To prove the existence of God to the people who did not take calculus...

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

this is a "proof" from the Middle ages before Newton or Leibniz developed extensive calculus, more specifically infinite series...

but here it is:

(1+ -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) ....

0 + 0 + 0 .....

but since addition is commutative, you can shift the parentheses around and all is fine... so shift the parentheses over one digit:

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

1 = 0

this means you have created something out of nothing. :eek:




infinite series and convergence shows that it is still 0, but go fool people about God who don't know about higher math

[LJJ]

Nopes.

1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)... = 1

I don't understand how you can see any other outcome.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

Nopes.

1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)... = 1

I don't understand how you can see any other outcome.


follow the train of logic.

the first line is everything equals zero.

so since addition is commutative, the second line is expeceted to equal the first. but it does not. it is a logical fallacy in that it should not wrk

[Selenium]

That doesn't "prove" anything. Makes me think of existentialism more than anything else.

There is no God.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

That doesn't "prove" anything. Makes me think of existentialism more than anything else.

There is no God.



I know it proves nothing. But Im sure you can trick a few people and make them think OH

[kwajo]

You can't take the outcome of one equation and apply it to another, things don't work that way. The second equation makes the assumption that it equals 0, which you cannot do without solving the left side of the equation first.

Anyway, I know that's not your point, and that it is supposed to seem amazing for those looking for proof, but in the end it just appears foolish.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

You can't take the outcome of one equation and apply it to another, things don't work that way. The second equation makes the assumption that it equals 0, which you cannot do without solving the left side of the equation first.

Anyway, I know that's not your point, and that it is supposed to seem amazing for those looking for proof, but in the end it just appears foolish.


the rationale for applying the second equation equal to zero is because of the Commutative law of addition.

1 + (2 + 3) = (1 + 2) + 3


when I first read about this, I thought... huh... perhaps it is...

then in Calc 2, infinite series convergence PWNS this "proof" so bad

[Cannonball]

The people who would believe this wouldn't understand that addition is commutative.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

The people who would believe this wouldn't understand that addition is commutative.


:oldlol:

good point. I should have thought this one through more carefully

[artificial]

infinite series and convergence shows that it is still 0, but go fool people about God who don't know about higher math
I'm sure there are people will fall at it. Heck, you can even have people amazed with a Moeibus band or a Penrose Triangle.

Another mathematical trick proving 2=1

Let x = 1. Then x

[Hawker]

the rationale for applying the second equation equal to zero is because of the Commutative law of addition.

1 + (2 + 3) = (1 + 2) + 3


when I first read about this, I thought... huh... perhaps it is...

then in Calc 2, infinite series convergence PWNS this "proof" so bad

infinite series pwns. i learned that stuff but i forgot it already. how bad of me.

[Jabes]

I'm having some serious deja vu. Am I imagining things or was there a thread about this already.

VDPTW: its the associative property. Commutative is a+b = b+a. Like others have said the only people who might believe this are those that took calculus and didn't understand it. Everyone else probably won't even recognize it as an infinite sum. I find it funny that people once thought this could prove the existance of god though.

Artificial: how weird, I posted a similar "proof" showing 2=1 the last time VCDAPTW made a thread about this (unless I imagined it). Anyway I won't give the secret away.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

I'm having some serious deja vu. Am I imagining things or was there a thread about this already.

VDPTW: its the associative property. Commutative is a+b = b+a. Like others have said the only people who might believe this are those that took calculus and didn't understand it. Everyone else probably won't even recognize it as an infinite sum. I find it funny that people once thought this could prove the existance of god though.

Artificial: how weird, I posted a similar "proof" showing 2=1 the last time VCDAPTW made a thread about this (unless I imagined it). Anyway I won't give the secret away.


you know what? you are right. it is associative. I forgot my 2nd grade math.

[RecSpecs110]

This is one of those illusions that are fun to trick other people.

[aahhsin]

[QUOTE=VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]this is a "proof" from the Middle ages before Newton or Leibniz developed extensive calculus, more specifically infinite series...

but here it is:

(1+ -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) ....

0 + 0 + 0 .....

but since addition is commutative, you can shift the parentheses around and all is fine... so shift the parentheses over one digit:

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

1 = 0

you're whole equation is flawed.

the first line (where the results are 0), you have six 1s. in the second line, not only did you shift the parentheses, but you also added an extra "1".

you are flawed. so is your math. so is your logic.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

[QUOTE=VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]this is a "proof" from the Middle ages before Newton or Leibniz developed extensive calculus, more specifically infinite series...

but here it is:

(1+ -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) ....

0 + 0 + 0 .....

but since addition is commutative, you can shift the parentheses around and all is fine... so shift the parentheses over one digit:

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

1 = 0

you're whole equation is flawed.

the first line (where the results are 0), you have six 1s. in the second line, not only did you shift the parentheses, but you also added an extra "1".

you are flawed. so is your math. so is your logic.


do you understand the concept of an ellipsis?

moreover, do you understand how to read a post in its entirety and realize this is not my work but something I am citing?

do you have a brain period?

