Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: fallacy with imaginary numbers

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,223

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Yes, I did, in posts #6 and #8
    And I have told why you are wrong:




    does not mean +3 = -3

  2. #22
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,052

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by 7777777 View Post
    And I have told why you are wrong:




    does not mean +3 = -3
    From post #8:
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    At no time did I claim
    By the definition of the radical sign, it does not equal -3.
    Last edited by grapes; 07-11-2018 at 05:27 AM. Reason: Correct link to post #8

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,223

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    From post #8:

    By the definition of the radical sign, it does not equal -3.
    And that is your mistake. You are using a definition. You are defining a true statement as false:

    is true

    but according to your definition it is false.

    You have been given enough evidence proving you wrong, but you are systematically ignoring it all.
    You are ignoring the multivaluedness of the square root function, although you said "of course", thus contradicting
    yourself. It is perhaps best either to agree or disagree, but not to do both at the same time.

    You wrote that "The radical means a single-valued function", but that's only because of your definition. It might be
    better to avoid definitions althogether, if they allow you to define anything that you want, even impossibilities like defining true as false.

  4. #24
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,052

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by 7777777 View Post
    And that is your mistake. You are using a definition.
    I'm using the same definition as the article that you quoted in the OP.

    You can't avoid using definitions. You can choose to use your own, or you can choose to use the ones that everybody else uses.
    You are defining a true statement as false:

    is true

    but according to your definition it is false.

    You have been given enough evidence proving you wrong, but you are systematically ignoring it all.
    You are ignoring the multivaluedness of the square root function, although you said "of course", thus contradicting
    yourself.
    Obviously, then, I have not been ignoring it.

    ETA: Nobody else is ignoring them either!
    It is perhaps best either to agree or disagree, but not to do both at the same time.

    You wrote that "The radical means a single-valued function", but that's only because of your definition. It might be
    better to avoid definitions althogether, if they allow you to define anything that you want, even impossibilities like defining true as false.
    Obviously you cannot avoid definitions altogether.

    You should learn what definitions others are using before you criticize them.
    Last edited by grapes; 07-12-2018 at 06:33 PM. Reason: ETA

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,223

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I'm using the same definition as the article that you quoted in the OP.
    Both you and the wikipedia article end up with the fallacy -1 = +1
    And that is because you both use the same definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    You can't avoid using definitions. You can choose to use your own, or you can choose to use the ones that everybody else uses.
    I don't use my own definitions. You don't completely understand the definition you use because you end up with the fallacy. I have told how to solve the fallacy by refuting the wikipedia's denial that both


    are true.
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Obviously, then, I have not been ignoring it.
    ETA: Nobody else is ignoring them either!
    Obviously you are ignoring multivaluedness of the square root function.

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Obviously you cannot avoid definitions altogether.You should learn what definitions others are using before you criticize them.
    I know the definitions others are using, in fact I know them better then them because how else could I know that what they are doing is wrong. They don't know the solution to the fallacy.

  6. #26
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,052

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by 7777777 View Post
    Both you and the wikipedia article end up with the fallacy -1 = +1
    And that is because you both use the same definition.
    Read the article again. They present that as a fallacy, and point out the reason for the fallacy.
    I don't use my own definitions. You don't completely understand the definition you use because you end up with the fallacy. I have told how to solve the fallacy by refuting the wikipedia's denial that both


    are true.
    Your definitions are exactly what causes the fallacy. They explain that in the article.

    Obviously you are ignoring multivaluedness of the square root function.


    I know the definitions others are using, in fact I know them better then them because how else could I know that what they are doing is wrong. They don't know the solution to the fallacy.
    ETA: The article explained how to avoid the fallacy. Continuing to use sloppy definitions will eventually result in you falsely concluding something to be true--and you won't be able to recognize it as a mistake.
    Last edited by grapes; 07-13-2018 at 01:44 PM. Reason: ETA

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,223

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Read the article again. They present that as a fallacy, and point out the reason for the fallacy.

    Your definitions are exactly what causes the fallacy. They explain that in the article.
    I don't have "my definitions", I don't use own definitions. You keep on telling that




    means +3 = -3

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    ETA: The article explained how to avoid the fallacy. Continuing to use sloppy definitions will eventually result in you falsely concluding something to be true--and you won't be able to recognize it as a mistake.
    That's exactly what you do. You falsely conclude to be true, and you won't be able to
    recognize it as a mistake.

    The wikipedia article explains that we must suitably constrain the variables in the equality and that in this case the equality does not hold as the numbers are both negative. So let's assume that is right see what happens:





    Conclusion: it might help if they first learned to take a square root before starting manipulating the truth. The question is: How can they take a square root of a negative number -9, if they can't even take a square root of a positive number +9?

  8. #28
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,052

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by 7777777 View Post
    I don't have "my definitions", I don't use own definitions.
    You use different definitions from everyone else, whosever they are.
    You keep on telling that




    means +3 = -3
    In what post? I couldn't find any post of mine where that appears.
    That's exactly what you do. You falsely conclude to be true, and you won't be able to
    recognize it as a mistake.

    The wikipedia article explains that we must suitably constrain the variables in the equality and that in this case the equality does not hold as the numbers are both negative. So let's assume that is right see what happens:





    Conclusion: it might help if they first learned to take a square root before starting manipulating the truth. The question is: How can they take a square root of a negative number -9, if they can't even take a square root of a positive number +9?
    Last edited by grapes; 07-14-2018 at 01:45 AM. Reason: In what post

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,223

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    You use different definitions from everyone else, whosever they are.
    I don't use my own definitions. You don't understand the definitions you use. Tha's why you constantly get everything wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    In what post? I couldn't find any post of mine where that appears.
    so are you telling




    means +3 ≠ -3 ?
    Last edited by 7777777; 07-14-2018 at 01:51 AM.

  10. #30
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,052

    Default Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by 7777777 View Post
    I don't use my own definitions.
    You're certainly using a different definition for the radical sign, that much is clear.

    You may not like the usual definition, but you're still not using the usual definition.
    You don't understand the definitions you use. Tha's why you constantly get everything wrong.




    so are you telling




    means +3 ≠ -3 ?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •