Help on Research Paper

Can you post the whole paper? Just curious.

SCoates,

IMO as a matter of principle it is wrong to settle for convincing in leiu of right.

And despite your conviction and invective toward those who have had the gall to say so thus far your theories are quite obviously wrong. It's wrong on about a 7th grade mathematical level.

Don't settle for convincing, make it right.'I'm not here to convince you of anything about your theories, I've no desire to see you start flaming and insulting people again like you did to fishin' (which, by the way, was low) but I wish I could convince you of the principle of getting it right instead of just being convincing by your estimation.

Too many people settle for convincing in leiu of right.

I like Craven's emphasis on the word 'convince'. Think about that SCoates.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong, SCoates) that as an English paper, the point is to be convincing even though it's wrong.

SCoates paper revolves around mathematics and science. I think to be 'right' here, or maybe 'precise' is more important than being 'convincing'.

But it's not for a mathematics or science class. It's for an English class.

Obviously, I disagree with the bluster and the pointless insults, but I think the central exercise is kind of interesting.

That's probably right, but then again they are not mutually exclusive.

Sure. But it's certainly more challenging to be convincing if one is patently, objectively, 100% wrong. :-)

I think it's a really interesting creative writing exercise. (Says the erstwhile English major...)

To write a paper for English class on a subject about which one knows nothing, and to be entirely wrong even though a great deal is actually known about the subject, simply because one lacks the discipline to become familiar with it, strikes me as a waste of time.

I would not be particularly interested in writing a thesis on Botany, about which I know nothing, advancing all kinds of hypotheses that anyone in the field could tell me were rubbish, and justifying it on the grounds that it was for an English class, not a Botany class.

Soz,

What you decribe is an intentional challenge.

When applied to this situation I think it'd qualify as serendipitously validating the academic merit of what is unintentionally apocryphal.

Well, I'm continuing to speak for SCoates and my reading of it may be totally wrong. But what I think this is about is that the starting point was an English class assignment -- make a convincing case for something which is untrue.

If that is the situation, the point is not at all whether he knows something about the subject, but how well he can make a (patently false) case. I think he purposely obfuscated the point to get actual responses so as to hone his (patently false) case.

As an exercise, I think that is interesting, a step beyond standard "take a side in a debate" techniques -- while some people may actually have reason to say that abortion should be illegal, for example, whether parallel lines meet is not actually up for the debate. So having the ability to be convincing is that much harder.

Anyway, enough speaking for him, will let him explain (or not.)

Nah, I don't think it was a gag. His insults to fishin' implied perceived insult upon the basis of being told the theories were wrong. Knowing it was wrong would have made being told so more palatable.

I think SCoates actually believes these theories. Then again, perhaps the holy grail of convincing is to convince one's self.

Every mathematician will tell you that 1/0 is not, in fact, infinite, it is undefined.


You cannot divide by infinity, because it is not a number.

You appear to be unacquainted with the theory of limits, which is usually studied in a first calculus course, or a pre-calculus course.

Brandon, you cited the one example of where I worded it icorrectly, rather than saying "Divided by an infinite amount." Yes, 1/0 is undefined, in that it cannot be defined by numbers. Just as infinity cannot be defined by numbers. I had some (what are considered) scholarly references in the paper, one which I was actually able to quote "1/infinity is zero." That wording bothered me for the same reason you brought up, but the concept is sound regardless of the wording.

Craven, you are right on all of your judgements other than my being wrong. I was rude to Fishin' in the exact way Fishin' was rude to me. Her absense shows she couldn't take her own medicine.

Initially I proposed this as a question, asking what theories or equations or so forth could disprove my claims. That is why it was offensive that the question was rarely addressed, in leiu of insulting me, or my ignorance of the subject, or lack of research and so forth. This thread WAS a form of my research. Albeit it became research of opinion alone, since, while there were many allusions to math, no one actually addressed the mathematical flaws of the theory other than craven, I believe, whom I still disagree with. Yes, I was angry, and yes, I was justified in being so.

It has been stated that math defies my claims, but I have yet to see it. I assume you are all as fed up with my arguments as I am with yours, but I would still appreciate anything new.

Sozobe, you do have your points, but I believe Craven's are slightly more accurate.

The real point here is that it is extremely unwise to start trying to derive new math results without first learning math. You are saying things which violate principles which have been understood for centuries, and which are taught to students in high schools and colleges all over the world.

Brilliant statement Brandon. That sure wasn't the exact same thing you've stated and assumed in every one of your posts.

Yes, and no matter how many times I and other say it, it never seems to get through to you. You just go right on talking about your plans to write nonsensical papers about topics that are widely understood by those who have taken the trouble to study them. What you propose is a waste of time. If you want to write an English paper, write about a topic that you know about. If you are curious about math, go learn math.

