Carborendum
-
Posts
4630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
200
Posts posted by Carborendum
-
-
9 hours ago, Scott said:
These type of people:
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/washington-dog-drive-police-wrecks
I caught this in the comments:
9 hours ago, Scott said:I can't remember where I read this (it was a while ago). But this gal was suicidal. That's why she ate it.
And it appears (preliminary report only) that the woman who drank the HCQ was trying to poison her husband, and took a smaller dose herself to make it appear as if she was just "following President's Orders."
-
On 4/23/2020 at 3:28 PM, Traveler said:
BTW - Is anyone else "Sick" of this social distancing - stay at home thing?
We're all sick of it, and we're a stay at home family.
- We homeschool.
- We shop on Amazon.
- I have a home based business.
We usually don't go anywhere. And we're getting jumpy. If our family feels like we're in a prison, then, yeah, a lot of people are messed up right now.
- Midwest LDS and Traveler
-
2
-
Quote
I asked for any patterns that people might see.
Yes, they look pretty random to me.
7 hours ago, Scott said:True, but the scriptures didn't use those numbers. If it did, then it probably wouldn't be a coincidence either since the chances of that happening are very small.
What this means is that no matter what the numbers were you'd still find that there was something "special" about them. SMH.
You know what? Have a field day. I'm done.
-
The problem here is that this is an all or nothing argument (false dichotomy). And it appears that many on this thread have fallen for it.
- God has given the Light of Christ to all men regardless of religious instruction to have some innate sense of right and wrong.
- Further Light and Knowledge can be found through right and true religion.
Just because we know some things as a child doesn't mean we don't learn more as we grow and mature.
-
On 4/26/2020 at 5:56 AM, JohnsonJones said:
I had heard some news regarding this briefing that Trump gave, or post briefing. Apparantly (though he claims he was being sarcastic) there was an uptic in calls to the poison control center (which already had happened, calls were up 20%) but in these cases, directly related to what he said in this briefing. Some people that may not be thinking entirely clearly on their own (or perhaps they are, I just suppose they may not be) tried drinking disinfectants (at least they didn't inject themselves with them) and these calls have gone up ~10% in the past two days.
I heard this and I shook my head wondering if the news was making this up (would anyone actually do something like this!?) or there really were people that take some of the things Trump has been saying that seriously in regards to trying to inject sunlight or disinfectants into the body (or something...I think he mumbled).
In light of the fiasco of his confusing sunlight with other things, and disinfectants used to clean stuff NOT inside the human body (Lysol came out with a direct warning after this briefing).
I can't tell if the news stories are actually making it up that people would consider doing this (drinking, ingesting, injecting, etc).
WSJ seems to be a somewhat reliable news section in reporting Lysol gave out this warning and such (warning, paywall).
Lysol maker warns against internal use of disinfectants after trump ponders treatment options
But, it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder what type of people would even consider doing stuff like that?
No, there wasn't.
- It was something like 20 this year vs 13 last year around the same time. With numbers that low, it is hard to analyze from a statistical probability standpoint.
- The call center stated people had "feared" they had swallowed these substances. This doesn't sound like intentionally drinking it.
- The fact that people are simply trying to disinfect things a WHOLE LOT more than normal, means that people will be using these substances more often than last year. And when people use a product more often, the number of cases of accidental misuse will also go up.
Nothing here indicates that any of this activity was due to the President's comments.
That said, I, too was shocked at hearing him say that. It showed a remarkable lack of understanding of chemistry and biology. He sounded like a puppy trying to get his share of the spotlight. I come to like Trump this past couple of years. But this was just plain ignorant.
It's one thing to say he hopes a product is promising and he really thinks it might be. It is quite another to announce trying something that basic chemistry tells you is just plain wrong. But no, I don't think ANYONE would have taken that as a call to start drinking bleach.
And I believe that Trump realized that shortly after the press briefing. That is why he's ceasing or reducing any further briefings. He knows he stepped in it this time. And he's trying to do damage control.
-
Quote
Assuming none of the numbers are rounded, the chances are 1/134,217,728. The calculation is easy since the numbers represented cover half of all digits, i.e. (1/2)^27.
Yes, that would be correct. But have you looked at the other side?
What we have here is a bell curve. But it is a very FLAT bell curve. Even the high point in the center of the bell curve is very small. It just happens to be larger than the rest of the curve. For instance, if you wanted to find ONLY those combinations which used ALL 10 numbers, then it is NOT 10^27. It is MUCH smaller.
