Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Are all trolls bad at math?
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 24, 8:36 am, Snit wrote: KDT stated in post on 11/24/10 5:36 AM: "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over anyway. That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not 3000% more expensive. " These type of math errors are common with the trolls... Survey: http://nitobi.com/survey/ 241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%) Tim Adams: ----- _80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_! ----- And then there is Wally: ----- I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would! ----- But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty as you have said it would! ----- whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what the answer actually is ----- And then there is Carroll, who rarely actually tries to do any type of math directly, but has repeatedly shown he does not know the difference between absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And he has some interesting quotes which show his ignorance about math: ----- Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of proof? ----- If A = B then B = A. If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit ----- And for a long time Steve argued: Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and honorable people. Just amazing how ignorant the trolls are. You just tried to sell the idea that I'm the person who doesn't know the difference between "absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt", yet, in attempting it you provided statements made by me that were all from discussions that had nothing to do with math? Of course, it's all irrelevant anyway (which is why you keep bringing it up) because you also admitted: Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a logical sense, proof"." - Snit That's you admitting that you not only had *no* proof but you didn't have *one single* true statement from which something else could necessarily follow. So why do you keep conflating math with this topic, Snit? Is there no truth in your world other than math? Yes, that must be it., oh great truth seeker. LOL! LOL! -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |