Why do I always get the feeling that the ultrafinitist missed out on that critical period of brain development that supported abstract thinking as a child?
Or maybe I am wrong and they are just Christians, who dislike set theory and infinity because ``there is only one infinity, and that is God''.
>>21
Looks like it's the first one. The modern study of set theory was initiated by Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind in the 1870s. Preserving the orthodoxy of the relationship between God and mathematics, although not in the same form as held by his critics, was long a concern of Cantor's.
he is one good Jew, because he tells us how to do math without angles and other intangible irrational crap like infinity.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-16 9:12
>>37 without angles and other intangible irrational crap
Are you trying to say angles are ``intangible irrational'' crap? Might as well forsake everything but the positive integers, fagstorm.
>>38 Might as well forsake everything but the positive integers, fagstorm.
If we can agree to keep fractions, this would be great. Negative numbers are useful as models, but they completely fall apart when applied to actual situations. Can you have -10 bottle caps? Can you have an a -5th element in an array (ignoring stupid shit that shitty languages sometimes do to make this work, like wrapping around)? No, you cannot. They are not real numbers at all, and are only esoteric academic products meant for ivory-tower kike paper-pushers without any experience in how numbers are actually used. Well, that or fucking kike bankers who keep pushing negative numbers at people and pushing them further and further into fucking debt.
>>43
There is no 0C, there is though 0°C, and once again, it isn't a pure scale. Perhaps you should be thinking of kelvin. There is no -1K. It is impossible to have less heat energy than that.
The natural universe has no need for negatives or infinity.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-16 19:09
>>44
At first I found your post very funny and thought you were making fun of the ultrafinitists.
Now... I still find your post very funny, please postmore.
>>44
Signal and magnitude are different things, okay?
What you're saying totally ignores complex numbers and applications, including your so-valued computers.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-17 2:48
>>50 Signal and magnitude are different things
No. Magnitude is an inseparable part of signal. Because if there are no magnitude, there is no signal.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-17 2:58
>>43 Temperatures below 0C are non-existent.
Exactly! There is no negative/positive "infinity": Particle speed is limited by speed of light. And, AFAIK, physics is about to hit the bottom - i.e. the lower they get the more it shows that universe is discrete.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-17 3:00
>>41 Can you have an a -5th element in an array?
Actually, you can define negative array indices, as indices from the end of array - i.e. modulo array length.
>>51
Magnitude is about size, scale, length, modulus and absolute value. That's not a signal. And then you take those roots, and analyze their signal, and they have meaning.
>>52
Distance between two objects can't be negative but it isn't limited to any size.
Observed time grew before, grows now and will grow while there is an observator.
The infinity isn't a real measurement, but it is some ``ABSTRACT BULLSHITHE'' that enables the study of how things behave as they evolve, grow, resonate, cycle, etc. It is possible to know limits for practical things like sum of GPs and the bounds of divide-and-conquer algorithms. Looking at the infinity you may not see how things end, but even so you'll be able to understand how fast things grow.
You don't seem to comprehend, but frankly, why do I care?
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-17 11:36
What does the ``in Lisp'' guy think of complex numbers and quaternions? You know 3D rotation uses them.
You seem to be very mad about ``irrational crap''. Obviously, you can't have -4+5i apples, but you use that same concept to power your shitty 3D games. The fact that numbers don't have a tangible representation doesn't imply they're useless.
Now fuck off and go get fucked by a horny uncut ``priest''.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-17 18:14
>>64
-4+5i is not even a fucking expressible with primitives. You're using a god damn vector and you fucking know it.
Why, this is exactly like 2009 vintage, FrozenVoid-grade idiocy!
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-17 18:59
>>67 Performance comparisons with other rotation methods
This section discusses the performance implications of using quaternions versus other methods (axis/angle or rotation matrices) to perform rotations in 3D.
* Note: angle-axis can be stored as 3 elements by multiplying the unit rotation axis by the rotation angle, forming the logarithm of the quaternion, at the cost of additional calculations.
Rotation matrices have a problem of no longer representing rotations after repeating multiplications. The errors accumulate and soon they start to change the magnitudes of the vectors they rotate. With a quaternion, you can periodically normalize them so that they still represent rotations.
>>74
but..but...matrix multiplication of 4x4 matrices will cost you 4^3 multiplications, and 4^2 sums of 4 terms each, whereas quaternions require 4^2 multiplications and 4 sums of 4 terms each.
>>73
Exactly, and you'd use matrix multiplication, which is known to be one of the most trivial problems with efficient implementations in computer science.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-17 19:16
This thread reeks of kebab.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-17 19:33
YOU SPIN ME RIGHT ROUND BABY RIGHT ROUND LIKE RECORD BABY RIGHT ROUND RIGHT ROUND! YOU SPIN ME RIGHT ROUND BABY RIGHT ROUND LIKE RECORD BABY RIGHT ROUND RIGHT ROUND!