RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2014,16:45   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2014,15:58)
Quote
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Imhaus exits]
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Marston exits]
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: [amorously] Doctor!
[Boyer exits]
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Hadley exits]
Austin Millbarge: We're not doctors!

Bob Hope: Doctor. Doctor. Glad I'm not sick.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,07:49   

They all want to father their own information acronym:


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-design

Nirwad's mangling of Euler is particularly sad / funny.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,09:20   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2014,07:49)
They all want to father their own information acronym:


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-design

Nirwad's mangling of Euler is particularly sad / funny.

That's some nice cargo cult maths there.  

Or maybe I should call it "science work".

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,09:57   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2014,16:58)
 
Quote
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Imhaus exits]
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Marston exits]
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: [amorously] Doctor!
[Boyer exits]
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Hadley exits]
Austin Millbarge: We're not doctors!

Me Doctor?

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,10:31   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2014,07:49)
They all want to father their own information acronym:


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-design

Nirwad's mangling of Euler is particularly sad / funny.

Mangling is a "niwrad" specialty.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,10:38   

How is this not an obfuscated version of Dembski?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,11:34   

Anyone know what JGuy is blathering on about in that thread?
Quote
There are some odd things in mathematics. One that I find peculiar is that the sum of all positive integers equals not infinity but rather -1/12. Of course, this requires a little creative math.. yet it’s apparently proven! So, my question is why would this most generic of divergent series (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + …inf) have such a peculiar value? Zero would have been as unexpected, but arguably more intuitively palatable from a symmetrical point of view (i.e. why 12 would be found special use in our decimal numbering system?). But -1/12 is certainly more interesting than zero. How odd.. not only is it an unexpected fraction, it’s negative.

I really shouldn't care, but if there is a 'proof' it's probably hilarious.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,11:43   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 19 2014,11:34)
Anyone know what JGuy is blathering on about in that thread?
 
Quote
There are some odd things in mathematics. One that I find peculiar is that the sum of all positive integers equals not infinity but rather -1/12. Of course, this requires a little creative math.. yet it’s apparently proven! So, my question is why would this most generic of divergent series (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + …inf) have such a peculiar value? Zero would have been as unexpected, but arguably more intuitively palatable from a symmetrical point of view (i.e. why 12 would be found special use in our decimal numbering system?). But -1/12 is certainly more interesting than zero. How odd.. not only is it an unexpected fraction, it’s negative.

I really shouldn't care, but if there is a 'proof' it's probably hilarious.

I had to look this up too.  Here's some explanation:

http://tinyurl.com/mnp635w....mnp635w

Naturally, the idea that the literal sum in the infinite series sense equals -1/12 is rubbish.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,11:46   

I think more than one of us here thinks Nirwad might be in it for some lulz.

How else do you explain this:

Quote
complexity c(S)of a system S ” as a complex number z:
c(S) = z = x + i y = quantity + i quality
       = matter + i information
where x is a measure of its quantitative aspects (mass, weight, number of molecules…) and y is a measure of its qualitative aspects (shapes, complexity, organization, information, functional CSI…).


So the complexity of a system is defined, in part, by its complexity? Got it.

And Y is a quantitative measure of qualitative things (which include fCSI and information)?

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,12:04   

Quote (REC @ Mar. 19 2014,11:46)
I think more than one of us here thinks Nirwad might be in it for some lulz.

How else do you explain this:

Quote
complexity c(S)of a system S ” as a complex number z:
c(S) = z = x + i y = quantity + i quality
       = matter + i information
where x is a measure of its quantitative aspects (mass, weight, number of molecules…) and y is a measure of its qualitative aspects (shapes, complexity, organization, information, functional CSI…).


So the complexity of a system is defined, in part, by its complexity? Got it.

And Y is a quantitative measure of qualitative things (which include fCSI and information)?

Indeed. It's complexities all the way down. It probably sums to 42.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,13:17   

Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that  
Quote
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.

which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,13:57   

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,11:17)
"Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that    
Quote
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.

which is true (when spelt right)...

