ICEINSPACE
|
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Last Quarter 51.1%
|
|
17-06-2015, 12:29 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by julianh72
2^1/2, e, pi
|
Not consistent with the law.
|
17-06-2015, 12:30 AM
|
 |
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne
These numbers are consistent with the law.
|
so its not the numbers increasing in magnitude that is the law?
the order doesn't matter?
what the hell is the law then - must be random numbers
|
17-06-2015, 12:32 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,300
|
|
|
2, 4, 7.999999999999...
|
17-06-2015, 12:38 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by julianh72
2, 4, 7.999999999999...
|
Not consistent with the rule....
|
17-06-2015, 12:40 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
what the hell is the law then - must be random numbers
|
No....
|
17-06-2015, 12:43 AM
|
|
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne
No....
|
can only be the order of the numbers then - any three numbers that increase in magnitude is the law
but you said 8,4,2 obeys the law?
Is this a semantic trick?
|
17-06-2015, 12:47 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
can only be the order of the numbers then - any three numbers that increase in magnitude is the law
but you said 8,4,2 obeys the law?
Is this a semantic trick?
|
No,
yes
and no.
|
17-06-2015, 12:51 AM
|
|
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne
No,
yes
and no.
|
what about 1,2,3
and -3,-2,-1
obey the law?
|
17-06-2015, 12:53 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
what about 1,2,3
and -3,-2,-1
obey the law?
|
Both sequences obey the law.
|
17-06-2015, 12:58 AM
|
|
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne
Both sequences obey the law.
|
what about 3, 2, 1 and 3, 2, 0.9?
|
17-06-2015, 01:01 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
|
Incidentally... Julian has got to the nub of it,
and despite what you might be thinking, it isn't a mathematical problem in essence.
|
17-06-2015, 01:01 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
what about 3, 2, 1 and 3, 2, 0.9?
|
Again,
both sequences obey the law.
|
17-06-2015, 01:13 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Ok.... here it is...
The purpose of the exercise is to demonstrate the scientific method.
The law is not discovered by proposing numbers that are consistent with your expectations, but by proposing experimental conditions that give you a negative.
It is a process of exclusion.
Quote:
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Arthur Conan Doyle
|
|
17-06-2015, 01:17 AM
|
|
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
|
no irrational numbers like Julian's 7.999999 recurring
|
17-06-2015, 01:25 AM
|
|
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
|
i'll have another go next financial year - sleep time
|
17-06-2015, 01:25 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
no irrational numbers like Julian's 7.999999 recurring
|
Exactly... the law is: the subset of numbers that do not include irrational numbers...
It is arbitrary.
The point of the exercise is to show the technique most appropriate or effective in defining 'the law'
Or... you might say, the underlining truth of any given situation.
Last edited by clive milne; 17-06-2015 at 01:42 AM.
|
17-06-2015, 01:40 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
And the point of this thread is to invite you to apply this principle to every bit of information that might conceivably influence your world view.
Test it..
is it indefeasible?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indefeasible
Last edited by clive milne; 17-06-2015 at 01:50 AM.
|
17-06-2015, 05:51 AM
|
 |
Lost in Space ....
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 4,949
|
|
|
Experiment or fail ...
|
17-06-2015, 07:11 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Riverland, South Australia
Posts: 430
|
|
I think it's just a way to get us non-sciencey folk scratching our heads! I know mathematics, but nothing about these "laws" 
|
17-06-2015, 07:35 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,300
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
no irrational numbers like Julian's 7.999999 recurring
|
Aaahhh... But 0.999999 recurring is EXACTLY equal to 1, so 7.99999 recurring is rational!
http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Proof:The...quivalent_to_1
Last edited by julianh72; 17-06-2015 at 08:30 AM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:08 AM.
|
|
