E = mc^jesus

Is this digression on sex quite over? We can return to Boomerang's question? Thank you.

raprap wrote:

...........

Now math, those aren't theories, they're theorems and once proved they're always correct within the constraints that started with. But math isn't science--it's just a hammer of science.

The result? The old adage of a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer's view of pi strikes true.
To a mathematician pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle, and it's an irrational number.
To the physicist, pi is 3.14159 and it will remain that until they have a better theory.
To the Engineer pi is 3.

Rap

Rap - if the joke were literally true it would follow that the Old Testament was written by engineers:

Quote:

....The Bible contains two references (I Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2) which give a value of 3 for pi (Wells 1986, p. 48). It should be mentioned, however, that both instances refer to a value obtained from physical measurements and, as such, are probably well within the bounds of experimental uncertainty. I Kings 7:23 states, "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits in height thereof; and a line thirty cubits did compass it round about." This implies pi=C/d=30/10=3. ..........

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html

0 Replies

High Seas wrote-

Quote:

Is this digression on sex quite over? We can return to Boomerang's question? Thank you.

I didn't raise the matter. I merely asked another poster to explain his post. Perfectly normal procedure I think.

If you are worried about him explaining it that has nothing to do with the rest of us.

0 Replies

In the first post, to which you referred, boomer states quite explicity a belief in people speaking freely.

So the matter of explaining what sexual abstinence might be is a practical example for testing that belief.

Most science lessons do practical as well as theory. You don't go off topic in the practical fieldwork.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I forgot Pythagoras.

Pythagoras was a total 3,4,5, square.

0 Replies

He was as cool as a Harlem Globetrotter in his day.

Irrationals man. That's where it's at. Ya dig?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

He was as cool as a Harlem Globetrotter in his day.

Irrationals man. That's where it's at. Ya dig?

Globetrotter huh....that's even an odd reference for you Spendi.....Globetrotter, I'll have to run that thru my sieve of Eratosthenes as soon as I get the leftover spaghetti out of it.

0 Replies

(googling)

0 Replies

Rockhead wrote:

(googling)

Always remember to prime the google before trying to start it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

He was as cool as a Harlem Globetrotter in his day.

Irrationals man. That's where it's at. Ya dig?

Irrationals belong to Hippasus. Pythagoras preached rationals. Legend has it that Pythagoras had Hippasus drown when he showed that the square root of 2 wasn't rational.

Hippasus proof was by contradiction (reductio ad absurdum).

Quote:

If √2 is rational it has the form m/n for integers m, n not both even. Then m² = 2n² whence m is even, say m = 2p. Thus 4p² = 2n² so 2p² = n² whence n is also even, a contradiction.

He also showed by construction that the square foot of two could be found on the number line. Dedekind and Cantor showed that the cardinality of the set irrational numbers was larger than the set of rational numbers (there are an infinite number of irrational numbers between any two rational numbers)--wrap your head about that one.

Rap

0 Replies

Easy rap. But thanks for the info. I'll check it out.

I'm not stuck fast to anything.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The laity are screwin' like rabbits, so there's no lack of canon fodder (that's a pun, for those whose spelling isn't up to snuff)..

canon = euphemism for penis
fodder = Catholic priest

Laughing

0 Replies

That's one Chum, but it's a thinker with multiples...

RH

Shocked

0 Replies

laity = all lay persons in a religious organization
lay = euphemism for sexual intercourse

Laughing

0 Replies

And Cannon fodder....

(I was raised scary Baptist No fundamentalist) Rolling Eyes

RH

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The laity are screwin' like rabbits, so there's no lack of canon fodder (that's a pun, for those whose spelling isn't up to snuff)..

canon = euphemism for penis
fodder = Catholic priest

Idiot . . .

If you don't get the joke, it's probably best not to display your ignorance so blatantly . . .

0 Replies

Give the man a chance at education, Setanta....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7RuZBauvG8

0 Replies

Unless I feel there is a purpose served, I often ignore ad hominems, except perhaps on occasion to report them to the moderators.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Now I notice that arguing my corner is a "hissy fit". I'm Gentleman Jim compared what I have had thrown at me. You seem to just forget everything you read.

You didn't argue your corner. You threw up your hands, said "That's not my position" then failed to respond to my points. That's a hissy fit. You didn't once address my points.

0 Replies

I can't address your points Wolf. I can't understand them.

I can't understand your sig line either.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I can't address your points Wolf. I can't understand them.

At least I have some. From what I've read of your posts, it would appear that you make points and then claim you never made those points when somebody refutes them.

Quote:

I can't understand your sig line either.

It's quite self explanatory, but it is also rather old. Perhaps I should change it to something more fitting for these forums.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know