Meanwhile, Denyse's new headline reads:
Quote
The multiverses doesn’t need actual evidence …


UD is such a clusterfuck.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,14:07   

Quote
Henry Crun  March 19, 2014 at 7:35 am

Axel @36,

At last there’s something we can agree on: O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.

linky


:D  :D  :D

OK, which of you is Henry Crun?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,15:14   

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 19 2014,13:57)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,11:17)
"Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that      
Quote
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.

which is true (when spelt right)...

Meanwhile, Denyse's new headline reads:
 
Quote
The multiverses doesn’t need actual evidence …


UD is such a clusterfuck.

Why are they so fixated on the "Multiverse"? Real scientists know that it's all speculation and are, in general, waiting for evidence to turn up. Which is, of course, why the polarization of the CMB is interesting. It's fun to watch all the theoreticians with dogs in the fight flapping around trying to make their theories fit the new facts.

The UD lot, for all their posturing, clearly have no concept of how science works.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,16:22   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 20 2014,07:07)

OK, which of you is Henry Crun?

Whoever you are you've sure worked Mapou into a lather:

Quote
55
MapouMarch 19, 2014 at 3:01 pm

Quote
Crun @52:

   Hopelessly wrong. A red shift of 4 corresponds to a recession velocity of about 0.92 of the speed of light in vacuo. And your explosion issue is also grossly incorrect. The Big Bang isn ‘t a bomb going off – that was always an ironic sneer – it’s a massive and rapid expansion from a hot dense state, more like a sudden inflation of a balloon . Space isn’t just an abstract either, it’s space-time and it comes with real physical characteristics.

   If you want to write about this stuff with any credibility, take a course.


More pomposity and deceit. You people are a bunch of con artists and you got nothing of value to teach. You are weavers of lies and deception. You are about as ignorant about the cosmos and its origin as the man on the street.

The .92 C velocity is just a piece of turd that some jackass in the physics community pulled out of his asteroid orifice. It was obtained by applying Special Relativity formulas to the redshift measurements. The actual truth is that relativistic corrections are already inherent in the redshift (as per relativity) and applying it after the measurement is about as deceitful and backasswards as one can get.

Your point about spacetime being some physical entity is also based on total ignorance. The truth is that nothing can move in spacetime. Go learn your own crappy Star Trek voodoo physics.

PS. No need for you to reply, Crun. I can’t stand throwing my pearls at swines.

UD link
Have to love the "No need for you to reply" bit.

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.†We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,20:59   

The bit about throwing pearls reminded me of Terry Gilliam's "diamonds" in "Jabberwocky".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,21:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)
A terrible idea:

Quote
108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges


A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.

Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!

Eric Anderson has his first post up, and what a colossal turd it is: Bad, even by UD standards. If you're going to read it, do it in your stoner voice for added Lulz.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2014,22:00   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2014,21:51)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)
A terrible idea:

     
Quote
108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges


A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.

Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!

Eric Anderson has his first post up, and what a colossal turd it is: Bad, even by UD standards. If you're going to read it, do it in your stoner voice for added Lulz.

Yeah, that was pretty pathetic even by UD's low standards.

Anderson thus becomes the 5723rd IDiot to confuse the concepts of "information" and "meaning".

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,00:24   

Quote (REC @ Mar. 19 2014,16:46)
I think more than one of us here thinks Nirwad might be in it for some lulz.

How else do you explain this:

Quote
complexity c(S)of a system S ” as a complex number z:
c(S) = z = x + i y = quantity + i quality
       = matter + i information
where x is a measure of its quantitative aspects (mass, weight, number of molecules…) and y is a measure of its qualitative aspects (shapes, complexity, organization, information, functional CSI…).


So the complexity of a system is defined, in part, by its complexity? Got it.

And Y is a quantitative measure of qualitative things (which include fCSI and information)?