1/134,217,72 is actually ~7.45x10^18 / 10^27. (Just take a moment to consider how large that numerator is before you go looking at the denominator).
vs.
But the probabilities of using each digit at least once among 30 (You switched on me, my calculations were based on 30 numbers) is about
10^9 (or 10^10) / 10^30.
That is an even MORE infinitesimal than only using 5 numbers.
On 4/25/2020 at 10:39 PM, Scott said:I posted that late at night and was going to go over some of the math and make it exact since the others were just approximated from memory and now I have my computer and calculator.
You are correct in that it is 1/1024 if you only include the ages at death of the ten people themselves. Those aren't the only numbers though. In this chapter alone, there are 27 numbers in the KJV, all ending in 0, 2, 5, 7, and 9 with none ending in 1, 3 ,4, 6, or 8.You're not really addressing my other points regarding you're whole numerology thing with the 5x7 is completely bunk. I disproved it. And you didn't address it.
-
3 hours ago, Scott said:
I don't have much time right now, but to clarify, there are thirty ages/numbers mentioned in that section of the Bible, not 30 people.
Yes, I know. You said that. But I was pointing out that the fact we're talking about only 10 people and one of the numbers of each of the 10 people is a dependent variable as a function of the other two, then we're only talking about 20 numbers. And with a sample size of 10 people, the rarity argument is invalid. IOW, the patterns you mentioned are not at all surprising.
-
-
1 hour ago, TheTanakas said:
Maybe you are watching FoxNews too much? See this.
Doubling Down? I guess you don't feel like you have a choice. If you just set up another sock puppet, we'll be able to tell within just a few posts. Your voice is the same with each one. So, just how many will you set up? Do you want some help deceiving us into thinking your next one is someone else?
1) You ask a question as if you're misunderstanding something. But it is really just your intentional misreading of it. Find something with more substance which is "actually" confusing. We'd be happy to discuss it with you.
2) You don't actually participate in conversation. Oh, sure you may give a one or two word answer or a simple phrase. But you don't actually answer any questions in a discussion format. Part of an online forum is for people to get to know you and understand where you're coming from. If we don't really get to know YOU, we can't really answer your questions, because we don't know what YOU'RE getting at. It's just meaningless words on a screen for some zombie out to get quick answers and never really do any thinking or pondering on your own. And your personal pondering and praying is where you'll get the answers, not from strangers on the internet. The conversation is supposed to help you think outside the box. The actual understanding comes from your pondering and praying.You want us to take you seriously? You want us to not believe you're just a sock puppet? Then think about these things.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we're more than HAPPY to discuss things with you if you actually participate in a discussion as well as take the time to think about things on your own, ponder them, and pray about them. The way you've been doing it by just dropping a question with neither participation in the overall conversation nor sincere searching doesn't help anyone.
- Midwest LDS and NeedleinA
-
2
-
10 hours ago, Scott said:
Thirty ages of people are mentioned in Genesis 5.
Actually, there are 10 people mentioned. Their ages at two points (siring a son and their deaths). The third number was the difference between those numbers. Two of the numbers (whichever of the three) are independent. The third is dependent. Thus the analysis of that third number in the "randomness" question isn't of much weight.
QuoteMany say that the ages are all literal. Some say they are missing a decimal point. I don't buy either one of these explanations for the reasons below.
I have no idea. They could be literal, but for some reason we don't know about. They could be figurative. Again, I'd have no idea why.
QuoteIn any cases the patterns of the numbers are interesting (which leads me to believe that there is something else to these numbers than only ages and they carry some sort of symbolic meaning).
What type of patterns do you see in the numbers?
One of the easiest to see patterns is that with the exception of Methusala, each number ends with 0, 2, 5, and 7. Methusala's age ends with 9.So, if these are indeed real ages, what would be the chances that a set of random numbers only ending with those specific numbers rather than having them more evenly scattered? If anyone is curious it is about 1 in one million. That's a really small chance that the numbers are random ages and that's just looking at the simplest pattern.
I do believe it is simply too clean to have the begetting age, the difference, and death age, all having a 0 at the end. Yet this happened with three people out of the 10. And two others have a zero with the difference between begetting and death -- one being Enoch.
