# Was math invented or discovered?



## Abe R Crombie (Mar 13, 2005)

I understand that man came up with the symbols and formulas as a way to express math,I mean the fundamental laws of math in nature and the universe,the proven math that gives man the ability to land a probe on a moving target like rosetta.
Where did this come from?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Discovered for sure. If we were to make contact with an extra-terrestrial civilization, the likely language, we would use to communicate, would be mathematics.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Discovered. You can't change trajectory by fudging the math. Any trajectory will only have one outcome for a specific set of circumstances. Understanding the math doesn't allow you to change the outcome but to predict it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Hitting a moving target is based on the laws of physics
Those were "discovered"


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Abe R Crombie said:


> I understand that man came up with the symbols and formulas as a way to express math,I mean the fundamental laws of math in nature and the universe,the proven math that gives man the ability to land a probe on a moving target like rosetta.
> Where did this come from?


You ask where the fundamental laws comes from. It did not come from anything. They exist and mankind discovered how to make use of them.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

How odd that this topic comes up just when I'm pondering something mathematical...

Last night, I was about to knit the final row before starting the bottom ribbing on DH's sweater and still hadn't decided which "style" I was going to use...

knit 1/purl 1 ribbing requires a multiple of 2 stitches
knit 2/purl 1 requires a multiple of 3 stitches
knit 2/purl 2 requires a multiple of 4 stitches

...so, as I had not decided yet, I knew I needed to make sure the stitches would be divisible by 2, 3, and 4. Doing the math in my head, I arrived at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72, realized multiples of 12 would always be divisible by 2/3/4, counted my stitches and then decreased 2 stitches to the nearest multiple of 12. Voila!

Anyway, it got me wondering the same about other number sequences such as 3/4/5, 4/5/6, and so on, so this morning, off to Google.

Found one site where it said to multiply the numbers in the sequence together to get the LOWEST common multiple. OK, so doing the math...

2x3x4=24, but that's NOT the lowest...12 is the lowest
3x4x5=60, true
4x5x6=120, but that's not the lowest...60 is the lowest
5x6x7=210, true
6x7x8=336, but that's not the lowest...168 is the lowest

Working it out only as far as shown above, it appears that particular test (multiplying the numbers together) is true only if the first number in the sequence is an odd number. 

Anyway, surely there is an equation floating around somewhere or a general "rule" or something that governs what I stumbled upon while knitting, but my point is that math is simply "there" to be discovered/learned. One can certainly create equations and give names to various "rules", but that doesn't change the fact that math simply...is.

Sorry about the long post, but math fascinates me!


----------



## Abe R Crombie (Mar 13, 2005)

If the laws were always there,were the laws there before the big bang to direct such a chaotic event into the rhythmic universe we see today?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Abe R Crombie said:


> If the laws were always there,were the laws there before the big bang to direct such a chaotic event into the rhythmic universe we see today?


Sure. If someone were going to invent such a system why would they invent something as flawed as pi? Can you calculate the exact area of a circle?


----------



## Abe R Crombie (Mar 13, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Sure. If someone were going to invent such a system why would they invent something as flawed as pi? Can you calculate the exact area of a circle?


Is it not an approximate?


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Abe R Crombie said:


> If the laws were always there,were the laws there before the big bang to direct such a chaotic event into the rhythmic universe we see today?


What the status of mathematical laws were before the big bang is unknowable. Perhaps 4+4 = a light flowery fragrance.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Abe R Crombie said:


> If the laws were always there,were the laws there before the big bang to direct such a chaotic event into the rhythmic universe we see today?


LOL! Jumping straight into theoretical physics, are we?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Abe R Crombie said:


> Is it not an approximate?


Thanks for reinforcing my point. If you were going to invent math and it's rules and you had all the powers of the universe at your disposal wouldn't you figure out a way to simply calculate the area inside a circle?


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

Some of what was in the kids text books had to have been invented.


----------



## Abe R Crombie (Mar 13, 2005)

hippygirl said:


> LOL! Jumping straight into theoretical physics, are we?


Only asking opinions!


----------



## Abe R Crombie (Mar 13, 2005)

MattB4 said:


> What the status of mathematical laws were before the big bang is unknowable. Perhaps 4+4 = a light flowery fragrance.


Only in the bizzaro world.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Abe R Crombie said:


> Only in the bizzaro world.


Before the big bang you could easily think of it as bizzaro world. None of the present rules and processes were in effect. But it matters not since we live in the present reality of after the big bang.


----------



## Abe R Crombie (Mar 13, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for reinforcing my point. If you were going to invent math and it's rules and you had all the powers of the universe at your disposal wouldn't you figure out a way to simply calculate the area inside a circle?


.
I'm sure it is already done,we just have to discover it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Abe R Crombie said:


> .
> I'm sure it is already done,we just have to discover it.


I'm sure someone's looking. But belief in something existing isn't proof that something does.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for reinforcing my point. If you were going to invent math and it's rules and you had all the powers of the universe at your disposal wouldn't you figure out a way to simply calculate the area inside a circle?


Could such a way exist, but we just haven't found it yet?
We found a formula that was "close enough", but it's possible there's a better way....keep looking :goodjob:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Abe R Crombie said:


> .
> I'm sure it is already done,we just have to discover it.


oops, you beat me to it


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And I already answered it.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Abe R Crombie said:


> I understand that man came up with the symbols and formulas as a way to express math,I mean the fundamental laws of math in nature and the universe,the proven math that gives man the ability to land a probe on a moving target like rosetta.
> Where did this come from?


 A physic instructor of mine posed the same observation to us 35 years ago.

The conclusion of his observation was that math as we know it is simply the language that Man developed to speak coherently on the subject of the observed mathematical relationship to our environment and as we learned our environment was larger than the hunting path the prehistoric hunting parties traveled, the language of math symbolism grew from the leader of the party carrying a pebble representing each head of household (actually cavehold I guess for the period ) to represent the share division of the kill take from the hunt into the many perspectives of mathematics we currently utilize and add to as more of our theoretical and actual environment presents itself.

Then he had fun with the class asking us what perspective of math we felt was used most and we got to speaking of the various laws , theorems, and "shortcut equations" until he said regardless how complex the math equation it is all shortcuts in the language of math Man uses to document the natural mathematical factors of our environment.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Math works the same whether you're in binary, decimal, hex... all we invented was how to express it with 10 fingers


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

...........Would be interesting to know who , it was that , gave someone the middle finger symbol for '1' ! I'm thinking it must have been an Italian cavemen who caught his neighbor using his Salamony on the Italian's girlfriend . , lol , fordy:hysterical:


----------



## LuLuToo (Dec 19, 2015)

hippygirl said:


> How odd that this topic comes up just when I'm pondering something mathematical...
> 
> Last night, I was about to knit the final row before starting the bottom ribbing on DH's sweater and still hadn't decided which "style" I was going to use...
> 
> ...


----------



## LuLuToo (Dec 19, 2015)

As for whether we invented math or discovered math, we had to discover it. The universe was created with many obvious numerical patterns. Now, I mark that down to a God who is not the author of confusion. He created everything in a very orderly fashion. We just like to call it math! And I'm pretty sure we have only scratched the surface of all there is to know.

LuLu


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Discovered. I doubt man made up the symbols.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

City Bound said:


> Discovered. I doubt man made up the symbols.


So who made them up then?
Who wrote them down to be "discovered"?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

The Greek gods.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I'm sure someone's looking. But belief in something existing isn't proof that something does.


That's true.
Yet without a shred of "proof" we all seem to have enough faith in math to use it every day.
Maybe that's the key?
Something that reliable, it becomes unnecessary after a while to look for any further "proof".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> That's true.
> Yet without a shred of "proof" we all seem to have enough faith in math to use it every day.
> Maybe that's the key?
> Something that reliable, it becomes unnecessary after a while to look for any further "proof".


I have proof that math works every day. Every calculation I make when planning a build is confirmed when those measurements lead to the expected outcome. If I give the same plans to you and you follow them your results will be the same as mine. If a hundred people do it, a thousand people do it, a million people do it, the results are the same. A lot of very smart people have spent a lot of time over the ages, and continue to, to prove and expand the principles of mathematics. They don't take it on faith that 1+1=2. They can prove it. Most of us do take a lot of math for granted, on faith if you will, but that doesn't mean proof doesn't exist. I can show it to you.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I have proof that math works every day. Every calculation I make when planning a build is confirmed when those measurements lead to the expected outcome. If I give the same plans to you and you follow them your results will be the same as mine. If a hundred people do it, a thousand people do it, a million people do it, the results are the same. A lot of very smart people have spent a lot of time over the ages, and continue to, to prove and expand the principles of mathematics. They don't take it on faith that 1+1=2. They can prove it. Most of us do take a lot of math for granted, on faith if you will, but that doesn't mean proof doesn't exist. I can show it to you.


