|
|
Active topics
Unread
| New posts
Your bookmarks
Your friends' posts
Your posts
| Quotes
|
|
Welcome, CommonCrawl [Bot]!
|
Forum rules
Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows: - Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
- If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
- Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
- Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.
These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.
 | |  | |
| Author |
Message |
|
horace slughorn
|
 Posted: 15th July, 2011, 6:48 am |
| potions master |
 |
Joined: 6th July, 2010, 1:12 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
e^ipi wrote: horace slughorn wrote: e^ipi wrote: horace slughorn wrote: Ph.D. In Everything wrote: I hate to interject, but I was just awarded a PhD in combinatorics (Concentration: order theory), and it seems quite clear that you're misusing fuzzy logic profoundly. There are situations in which fuzzy logic can help us better understand the degree to which a mathematical proposition is true or false, but in this case, there can be no middle ground. The paradox exists (and was popularized by Eubulides) because of its application to naive set theory, and how it shows that the traditional way by which we group things mathematically isn't always reliable. Logic does not permit the statement to exist in separate states, even discreetly. It is either always true or always false. oo do we have a contender for someone more advanced in math than e^ipi? He wouldn't be the first. And what about you. I've always wondered what your background is. oh nothing too intense. I just have an undergrad degree, double major of math and philosophy. So, I did a couple years of analysis and algebra, some intro topology, and just a start on real and complex analysis. Was a few years ago now that I graduated from that program, and I'm currently not doing anything with math  How about you? I'm guessing you're working on a masters? edit: sorry to get this thread off-topic, there has been some good discussion here! I'm going to be a fifth year undergrad, although I didn't pick up math until several semesters in - double major in math/literature! I've taken about the same amount as you - classical analysis, some complex analysis, introductory algebra and topology, and then just random electives I could fit in like number theory, PDEs, numerical analysis, formal logic, and geometry. But I spend a lot of time studying on my own too. math/literature sounds like a fun mix! made me think of that book Flatland lol. You seem to have a real passion for math! That's good to see, unlike a lot of the kids in my class who went on to get an MBA or become an actuary 
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Citrus
|
Posted: 15th July, 2011, 1:52 pm |
| Member |
|
Joined: 21st October, 2009, 8:35 am
Posts: 386
|
|
.
Last edited by Citrus on 24th January, 2013, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e^ipi
|
Posted: 15th July, 2011, 5:01 pm |
| Illuminatus |
|
Joined: 21st September, 2010, 4:08 pm
Posts: 3440
Location: FL
Country: 
|
Citrus wrote: How disappointing that Horace Slughorn is not a chemistry major  Most students these days only do maths because either they have to as part of their coursework, or they want to use it as a springboard into something different. The same can be said for a lot of science disciplines as well. Hm, you're an educator*, so how effective do you think that is, getting a science degree and then going into some industry job? From Googleing, it seems like a lot of people who end up going that way, getting a math or science degree and then getting an industry job, get jobs in accounting or finance or programming or something like that; fields where they don't necessarily use their degree, but the degree proves they're capable of learning. *And I'm also sure there are only like 6 people who consistently read this thread, so no one will know we're off topic!horace slughorn wrote: e^ipi wrote: horace slughorn wrote: e^ipi wrote: horace slughorn wrote: Ph.D. In Everything wrote: I hate to interject, but I was just awarded a PhD in combinatorics (Concentration: order theory), and it seems quite clear that you're misusing fuzzy logic profoundly. There are situations in which fuzzy logic can help us better understand the degree to which a mathematical proposition is true or false, but in this case, there can be no middle ground. The paradox exists (and was popularized by Eubulides) because of its application to naive set theory, and how it shows that the traditional way by which we group things mathematically isn't always reliable. Logic does not permit the statement to exist in separate states, even discreetly. It is either always true or always false. oo do we have a contender for someone more advanced in math than e^ipi? He wouldn't be the first. And what about you. I've always wondered what your background is. oh nothing too intense. I just have an undergrad degree, double major of math and philosophy. So, I did a couple years of analysis and algebra, some intro topology, and just a start on real and complex analysis. Was a few years ago now that I graduated from that program, and I'm currently