I tend to think this is more attributable to rounding than with symbolic meaning. With that many years, I don't know how easy it would have been to remember, really. I don't know how accurate Methuselah's age was after so many years. How did they know? What calendar were they using?
Because of rounding (looking only at their age at death, as an example) we have 7 people who represent 4 out of 9 numbers. I don't know how you got one in a million. I get around 1/300 (hardly infinitesimal for the sample size). If you include the zero, you get about 1/1000. Out of a sample of 10 people? Yes, that's very possible.
The fact that not a single one of the ages were not semi-years is interesting. i.e. there had to be the chance of someone having a birthday at such a time of the year compared to their begetting vs. their deaths that ONE of them at least should have not added up evenly. Chances are. But they all do. Again, attributable to rounding.
As for the other four, that's four out of 9. I don't know how you got one in a million. I get around one in 3000. If you include the zero, you get about 1/1000. Out of a sample of 10 people? Yes, that's very possible.
QuoteIt gets more interesting.
Here's another pattern that is harder to see at first glance, but that some writers have pointed out (and the patten in this case the pattern is both certain and real):Each of the 30 numbers can be expressed in combinations of days and months of the two most sacred or significant numbers amoung the ancient Hebrews; those numbers being 7 and 60. (Interestingly, 60 is also very significant in ancient Mesopotanian numbers, because they base their mathematics on sixty (which is why we use 60 seconds to a minute and 60 minutes to an hour even today).
When looking at this pattern (which all of the numbers fit), the chances that the 30 numbers are just random ages move from about 1 in a million from the first pattern to infinitesimally small when taking in account both patterns.Again, where are your calculations for the probabilities? I'm not seeing the numbers you're getting. What months? What days? What combinations? Multiplying? Adding? What?
QuoteHere's a third pattern that would have to be an incredible coincidence for the numbers to be random.
If you add up the ages of all of the patriarch's, including Noah, you have 8575 years, which just happens to be 5 X 5 X 7 X 7 X 7. 5 and 7 are both very sacred numbers in Hebrew since 5 represents God's grace and 7 represents the perfectness and holiness of God.And if you add up all the gifts in 12 days of Christmas you get 364 which is just one shy of the 365 for a year. So what?
QuoteEvery single one of the ages can be expressed in either multiples of 5 by themselves or a multiple of 5 added to another multiple of 7 (see above for the sacred nature of the numbers five and seven).
For example, Methusala's 969 years is 191 X 5 + 7 + 7. Jared's is 191 X 5 + 7. Seth's is 185 X 5 +7. Lamech's 777 is 154 X 5 +7.
The chances of random numbers all fitting the above four patterns are so infinitesimally small that they almost certainly aren't random.Where are your calculations? I hope you realize that when you do this with two prime numbers in this manner, it actually tends to cover MANY numbers in the number line.
For a set of numbers from 1 to 1000, this pattern can be met by 972 of the numbers. And if you forget the first 100 years, the only number that does not meet this criterion is 995. Hardly conclusive. I'm not sure how you saw this as "so infinitesimally small."
QuoteDoes anyone see more patterns?
I see a bunch of numbers all grouped together except for Enoch, and possibly Noah. But we know they were outliers. Even Lamech was a partial outlier because he didn't make into the ark.
QuoteI don't buy any claims that some people have in that they can do things like caculating the date of the second coming using biblical numbers. I don't buy it at all. Still, some of the number patterns in the Old Testament are interesting. The four I point out above in Genesis 4 definitely exist. Even if biology was different back then, I don't buy that they are just random numbers and coincidences. They are too organized and fit too well with patterns to be coincidences. I don't believe at all that they were just the real random lifespans of the people mentioned. They symbolize something, but what? I don't think anyone can answer that question, but I do find it interesting.
In summary, the first two patterns are well within statistical variation for a sample size of 10 people.
(see below for the third pattern)
The fourth can be considered a fluke. It's interesting. But I don't see why this is supposed to mean anything. And in light of the others amounting to nothing, I'm not inclined to believe this one criterion means anything.
The fifth criterion, as I've demonstrated is smoke and mirrors.
I went through the exercise for the fifth pattern, I expect that since 50 is a multiple of 5 that we'd get very similar results for the third pattern.