Certainly.
But you weren't asking about 2+2 in that post, now were you?
Weren't you two talking about Pi, and how something inexact could be in the realm of such a field of certainty and precision?

Now for a REAL brain teaser, sure to blur the lines between science and philosophy.........

While most people believe in the concrete assurance of mathematics, how many of you have contemplated the implications of all man's scientific "proof" in the dim light of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?..............:grin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I always thought math was a language.
was language discovered or invented?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Healthy discussion IS needed sometimes, eh?



> They don't take it on faith that 1+1=2. They can prove it. Most of us do take a lot of math for granted, on faith if you will, but that doesn't mean proof doesn't exist. I can show it to you.


All that is true........until someone comes along and asks you to show proof that "one is one".
Where did "one or 1" come from and why should I take your word for it?
*And please don't try to convince me by showing ancient parchments or stone tablets written by a fallible human hand, you'll have to better than that, that's not "proof".*


The part in bold above, is meant to be rhetorical, mmoetc.
I realize that such a start to a conversation usually results in one party throwing insults at another, such as arrogance or ignorance.
That isn't the intent, but simply to show how one person's concrete belief in something can be so easily picked apart by another, especially if their intent isn't sincere understanding, but to instill chaos, dissent and confusion instead.

I know that "one" is 1 and 1+1=2. And I won't try to agitate you by asking you to show me the proof of "1".
I can accept it without such proof.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> I always thought math was a language.
> was language discovered or invented?


"Math" isn't a language

The terms used to *express* math is


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Certainly.
> But you weren't asking about 2+2 in that post, now were you?
> Weren't you two talking about Pi, and how something inexact could be in the realm of such a field of certainty and precision?
> 
> ...


I have no problem with the existence of pi as not being an absolute. I have no problem with pi occurring randomly. My question was, why would any being who had the ability to invent math invent something like pi?

And you won't get me to argue against much of advanced theoritical physics and mathematics as being akin to philosophy. But, as science advances and better tools of study become available many of those philosophical principles have been found to be true. Many of the results predicted have been found. No scientist takes it on faith. They seek to provide proof and to show it. They don't take it on faith alone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by farmrbrown
> All that is true........until someone comes along and asks you to show proof that "one is one".


What we *call *"one" is "one", and proof of that can be easily shown.
It has a *precise* meaning within it's proper context and is repeatable.

To say you "accept it without proof" is silly, because you've already seen the proof.



> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> That's true.
> Yet *without a shred of "proof"* we all seem to have enough *faith in math* to use it every day.
> Maybe that's the key?
> Something that reliable, it becomes unnecessary after a while to look for any further "proof".


There's no need to look for "further" proof *of math* because that has been shown.
What you keep hinting at has not.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Healthy discussion IS needed sometimes, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I tend to give you more credit. I doubt you take much for granted without some proof. I'm even betting in all your history and education you've seen that proof of mathematical principles for yourself. You don't even claim that your faith is without a basis in proof. I'll believe it convinces you.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> Healthy discussion IS needed sometimes, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your argument is specious. If you are using a descriptor such as 1, it does not require proof of it being "1". You have named it. Or you have used it as a whole number in a equation. Where you think that people accept a number on faith shows a basic lack of understanding what things are.

ETA; You also seem to want to conflate belief into this idea of numbers. I suppose this is to attempt to counter arguments why a creator god has no proof of existence. Your thesis is that if we accept math based on old knowledge why can we not accept god on ancient knowledge? Completely different things is why. For one, which god do we accept and why? Can this god be demonstrated today the same way that math can be demonstrated? Showing how you solve a equation is algebra. Showing how you prove god is a exercise in faith. 

Leave math out of the god equation.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

I knew it...where's the popcorn?


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> I knew it...where's the popcorn?


And was popcorn invented or discovered?


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

DaleK said:


> And was popcorn invented or discovered?


I think it was invented by a guy named Orville Redenbacher. Though some argue it was Mr. Jiffy Pop that discovered it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DaleK said:


> And was popcorn invented or discovered?


It evolved.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Math" isn't a language
> 
> The terms used to *express* math is


The expression is the math.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

It would be really interesting to ask a Christian message board this question.
It was probably Created, lol.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

fireweed farm said:


> It would be really interesting to ask a Christian message board this question.
> It was probably Created, lol.


Some of the answers might be interesting, even surprising, although I'd expect a fair amount of confusing as well.




mmoetc said:


> And I tend to give you more credit. I doubt you take much for granted without some proof. I'm even betting in all your history and education you've seen that proof of mathematical principles for yourself. You don't even claim that your faith is without a basis in proof. I'll believe it convinces you.


Thank you. :ashamed:
You are absolutely correct.:goodjob:

You are also a smart cookie and I do enjoy the occasions when we match wits and debate our positions.:good job:


Some of our fellow members however, ignore the minefields, even when they are well marked, lol..................



MattB4 said:


> Your argument is specious.
> 
> *If you are using a descriptor such as 1, it does not require proof of it being "1". You have named it. Or you have used it as a whole number in a equation. Where you think that people accept a number on faith shows a basic lack of understanding what things are.*.





Bearfootfarm said:


> What we *call *"one" is "one", and proof of that can be easily shown.
> It has a *precise* meaning within it's proper context and is repeatable.
> 
> To say you "accept it without proof" is silly, because you've already seen the proof.
> ...



The fact that I don't ask for proof of "one" before starting the journey of math is an act of acceptance of what "everyone says", but to say that questioning that concept as a foundation of what you want to "prove" is by no means "silly" or "specious".
It was quite some time after the fundamentals of math began, that the concept of ZERO was put forth and accepted. Yet how much math could we do today, if you had to still prove what "nothing" was?

OF COURSE, It's easy to teach math if everyone accepts that 1 is a symbol of singularity and 2 represents twice that amount, 3 is triple that amount and so on.
But if someone were to stop you and ask for "proof" , you might try demonstrating with rocks or sticks, but unless they were IDENTICAL in size, weight, shape, color, etc. - you might find it difficult and frustrating every time it was pointed out your demonstration hadn't "proven" your mathematical claim that 1+1=2, 1+2=3, and so on.
We all were taught math and understand it, true.
We know that these symbols represent a theoretical process that we believe in and use without doubt, because we *know* it works.
But if you had to explain it from the very beginning and weren't allowed to use ancient scripts and the convenience of what "everybody" calls it your idea of how easy it would be to PROVE it to a skeptic would be more difficult than you think.

If you still doubt me, try to give me a convincing argument that "one" means a singular object and nothing else.
You can't use wikipedia, you can't use Sanskrit writings, no other documentation, just your own words and "evidence".






MattB4 said:


> ETA; You also seem to want to conflate belief into the idea of numbers. I suppose this is to attempt to counter arguments why a creator god has no proof of existence. Your thesis is that if we accept math based on old knowledge why can we not accept god on ancient knowledge? Completely different things is why. For one, which god do we accept and why? Can this god be demonstrated today the same way that math can be demonstrated? Showing how you solve a equation is algebra. Showing how you prove god is a exercise in faith.
> 
> Leave math out of the god equation.



That's probably a good idea.
We might find it a little humbling, bringing the Almighty into a math lesson.:grin:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If you still doubt me, try to give me a convincing argument that "one" means a singular object and nothing else.


Another silly argument which ignores reality in another attempt to change the topic from math to religion.



> We might find it a little humbling, bringing the Almighty into a math lesson.





> But if you had to explain it from the very beginning and weren't allowed to use ancient scripts and the convenience of what "everybody" calls it your idea of how easy it would be to PROVE it to a skeptic would be more difficult than you think.


No scripts are needed.
Math could be used and understood before there were written languages.
What it's "called" doesn't change what it is, which is why in an earlier reply I mentioned using the terms in the proper context.

You're trying to spin it into something that relates to "proof" of a supreme being, but it requires you to ignore common sense.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Another silly argument which ignores reality in another attempt to change the topic from math to religion.