With the parallel lines, often mused as lines on a flat plane that only intersect or meet at infinity, you have skewed your basis slightly. You shouldn't say the seperation is finite and the distance infinite therefore they meet - that is the lay persons mistake.

Infinity is not a number although it is comprised of digits. Infinity is a concept of an endless sequence.

If you are doing any form of maths involving mostly finite and an occassional infinity you have to be extremely careful, because numbers and concepts of numbers don't mix clearly. The best thing to use is a limit series f(x) as x approaches infinity. Limit series and numbers interact in a more consistent manner. An example of this is the number theory question how many positive integers start with the first digit 1? Answer log ((1+1)/1). Calculated as anything other than a logarithmic series you will get un-stable convergence. Using any induction sequence other than a log will get you in hot water. When you play with infinities be careful.

In your lines example you are dividing a finite number by an infinite distance; showing two errors. First technically you should divide your finite number by a limit series, never a raw infinity, secondly and more importantly there is no division the way you have started in the first place! The division is a trick whether intentional or not. You can't fold a linear plane into a non linear one and have consistent maths. There is a special branch of pure mathematics in geometry which has a concept of a "horizon of infinity" (so the topology is of a large finite coin or disk - say 10 feet in diameter but along the way out distance gets infinite so the edge is at infinity) built in, but to play on the disk / coin you have to use unusual rules to manipulate lines or prove / disprove theorems. For in this space all lines in all directions met, so the space itself folds onto itself in every direction once you go far enough. But in normal space parallel lines are defined by a fixed seperation and no reduction of this distance over space: so to do the maths right you really need to state the problem as you are dividing one infinity by another, hence to do it with real numbers (not infinities), divide one limit series (length) approaching infinity by another infinite limit series (consistent seperation of the plane itself)!

Manipulating infinities. Can be done, another field of maths "sizes" infinities. So if you ask a lay person is an endless series of 22222 twice as big as an endless series of 11111 you can get wierd results. Because infinites (concepts of special numbers) and numbers don't mix! Even what is zero times infinity is tricky because zero can be expressed as an inverse infinity in some problems. BTW in the 222 vs 111 example you can make rational statements about the size of 'classed' infinities so long as you talk in classes or interactions of limit series as they approach infinities.

Infinities to me are an interesting subject to consider certain mathematical spaces and to ponder real space and ask questions of reality. For example:

Is space infinite? - many scientific models believe not
Is time infinite? - taxing question
Are all the possible permutations of all mass / energy in the Universe infinite? possibly not if spacetime, mass and energy are all quantised - meaning the number is astronomical but never infinite.
Are there infinite possible universes in M-Theory? Possibily - depends on where the generators (dimensions) of each are infinite and/or quantised or not!

In reality are there any true infinities? That is a taxing question the more you think about it. There is a vast difference between an astronomically large number and an infinity. Infinities are concepts in mathematics or everyday logic terms. But its hard to think of an infinity that really exists in our reality. Most folk use infinity incorrectly (imprecisely) both in everyday use and often in undergraduate maths and science.

If you want more suggestions be gald to offer my thoughts. May I ask - what branches of maths dealing specifically with infinities have you already studied and what areas do you specifically consider researching into? Infinities with groups, geometries or limits for instance all have different specialist sub-fields of mathematics from memory.

Logic people. SCoates is trying to, as sozobe sez, explain the concept of infinity in an english paper. We are all trying to show our math wizardry and not going for the jugular.
personally I like ScOates approach , mostly. Im just left at the starter s gate why we even need the parrallel lines thing.

Lets take a series of fractions

1/(1/2), 1/(1/3). 1/(1/4).....1/(1/n). The denominator approaches zero, so, if we make the end of the series 1/(1/0) and reduce the fractions in the sequence, the numbers look like
2,3,4,n,...... winding up (well never really winding up)
and a number that is infinately large

I thought the task wasnt to use mathematical rigor to explain infinity. It was an attempt, via a theme , to explain infinity.

Those of you that say 1/0 is undefined. Yeh because

its a number that is very large and as such, is an illegal operation . Therefore, we say it is undefined. We mathematically throw our hands up and say OY, HETZEH BEEG NUMER.
Yes its not a number .
SCoates, if you utilize all this mathematical wisdom , you will lose your audience, and I think communication skills is the really big point of this whole exercise

Yes, I have said little to validate mentioning parallel lines at all. In the paper, however, that is not the case. Talking about parallel lines makes the paper more interesting also, since I can draw out diagrams which are a bit more interesting than numbers. I've tried (in the paper) to create a few paradoxes, using a rotating ray, relative to the lines.