No. Definitely not a troll. He uses the irrefutable ID example of irreducible complexity, the mousetrap, to calculate complexity.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,03:39   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 19 2014,14:07)
Quote
Henry Crun  March 19, 2014 at 7:35 am

Axel @36,

At last there’s something we can agree on: O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.

linky


:D  :D  :D

OK, which of you is Henry Crun?

Oh dear. Does this mean that Denyse is Minnie Bannister?

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,06:50   

Quote
12 kairosfocus March 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm

[...]
A comparison of a petroleum refinery and a cell carrying out metabolic cycles makes the point powerfully.

KF
even more so if you think of a strawman soaked in oil of ad hominem.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,09:03   

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,21:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that    
Quote
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.

which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)

Get real, you're imagining things. Are we in for some air force Dave hilarity What will nirwad's tard bring, convectional current? The square root of minus one as jouissance?

Eta: fix spelling on a bit of fashionable nonsense.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,09:07   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 20 2014,11:39)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 19 2014,14:07)
Quote
Henry Crun  March 19, 2014 at 7:35 am

Axel @36,

At last there’s something we can agree on: O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.

linky


:D  :D  :D

OK, which of you is Henry Crun?

Oh dear. Does this mean that Denyse is Minnie Bannister?

Peter and Spike.I miss those buggers.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,09:29   

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,13:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that    
Quote
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.

which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)

I don't think impedance is synonymous with resistance.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,09:44   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 20 2014,17:29)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,13:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that      
Quote
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.

which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)

I don't think impedance is synonymous with resistance.

On reflection it's too complex for them!
.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,11:13   

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,19:17)
[...]using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

no, no, no, complex numbers were designed for this purpose!

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,11:37   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 20 2014,09:29)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,13:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that      
Quote
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.

which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)

I don't think impedance is synonymous with resistance.

Blame Oliver Heaviside, who also came up with admittance, permittance and reluctance.

If you apply a sinusoidally-varying voltage (let's say, proportional to sin(wt)) the current flowing in the resistor is also proportional to sin(wt). If you do the same for a capacitor or an inductor is proportional to cos(wt) (I'm avoiding minus signs here.) Electrical engineers divide the peak voltage by the peak current and call the ratio reactance.

If you have a network containing resistors, capacitors and inductors, you can work out what the voltages and currents in the network are by treating the resistances and reactances as vectors perpendicular to each other, and combining them using the mathematics of vectors. The resultants are vectors which point in arbitrary directions on the plane (not necessarily the perpendiculars) and these quantities are "impedances".

Electrical engineers use complex numbers for these calculations because complex arithmetic is (sort of) the same as vector arithmetic.

niwrad is graphing two (potentially) independent variables on orthogonal axes - this is perfectly legitimate, and reveals possible dependence. What is not meaningful is trying to combine the vectors joining each of two points on the graph to the origin.

This is effectively what niwrad is doing when he describes his points on his graph as complex numbers rather than just as Cartesian co-ordinates. It is mathematical nonsense, and his whole discussion about Euler, etc, is merely bafflegab to obfuscate the point that his natural/artificial division is based on numbers plucked out of the air, (or possibly some part of his anatomy.)

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,11:42   

Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 20 2014,11:13)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,19:17)
[...]using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

no, no, no, complex numbers were designed for this purpose!

Is anyone in a position to ask why niwrad isn't using quaternions, or Clifford algebras?

(or, perhaps, Hundreds, Tens and Units, which he might aspire to actually understand.....)  :p

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,13:18   

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 20 2014,11:42)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 20 2014,11:13)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,19:17)
[...]using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

no, no, no, complex numbers were designed for this purpose!

Is anyone in a position to ask why niwrad isn't using quaternions, or Clifford algebras?

(or, perhaps, Hundreds, Tens and Units, which he might aspire to actually understand.....)  :p

That sounds like a job for Kairosfocus!  

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2014,13:28   

Candy coated bullshit, prettily wrapped.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]