not doing anything with math How about you? I'm guessing you're working on a masters? edit: sorry to get this thread off-topic, there has been some good discussion here! I'm going to be a fifth year undergrad, although I didn't pick up math until several semesters in - double major in math/literature! I've taken about the same amount as you - classical analysis, some complex analysis, introductory algebra and topology, and then just random electives I could fit in like number theory, PDEs, numerical analysis, formal logic, and geometry. But I spend a lot of time studying on my own too. math/literature sounds like a fun mix! made me think of that book Flatland lol. You seem to have a real passion for math! That's good to see, unlike a lot of the kids in my class who went on to get an MBA or become an actuary It was okay. I really wish I had done math/philosophy though. So much overlap! It's quite embarrassing, but I've never read Flatland, lol. So what do you do now that you're done with school?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
horace slughorn
|
Posted: 15th July, 2011, 6:16 pm |
| potions master |
|
Joined: 6th July, 2010, 1:12 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
e^ipi wrote: Citrus wrote: How disappointing that Horace Slughorn is not a chemistry major Most students these days only do maths because either they have to as part of their coursework, or they want to use it as a springboard into something different. The same can be said for a lot of science disciplines as well. Hm, you're an educator*, so how effective do you think that is, getting a science degree and then going into some industry job? From Googleing, it seems like a lot of people who end up going that way, getting a math or science degree and then getting an industry job, get jobs in accounting or finance or programming or something like that; fields where they don't necessarily use their degree, but the degree proves they're capable of learning. *And I'm also sure there are only like 6 people who consistently read this thread, so no one will know we're off topic!horace slughorn wrote: e^ipi wrote: horace slughorn wrote: e^ipi wrote: horace slughorn wrote: Ph.D. In Everything wrote: I hate to interject, but I was just awarded a PhD in combinatorics (Concentration: order theory), and it seems quite clear that you're misusing fuzzy logic profoundly. There are situations in which fuzzy logic can help us better understand the degree to which a mathematical proposition is true or false, but in this case, there can be no middle ground. The paradox exists (and was popularized by Eubulides) because of its application to naive set theory, and how it shows that the traditional way by which we group things mathematically isn't always reliable. Logic does not permit the statement to exist in separate states, even discreetly. It is either always true or always false. oo do we have a contender for someone more advanced in math than e^ipi? He wouldn't be the first. And what about you. I've always wondered what your background is. oh nothing too intense. I just have an undergrad degree, double major of math and philosophy. So, I did a couple years of analysis and algebra, some intro topology, and just a start on real and complex analysis. Was a few years ago now that I graduated from that program, and I'm currently not doing anything with math How about you? I'm guessing you're working on a masters? edit: sorry to get this thread off-topic, there has been some good discussion here! I'm going to be a fifth year undergrad, although I didn't pick up math until several semesters in - double major in math/literature! I've taken about the same amount as you - classical analysis, some complex analysis, introductory algebra and topology, and then just random electives I could fit in like number theory, PDEs, numerical analysis, formal logic, and geometry. But I spend a lot of time studying on my own too. math/literature sounds like a fun mix! made me think of that book Flatland lol. You seem to have a real passion for math! That's good to see, unlike a lot of the kids in my class who went on to get an MBA or become an actuary It was okay. I really wish I had done math/philosophy though. So much overlap! It's quite embarrassing, but I've never read Flatland, lol. So what do you do now that you're done with school? Haha ya there was quite a lot of overlap between the math and philosophy. Actually the philosophy department at U of T was fantastic and we used to joke that the logic courses offered by philosophy were more rigorous than some of our math  And I'm not doing anything interesting with math. All the relevant work seemed to ask for a Masters and that just wasn't in the cards for me due to some bad choices. So I'm back in school, studying sociology (criminology). I have only a year left because thankfully if you do a second undergrad degree here they let you skip the first year of courses (i.e. skip a quarter of the usual credits required). Going back to school seemed way more appealing than finding full-time work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citrus
|
Posted: 16th July, 2011, 7:34 am |
| Member |
|
Joined: 21st October, 2009, 8:35 am
Posts: 386
|
|
.