:umno:

That was YOUR card to play, not mine.
I simply gave you a riddle to think about, which I suspect you won't.
It's pretty difficult, isn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> :umno:
> 
> That was YOUR card to play, not mine.
> I simply gave you a riddle to think about, which I suspect you won't.
> It's pretty difficult, isn't it?


It's not difficult at all

You're saying the concept of "one" can't be proven without relying on "faith", and that's just silly.

The "riddle" is psychobabble that relies on taking all the terms out of context or pretending you don't understand what they mean.




> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> What we call "one" is "one", and proof of that can be easily shown.
> It has a precise meaning *within it's proper context* and is repeatable.


It's starting to run in circles now


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> ...
> 
> If you still doubt me, try to give me a convincing argument that "one" means a singular object and nothing else.
> You can't use wikipedia, you can't use Sanskrit writings, no other documentation, just your own words and "evidence".
> ...


Convincing you would require you accept certain common logical precepts and that you also share the ability to have senses in the same range as a average person. If you see the sky as green in color than it would be impossible to convince you it was blue personally. Nor would measurements make sense if your concept for length could change on a daily basis. However, if I point to one of your fingers and say it is 1 I doubt you would demand proof. It would be self evident. 

A singular object we denote with a singular descriptor. 1 is a descriptor in math to represent a single item of a group (in this case the group of whole numbers). Two of that group gives you 2. A different item from a different group may not give you 2. Thus 1 apple (apple being from the group of items called apples) with 1 orange (from the orange group) is not 2 apples.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not difficult at all
> 
> You're saying the concept of "one" can't be proven without relying on "faith", and that's just silly.
> 
> ...





MattB4 said:


> Convincing you would require you accept certain common logical precepts and that you also share the ability to have senses in the same range as a average person. If you see the sky as green in color than it would be impossible to convince you it was blue personally. Nor would measurements make sense if your concept for length could change on a daily basis. However, if I point to one of your fingers and say it is 1 I doubt you would demand proof. It would be self evident.



Thank you both for confirming what I said.
As long as I accept the premise that numbers exist and their values as stated and their usefulness in my life, the proof of math as scientific fact is quite easy to do.
If I insist on proof of their existence outside of documents produced by humans, like equations from math books, the "proving" of it becomes much harder.
Primitive man had no need for "numbers". He either had some food or he had none. Math didn't "exist".
Once people accepted and agreed what was written down was to be used as a basis for the concept, and they felt it was needed for their life and work, then math was written into existence and today all of it can be shown and proven.
But if you are asked to prove math, without my acceptance of the writings and symbols invented at one time by men, you are up the same proverbial creek without a paddle.



And MattB4, I do indeed see the sky as blue and grass as green.
However I learned some time ago, that is merrily the perception given to me by the wavelengths of light that those materials *reflect*.
Viewed thru non human eyes, their color might actually be very different, perhaps gray, or semi-clear.
Proving that might require mirrors and a prism, but who knows, I might be called a witch for attempting it and burned at the stake instead!
Isn't science fun?
eep:eep:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Maybe over time some will see what I'm saying as true.
I love math and I believe in it. I use it every day to put food on the table and pay my bills.
It's true that it was essentially written down by men long ago, but it's truth has proven invaluable to me.
Can I "prove" it exists without the aid of other men and their teachings?
Probably not, it's too hard.
I could possibly wait on a lightening bolt from the sky and split a rock perfectly in two to demonstrate the equation of division, but meanwhile, I'm thought of as a fool because I rely on ancient tales and writings to support the belief that I've come to depend on daily, without questioning whether it "really exists" or not.
I wonder if anyone else has ever felt like this?
Are people naturally this mean, or is it because they like to make fun of things they don't understand?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Primitive man had no need for "numbers".
> He either had some food or he had none. *Math didn't "exist"*.


Sure it did.

He knew if he had one rabbit or two, no matter what term he used to describe them

Again you insist on taking it all out of context in an attempt to twist the meanings.



> I could possibly wait on a lightening bolt from the sky and split a rock perfectly in two to demonstrate the equation of division, but meanwhile,* I'm thought of as a fool* because I rely on ancient tales and writings to support the belief that I've come to depend on daily, without questioning whether it "really exists" or not.
> I wonder if anyone else has ever felt like this?
> *Are people naturally this mean*, or is it because they like to make fun of things they don't understand?


It's not about you, and no one is being "mean"

They just aren't falling for your fantasy, so repetition and rewording is a waste of time.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure it did.
> 
> He knew if he had one rabbit or two, no matter what term he used to describe them
> 
> ...


Ok, whatever you say.
You ain't gonna like this..............
:sob:



Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure it did.
> 
> He knew if he had one rabbit or two, no matter what term he used to describe them.



That's just your opinion. Show me your proof. If you have the evidence, it should be no problem to show it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Now. 
When you get mad, maybe spew out an insult about how childish or stupid I am, then reply that you are not going to waste time "proving" something exists that you believe in so firmly (although no where in your next post will there be a shred of "proof") ..........you may or may not have a better understanding of your fellow human beings.:shrug:

I do believe in God and I do believe in math.
Psychology, I'm not as sure about, lol.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Now.
> When you get mad, maybe spew out an insult about how childish or stupid I am, then reply that you are not going to waste time "proving" something exists that you believe in so firmly (although no where in your next post will there be a shred of "proof") ..........you may or may not have a better understanding of your fellow human beings.:shrug:
> 
> I do believe in God and I do believe in math.
> Psychology, I'm not as sure about, lol.


Now, back to pi. Any thoughts?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Now.
> *When you get mad, maybe spew out an insult* about how childish or stupid I am, then reply that you are not going to waste time "proving" something exists that you believe in so firmly (although no where in your next post will there be a shred of "proof") ..........you may or may not have a better understanding of your fellow human beings.:shrug:
> 
> I do believe in God and I do believe in math.
> Psychology, I'm not as sure about, lol.


That's what you do, not me. 

I'm not going to try to prove to you one means one because we all know you're just playing some silly game when you pretend it needs "proof".

"Childish and stupid" are your words, but it's still not about you.

I understand you more than you seem to think, so since you are just repeating yourself now, I'll let you carry on alone.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> Thank you both for confirming what I said.
> ...


I did not confirm what you said. However I will restate the fact that convincing you of anything would require you to be open to the concept. It is how people can be convinced of things like Aliens or a new religion. They just need to be predisposed to the belief in supernatural events. 

I will once again state that there is no proof required for numbers being a designation for the counting of things. Early man was able to distinguish between single and multiples of things. Heck my cat knows when his food dish is near empty and draws this problem with quantity to my attention.

ETA: This reminds me of the old, "how do I know I exist?" philosophy question. Numbers are not some passed down story from a previous civilization. They are usable concepts that work now.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Even crows can distinguish the number of things regardless of their size and shape. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/us/chimpanzee-crow-intelligence-studies/index.html


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Math was discovered, mathematics was invented. 1 + 1 = 2 is something you discover. e(k)=1/2mv^2 is something you have to invent to explain what happens in the world.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> I did not confirm what you said. However I will restate the fact that convincing you of anything would require you to be open to the concept. It is how people can be convinced of things like Aliens or a new religion. They just need to be predisposed to the belief in supernatural events.
> 
> I will once again state that there is no proof required for numbers being a designation for the counting of things. Early man was able to distinguish between single and multiples of things. Heck my cat knows when his food dish is near empty and draws this problem with quantity to my attention.
> 
> ETA: This reminds me of the old, "how do I know I exist?" philosophy question. Numbers are not some passed down story from a previous civilization. They are usable concepts that work now.


I was going to use the dog and the food dish too. Actually my lengthy reply with links disappeared last night into the ether-world when the site went down, lol.

Knowing the difference between empty and full isn't 'counting' and counting is only the first step towards doing math.
Your cat can't tell when you open the cupboard if it's time to buy more cat food.......unless of course you both realize tonight that it IS.:sob:






mmoetc said:


> Even crows can distinguish the number of things regardless of their size and shape. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/us/chimpanzee-crow-intelligence-studies/index.html



I found some interesting links about animals and counting also, but as I said, I didn't get them posted.
The birds they studied actually have a brain neuron that humans don't, that lets them count notes that they sing. They use it primarily to select mates and to recognize family members. I've listened to crows in the woods around here use different calls to each other and watch them teach their young what they need to know. Definitely a sign of intelligence.

