Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

I find it a little bit sad that people are arguing over things that you're supposed to learn in schools.

If we didn't argue about things we learnt in school people would still think Newtonian physics was any more than just a lenses we use to describe macro mechanical systems not operating at speeds approaching c. That isn't even to mention the primitive explanation of the atomic model given, or cellular meiosis, or the number plane. I mean really, you would swear non-euclidean geometry doesn't real!

[ZetaX]

Inequalities are exactly the same as equations, with ONE exception: if you multiply by -1 (or -anything really), you reverse the sign of the inequation. That's pretty much all.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Apart from several other exceptions you are missing (like division, power, ...), their behaviour is also different. They for example lack reflexivity which is probably the most often used property of equations. Also, inqualities are far less often defined than equalities, e.g. in polynomial rings or complex numbers.

Yeah, you need an ordered field to have inequalities, but most people only ever use the real numbers - for all practical purposes, inequalities and equalities behave quite similarly. Think of it like this: X < Y <=> (\exists epsilon > 0 so that X = Y - epsilon). If you just run with that, you're golden

My main point wasn't even in the ordered field, but on exactly those "similiar" properties some of you mentioned. Those are as similar as an ape and a banana: they are obviously forms of life, have some interactions, but that's about it.

[Helgoland]

Inequalities are exactly the same as equations, with ONE exception: if you multiply by -1 (or -anything really), you reverse the sign of the inequation. That's pretty much all.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Apart from several other exceptions you are missing (like division, power, ...), their behaviour is also different. They for example lack reflexivity which is probably the most often used property of equations. Also, inqualities are far less often defined than equalities, e.g. in polynomial rings or complex numbers.

Yeah, you need an ordered field to have inequalities, but most people only ever use the real numbers - for all practical purposes, inequalities and equalities behave quite similarly. Think of it like this: X < Y <=> (\exists epsilon > 0 so that X = Y - epsilon). If you just run with that, you're golden

My main point wasn't even in the ordered field, but on exactly those "similiar" properties some of you mentioned. Those are as similar as an ape and a banana: they are obviously forms of life, have some interactions, but that's about it.

A banana and an ape are actually quite similar: The only differences - mobility, internal structure etc - are quite trivial when compared to the similarities - cell structure, DNA, region of occurence, being made from roughly the same compounds etc. It's a good example, actually: There are some obvious differences, but under the hood they work rather like each other.

[ZetaX]

Those differences are far from trivial. By your reasoning, all mathematical objects (in the sense of ZFC) are the same for sharing the evry same axioms. Additionally, you were talking about how they work; when was the last time you saw a banana eat another banana, or an ape growing into a tree (assuming you have bananas with seeds, which is a rarity nowadays).

[Helgoland]

Those differences are far from trivial. By your reasoning, all mathematical objects (in the sense of ZFC) are the same for sharing the evry same axioms. Additionally, you were talking about how they work; when was the last time you saw a banana eat another banana, or an ape growing into a tree (assuming you have bananas with seeds, which is a rarity nowadays).

As I said, some differences exist. But equations and inequalities are closer related than, say, integration and trees (the kind of trees that have at least two leaves )

[GlyphGryph]

Someone talking about something being racist, in response to people from the race saying they don't see the problem with it (specifically, the name of the Cleveland Indians)

no self-respecting member of such groups could, would or should take this without protest or offense.

* GlyphGryph facepalms.

[kaijyuu]

I can reasonably see people being offended by these sports team names (and especially their mascots, being caricatures), but ultimately it's up to the native americans themselves whether they care or not.

[Graknorke]

In an ideal world nobody gets offended over anything.

[kaijyuu]

In an ideal world nobody gets offended over anything.

Would this come from no one saying anything hurtful anymore or humanity becoming completely numb to what other people say or think?

[Graknorke]

In an ideal world nobody gets offended over anything.

Would this come from no one saying anything hurtful anymore or humanity becoming completely numb to what other people say or think?

It would come from everyone having a perfect understanding of why people say or think what they do.

[Xantalos]

In an ideal world nobody gets offended over anything.

Would this come from no one saying anything hurtful anymore or humanity becoming completely numb to what other people say or think?

It would come from everyone having a perfect understanding of why people say or think what they do.

Invent telepathy.

[Iceblaster]

In an ideal world nobody gets offended over anything.

Would this come from no one saying anything hurtful anymore or humanity becoming completely numb to what other people say or think?

It would come from everyone having a perfect understanding of why people say or think what they do.

Invent telepathy.

Says the Eldritch Abomination

[Xantalos]

In an ideal world nobody gets offended over anything.

Would this come from no one saying anything hurtful anymore or humanity becoming completely numb to what other people say or think?

It would come from everyone having a perfect understanding of why people say or think what they do.

Invent telepathy.

Says the Eldritch Abomination

...
It'd work.

[Darvi]

I'd rather not. Middle school would be a nightmare.

"Why're you thinking about dicks?" would become the new "Why're you hitting yourself?"

[Graknorke]

I'd rather not. Middle school would be a nightmare.

"Why're you thinking about dicks?" would become the new "Why're you hitting yourself?"

And the retort would be "Well why are you thinking about dicks?", or at least until everyone stops assigning such significance to people thinking relatively normal things.