo---------------+            
        |          +----E---+---Os--+                          +------------
        |          |        |       |                          |            
    LEFT-WALL presumably want.v something [that] [allow] [us] to make.v any 
    
    
                                                           +---------Jp----
                                  +-----------MVp----------+     +-----Dmcn
    --------If--------------------+------Os------+         |  +DD+    +---A
                                  |              |         |  |  |    |    
    physical.a experiment.n or have.v [a] consciousness.n by our 5 sense.n 
    
    
    ----+
    ----+
    N---+
        |
    organs.n 
    
    Constituent tree:
    
    (S (VP (ADVP presumably)
           want
           (NP something)
           that allow us
           (S (VP to
                  (VP make
                      (NP (NP any physical experiment)
                          or have a
                          (NP consciousness))
                      (PP by
                          (NP (QP our 5)
                              sense organs)))))))
    

    and you give yourself a reasonable explanation  but do not give the same opportunity to other people. What a selfish manner :) :) 

    anyway, I am very busy with more important things to do,and do not consider to reply further.

  20. 29 minutes ago, studiot said:

     

    Secondly, by saying you understood my explanation of 'almost' I hope you understood that this means the process 'as close as we can get' in the physical world.

    I hope you understood the distinction between the single discontinuous point and the infinity of continuous ones.
    This distinction becomes very important in the branch of mathematics known as Analysis because there are types of discontinuity.
    One of these is known as a 'removable discontinuity' which property greatly assists analysis.

    these are already known.(because you are mentioning very basic subsubjecs

    but I am not sure that that man knows all these instructions (in maths)

    meanwhile,I think I can add some more (like ,separable spaces, first class spaces and 2nd class spaces, Lebesgue integral space)

    ....

    English has a technical word for objects in the general sense that is nouns.

    But English is blessed because it distinguishes between certain types of noun.
    In particular it distinguishes 'abstract' nouns and 'concrete' nouns.

    Abstract nouns are objects that only exist in the mind. They are concepts.
    Concrete nouns exist in physical reality, they have physical substance. You can pick one up and weigh it, poke it and so on.

    So a cow is a concrete noun and a unicorn is an abstract noun.
    So swansont's physical is our attempt to create a physical version of a theoretical object which means 'as close as we can get'.

    I have tried to draw this distinction in my examples in the previous posts.

    Dear studiot, 

    I do not think that all of these explanations were scientific

    (the criteria or a criterion) 

    and I why not to wait swansont let us learn more from him?

    but of course,I might need to study a bit physics.

  21. 4 hours ago, joigus said:

    Now I understand what you mean with one of your "hodja." I thought you were talking about an invisible friend. :) 

    "Continuous everywhere" is another expression intended to be intuitive rather than rigorous, but is more traditional. It's to do with measure (cardinality, number of things,) rather than size.

    as it said, my hodja means someone who was "hodja" from my BSc.(not my friend exactly)

    however, I am about to accept/assume that do not understand / differentiate some terminoogy in matematics. 

    because I did not use "continuous everywhere" ,where is that? ,I used "continuous almost everywhere". 

    in anyway, I might consider studying a bit physics more. 

    because I have not understood what swansont meant very well and / or what the criteria were ,for a description to be accepted as "physical" 

    ...

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.