But every example you can think of requires teaching by others, and a need for that knowledge to be used for something important.
It doesn't "exist" independently. It haste be taught and passed on with the student being willing to accept "facts" without questioning their origins. Otherwise they can't learn anything further about the subject and can't test its validity.

That's why when I used the analogy, "Prove numbers exist without using any man-made documentation" only two responses would be given.
1) Yeah, I see what you mean.
OR
2) You're being silly and irrational.

You can't discuss God and all the possibilities surrounding the subject if you HAVE to start by proving His existence without using any evidence from a human source, oral or written.
If I demand the numbers 0 thru 9 magically appear on a rock before I'll discuss whether 2+2=4, the teacher will shake his head and tell me, "I'll come back when you're ready to learn.":spin smiley:

Even when the hand of God HAS written something in front of witnesses (I can think of two times without looking it up) the "proof" of His existence is still denied unless it happens a third time, right now, for today's witness to see.
That's when I've said OK, go ahead and ask Him yourself, if that's the proof you need.

That's also why I quoted the passages when witnesses DID see proof, and came back asking for more. If you can accept the origin of a man made system that works in your daily life without such demands of proof, why not open up a little to something that is much more than man can create?



mmoetc said:


> Now, back to pi. Any thoughts?


Not really. I put that on the shelf with calculus.
I understand the concept and know the usefulness of it and accept its basis of infinity, although my tiny brain can't describe infinity.
Key lime, Pecan are more appealing to think about.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> That's why when I used the analogy, "Prove numbers exist without using any man-made documentation" only two responses would be given.
> 1) Yeah, I see what you mean.
> OR
> 2) You're being silly and irrational.
> ...


 Again you have to separate math from mathematics. You say 2+2=4. I say you are wrong; 2+2=11 and I, as well as others, can prove it. Its 11 because I'm using a base 2 system instead of your base 10. Therefore instead of counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 I count 1, 2, 10, 11, 12. If we are talking about apples we both have the same amount of apples but we have a different 'number' of them.

Old joke. Why do computer geeks get Christmas and Halloween mixed up? Because OCT 31 = DEC 25




farmrbrown said:


> Not really. I put that on the shelf with calculus.
> I understand the concept and know the usefulness of it and accept its basis of infinity, although my tiny brain can't describe infinity.
> Key lime, Pecan are more appealing to think about.


 Take this off the shelf. . .if you multiply two negative numbers you always get a positive number. A square root is a number you multiply by itself to get the number. Yet in math you can have the square root of negative one (-1).


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> Again you have to separate math from mathematics. You say 2+2=4. I say you are wrong; 2+2=11 and I, as well as others, can prove it. Its 11 because I'm using a base 2 system instead of your base 10. Therefore instead of counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 I count 1, 2, 10, 11, 12. If we are talking about apples we both have the same amount of apples but we have a different 'number' of them.
> 
> Old joke. Why do computer geeks get Christmas and Halloween mixed up? Because OCT 31 = DEC 25


LOL.
You get it......so do I.





watcher said:


> Take this off the shelf. . .if you multiply two negative numbers you always get a positive number. A square root is a number you multiply by itself to get the number. Yet in math you can have the square root of negative one (-1).



:goodjob:

That shelf had some old trophies and a lot of dust on it, lol.
I wonder if anyone will catch the irony of what that branch of mathematics is _called_ that uses square rots of negative numbers?
:hysterical:

I had forgotten about that odd little lesson. When you go back now and read my posts where I claim that accepting the premise is necessary in order to have the discussion, and I'm told how I'm "making things up".......that shoe fits pretty well on the other foot, don't you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

*History
Main article: History of complex numbers

An illustration of the complex plane. The imaginary numbers are on the vertical coordinate axis.
Although Greek mathematician and engineer Heron of Alexandria is noted as the first to have conceived these numbers,[5][6] Rafael Bombelli first set down the rules for multiplication of complex numbers in 1572. The concept had appeared in print earlier, for instance in work by Gerolamo Cardano. At the time, such numbers were poorly understood and regarded by some as fictitious or useless, much as zero and the negative numbers once were. Many other mathematicians were slow to adopt the use of imaginary numbers, including RenÃ© Descartes, who wrote about them in his La GÃ©omÃ©trie, where the term imaginary was used and meant to be derogatory.[7] The use of imaginary numbers was not widely accepted until the work of Leonhard Euler (1707&#8211;1783) and Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777&#8211;1855). The geometric significance of complex numbers as points in a plane was first described by Caspar Wessel (1745&#8211;1818).[8]

In 1843 a mathematical physicist, William Rowan Hamilton, extended the idea of an axis of imaginary numbers in the plane to a three-dimensional space of quaternion imaginaries.

With the development of quotient rings of polynomial rings, the concept behind an imaginary number became more substantial, but then one also finds other imaginary numbers such as the j of tessarines which has a square of +1. This idea first surfaced with the articles by James Cockle beginning in 1848.[9]

*


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> ...
> You can't discuss God and all the possibilities surrounding the subject if you HAVE to start by proving His existence without using any evidence from a human source, oral or written.
> If I demand the numbers 0 thru 9 magically appear on a rock before I'll discuss whether 2+2=4, the teacher will shake his head and tell me, "I'll come back when you're ready to learn.":spin smiley:
> 
> ...


Certainly I can discuss god and ask those that believe what proof they have of their particular god. This is not to be confused with a theoretical god which is what you are attempting with your prove numbers argument. You do not prove something by disproving other things. For instance, I can disprove a statement about what time it is. Because I did that does not than allow me to state that god exists! This is very poor logic. 

Saying that god gave proof to witnesses that is recorded in the bible does not mean that these proofs would be acceptable today. The standards of that time allowed all kinds of religions and superstitions to be acceptable explanations for events. Take for instance your writing on the wall. This story is likely a allegory used to educate and inform believers. Or possibly it was a miss identification of the type as seeing Elvis in burnt toast. 

Demanding 0-9 to appear magically is exactly what you do when you demand that others prove your god likely is a made up story and has no basis in reality. This entire line of reasoning is what leads to the, "Aliens exist", "No they don't", "Can you prove Aliens don't exist", argument. It is incumbent on the person advancing a thesis to provide proof not the person showing doubt. 

No amount of proving numbers or disproving scientific theories justifies faith.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> Certainly I can discuss god and ask those that believe what proof they have of their particular god. This is not to be confused with a theoretical god which is what you are attempting with your prove numbers argument. You do not prove something by disproving other things. For instance, I can disprove a statement about what time it is. Because I did that does not than allow me to state that god exists! This is very poor logic.
> 
> Saying that god gave proof to witnesses that is recorded in the bible does not mean that these proofs would be acceptable today. The standards of that time allowed all kinds of religions and superstitions to be acceptable explanations for events. Take for instance your writing on the wall. This story is likely a allegory used to educate and inform believers. Or possibly it was a miss identification of the type as seeing Elvis in burnt toast.
> 
> ...




There's only ONE problem with your post.

I never did that.

I didn't ask that you prove God is a made up story and I didn't say I was going to disprove the existence of numbers.
I DID remind y'all that it is an extremely difficult standard to meet, IF one insists on it.

Look at what you said in bold again.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> There's only ONE problem with your post.
> 
> I never did that.
> 
> ...


Actually you did by demanding proof for numbers that does not supposedly rely on historical knowledge. Numbers need no proof. They exist for anyone to comprehend. Indeed even animals (as you acknowledge) can comprehend the concept. This whole thread is based on, if you people can not prove numbers how can you demand that believers prove god? It is a logical fallacy. 

Animals however do not worship gods. Or if they do it is not apparent.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

In case someone asks for proof of my last post........



mmoetc said:


> I'm sure someone's looking. But belief in something existing isn't proof that something does.





Bearfootfarm said:


> What we *call *"one" is "one", and proof of that can be easily shown.
> It has a *precise* meaning within it's proper context and is repeatable.
> 
> To say you "accept it without proof" is silly, because you've already seen the proof.
> ...





