FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
I haven't missed any mark. Both < f > and < g > are exactly equal to 1, but evidently f =/= g.
In which Universe the two functions f = 1 + x and g = 1 + sin(x) are the same function?
f is a straight line and g is a sinusoidal function. But they both average exactly equal to 1.
Please demonstrate how their averages are both exactly equal to 1 when I have clearly demonstrated otherwise. You have again missed the mark.
On the contrary, you have missed the entire Universe. Do the math, or look at the graph, to recognize that < f > and < g > are exactly equal to 1. No more demonstrations from me.
??? This looks like math to me.
Very clearly showing that you are wrong. You keep claiming no more demonstrations but you are missing the most important one for the simulation.
Joy Christian wrote:.
I haven't missed any mark. Both < f > and < g > are exactly equal to 1, but evidently f =/= g.
In which Universe the two functions f = 1 + x and g = 1 + sin(x) are the same function?
f is a straight line and g is a sinusoidal function. But they both average exactly equal to 1.
Joy Christian wrote:.
Here is another example:
f = 1 + (x/180), with -180 < x < +180 in degrees.
g = 1 + sin(x), with x in the same range.
So < f > = 1 = < g >, but f =/= g. QED.
FrediFizzx wrote:@Joy Sorry, everything you have done is only true if you invoke infinity. We are NOT doing infinity with the simulation so your examples are the real junk. You are still missing the one example that you might be able to get to work.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:
@Joy Sorry, everything you have done is only true if you invoke infinity. We are NOT doing infinity with the simulation so your examples are the real junk. You are still missing the one example that you might be able to get to work.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
@Joy Sorry, everything you have done is only true if you invoke infinity. We are NOT doing infinity with the simulation so your examples are the real junk. You are still missing the one example that you might be able to get to work.
No. I have not invoked infinity. Did I mention the points have to be infinitely many? My argument works for any finite number of points. It is your "calculator" that has been tripping you off.
local wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@Joy Sorry, everything you have done is only true if you invoke infinity. We are NOT doing infinity with the simulation so your examples are the real junk. You are still missing the one example that you might be able to get to work.
.
In my demonstration above, you can choose n < infinity and the result is still 1. Here's another way to view it. We have 1 + x. For every value of x, there is a value -x that cancels it out when integrating from n to -n, leaving just 1. Joy also made that point.
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
@Joy Sorry, everything you have done is only true if you invoke infinity. We are NOT doing infinity with the simulation so your examples are the real junk. You are still missing the one example that you might be able to get to work.
No. I have not invoked infinity. Did I mention the points have to be infinitely many? My argument works for any finite number of points. It is your "calculator" that has been tripping you off.
Yes, you have invoked infinity and don't realize it. Your demonstrations are all infinite junk but there is still one demonstration that you might be able to get to work right.
local wrote:Fred, you are deleting posts arbitrarily. What are you afraid of? I think you have suffered some kind of nervous breakdown. Therefore, I'll just say "sayonara", and if you come to your senses, send me an email.
FrediFizzx wrote:It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work.
FrediFizzx wrote:It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work.
.
Gordon Watson wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work.
.
Fred,
I posted a no-nonsense comment. It supported Mathematica, but not your interpretation. As I recall, you responded by asking a new question that my post had answered: but without quoting me. When I sought to find my original comment it had been deleted. I suggest: if you are looking for no-nonsense comments, please reduce the supposedly nonsensical replies by restating the questions. I accept that you deleted a later perhaps-too-cranky post of mine.
I, one of many, am trying to help!
All the best; Gordon
FrediFizzx wrote:Gordon Watson wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work.
.
Fred,
I posted a no-nonsense comment. It supported Mathematica, but not your interpretation. As I recall, you responded by asking a new question that my post had answered: but without quoting me. When I sought to find my original comment it had been deleted. I suggest: if you are looking for no-nonsense comments, please reduce the supposedly nonsensical replies by restating the questions. I accept that you deleted a later perhaps-too-cranky post of mine.
I, one of many, am trying to help!
All the best; Gordon
Well, thanks for trying to help but I'm probably going to delete this post also after you have had a chance to read it since it doesn't really directly address the issues. I hope everyone realizes now what Joy's and other's mistakes were. Even though finite intervals, there was infinite sampling of x in-between. Whereas that is NOT what happens in a simulation with a finite number of trials. There is no infinite sampling of x in-between the intervals.
.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests