Unity+

Here is some more new concepts. Multiple variable Collatz-Matrix equations Like with regular equations involving multiple variables, Collatz-Matrix equations also are allowed to have multiple variables, except there are different rules involved. These rules involve dimensional aspects and the variables' connections with these dimensions. For example, the amount of variables must be smaller than the amount of dimensions within the Collatz-Matrix equation(However, this rule only applies to dimensions higher than 1. For one dimensional Collatz-Matrix equations, which can be simplified to just an equation of any of the parameters, there can be more variables involved). For example, for a regular Collatz-Matrix equation with only 2 dimensions there can only be one variable because 1 variable is less than 2 dimensions. For a three dimensional Collatz-Matrix equation, there can be the maximum of 2 variables, which are x and y. And then the default Collatz-Matrix equation is Then there is the determinant equation that is arrived from these types of Collatz-Matrix equations. Here is an example of one from the Collatz-Matrix equation above. The more variables involved the larger the determinant equations that are derived from the Collatz-Matrix equations. Each increase in dimensional squares is denoted by A dimensional square is the parameters that define a dimension. For example, here is one dimensional square(the 2nd dimension). Where the following would represent the determinant equation. Where q is the amount of dimensional squares within the Collatz-Matrix equation. This is referred to as the Collatzian mean.

No actually most of us(religious) are not offended, but have made a firm conclusion on their faith until proof otherwise provided that God cannot exist, which is little or to no likely hood of occurring. And this implies religion(in general) prevents you from looking outside the box. It is not the fault of one or many to determine what you do or what you don't do. I would say this was more of your fault than religion. You keep implying that this is the cause by religion rather than your own fears.

There you go, a +1 deserved. And, again I will say again, it is a cultural identity.

The reason why math is maths in the British areas is due to the fact that they don't remove the 's' from abbreviations. Britain: Mathematics - Maths American: Mathematics - Math Personally, I just think it is a language thing. In American English, it works just fine as math. In British English, it works fine as maths.

Well, the only conclusion I can come up with here is that there are as many of each type of scientists as there are in the other aspect.

Well, here is a giant list of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science Sir Robert Boyd Richard Smalley Mariano Artigas Arthur Peacocke C. F. von Weizsäcker Stanley Jaki Allan Sandage Allan Sandage Ernan McMullin Charles Hard Townes Ian Barbour Antony Hewish Richard H. Bube Werner Arber Antonino Zichichi John Polkinghorne The rest can be found in that link(at the bottom of the page for modern-day scientists). Many of these scientist are German, American, and other places in Europe. Many of them have won Nobel prizes in physics and other fields of science.

I am actually wondering the samething. This topic was meant to be about Theistic scientists, not about what ever has been going on for the last few posts. Well, then let us examine this overpopulation issue. Are certain countries overpopulated? Yes, we would agree to that within Asian countries such as China are overpopulated. Is the world overpopulated? That is debatable depending on your views of the overpopulation(is it that there are more people than land or is there more land used up that allows less people to live in). And, I am not going to keep debating about the straw man argument because you did misrepresent his opinion and he even clarified within his post why. And on a further note of the argument, the Pope is human and though is leader of the Catholic church his opinions are not a representation of either half of the Catholics that exist in the world. However being humans, a majority of the belief is still there. And this isn't an avoidance attempt, as I presented the refutation of your argument.

I just noticed that there is a test feature in the Prime95 program to test specific primes. This will come in handy. Since the iteration is at 12678/257885161(approximately, I altered some iteration counts so that it only shows it for a certain amount). It will take a while, but with Prime95 it should work(unless they are also not reliable).

It seems I had made a few mathematical errors within the paper, but they have been fixed. Here is the new PDF file containing the "Introduction to Colllatz Theory" paper: http://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=Download&File=2872637595973355a892e3b2aeb83d7d Is no one paying attention to this thread anymore?