MattB4 said:


> Your argument is specious. If you are using a descriptor such as 1, it does not require proof of it being "1". You have named it. Or you have used it as a whole number in a equation. Where you think that people accept a number on faith shows a basic lack of understanding what things are.
> 
> ETA; You also seem to want to conflate belief into this idea of numbers. I suppose this is to attempt to counter arguments why a creator god has no proof of existence. Your thesis is that if we accept math based on old knowledge why can we not accept god on ancient knowledge? Completely different things is why. For one, which god do we accept and why? Can this god be demonstrated today the same way that math can be demonstrated? Showing how you solve a equation is algebra. Showing how you prove god is a exercise in faith.
> 
> Leave math out of the god equation.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Another silly argument which ignores reality in another attempt to change the topic from math to religion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what you do, not me.
> 
> I'm not going to try to prove to you one means one because we all know you're just playing some silly game when you pretend it needs "proof".
> 
> ...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> Actually you did by demanding proof for numbers *that does not supposedly rely on historical knowledge.*
> 
> Numbers need no proof. They exist for anyone to comprehend. Indeed even animals (as you acknowledge) can comprehend the concept. This whole thread is based on, if you people can not prove numbers how can you demand that believers prove god? It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> Animals however do not worship gods. Or if they do it is not apparent.


THAT part IS what I said.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> THAT part IS what I said.


And it has been answered repeatedly as your previous posts quotes shows. The concept of numbers do not rely on historical knowledge.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> And it has been answered repeatedly as your previous posts quotes shows. The concept of numbers do not rely on historical knowledge.


Yes, and I certainly won't deny the existence of those answers.

What is difficult for me to accept, although it is written plainly on this thread, is the deniability of the truth.

Such as this.........



MattB4 said:


> The concept of numbers do not rely on historical knowledge.


:shrug:

As many times as logic has been used in this thread, I don't understand how anyone can make that statement and convince themselves that it is true.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> ...
> 
> As many times as logic has been used in this thread, I don't understand how anyone can make that statement and convince themselves that it is true.


I also convince myself that the sun rises in one location and sets in another without needing historical knowledge of East and West. Or the glowing ball of heat and light in the sky exists even if I don't know what historically it was called. It is called common observation. Something requiring no proof because it is readily observed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> I also convince myself that the sun rises in one location and sets in another without needing historical knowledge of East and West. Or the glowing ball of heat and light in the sky exists even if I don't know what historically it was called. It is called common observation. Something requiring no proof because it is readily observed.


:goodjob:
That helps a lot.
You have an open mind and a decent attitude even when debating a subject, and I like that.
We agree that there are things that we accept without further questioning, things we use and rely on daily.
To admit the foundations can ALWAYS be called into question, is obvious, but if we have seen all the proof we need, by experience, THAT is the evidence of unshakable "faith".


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> :goodjob:
> That helps a lot.
> You have an open mind and a decent attitude even when debating a subject, and I like that.
> We agree that there are things that we accept without further questioning, things we use and rely on daily.
> To admit the foundations can ALWAYS be called into question, is obvious, but if we have seen all the proof we need, by experience, THAT is the evidence of unshakable "faith".


There is plenty of evidence to substantiate people having faith. I used to for that matter. I also think that faith is a important part of mankind's evolution into the being that we are. That said, to say therefore that the existence of faith proves a particular religion or god exists is where we must part company. All faith proves is that it is a artifact of the way we think. This is different than numbers that can be used by anyone. No faith required to add 1+1 and get 2.

As I remarked in the thread about the Big bang. I accept the fact that natural processes are responsible for everything because they can be demonstrated (mostly) like numbers to work. Belief in a god can only be demonstrated through faith. None of the so called miracles in religious texts are reliable evidence, anymore than peoples accounts of Alien abductions is reliable. Math in a text is reliable because it can be checked for accuracy.

ETA: Thanks for the compliment about a open mind. I try to be fair and avoiding attacking people for thinking differently than I (though I may debate the subject). After all I used to think differently myself. I may again change my thinking in the future if evidence presents itself to me to cause a change. It will require strong evidence though and not simply disproving a particular theory. All that does is say the Theory was wrong and not a competing theory must be right.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I was going to use the dog and the food dish too. Actually my lengthy reply with links disappeared last night into the ether-world when the site went down, lol.
> 
> Knowing the difference between empty and full isn't 'counting' and counting is only the first step towards doing math.
> Your cat can't tell when you open the cupboard if it's time to buy more cat food.......unless of course you both realize tonight that it IS.:sob:
> ...


My question remains. Why would a perfect being capable of creating a perfect system create something as imperfect as pi? 

You miss the point of the crow studies and their findings. They don't deal with teaching birds to count. They answer your earlier question about early man being able to count sticks of different lengths. This is exactly what crows have demonstrated, the ability to differentiate between different numbers of things despite their differences in size, shape or color. That this ability has evolved in various species seperately throughout time. To happen thusly must show some evolutionary advantage. To occur it must show some fundamental underlying rule that one is different than two than three else why select for such an ability.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> My question remains. Why would a perfect being capable of creating a perfect system create something as imperfect as pi?
> 
> You miss the point of the crow studies and their findings. They don't deal with teaching birds to count. They answer your earlier question about early man being able to count sticks of different lengths. This is exactly what crows have demonstrated, the ability to differentiate between different numbers of things despite their differences in size, shape or color. That this ability has evolved in various species seperately throughout time. To happen thusly must show some evolutionary advantage. To occur it must show some fundamental underlying rule that one is different than two than three else why select for such an ability.


Your question remains about Pi because I have no answer to it. Like calculus, I see it's usefulness but have absolutely no interest in it to even think about it.
Usually I would interpret a question like that as a set up maneuver to trap me into saying, "God made a mistake, God isn't perfect" etc.
Just like Bearfoot, after a few attempts at an answer, I would encourage you top ask The Source of all answers rather than me.:shrug:

And no, I didn't miss the point about the crows, I just don't agree with it and was trying not to sound too disagreeable.:grumble:

I don't think it shows signs of evolution - just the opposite.

Another useful branch of mathematics is statistics and probability. Only slightly more interesting than calculus :bored:, but at least you can use it to win at poker.
The odds I would assign to evolution vs. Creation aren't even close.
And THAT is based on math and science not, as another member insultingly insinuated, because I have a brain defect.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Your question remains about Pi because I have no answer to it. Like calculus, I see it's usefulness but have absolutely no interest in it to even think about it.
> Usually I would interpret a question like that as a set up maneuver to trap me into saying, "God made a mistake, God isn't perfect" etc.
> Just like Bearfoot, after a few attempts at an answer, I would encourage you top ask The Source of all answers rather than me.:shrug:
> 
> ...


Admitting you have no answer to a question isn't a fault. Heck, I'd accept "The Lord works in mysterious ways" as a legitimate answer from one of faith as it seems to properly reflect that faith. What I have issue with is trying to deflect such a question into something it's not in an effort not to have to address it. 

Saying you disagree with the conclusions of something like the crow study is different than mischaracterizing the results to say something different without offering anything to back such conclusions. It makes any further discussion rather pointless. A disappointing result.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> ...
> Another useful branch of mathematics is statistics and probability. Only slightly more interesting than calculus :bored:, but at least you can use it to win at poker.
> The odds I would assign to evolution vs. Creation aren't even close.
> And THAT is based on math and science not, as another member insultingly insinuated, because I have a brain defect.


Sorry but assigning odds to unknowable things is not a valid use of probability even though it is commonly done. 

Classic I have seen on this is people that insist that life exists in the Universe, besides earth, based on the billions of planets out there. They say that there must be a certain amount of planets capable of supporting life of which some fraction must therefore have life all based on mathematical odds. Problem is the assumption is based on a misunderstanding of numbers. Until you can prove that there is life on any of those planets (or indeed that livable planets exist) you have a null set. All we can say with mathematical certainty is life exist on earth. There is no valid mathematical odds other than guessing and personal desires for a interesting life filled Cosmos.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> Sorry but assigning odds to unknowable things is not a valid use of probability even though it is commonly done.
> 
> Classic I have seen on this is people that insist that life exists in the Universe, besides earth, based on the billions of planets out there. They say that there must be a certain amount of planets capable of supporting life of which some fraction must therefore have life all based on mathematical odds. Problem is the assumption is based on a misunderstanding of numbers. Until you can prove that there is life on any of those planets (or indeed that livable planets exist) you have a null set. All we can say with mathematical certainty is life exist on earth. There is no valid mathematical odds other than guessing and personal desires for a interesting life filled Cosmos.


Wrong.
Even though I hated the class, I went thru honors calculus in college.
Even though some think I'm a mutant, brain damaged Neanderthal, they would be shocked that my I.Q. couldn't be measured by standard tests.
Or as one old friend says, "I may be country, but I ain't dumb."