[Brunch@Five]

you're whole equation is flawed.

the first line (where the results are 0), you have six 1s. in the second line, not only did you shift the parentheses, but you also added an extra "1".

you are flawed. so is your math. so is your logic.

you don't know math obviously. Try to figure out what the "...." stand for.

[KobesOneUglyTat]

the thread starter was just looking to garner a reaction. shock value method. either that or he's too stupid to realize the genetic impact on obesity, and foolishly blames bad eating/exercise habits.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

the thread starter was just looking to garner a reaction. shock value method. either that or he's too stupid to realize the genetic impact on obesity, and foolishly blames bad eating/exercise habits.


wrong thread.


but I will say as a child, I was borderline obese. I was awkward socially as a teenager, but in college I worked it all off and began to experience life as a normal individual.

[geeWiz15]

I read a book that talked about this stuff. Check this out:

---

Winston Churchill is a Carrot (proof)

Let a and b each be equal to 1. Since a and b are equal,

b^2 = ab

Since a equals itself, it is obvious that

a^2 = a^2

Subtract equation 1 from equation 2. This yields

a^2 - b^2 = a^2 - ab

We can factor both sides of the equation; a^2 - ab equals a(a-b). Likewise, a^2 - b^2 equals (a + b)(a - b). Substituting into equation 3, we get

(a + b)(a - b) = a(a - b)

Now divide both sides of the equation by (a - b) and we get

a + b = a

Subtract a from both sides and we get

b = 0

But we set b to 1 at the very beginning of this proof, so this means that

1 = 0

This is an important result. Going further, we know that Winston Churchill has one head. But one equals zero by equation 7, so that means that Winston has no head. Likewise, Churchill has zero leafy tops, therefore he has one leafy top. Multiplying both sides of equation 7 by 2, we see that

2 = 0

Churchill has two legs, therefore he has no legs. Churchill has two arms, therefore he has no arms. Now multiply equation 7 by Winston Churchill's waist size in inches. This means that

(Winston's waist size) = 0

This means that Winston Churchill tapers to a point. Now, what color is Winston Churchill? Take any beam of light that comes from him and select a photon. Multiply equation 7 by teh wavelength, and we see that

(Winston's photon's wavelength) = 0

But multiplying equation 7 by 640 nanometers, we see that

640 = 0

Combining equations 10 and 11, we see that

(Winston's photon's wavelength) = 640 nanometers

This means that this photon - or any other photon that comes from Mr. Churchill - is orange. Therefore Winston Churchill is a bright shade of orange.

To sum up, we have proved, mathematically, that Winston Churchill has no arms and no legs; instead of a head, he has a leafy top; he tapers to a point; and he is bright orange. Clearly, Winston Churchill is a carrot.

---

Anybody know where the hole is? It's not that hard. But it is interesting where bad math can go. :oldlol:

[SecondFiddle]

Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:

This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.

[Jackass18]

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123 (Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent.

Ignoring this absent link in their chain of logic, promoters of intelligent design put forward the so-called anthropic coincidences as evidence for a universe that was created with humans in mind. I have heard Christian philosopher William Lane Craig make this claim in a debate on the existence of God. In the same debate, Craig contended that the great age of the universe, which dwarfs human history, is in fact a sign of God's plan for humanity because billions of years were needed to allow life to evolve. (Craig evidently accepts evolution). You would have thought God could be a lot more efficient. And Craig did not rationalize why humanity rather than cockroaches was the goal God had in mind.

So as you see, we have a lot more explaining to do after we explain how life developed on earth by natural processes. Even if life evolved naturally on earth with no outside interference, the existence of stars and planets, quarks and electrons, and the very laws of physics themselves can be presented as evidence for intelligent design to the universe. Furthermore, given the egocentrism that seems to characterize the human race, convincing people that the universe was designed with them in mind is as easy as convincing a child that candy is good for him.

Perhaps the universe was created for the sole purpose of producing you and me. I have no objection to discussing the possibility, as long as the discussion is critical, rational, and objective. The most common argument that is still given by believers when they are asked to present scientific evidence for a creator is: "How can all of this (gesturing to the world around us) have happened by chance?" As we have seen, the most brilliant exposition of the case for evolution will not answer this question, because it still presumes the pre-existence of laws of physics and values of physical constants that had to be delicately balanced for human (and cockroach) life to evolve.

[geeWiz15]

I think it's so freaking precious that this is what math is being used for now. Trying to prove something that is permanently and inexorably linked with BELIEF. Give it up guys. There are some serious problems facing the world. Forget how we got here... it is your job to figure out how to keep us here. Whether or not any kind of heavenly being exists does not matter in this lifetime... it is the belief in one that matters while we're on Earth.

