Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Did the Jews do imaginary numbers?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 1:49

There is no square root of negative one.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 1:51

No, 'i' is the anti-jew. It is a number that cannot be fully represented abstractly, and yet it EXISTS.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 1:52

>>2
how can it exist?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 1:53

>>3
It exists as a transient current value in AC circuits.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 1:56

>>4
Wat. It shows sqrt(-1) amps?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 2:02

>>5
Yes, if you take a snap shot of the current at just the right moment and convert it to a DC value.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 2:03

>>6
I call fartism good sir.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 2:14

Quantum mechanics uses complex arithmetic. It's not that the quantum universe is imaginary; rather, it is the reality, and our macroscopic universe is the emergent insanity.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 2:28

>>8
It's one way of interpreting the data/laws. Math is just a language. I also have my doubts about real numbers (infinite precision) having any part in the actual implementation of our world's physics.

You may see that complex numbers and matrices can express certain patterns you observe in your experimental data, so you use them (math, the language), but that doesn't mean there aren't an infinity (take that trollOP!) of isomorphic representations to those complex numbers or those matrices.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 2:44

>>8
Yeah, ``imaginary'' is just a label. Complex arithmetic is just a formal system. Most mathematics in physics just describes the emergent macroscopic integration of microscopic phenomenon, which in reality is probably something more akin to discrete cellular automata.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 3:17

>>9>>10

The problem with math is: mathematician uses a mathematical metaphor to describe some concept. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But math allows one to take the metaphor, and run with it, making arguments that are built entirely on metaphor, but which bear no relation to the real underlying concept. And he believes that whatever conclusions he draws from the metaphor must, therefore, apply to the original concept.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:27

Ok, wtf? Are you guys really so fucked up, that you don't use some techniques only because they are somehow related to jews. Do you people really hate jews that much? And also, why the hell would you let jews have better stuff than you have. Idiots.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:32

>>12
Jews are the enemies of subjective idealism and dynamic typing.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:33

Mathematics is a fanaticism of mechanistic objectivity and objectification. Genuinely "subjective" agents are not acknowledged in hard science--not because they aren't palpable, but because there is an agreement, unstated or stated, not to mention them.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:34

>>12
And also, why the hell would you let jews have better stuff than you have.
Why would we need their "God" and "Infinity"?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:38

>>15
BECAUSE OF ABSTRACT BULLSHYTE YOU'LL NEVER COMPREHEND

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:40

>>16
Why would we need your ABSTRACT BULLSHYTE?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:41

>>17
You cannot comprehend, you cannot understand.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:44

>>18
define "comprehend"
define "understand"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:46

>>19
(define-values (comprehend understand) (W values "what you're not doing, what you'll never do."))

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:47

>>14
Subjective idealism is a bankrupt solipsism promoted by theists and other miscreants looking to unjustifiably assert their control over others by subverting the truth provided by objective realism. It is a philosophy of the psychopath. And this is quite evident in promotion of dynamically typed languages. If something that acts like a duck can be treated as a duck, than what is to stop a subjectively immoral act from passing itself off as a robust moral realism? Wherein does the insanity end?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:48

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:54

>>22
so where is the definition?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:57

>>21
Nope. Theiests, believing in a jewish ideals, never used it, as subjectivism would had hit them first. Theists love to think, that "God" is objective, not a subjective entity, you can easily discard.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:59

>>21
"Morality" is subjective. If it's good for me, then it's moral. Like anarchy or egoism.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:00

>>8
I'm sorry, but this ``quantum mechanics'' thing is the epitome of jewish pseudoscience.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:07

>>26
Then how to explain the ``double-slit'' experiment revealing the counter-intuitive wave-particle duality of photons.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:09

>>27
Ignore the finitist. He won't form decent arguments.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:09

>>27
You did this experiment yourself in your lab, with call components build by yourself? Probably some infinitesimal miscalculations. You know, infinity leads to paradoxes.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:10

>>26
How do you explain reality being consistent and working as it should?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:10

>>28
define "decent arguments"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:11

>>30
define "reality"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:12

>>30
define "consistent"
define "being"
define "explain"
define "working"

you are full of bullshit, my friend.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:13

>>32
The world you live in.
Oh, also, do you expect that if you shoot yourself in your head, you'll emerge with your mind intact (since you beleive minds are immaterial).

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:15

>>34
The world you live in.
define "world"
define "live"

Oh, also, do you expect that if you shoot yourself in your head, you'll emerge with your mind intact (since you beleive minds are immaterial).
define "immaterial"
define "mind"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:15

>>35
you'll emerge
define "emerge"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:16

>>34
☣ Please try to ignore troll posts ☣. Nobody can be so stupid to not use a dictionary when she clearly needs one.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:17

>>35-36
What do you expect to happen if you shoot yourself in the head or get shot in the head?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:17

>>24
Exactly! Theists think, that "God" is objective. They are subconsciously applying the principles of subjective idealism to cast their ``God'' in the legitimate light of objectivism. Those who have been conditioned to unquestionably subscribe to subjectivism fall for the ruse. Hence objective idealism is born. This is not to be confused with objective realism, or simply objectivism, which is what I promote.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 8:17

>>28
define ">>27"
define "Ignore"
define "the"
define "finitist"
define "."
define "He"
define "won't"
define "form"
define "decent"
define "arguments"
define "."

#Compilation aborted 11 errors while parsing >>28

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List