- SilentOne and JohnsonJones
-
2
-
2 hours ago, maklelan said:
There are two stages here. The first is reconciliation to Christ, or coming unto Christ, and that is what requires baptism, repentance, etc. That is the "gate" referred to in 2 Nephi 31. 2 Nephi 25:23 is referring to what happens once we're on the path, and 2 Nephi 10:24 says the same thing: "after ye are reconciled unto God [that's the first step with baptism, etc], that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." 2 Nephi 10:24 and 25:23 say the exact same thing: grace alone saves us once we've been reconciled to God/Christ through baptism, repentance, etc.
I'm hearing what you're saying. And I am somewhat coming along with you. (And thank you for the correction to 2 Nephi rather than 1 Nephi.) I have formed a theological theory. As a "just now formed" idea, it needs some kinks worked out. But here goes.
Because we do believe in the separation of the Trinity into members of the Godhead, there are some understandings that we can have about the nature of Grace and the Atonement.
- Jesus is our mediator with the Father.
- He gained this role and right by virtue of the Atonement.
- We are reconciled to the Son through our Works (again, not ironed out yet).
- We are reconciled to the Father through the Son.
- The ability to reconcile at all is through grace.
I want to note for everyone that we're now no longer really talking about the verbiage of the translation anymore. We've gone into the theological/doctrinal meaning of the verse in question. This is natural -- as opposed to the mathematical thread jack which is running parallel to the thread.
-
9 hours ago, Traveler said:
Grammatically it is undefined within the real and complex number sets - which means there is no number within those number sets that will suffice.
The Traveler
Excellent.
It may be undefined by some criteria. But we can also define it in terms of limits. And when we take the limit of X^X as X---> 0 (from the positive side) is 1. It starts to turn around as X=0.37 or so.
But the thing is that the grammar rules tell us two separate things that are well defined. But your answer is that it is undefined. Remember your original comment was about the mathematical rules of grammar and how perfectly exact the language of math is.
I recall a huge proof that a physics professor once did where he showed why something in the vacuum of space was the way it was. However, it hinged upon a variable (I forget which one -- you may remember) = 1. He went through the entire proof. I was wondering why he was going through it so fast that it was hard to keep up with him. At the end he said.
"But there's just one problem. This variable isn't anywhere near equal 1. Yet by choosing it to be one, we get the solution that is found to correctly predict much of what we know about the vacuum of space."
If math is so precise and exact and accurate, how did it correctly predict reality when an incorrect assumption was made as the input?
Linguistics is not much different. Sometimes a translation turns out to be the best way to express the overall intent even though the exact wording of the translation is not what anyone would consider accurate. (This happens most with idiomatic expressions).
Don't get caught up so much with mathematical certitude with its precision and exactness and accuracy, so that you lose sight of the reality behind the numbers.
-
12 hours ago, maklelan said:
You can access that paper here:
Is the document small enough to post on the forum. When I go to the download site, it wants access to my contacts. And I've had bad experiences with spam being sent to my contacts (in my name) when I did that before.
-
8 hours ago, maklelan said:
but be discerning regarding on whom you have compassion.
What would be your comment on multiple alternate translators preferring the following translation.
show compassion upon those who are doubting.
For my part, I believe this would mean "making a difference" would refer to "those who separate themselves from the church" / going inactive. (I'm using "church" in the ancient sense).
-
6 minutes ago, Vort said:
Carb, I'm no mathematician, just a guy who likes math. What conflicts do you see in what I wrote? Because I don't see any. Things look perfectly consistent to me. I can't think offhand of any cases where it would be useful to define 0! == 0. In fact, if you don't define 0! == 1, I don't see any other useful way to define it at all.
(And for the record, I didn't supply any proof, just an example of why 0! == 1 is a useful definition.)
The useful case would be that 0! would include a case where we have 0*X = 0.
But I did a bit of googling while we've been posting. I found something fairly interesting. It is close, but not quite the same as your example. And it is a consistent pattern.
n!/n=(n-1)! for all positive whole numbers.
-
14 hours ago, maklelan said:
Because the two positions represent the opposite sides of a fierce debate that has been going on for millennia. Either "all we can do" plays a role in grace or is does not.
Now I think you've possibly misworded this.
There is no question that works "play a role" in our obtaining Christ's grace. (OK, I just read @Vort's post. Yes, I agree with him). I would reword your comment as "all we can do" does NOT EQUAL grace. It is, however, a prerequisite to obtaining the grace which grants us salvation.
This does include the idea that for some, "all we can do" is often very little or even none. But what can be done should be done. If not, what do you make of 2 Nephi 31?