I have already provided you with the information needed to answer the question the best way I could. You ignored it completely. I answered your question. Based on the question, I have provided an amount of a majority of religions(by the teachings of their scripture or basis) that do not interfere with science. And, you must be a bit more specific as to what you request. But that wasn't what you asked before, but here is what I will say anyways. The religion itself does not lead the people of those faiths away from the scientific endeavors. It is the known "leaders" of such religions, who may corrupt the ways of such religion as I specified within the response towards Phi for All. And, who are you talking about when you refer to someone as "they"? I cannot answer the question completely if you just say "they". I do acknowledge your source and I have refuted against that link by providing multiple sources, not just one. Actually include the article instead of the website. That way I actually can see what specific claim the article is making that you are trying to convey. However, here is what I will say about the NCSE link you provided, which seems to bring up how states have had "anti-science" legislation within the education system. The Christian Churches/Catholic Churches do not have a say within the state government of what is and what is not taught. If you have learned the way government works within the United States, you would realize this. It is up to the state and the state's citizens of what is taught in schools, not any religious authority. If you feel so assure of yourself, then I will be waiting. If this statement is meant as an intimidation, then by all means I am not intimidated. Also, if they would like to argue their points they can. It does not matter whether you may represent a certain amount of those who state that religion is often standing in the way of scientific progress.

Actually you should be thankful to him. People would have misinterpreted your question. Also, a number is a number. 0.5 is a number, as well as [math]\pi[/math] and other types of numbers. Number is not limited to positive integers. If you meant positive, integers just say positive integers.

Well, it just seems to me the paper(though valid) should be more of an "inconclusive" rather than a solid conclusion that can be made. I mean, it just seems like it would be like saying that somehow the increase in sun flare activity increase the amount crimes that occurred or the Moon's gravitational effects upon the Earth caused more crimes(and if these are true I am going to lose this one ). And in response to that then, I would say it was more politics than anything towards that point. Corrupt authorities within a Catholic church(which is why I don't encourage theocracies) changed the face of the Catholic religion. During that time, they defaced the Bible and stated that it said something that it didn't even say at all(for example, there were many times when the King would take advantage of the powers of the Catholic church, such as one king, I forget his name, who changed the idea of marriage so he could get what he wanted), which led to the Protestant move. EDIT: Of course, these events don't excuse some of the past issues, such as the Crusades, which was in fact more political than religious, though the leaders carried out their deeds "in the name of religion." And in response to John's request, I don't know what would benefit you by persecuting me. Well, that really depends on the era and what the understanding was of the Universe. It is like asking if someone never existed. Would it have changed the advancement of science? No one really knows.

Here is a new concept to bring up, called Trans-dimensional equations. Though I haven't formulated any equations to carry what they are supposed to conduct, but here is the general idea: Using exponentiation of 0, this Collatz-Matrix equation can be formed: From this operation, a one dimensional Collatz-Matrix equation is formed. EDIT: There is an error on page 9 of my paper. Instead of [math]b_{f}[/math], it should be [math]u_{f}[/math].

Here are some points to make with the article and the document: Here is one of my points with the article. As this person states, there are many factors in the data sets that were involved in the Abortion Less Crime document. For example, during those years, it may have been coincidental that the crime rate dropped. For example, laws change, economic status differentiates. There are many factors involved. These are not counter-arguments, but things to keep in mind. Another thing to point out is that of course the crime rate is going to drop if abortion increases. First of all, there will be less people to commit the crimes. Two, as they explained within the paper, children born into poverty are most likely going to enter a life crime(though not all). The problem with this argument is it assumes that abortion is the main cause for the crime decrease, and it may look like it is but it is not(though you can argue against this). If these children were not born in a poverty state, they are less likely to enter a life of crime, which abortion did not solve. By the first sentence, I am confused about what you mean. Long after I am dead? Second, as I presented with a statement, I will present it again. And I present this evidence again because you brought it up again. I am not trying to present evidence again and again because it is redundant to do so. The durability and quality of the condom is based on the quality of the brand. Just to bring out a point, people with less money or in areas that are not as well of as others do not have as good quality condoms or education on the use of a condom as others do, though you are right that condoms have a good ability to do so: http://www.thebody.com/content/art713.html But still my point is they are not as good of solution as actually finding a cure for AIDS(though this is a far off point). Though, here is something that would be a part of my argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS EDIT: Look at the evidence I presented about what religions that don't obstruct science(Catholicism is on the list).

