 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> >1 is arbitrary. 1=1 is redundant arbitration.
>
> Let x = y
> It follows that:
> x - y = 0
>
You shouldn't say that, it makes the error too visible! You should say
something like:
x = y therefore x + y = 2x
therefore x + y - 2y = 2x - 2y
therefore 1(x - y) = 2(x - y)
...
The result (and the reason it's a fallacy) are the same, but much more
hidden :)
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] iname com
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
At my previous home I'd often watch the traffic going by while lying on
the lawn. There was a picket fence between me and the road. The wheels
looked like they were going backwards (just like old westerns). Weren't
noticably blurred, but the effect was sure interesting
Xander
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> The one without the blurred wheels. The blurred wheel version depicts
> our perception of reality better, though, so it looks more realistic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> I can prove 1 does not equal 1.
>
> Start with -1 = -1. (An assumption) (Note... to line up the equation
> processes, put this message on "fixed width" font.)
>
> -1 = -1 (assumption)
> -1/1 = 1/-1 (fraction form)
> sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1) (sqrt both sides)
> sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1) (radicals)
> sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)= sqrt(1)*sqrt(1) (cross-multiply)
> -1 = 1
>
> Here we have just shown that 1 = -1.
>
> And indeed, all mathematical proofs are based on thoery.
May I point out that sqrt(-1) isn't defined? sqrt is only a function
from the set of positive reals into itself... (I know, if you take the
complexes, you can find a number (well two actually, that's the problem)
whose square is -1, but since you couldn't know wich to choose you can't
define *the* square root)
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> > What is evil for one can be good to another. Dare I ask whose common interests
> > you are referring to? :)
> >
> > Margus
>
> EXACTLY!!!!!
> These are the very basis of the argument, which Ken seems to have entirely missed.
> To prove I am feeling pain, first prove I exist, Mr. Ken.
Sorry. I have been having too many problems convincing people here that
I exist without adding you to the equation. Besides I don't by into this
whole line of questionable existence anyway. It's fun in the classroom
and around the coffee houses but I need no other proof than what my own
senses tell me. 20 years ago I endlessly debated the same material and
agree that it's fun but it serves no practical purpose other than to
create intellectual discussion. It's not really practical in any other
sense where defining our exsistance is concerned.
Besides as Xander said where is the raytracing topic in this ?
Hmmm... no.... not that either... well none I guess.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
But people would assume the person who is experiecing brick against foot
is not a Leper.
Graham.
Ken wrote:
>
> Larry Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
>
> That is poppycock ! If I smash your foot with a large brick one may
> think I have an assumption that you will feel pain when I do so (unless
> of course you are dead when it happens). The truth is that through
> repeated observations and from personal experience I need no assumptions
> to know that you are going to feel pain. Lots and lots of glorious,
> excruciating, deep down to the bone, face whincing, voice screaming,
> oh wonderful, beautiful pain.
> If I were to set up a demonstration in front of an audience that has
> no idea as to what will happen you can be assured that when I raise the
> brick and bring it down forcefully upon you bare naked foot that everyone
> in attendance will KNOW that you have just experienced pain. There will
> be no presumption on anyone's part where that is concerned. If anyone
> doubts it (which is not the same as an assumption) they are welcome to
> examine the severe distress on your face, your cries of anguish, and may
> even examine the damaged member for evidence of tissue damage. I am not
> assuming this because there is nothing that prevents me from knowing
> otherwise.
>
> Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
>
> > Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot exist
> > without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the position
> > that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
> > perspective, good is evil and evil is good.
>
> The definition of evil is easy to explain because it is inextricably
> tied to self preservation. It is in the common interest of everyone
> to define that which may cause us harm and do what is necessary to
> reduce the likelihood that it will do so. That which is harmful is
> most often associated with evil.
>
> People fear harm much as they do pain, physical or emotional, ergo
> evil is bad, pain is bad, pain = evil, and one still equals one.
>
> : )
>
> > How does this relate to POVray? Some may say it doesn't, but it goes
> > along the same line as the discussion about "Eve's first morn" in p.b.i
> > that asks, "What makes something appear real?" That's why I decided to
> > post it, anyway.
>
> I have posted my thoughts on what is needed to make a human figure
> appear more life like on this server in the past and it was a long
> winded oration indeed. I instead invite you to take a good long look
> at your own skin. Note how the light plays off of it, of how the
> patterns look in the shadows and in the direct light. Note the
> complexity of it's surface texture and definition. Draw your own
> conclusions. Mine say that it takes a very skillful artisan to
> recreate a life like figure and not the least of which is defining
> the cover of the figure let alone it's shape.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GRedway wrote:
>
> But people would assume the person who is experiecing brick against foot
> is not a Leper.
>
> Graham.
And do not lepers feel pain ? Do they not in fact suffer more pain in their
lives than most humans ever will ? I think you know the answers to these
questions as well as I do. Hmmm... how would I model skin afflicted with
leprosy... Iso surface patch to the rescue...
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Maybe because people are so anxious to argue a point, I suppose what we
> all need is to find a good > chat room and all go there at the same time.
comp.graphics.rendering is probably the most unused and unsubscribed to
group that I know of. Off topic chats could be held there and there is
no one there who would complain. There is no one there period except for
Jon Cruz and myself.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> Besides I don't by into this
> > whole line of questionable existence anyway. It's fun in the classroom
> > and around the coffee houses but I need no other proof than what my own
> > senses tell me. 20 years ago I endlessly debated the same material and
> > agree that it's fun but it serves no practical purpose other than to
> > create intellectual discussion. It's not really practical in any other
> > sense where defining our exsistance is concerned.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Tyler
>
> Ok, yes it's getting off the topic. But the point is, we cannot rely on our
perception.
> What if the universe is four-dimensional, and we only percieve three? But this
brings up
> another VERY good point... indeed many philosophers define reality as what we
percieve.
> Because in essence, all we know is what we can percieve, and even if were in the
Matrix
> or something, it's real to us. (And indeed, how would the people pulled from the
Matrix
> know that it's not the other way around... the reality in which they battle the
alien
> ships and try to save humanity is the simulation?)
I think that you could debate yourself into insanity. A person needs to decide, at
some point, what is real and/or important to themselves. And the rest of the world
can take a hike. For me, a defination of good and bad needs a source outside
myself or that defination becomes merely conveince, nothing to live or die for.
I must accept most of what my senses give me. They are all I realy have.
Do I exist? "I think(raytrace,program,read, ect...), therefore I am."
People can debate my existance all they want, I won't go away.
Mr. Art
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Believe you just contradicted yourself... about the no complaints I
mean. <amused>
Bob
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:37D044AC.68B32602@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Larry Fontaine wrote:
> > Maybe because people are so anxious to argue a point, I suppose
what we
> > all need is to find a good > chat room and all go there at the
same time.
>
> comp.graphics.rendering is probably the most unused and unsubscribed
to
> group that I know of. Off topic chats could be held there and there
is
> no one there who would complain. There is no one there period except
for
> Jon Cruz and myself.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Believe you just contradicted yourself... about the no complaints I
> mean. <amused>
>
> Bob
Yes but we won't complain ;0
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