To wait until one has 100% positive "proof" of something, eliminates the very reason for the calculation of probability.
It ain't "probable" if you are already sure of it.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> Wrong.
> Even though I hated the class, I went thru honors calculus in college.
> Even though some think I'm a mutant, brain damaged Neanderthal, they would be shocked that my I.Q. couldn't be measured by standard tests.
> Or as one old friend says, "I may be country, but I ain't dumb."
> ...


Wrong right back at you. Probable has to be based on reasonable or you get the notion that real Unicorns are a distinct possibility. I mean you see them on all kinds of little girl toys don't you? 

Incidentally I never said you were less than smart. You just have not examined all your beliefs yet in my considered opinion.

Consider the odds of a coin toss is 50% (even odds or 50/50) of either side ending upwards. Now consider that no coins were ever minted or thought of by people. What are the odds of a coin that does not exist being flipped? How do you establish odds for a god creating everything if there is no god? You simply can't


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> Wrong right back at you. Probable has to be based on reasonable or you get the notion that real Unicorns are a distinct possibility. I mean you see them on all kinds of little girl toys don't you?
> 
> Incidentally I never said you were less than smart. You just have not examined all your beliefs yet in my considered opinion.
> 
> Consider the odds of a coin toss is 50% (even odds or 50/50) of either side ending upwards. Now consider that no coins were ever minted or thought of by people. What are the odds of a coin that does not exist being flipped? How do you establish odds for a god creating everything if there is no god? You simply can't


I can answer both questions mathematically if you like.
The coin toss one is easy, the animal one will take a little while longer.
Once again, if you have to prove something first BEFORE you can discuss it, it is pointless to talk at all.
Period.
No one on this thread has, or can, prove beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of any number ever written *without using documents written by man.*
Impossible.
Yet we can discuss math using those numbers all day long.
You know why?
Because I don't try to make an ----- of myself like Bearfoot, saying "prove it, prove it" over and over again.
It would be nice for once, to get the same respect and consideration back.
But I guess that's too much to ask from people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No one on this thread has, or can, prove beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of any number *ever written* without using documents written by man.


More silly word games used as a distraction


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More silly word games used as a distraction


I hope I'll never be as pathetic as to call a fact a "silly word game".


In case you haven't noticed, the gloves are back off now.
No more bashing and insulting without a strong and swift defense.
Everyone was given ample opportunity to ask those who use their wit to hurt others, to stop it or tone it down.
From now on, if you think I'm going to let you get away with it, or any of your cohorts, you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I hope I'll never be as pathetic as to call a fact a "silly word game".


It's not a fact.

It's your opinion which you have repeated more than once despite the fact that several have explained how the concept of "numbers" can be easily demonstrated to most anyone above the age of 4 without any "documents" at all.



> No one on this thread has, or can, prove beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of any number *ever written* without using documents written by man.


Your still confusing math with religion.
It's religion that relies on written stories alone

It makes no difference it a number was "written" because the concept exists independent of the words


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not a fact.
> 
> It's your opinion which you have repeated more than once despite the fact that several have explained how the concept of "numbers" can be easily demonstrated to most anyone above the age of 4 without any "documents" at all.
> 
> ...


You are lying when you say it is not a fact.
A blatant, bald faced lie.
I've spoken with owner about such issues and regardless of my private conversations, I won't let a lie about me go publicly unchallenged.
Know this, understand this, and remember it for future reference.



> Your still confusing math with religion.
> It's religion that relies on written stories alone
> It makes no difference it a number was "written" because the concept exists independent of the words


Apparently you are ignorant of the oral tradition of the Bible, either that or you are intentionally not telling the truth, once again.

Facts are still facts, whether you acknowledge them or not.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> ...
> No one on this thread has, or can, prove beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of any number ever written without using documents written by man.
> Impossible.


I know that some folks have not been fair or polite when responding to your posts. But *There is no shadow of a doubt* about the concept of numbers. As can be demonstrated by the fact of usage of numbers is a consistent testable thing. Our world relies on numbers. The Internet would not work for us to debate without numbers. The written symbols could be different, but as long as they symbolize the same thing, they work just the same. 

They are not simply things written in a document with no further ability to prove them. They are not anecdotal evidence from people with agendas. I do not need faith in someone's interpretation before numbers work for me.

ETA: Mr Brown. I suggest that you be serene in your belief and not try to argue with non-believers. It does no good and may hurt your faith.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> I know that some folks have not been fair or polite when responding to your posts. But *There is no shadow of a doubt* about the concept of numbers. As can be demonstrated by the fact of usage of numbers is a consistent testable thing. Our world relies on numbers. The Internet would not work for us to debate without numbers. The written symbols could be different, but as long as they symbolize the same thing, they work just the same.
> 
> They are not simply things written in a document with no further ability to prove them. They are not anecdotal evidence from people with agendas. I do not need faith in someone's interpretation before numbers work for me.
> 
> ETA: Mr Brown. I suggest that you be serene in your belief and not try to argue with non-believers. It does no good and may hurt your faith.



I know this and agree with you on most of it.
But Bearfoot is a master of the "word game" and uses it to harass rather than simply correct or debate.
I could give you dozens of examples, but if you stay here long enough, I won't have to.

In this case, the CONCEPT of numbers is NOT what I said in the post he called "silly".
I agree about the CONCEPT, but the simple fact is, as I agreed with you earlier, to discuss the CONCEPT of math thoroughly, you first need a 1,2,3,etc WRITTEN down by the hand of a human being. Thus the origin can't be proven any other way.

He will edit a few words out of a quote to make it appear you said something that you didn't.
When he does this, it usually will have just "quotes" around it and no name attached like normal quoting does.
The MO is clear, repetitive and dishonest.

1) Use quotes out of context.
2) Use no name so that one has to hunt for where the quote came from.
3) Use a slightly different word than what was quoted to make the statement appear incorrect.
4) NEVER admit wrong doing or mistakes.
5) Finally, Use taunts or insults to inflame the situation.
"That's irrelevant" (even if it is)
"That's silly, childish" (even if it isn't)
"This isn't about you or me"
(This is my favorite, used often and will certainly be used to describe THIS post. Of course, this is technically accurate. After repeated false attacks if I defend myself, "it's all about me" at that point.)
It's like a kid in the back seat of a car that keeps poking you until he gets slapped.

The part I did not agree with you this time is, that it will hurt my faith, quite the opposite.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The MO is demonstrated below.........






> *No one on this thread has, or can, prove beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of any number ever written without using documents written by man.*





Bearfootfarm said:


> It's your opinion which you have repeated more than once despite *the fact that several have explained how the concept of "numbers" can be easily demonstrated to most anyone above the age of 4 without any "documents" at all.*
> 
> Your still confusing math with religion.
> It's religion that relies on written stories alone
> ...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Abe R Crombie said:


> I understand that man came up with the symbols and formulas as a way to express math,I mean the fundamental laws of math in nature and the universe,the proven math that gives man the ability to land a probe on a moving target like rosetta.
> *Where did this come from?[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Invented or Discovered you ask?
> ...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> I know this and agree with you on most of it.
> But Bearfoot is a master of the "word game" and uses it to harass rather than simply correct or debate.
> I could give you dozens of examples, but if you stay here long enough, I won't have to.
> 
> ...


BRILLIANT
After about 3-4 posts where one speaks clearly and the other cannot comprehend what is said or twists what is said?
Run.
Just run.
Proverbs 26:11


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I know this and agree with you on most of it.
> But Bearfoot is a master of the "word game" and uses it to harass rather than simply correct or debate.
> I could give you dozens of examples, but if you stay here long enough, I won't have to.
> 
> ...


A quote is a quote.
I copy and paste, and do not edit.
If I quote you, it's what you said
Sometimes I only respond to a portion of your post, so anything I leave out has nothing to do with my comments. It keeps posts shorter and saves confusion in most cases



> Use no name so that one has to hunt for where the quote came from.


You know what you said, and I generally do that when the post quoted is directly above.



> I agreed with you earlier, to discuss the CONCEPT of math thoroughly,


Funny, you said I used the word "concept" but you didn't.
Even if you didn't say the word, you know that is what was being discussed

You love to bring up my "MO' and my "history" of behavior when you have your own that involve whining about persecution and unfair moderation, calling anyone who disagrees a "liar" and demanding retractions, making allusions to violence to punish those you deem "guilty, and doing it on an average of 4-6 week intervals.