Sure, if you want me to. Catholicism-(as I presented evidence) Islam-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy("Islam’s obligation towards knowledge...") Judaism-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution("Conservative Judaism strongly supports the use of science as the proper way to learn about the physical world in which we live") Buddhism-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science("Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible, and Buddhism has entered into the science and religion dialogue.[1] The case is made that the philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern scientific and philosophic thought.") Hinduism-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution("Most God-believing Hindus accept the theory of biological evolution. They either regard the scriptural creation theories as allegories and metaphors, or reconcile these legends with the modern theory of evolution.") Mormonism-http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Science_and_Religion(Source explains itself stating that many religions, especially mormonism, have an attraction towards science). Here are just the few religions. If you wanted me to list all the religions that do support the scientific endeavor, then it will take a while.

As I just pointed out, specific religions act as obstacles, not all. Vaguely pointing at religion saying that it is an obstacle in the rigor of science is an incorrect assertion. Specific religions, not all. In fact, these religions aren't really relevant to the topic because we are debating "Theistic scientists", not just the religions that deny scientific observation. EDIT: Just realized the contradiction in this sentence.

No you are simply avoiding the points I had given. Do some religions hamper scientific progress? Yes. Do all of them? No. We are dealing with the generalized sense of religion, not just specific ones, unless you want to make a topic about a specific religion that hinders our ability to make progress in science.

Here is the problem with the first source: First of all,I would agree condoms are not the solution from preventing AIDS. Can it work? It may. Will it work all the time? No. Also, this is also a cultural issue, as he states that “They come with readymade solutions. They don’t ask. They know what is right for us as Africans and the condoms are part of that arrogance.” That has nothing to do with the religious indications. About the Galileo affair. Here is something from a source I just presented: Now, onto your source, which I just read. Within the source, it states that the reason why the increase in abortion led to less crime is due to the fact that there were less children that went through the ordeals of poverty that would become criminals. http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf I feel this article is relating to the document you provided. The abortion procedure was not the cause, but was a factor involved. Of course if children are born in high parts of society they are less likely to be involved in crime. That does not mean that abortion is the sole cause of crime rate decreasing.

Well, one thing about the law that is really strange is how, according to law, if a murderer killed a woman that was pregnant it is consider two deaths instead of one, while with an abortion if the mother dies during the process then it merely counts as one(whether intended or unintended). Also, there are pros(unbias) and cons. Here is a link to some information about benefits and downsides: http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/ EDIT: Though these statistics could be due to women ignorantly walking into an abortion clinic without even knowing what they are up against, but there various things to take into account. I know this is probably getting annoying, but could you please cite this so I can take a look at the statistics?

Yes, I read the source and I stick with what I stated. The source is irrelevant. What the pope stated about procreation and it's relevance to marriage has nothing to do with this current debate(which is actually about theistic scientists, but to this point what he said was only relevant to procreation and the sacredness of marriage according to Catholic teachings). Actually, the topic is about Theistic scientists. You seem to not know the definition of straw man argument, which that is not up to this debate, but here is a definition for you: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position" I did, though it is up to you to see the flaw within the source at which I pointed it out.

From the first source, here is what I found on overpopulation: So, I don't see how that source is relevant. Again, my point was you are isolating religion by taking one small part of it. That isn't even a part of the point or relevant. In fact, this is what we refer to as a straw man argument. EDIT: Just to make sure, you should read the sources you find first because titles can be misleading.

Now we are entering a realm of culture and religion. Even people of the same sect may have different view points depending on what culture they are from. I never said it was right to withhold scientific information. Even the Catholic Church is against such things(if you even payed attention to the link I gave you). Now you are beginning to judge all religions based on a certain few of them, which is way more ignorant. [Citation needed]

Well, if you are talking about the Catholic church during the Dark ages, I would agree to an extent. In fact, here is more information on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science I do not see how in this case religion had stood in the way of scientific progress when they introduced the scientific fields to other parts of the world, in which increased the amount of scientific progress.

There are some very intelligent atheistic scientists as well. Leonard Susskind(I read his book called The Cosmic Landscape), Albert Einstein(who was religious but did not believe in God, at least from what I have heard), Steven Hawking(even if I don't agree with some of his philosophies), Michio Kaku, and others. I would say the amount is equal. Christian scientists like Faraday also have made the light of greatness in the eyes of discovery. Well, yes I would agree that ignorance does get in the way of development(and I am not implying the supposed ignorance of religion, I meant the ignorance of the knowledge that impedes on research, such as what has been brought up).