- Vort, SilentOne and Midwest LDS
-
3
-
17 minutes ago, Vort said:
Not at all. It's definition. We define our orthography such that it is meaningful. Why is 0/0 undefined? Because there is no useful definition we can give it. If there were, we would do so. Such is not the case with 0!, though.
With 0/0 we see the numbers approaching from both direction indicating a divergence where there cannot be a definition.
With 0^0 we see two patterns that are in conflict with each other. Not divergent patterns, but still mutually exclusive patterns. Therefore, a third pattern is called into the mix to tip the balance. And the third pattern is a pattern more consistent than the first two that indicate a definition which happens to agree with one of the other two.
Here is my weakness in math. I don't "know math" like a well trained human calculator. I even have a tough time seeing a lot of engineered solutions that are brought before me. I see patterns. I only use the language of math to express the patterns I see. So, I have to have someone walk through the patterns with me. Then I figure how I would express those patterns in mathematical grammar.
The proof you've given actually generates patterns where there are just as many conflicts that don't really answer the question. Yes, if you just assume 0!=1, then it solves it. But it could just as easily be undefined. If it is more clear in one direction, I'm not seeing it. Hence, I thought it was circular logic.
-
9 minutes ago, askandanswer said:
Hi all
Im looking for talks/sermons/lessons about change by apostles or members of the First Presidency to support the Priesthood lesson I'm currently working on. General Conference talks can be searched by 306 topics, but unfortunately "change" is not one of the listed topics, and neither is "transformation", "progression" or "natural man." There are 28 talks on change at speeches.byu.edu but most of them are not by apostles or members of the First Presidency. Does anyone know of any online resources attributable to apostles or members of the First Presidency that talk about change - why it is necessary, how it can be done, blessings resulting from change, divine help in changing, consequences of not changing, etc?
- Vort, askandanswer and laronius
-
2
-
1
-
1 minute ago, Vort said:
That equation will actually still work just fine, so long as you define 0! == 1. So that's how it's defined.
That's not circular logic?
-
6 minutes ago, Vort said:
0!
While true, I haven't seen the proof.
I know the line of reasoning (I can't call it a proof) that shows 0^0 = 1. But I don't know how 0! = 1. I have read the reasoning. But it doesn't seem consistent to me.
-
5 hours ago, Traveler said:
mathematics is a very unambiguous language that is so pure it is impossible to lie without breaking the obvious rules of grammar.
Well, what grammatical rules are being broken to come to this conundrum:
X^0 = 1
0^x = 0
What is 0^0?
-
3 minutes ago, maklelan said:
No, temporally following is not necessarily the opposite of "despite," but in context, the notion that grace saves us following all that we do is diametrically opposed to the notion that grace saves us despite all that we do.
I believe Elder Uchtdorf supports what you're trying to say here.
QuoteHowever, I wonder if sometimes we misinterpret the phrase “after all we can do.” We must understand that “after” does not equal “because.”
We are not saved “because” of all that we can do. Have any of us done all that we can do? Does God wait until we’ve expended every effort before He will intervene in our lives with His saving grace?
-- The Gift of Grace: April 2015 General Conference.
- JohnsonJones, scottyg, maklelan and 1 other
-
4
-
16 minutes ago, Vort said:
"antiquarian aneurysm" was actually "antiquarianism". Start listening at about 7:10.
Ah. That makes sense. I didn't even notice the audio was available. The icon looks more like an ad than a "press here to play the audio" button.
-
11 hours ago, maklelan said:
I need your help. At the top of the page it gave the disclaimer that it was an auto-generated transcript, so there are going to be some errors. That's understandable. But I was not able to figure out what this was:
QuoteAnd as a result of that resurgence, there was also increased interest in antiquarian aneurysm in older things.
I'm having trouble taking this literally. And I'm unaware of any other meaning. So, you either meant this figuratively (which I've never heard in such a context). Or this was a computer generated mistake.
Help me out with this?
The Excuse of all Tyrants
in Current Events
Posted · Edited by Carborendum
Apparently, the woman in the video has apologized to the police.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/idaho-activist-apologizes-refusing-leave-playground-amid-coronavirus-pandemic
With all this sympathy for the police officer expressed on this thread (which I agree was appropriate) I believe the woman was not given enough sympathy.
All's as it should be. Move along show's over.