I think you just do it to get threads locked, and I expect these posts will end up being deleted as so many have in the past.

I also think you just love the attention.
You know the cure is just a click away by putting me on ignore.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I know this and agree with you on most of it.
> But Bearfoot is a master of the "word game" and uses it to harass rather than simply correct or debate.
> I could give you dozens of examples, but if you stay here long enough, I won't have to.
> 
> ...


And now I'll point out the simple fallacy of your argument. You don't believe it but crows understand the concept of different numbers. They don't rely on a label to differentiate between the number of dots present. They understand the difference between two small red dots and three large blue dots even though they have no language to express it. The concept exists outside of language. It is universal no matter what language it is described in. Early man understood the concept of different numbers in the same way. He understood it didn't matter that all sticks weren't exactly the same size when those sticks were used to represent numbers. Language grew to explain numbers. Numbers exist without language.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Abe R Crombie said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that man came up with the symbols and formulas as a way to express math,I mean the fundamental laws of math in nature and the universe,the proven math that gives man the ability to land a probe on a moving target like rosetta.
> ...


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> I know this and agree with you on most of it.
> But Bearfoot is a master of the "word game" and uses it to harass rather than simply correct or debate.
> I could give you dozens of examples, but if you stay here long enough, I won't have to.
> 
> ...


All of which would not prove that your assertions about numbers were correct. All that bringing it up is a distraction from the whole argument. Mr Foot could be doing all that you claim he does and that would not change a thing. 

I have tried to make this point before, you do not prove a theory by disproving a competing theory. Nor does attacking the messenger prevent bad news. 

Faith is a belief in the unseen and the unknowable. If you can see it or know it than faith becomes certainty. Certainty would allow for practical use and that would place gods into our sphere of control. Numbers we control. Numbers we use to do practical things. They are seen and knowable. They always produce the same result. Gods are a different thing since they do not always produce the same result.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Laura Zone 5 said:
> 
> 
> > Then maybe you can answer why he created pi and not some perfect way to calculate the area inside a circle?
> ...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Laura Zone 5 said:
> 
> 
> > Then maybe you can answer why he created pi and not some perfect way to calculate the area inside a circle?
> ...


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Darren said:


> Even God has a sense of humor.


Which goes a long way to explain rubber chickens and realistic doggy doo. But it is hard to understand why watching something slip and fall on ice is so comical.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And now I'll point out the simple fallacy of your argument.
> *
> You don't believe it but crows understand the concept of different numbers.*
> 
> They don't rely on a label to differentiate between the number of dots present. They understand the difference between two small red dots and three large blue dots even though they have no language to express it. The concept exists outside of language. It is universal no matter what language it is described in. Early man understood the concept of different numbers in the same way. He understood it didn't matter that all sticks weren't exactly the same size when those sticks were used to represent numbers. Language grew to explain numbers. Numbers exist without language.


I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Not only do I believe it, but I found a study that explained the reason why they can count.
But to continue............



MattB4 said:


> All of which would not prove that your assertions about numbers were correct. All that bringing it up is a distraction from the whole argument. Mr Foot could be doing all that you claim he does and that would not change a thing.


Agreed.
The distraction is frustrating when one is trying to have a serious conversation, that's all.




MattB4 said:


> I have tried to make this point before, *you do not prove a theory by disproving a competing theory. Nor does attacking the messenger prevent bad news.*


We agree on this as well.
You have mistaken my analogy as an attempt to disprove math or to cast doubt on its validity.
Just the opposite.

I was showing that many things we believe to her valid, things we have proven to ourselves to be true, may have similar origins or foundations although the subject areas may be very different.

The rift was over denying any evidence of God by way of written documents.
It would be easier to investigate and validate the writings of the Bible than it would be to do the same for the much older origins of the first written numbers.
Even without being able to do so, you can still show by using that unverifiable origin, how numbers and math have proven reliable and useful in your daily life.
If I kept insisting you not use any reference material of man-made origin in your attempt to show me how valid math was, your attempt to show "proof" would prove as futile as mine, wouldn't it?
Just as important, once you show the principles, fundamentals and rules of math bring predicted results, wouldn't that apply to my demonstration too?

After all, if I make a mistake in my calculations and come up with the wrong answer, is it because mathematics is flawed, or was it because I erred in the process or left something out?

*Ex:
I asked God for a puppy and didn't get one, therefore God isn't real.

I divided 2 by 3 and got the number "6" therefore math must not be true.*


I can see the mistakes made in both examples above, and I'll bet you do too.
Neither of which should depend on whether or not the instructional documentation used was the product of ancient writings.

That is the assertion that I was refuting. Being unable to produce the evidence of the foundation of our numbering system does not automatically mean I can dismiss mathematics as being irrational or imaginary.
The lack of such evidence as many have pointed out, in no way invalidates the verifiable results.



MattB4 said:


> Faith is a belief in the unseen and the unknowable. If you can see it or know it than faith becomes certainty. Certainty would allow for practical use and that would place gods into our sphere of control. Numbers we control. Numbers we use to do practical things. They are seen and knowable. They always produce the same result. Gods are a different thing since they do not always produce the same result.


These two things, I respectfully disagree with......


> and that would place gods into our sphere of control.
> 
> Gods are a different thing since they do not always produce the same result.







mmoetc said:


> Laura Zone 5 said:
> 
> 
> > Then maybe you can answer why he created pi and not some perfect way to calculate the area inside a circle?
> ...


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> ...
> Perhaps He did..........and we just haven't discovered it yet.
> For instance, why should the *area of a circle be in square inches, rather than another unit,* like the size of a hydrogen molecule?
> 
> (That should keep the math wizards occupied for a while, lol)


You mean you can't have area in metric units? What is the number used for metric pi calculations? (That ought to occupi you for a least a moment.) 

Equivalencies is another area of math that is frequently difficult for people. Saying something is a liter versus the equivalent quantity in cups throws people off. But you plug in a conversion figure and than it equals out. 

There is nothing sacred or holy about a unit of measurement, a fraction of time, a volume, a speed of acceleration, a temperature. a density, a force no matter what you call it so long as it is standardized against a constant. Thus inches can be converted to centimeters, Fahrenheit to centigrade and a host of others. None of the names matter, just the math used.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> You mean you can't have area in metric units? What is the number used for metric pi calculations? (That ought to occupi you for a least a moment.)
> 
> Equivalencies is another area of math that is frequently difficult for people. Saying something is a liter versus the equivalent quantity in cups throws people off. But you plug in a conversion figure and than it equals out.
> 
> There is nothing sacred or holy about a unit of measurement, a fraction of time, a volume, a speed of acceleration, a temperature. a density, a force no matter what you call it so long as it is standardized against a constant. Thus inches can be converted to centimeters, Fahrenheit to centigrade and a host of others. None of the names matter, just the math used.


That wasn't where I was going with that, but that we might not be measuring precisely enough or overlooking a something about circles that is unique in how the distances of circumference and diameter are measured.:shrug:

The other point that has been asserted about faith in a religion is that those who believe in it do so without any reasoning. IOW, nothing we've read has turned out to be factual, nothing we've done in accordance to the set principles has worked, and nothing predicted by them has turned out to be true.
If that were the case, one could not be faulted for calling us fools.
But to consider how strongly some believe in the face of detractors, is it logical to think that no one can cite any evidence they have seen for themselves, and remain so convinced?
Over time many false beliefs have faltered and fallen by the wayside, that is true.
Yet this one remains.

It isn't a 2+2=4 statement, but I think it bears some consideration before dismissing it outright.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Not only do I believe it, but I found a study that explained the reason why they can count.
> But to continue............
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> ...
> The other point that has been asserted about faith in a religion is that those who believe in it do so without any reasoning. IOW, nothing we've read has turned out to be factual, nothing we've done in accordance to the set principles has worked, and nothing predicted by them has turned out to be true.
> If that were the case, one could not be faulted for calling us fools.
> But to consider how strongly some believe in the face of detractors, is it logical to think that no one can cite any evidence they have seen for themselves, and remain so convinced?
> ...


There has been many very brilliant people of faith. There has been all kinds of books written that examine aspects of it. I readily admit that the vast majority of people have faith and for some they have examined their faith to a degree. I just put forth the theory that it is a fantasy based on the way our brains work and that it provided a evolutionary benefit to our species so is retained. None of it is real in the sense of the natural workings of the universe like math is. It is real in the sense it fulfills a part of our psyche. 

