22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe percentage of X that satisfy Y is defined as P(X=Y)*100 or if we define y as the set of X that satisfies Y then 100*y/X.
Now, Xantoz, You might have brain but you don't have social competence. Doesn't that bother you?
You repeat time afer time that you know - but you have no ability to show it in laymans terms so everyone could understand it.
Do you really have that strong urge to show everyone how intelligent you are? And yet fail to do so, so completely?
When you ...[text shortened]... this stops any conversation between you and me until you show even slight of human dignity.
Now if X is infinite and y is finite then the percentage is 0 (finite/infinite). Therefore 100% of X does not satify Y even though there could be a large number of exceptions.
I realize it may seem contradictory and a little pedantic but in math we get that a lot. Apparently it is also possible to have an infinite number of counterexamples and still have 100% satisfied thanks to different degrees of infinite. But that's a side issue.
In 1985 someone proved that Fermat's Last Theorem is true for 100% of n. That is not a proof of it however. It was later proved by Andrew Wiles in 1996.
Crystal clear now? The reason I feel you are a complete idiot is that you've been talking down to me (and others) throughout this thread despite not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Next time listen when someone who knows more than you says something.
22 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZI tried your explanation at the coffee table at my work this morning. They understood nada.
The percentage of X that satisfy Y is defined as P(X=Y)*100 or if we define y as the set of X that satisfies Y then 100*y/X.
Now if X is infinite and y is finite then the percentage is 0 (finite/infinite). Therefore 100% of X does not satify Y even though there could be a large number of exceptions.
However, the understand clearly my 'proof' that every prime is odd.
They laugh at the statement that "100% of something is not all of the same something".
Come up with a proof that satisfy my collegues. Do you have enough intelligence for that? Remember that they have not an university degree in math, and probability or statistics has nothing to do with this kind of problem. Neither do Set Theory nor The Riemann Hypothesis.
It takes brains to level the average people. Do you have this kind of brains? Or are you quite alone up there?
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf people can't work out the (infinity - 1) / infinity = 1 proof then they don't deserve math.
I tried your explanation at the coffee table at my work this morning. They understood nada.
However, the understand clearly my 'proof' that every prime is odd.
They laugh at the statement that "100% of something is not all of the same something".
Come up with a proof that satisfy my collegues. Do you have enough intelligence for that? Remember tha ...[text shortened]... level the average people. Do you have this kind of brains? Or are you quite alone up there?
22 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZThis kind of math they have no use for. It's not about deserving math for 90% of all people.
If people can't work out the (infinity - 1) / infinity = 1 proof then they don't deserve math.
But they like puzzles, and this is one.
You still can't explain where my 'proof' gets wrong in laymaens wordings? Perhaps one doesn't need intelligence for that...
But they have social skills. And normally it is a better quality than intelligence.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasI thought 19 was prime?
The first 10 primes is as follows: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 23, 29,31.
Of theese 10 first primes only one is even, the rest is odd. Right?
The ratio of odd primes of the ten first is 9/10=90%. Right?
Do anyone se what I'm aiming at?
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhat exactly is layman's math and how do primes fit into it?
This kind of math they have no use for. It's not about deserving math for 90% of all people.
But they like puzzles, and this is one.
You still can't explain where my 'proof' gets wrong in laymaens wordings? Perhaps one doesn't need intelligence for that...
But they have social skills. And normally it is a better quality than intelligence.
In fact can you even prove that there are an infinite number of primes using layman's math?
Laymen have no use for proof by contradiction.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI learnt primes in primary school.
What exactly is layman's math and how do primes fit into it?
I learnt the difference between even and odd there.
They understand the 'proof' that 'every prime is odd'.
And they could naturally understand why the 'proof' is wrong.
I say that a man or woman with brains (s)he can easily explain, with no brains but with intelligence perhaps you fail.
Okey, Xantoz fail. How about averyone else? Anyone care to give a try?
Tomorrow I will explain how I explained it so even an non-matematician can understand.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasJust because you're pretending your "colleagues" wouldn't understand doesn't make it so.
I learnt primes in primary school.
I learnt the difference between even and odd there.
They understand the 'proof' that 'every prime is odd'.
And they could naturally understand why the 'proof' is wrong.
I say that a man or woman with brains (s)he can easily explain, with no brains but with intelligence perhaps you fail.
Okey, Xantoz fail. How ab ...[text shortened]...
Tomorrow I will explain how I explained it so even an non-matematician can understand.
I think Xanthos has been quite clear, it is only you who is making a hissy fit just because it differed from yours.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI know them my collegues att the coffee table. They are not highly educated in math. They understood my reasoning about the 'proof', but they couldnt find the flaw. I explained the flaw and they understood it.
Just because you're pretending your "colleagues" wouldn't understand doesn't make it so.
I think Xanthos has been quite clear, it is only you who is making a hissy fit just because it differed from yours.
Zantoz call everyone an idiot that don't understand Set Theory, probability and The Riemann Hypothesis. That says more about Zantoz than about those he mocks with.
I say there is a simple explanation of this 'paradox' that is easily understood by people not having a math degree. Zantoz didn't find it. Do you find it? Does anyone find it?
And this is the problem of this thread - give a simple explanation of why the 'proof' doesn't work.
There is one, beleive me, I've tried it.
I don't think they understand Zantoz explanation, starting with '100%' is not the same as 'all'.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou don't need a math degree to understand the explanation I gave. You don't need to know anything about Set Theory (I never even mentioned it), or the Riemann Hypothesis (only mentioned in passing) or probability (you only need to know that P(X)=1 always happens and P(X)=0 never happens).
I know them my collegues att the coffee table. They are not highly educated in math. They understood my reasoning about the 'proof', but they couldnt find the flaw. I explained the flaw and they understood it.
Zantoz call everyone an idiot that don't understand Set Theory, probability and The Riemann Hypothesis. That says more about Zantoz than about t ...[text shortened]... hey understand Zantoz explanation, starting with '100%' is not the same as 'all'.
I never ridiculed anyone for not understand the above, I ridiculed you for not understanding a simple answer to a stupid "paradox". You didn't actually ask for a simple answer until after I had given various answers all of which are indeed simple. Just because you are too blind to see them doesn't mean they aren't simple. Perhaps a little counterintuitive but nothing a little actual thought won't solve.
PS. Learn some English or at least how to spell my name.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI don't see it very intelligent calling someone you don't know anything about "idiot" as you called me.
You don't need a math degree to understand the explanation I gave. You don't need to know anything about Set Theory (I never even mentioned it), or the Riemann Hypothesis (only mentioned in passing) or probability (you only need to know that P(X)=1 always happens and P(X)=0 never happens).
I never ridiculed anyone for not understand the above, I ridicul ...[text shortened]... actual thought won't solve.
PS. Learn some English or at least how to spell my name.
I don't see that anyone with a rudimentary skills of social skill calling anyone else an "idiot" as you did.
I've seen it at kindergarten, and i've seen it from you.
Since when is Zantoz an English word? Sensitive, eh?
Now I quit this thread. I don't find this interesting anymore. If anyone is interested of the explanation - ask me by mail.