Last edited by Citrus on 24th January, 2013, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt.au
|
Posted: 17th July, 2011, 8:21 am |
| Half Human, Half Robot; All Mad Scientist |
|
Joined: 19th December, 2009, 10:14 am
Posts: 10496
Country: 
|
Citrus wrote: still exist some PhD candidates in my department whom I feel are...unworthy. I would have failed them miserably if I were to mark their research, even though some of them are "the best candidates" we've ever seen  This makes me nervous . What if I am deemed unworthy in x years when I attempt a Ph.D?  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citrus
|
Posted: 17th July, 2011, 12:19 pm |
| Member |
|
Joined: 21st October, 2009, 8:35 am
Posts: 386
|
|
.
Last edited by Citrus on 24th January, 2013, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt.au
|
Posted: 18th July, 2011, 2:27 am |
| Half Human, Half Robot; All Mad Scientist |
|
Joined: 19th December, 2009, 10:14 am
Posts: 10496
Country:
|
Oh I see. I thought you simply meant they were not intelligent enough and shouldn't be doing research  . So what are some of the types of things people should research?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e^ipi
|
Posted: 18th July, 2011, 6:53 am |
| Illuminatus |
|
Joined: 21st September, 2010, 4:08 pm
Posts: 3440
Location: FL
Country:
|
Quote: Furthermore, I should add that I am not against people trying to find ways to dislodge current scientifically accepted models. Trying to do so for a PhD even though you do not have sufficient tools at your disposal is just foolish. It should not have taken 3+ years for them to realise that what they were doing wasn't going to work.  I'm somewhat reminded of what a professor said to me regarding brilliant insights - it's possible you've noticed something that's alluded every brilliant mind that's ever looked at it, but you're probably just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt.au
|
Posted: 18th July, 2011, 8:37 am |
| Half Human, Half Robot; All Mad Scientist |
|
Joined: 19th December, 2009, 10:14 am
Posts: 10496
Country:
|
I suppose this is the best place to post this: I'm currently revising for exams and one of the revision questions I was attempting was: "Explain how the photoelectric effect provides evidence for the photon nature of light?" My answer was: When light is considered to be a particle instead of a wave it allows us to consider the energy to be contained to a 'bundle' of light (i.e. a photon) rather than distributed over an area (as is the case with the electromagnetic wave model). The photoelectric effect requires the energy from the light incident on the metal to be converted to kinetic energy for the instantaneous ejection of electrons which can only occur when light is considered a particle not a wave. Do you think I've answered it sufficiently? I don't like it . I feel like I can't give a real answer because I lack the conceptual and mathematical tools to explain it at my current level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citrus
|
Posted: 18th July, 2011, 9:35 am |
| Member |
|
Joined: 21st October, 2009, 8:35 am
Posts: 386
|
|
.
Last edited by Citrus on 24th January, 2013, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt.au
|
Posted: 18th July, 2011, 1:17 pm |
| Half Human, Half Robot; All Mad Scientist |
|
Joined: 19th December, 2009, 10:14 am
Posts: 10496
Country:
|
Yeah it is. Thanks .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fh041205
|
Posted: 19th July, 2011, 8:01 pm |
| Member |
|
Joined: 12th April, 2010, 6:12 pm
Posts: 1323
Location: Ireland
|
|
I could easily see this turning into a homework thread. Why couldn't this have happened when I actually had assignments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
 This post was deleted
by acablue on 1st August, 2011, 11:22 pm.
Reason: Spam
|
|
|
|
txd
|
Posted: 3rd August, 2011, 10:50 pm |
| Deadmau5's Apprentice |
|
Joined: 10th June, 2011, 9:56 pm
Posts: 250
|
Post your paradox here! And discuss. A couple of Paradoxes from the other week (family discussion ) Me wrote: If a person A were to send person B back in time to stop person C from doing something, then person A wouldn't have sent person B back in time to stop person C since person C was stopped from doing that task. But since person B wouldn't have ever been sent back, person A must send person B back to stop person C since he never sent person B to stop it.
EPIC PARADOX Mupa wrote: If Pinocchio said ,"My nose will grow now," and it doesn't, that would mean he was lying. But if he were lying, that would make his nose grow. Thus, making his nose grow by telling the truth.
EPIC PARADOX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fh041205
|
Posted: 14th August, 2011, 10:51 pm |
| Member |
|
Joined: 12th April, 2010, 6:12 pm
Posts: 1323
Location: Ireland
|
|
Backwards time travel is not possible. Thats my complete amateur opinion gained from nothing but several hours of discussion and hypothesising with pedantic maths and science students.
And a variant of that second one has already been posted. The following statement is true. The previous statement was false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oigo
|
Posted: 15th August, 2011, 9:52 pm |
| Tequilador |
|
Joined: 31st October, 2009, 11:48 pm
Posts: 5943
Location: Baton Rouge
Country:
|
|
The heap of sand paradox isn't really a paradox because a "heap" is an arbitrary unit. You could have any number of heaps between 1 and 1,000,000, depending on how you define "heap". Actually, if you defined "heap" as being more than 1,000,000 grains, you could have less than 1 heap. Or if 1 grain was made up of multiple heaps. Because "heap" has no value, I don't see it as a paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grimm
|
Posted: 23rd August, 2011, 3:29 am |
| Member |
|
Joined: 15th June, 2011, 4:05 am
Posts: 338
|
|
I'm gonna be honest, the 'paradoxes' in the original post are just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
swizzle321
|
Posted: 23rd August, 2011, 4:44 am |
| New Member |
|
Joined: 23rd August, 2011, 3:47 am
Posts: 46
|
Matt.au wrote: I suppose this is the best place to post this: I'm currently revising for exams and one of the revision questions I was attempting was: "Explain how the photoelectric effect provides evidence for the photon nature of light?" My answer was: When light is considered to be a particle instead of a wave it allows us to consider the energy to be contained to a 'bundle' of light (i.e. a photon) rather than distributed over an area (as is the case with the electromagnetic wave model). The photoelectric effect requires the energy from the light incident on the metal to be converted to kinetic energy for the instantaneous ejection of electrons which can only occur when light is considered a particle not a wave. Do you think I've answered it sufficiently? I don't like it . I feel like I can't give a real answer because I lack the conceptual and mathematical tools to explain it at my current level. You should also mention how each photon is absorbed an electron in the metal to excite it to a higher energy level. The energy of the ejected electrons is determined not by the intensity of the light, as the wave model would predict because higher intensity means higher energy light. Instead, it is determined by the frequency of the light. An intense low-frequency light produces lots of low-energy electrons, while a dim high-frequency light produces a few high-energy electrons. This only makes sense if the energy in light is transfered in discrete packages, or photons. If E=hf, where E= energy, h=plank's constant, and f=frequency of the photon, then a single high-energy photon would eject a single high-energy electron. Lots of low frequency photons would only eject lots of low-energy electrons. How's that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luxx
|
Posted: 23rd August, 2011, 9:45 pm |
| Member |
|
Joined: 18th August, 2011, 8:35 pm
Posts: 269
|
|
Is the "does your mom know you're gay?" question the same as the Barber Paradox?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |  | |  |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