[Jabes]

I think it's so freaking precious that this is what math is being used for now. Trying to prove something that is permanently and inexorably linked with BELIEF. Give it up guys. There are some serious problems facing the world. Forget how we got here... it is your job to figure out how to keep us here. Whether or not any kind of heavenly being exists does not matter in this lifetime... it is the belief in one that matters while we're on Earth.
You tell em Wiz! Let them scientists have it! What they ever done for us? Like where were those mothertruckers when my cable went out? Not fixin my TV that's where. Come on guys, put down your calculators and your quantum field theories and get it together. *****es.

I'm not sure if your addressing the first post or the one about Roger Penrose, but as was stated by VCDAPTW's, the debunked argument that 1=0 is over 200 years old and should not be taken seriously. As for Roger Penrose , I have not read the book they're discussing, so I can't comment on the validity of what's been said about it, but Penrose has made several important contributions in math and physics. He is one of the most respected living scientists today. I'm sure he would get a kick out of some kid, fresh out of high school, telling him where to focus his mental prowess. He'd probably think it was precious.

[Sharas]

i still don't understand why you added an extra "1"? how is result supposed to be any different?

[Brunch@Five]

i still don't understand why you added an extra "1"? how is result supposed to be any different?

it's an infinite amount of +1-1+1-1+1-1. He only underlined that he moved the parenthesis

[Sean77]

Maybe I missed the memo, but has a Christian ever used mathmetic theorems in an attempt to explain the concept of God creating something out of nothing? I would think such a concept doesn't work within the parameters of logic and reason, so how could math, which works within the parameters of logic, be successfully used to explain it?

Such a teaching, like all Christian teachings, aren't accepted because it makes sense logically. It is accepted on the basis that the person has already placed a belief and trust in God and the accounts and teachings of the Bible. People make the mistake of thinking the Bible attempts to prove what it claims, when in actuality it already works on the basic premise that God exists. It's not a book based proof and evidence and science, it is a book of testimony and faith. So how could math be used to explain a concept ones accepts by faith?

To ask a person to prove that which they believe is pointless, because it was not proof that led them to accept the things they place their faith on. This is why people have trouble with or lack of desire in accepting and understanding the Bible. They aim to accept things based on proof first, whereas the Bible is a book that produces and offers faith rather than proof.

[RainierBeachPoet]

how about anselm's ontological proof of God:

Anselm

[geeWiz15]

You tell em Wiz! Let them scientists have it! What they ever done for us? Like where were those mothertruckers when my cable went out? Not fixin my TV that's where. Come on guys, put down your calculators and your quantum field theories and get it together. *****es.

I'm not sure if your addressing the first post or the one about Roger Penrose, but as was stated by VCDAPTW's, the debunked argument that 1=0 is over 200 years old and should not be taken seriously. As for Roger Penrose , I have not read the book they're discussing, so I can't comment on the validity of what's been said about it, but Penrose has made several important contributions in math and physics. He is one of the most respected living scientists today. I'm sure he would get a kick out of some kid, fresh out of high school, telling him where to focus his mental prowess. He'd probably think it was precious.
Just because a person's brilliant does not mean that everything that he thinks up is golden. Brilliant minds are led astray all the time. Look at all the great things Newton thought up, that doesn't make his 20 wasted years trying to turn base metals into gold worthwhile. Or immune to criticism. Perhaps instead of trying to toy with nature to make a quick buck he could have done even more.

When I look at brilliance being wasted on dumb ****, I'm going to criticize it. Because that is wasted time and energy that could be put to use. Sure, I guess you could argue that such free thinking is just part of the package of the brilliance that IS relevant. You could argue that. Or you could argue what I'm arguing, which is that I don't have to sit here and celebrate a great mind being put to waste trying to prove things that can't be proved when he could be making more of these actual contributions to his field that you talk about.

[Fatal9]

[QUOTE=artificial]I'm sure there are people will fall at it. Heck, you can even have people amazed with a Moeibus band or a Penrose Triangle.

Another mathematical trick proving 2=1

Let x = 1. Then x

[reppy]

Just because a person's brilliant does not mean that everything that he thinks up is golden. Brilliant minds are led astray all the time. Look at all the great things Newton thought up, that doesn't make his 20 wasted years trying to turn base metals into gold worthwhile. Or immune to criticism. Perhaps instead of trying to toy with nature to make a quick buck he could have done even more.

When I look at brilliance being wasted on dumb ****, I'm going to criticize it. Because that is wasted time and energy that could be put to use. Sure, I guess you could argue that such free thinking is just part of the package of the brilliance that IS relevant. You could argue that. Or you could argue what I'm arguing, which is that I don't have to sit here and celebrate a great mind being put to waste trying to prove things that can't be proved when he could be making more of these actual contributions to his field that you talk about.

I'm just glad we all agree that you posting on ISH is a great contribution to huamnity.

[Draz]

Bunch of productive individuals