Our ability to learn is story based. Those stories can be factual or fantasy but they still pass on concepts. Good stories that have insight into our behaviors are going to be repeated. All religions revolve around morality plays. Read enough stories and you eventually see the author is always man and not some imaginary being. 

I hate to say it but the Christian religion is faltering and could be replaced with another like the Muslim religion. Religion (superstitious beliefs) itself is not going disappear anytime soon. It is integral to our nature and people like the stories too much.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > Even God has a sense of humor.
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > I most certainly can answer why He Created PI and not some perfect way to calculate the area inside a circle.
> ...


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> Wouldn't it have been simpler just to answer?


Please learn how to quote properly. When you delete the [/quote] at the end of a quote it will not format properly. Or the opening


> brackets. This makes it hard to understand your posts.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> No need to apologize unless you keep insisting that the study you keep citing shows things it doesn't. The studies do show the physiological mechanism crows use to differentiate between different quantities. This isn't a surprising finding. Our own brains work by firing neurons. It doesnt disprove that numbers exist by themselves, just that various species have found various ways to recognize them. The fact that various species have developed ways to do this independently shows that these things, numbers, exist independently regardless if who is looking at them or what they are called. Two is different than one is a fundamental building block not something constructed by the human mind.
> 
> You can measure in whatever unit you you wish. Square inches, square moleclues it doesn't matter. Pi is still imprecise. We may yet find a better solution. That's what science looks for. Faith says we know enough because that's what we're told.  Faith doesn't question. As I've said before, science doesn't eliminate the possibility of a god. Faith doesn't allow the possibility there isn't one. I can understand how that affects some.




It's ironic that one simple question about showing a piece of evidence involving the origin of numbers, resulted in such a swift and determined defense of the concept of math.
I applaud that.
After stating unequivocally my belief in math, there is still doubt that however, that I was attempting to "disprove" it by asking that one question.
I have been assured over and over that because math has been tested and found to be true that I should recognize and accept it, and leave that silly question alone.
And I wholeheartedly agree.

I would again like to point out the fallacy of assuming that faith in God is the NOT the same for believers. We HAVE questioned HIS reliability and accuracy and put Him to the test many times, and have seen the results consistently.
That is why when we are asked to prove the very same question of proving His existence without using what we already know to be true, we have the same reaction.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> ...
> 
> I would again like to point out the fallacy of assuming that faith in God is the NOT the same for believers. We HAVE questioned HIS reliability and accuracy and put Him to the test many times, and have seen the results consistently.
> That is why when we are asked to prove the very same question of proving His existence without using what we already know to be true, we have the same reaction.


Here is how it is not the same. Reliability has to be for all, not just a subset of people. Factual things withstand that test. Things of belief fail once the belief stops or never was. Though it may seem to a believer that they have tested god, they also know that testing god is wrong because of their belief. Thus if god does not act consistently this is a sign that god must be acting under other purposes. So by god failing the test, it further proves to a believer that god exists. Strange contradiction. 

There is no magic. Never was. But it does make for a good story.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> Please learn how to quote properly. When you delete the


 at the end of a quote it will not format properly. Or the opening


> brackets. This makes it hard to understand your posts.


I'm not sure how that post confused you. I'll do what I do and you can react as you wish. The old iphone and fat, old fingers sometimes have minds of their own. Deal with it or not, your choice.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> It's ironic that one simple question about showing a piece of evidence involving the origin of numbers, resulted in such a swift and determined defense of the concept of math.
> I applaud that.
> After stating unequivocally my belief in math, there is still doubt that however, that I was attempting to "disprove" it by asking that one question.
> I have been assured over and over that because math has been tested and found to be true that I should recognize and accept it, and leave that silly question alone.
> ...


I've never said you should accept math. I've said that math is tested and retested every day in a variety of ways simple and complex and is most often found consistent. But each engineering equation that comes up with a verifiable result is a test and confirmation of math principles. It doesn't rely on faith or belief to make it true. It either is or isn't. Numbers also require no faith to exist. They simply do regardless of your belief.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> at the end of a quote it will not format properly. Or the opening
> 
> I'm not sure how that post confused you. I'll do what I do and you can react as you wish. The old iphone and fat, old fingers sometimes have minds of their own. Deal with it or not, your choice.


Ok, I will put you on ignore since you do not want to attempt to follow normal forum practices for proper attribution of quotes. If you look at your posts you will see that it appears that you have quoted yourself and are answering yourself. 

Boy what a meanie I am to try to encourage a person to do things in the proper form. 

Bye.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> Ok, I will put you on ignore since you do not want to attempt to follow normal forum practices for proper attribution of quotes. If you look at your posts you will see that it appears that you have quoted yourself and are answering yourself.
> 
> Boy what a meanie I am to try to encourage a person to do things in the proper form.
> 
> Bye.


Suit youself. 6400+ posts and yours are the only complaints. Sorry if I don't meet your standards. Consider me the grumpy old guy down the block. You can listen for wisdom or you can complain about the plywood cutouts in his lawn.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MattB4 said:


> Ok, I will put you on ignore since you do not want to attempt to follow normal forum practices for proper attribution of quotes. If you look at your posts you will see that it appears that you have quoted yourself and are answering yourself.
> 
> Boy what a meanie I am to try to encourage a person to do things in the proper form.
> 
> Bye.


Occasionally, the forum itself is glitchy and we've had it happen that people appear to be quoting the wrong poster entirely as well as various methods of misquotes and the app seems to be more of a crap shoot for me. Often when I attempt to quote a comment or edit my own post, only a small portion of it shows up.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> Suit youself. 6400+ posts and yours are the only complaints. Sorry if I don't meet your standards. Consider me the grumpy old guy down the block. You can listen for wisdom or you can complain about the plywood cutouts in his lawn.





wr said:


> Occasionally, the forum itself is glitchy and we've had it happen that people appear to be quoting the wrong poster entirely as well as various methods of misquotes and the app seems to be more of a crap shoot for me. Often when I attempt to quote a comment or edit my own post, only a small portion of it shows up.


Note: how a better answer was made rather than your defensive answer when politely instructed about how quoting works. 

If you wish to adequately display your "wisdom' I suggest politely that you do it in the proper format. I am also a grumpy old man that dislikes juvenile responses. I see no wisdom in them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> Note: how a better answer was made rather than your defensive answer when politely instructed about how quoting works.
> 
> If you wish to adequately display your "wisdom' I suggest politely that you do it in the proper format. I am also a grumpy old man that dislikes juvenile responses. I see no wisdom in them.


But you presumed I didn't know. And that the fault was mine. And that you have some role in instructing others as to what is proper. As I said, 6400+ posts and yours are the only complaints. Maybe the problem lies with you. But,of course, you're ignoring this so why am I even speaking to it?


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> But you presumed I didn't know. And that the fault was mine. And that you have some role in instructing others as to what is proper. As I said, 6400+ posts and yours are the only complaints. Maybe the problem lies with you. But,of course, you're ignoring this so why am I even speaking to it?


I am giving you a chance to respond so I am reading your posts. However your delusion that thinking that because no one else mentioned your inability to adequately quote in the past that this must mean you are without challenge on the subject. 

Are you really that dense? To claim the problem lays with me when it is your inadequacies is amazing. I showed you how to do quotes by enclosing the word


> quote


 in brackets at the beginning and the end of what you want end to quote with the


> /quote


 in front of quote, to end the quote. Thus making a box. You respond with "ain't no one going to tell me anything." Dangnabit I have 64000 posts." 

Brilliant.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Mostly, I just don't care what you have to say about how my posts appear. When you can show me your style police badge and authority I might just a little. But probably not. I do sincerely hope that the format of this post meets with your approval. Not really.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> Mostly, I just don't care what you have to say about how my posts appear. When you can show me your style police badge and authority I might just a little. But probably not. I do sincerely hope that the format of this post meets with your approval. Not really.


Ok, since I do not care to see your poorly designed posts and you do not care to change them, than that leaves the ignore option as my response. 

Good fortune.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MattB4 said:


> Ok, since I do not care to see your poorly designed posts and you do not care to change them, than that leaves the ignore option as my response.
> 
> Good fortune.


Feel free to ignore this, also. Presuming to know why something happens and why someone else does something doesn't mean you actually know anything. Lecturing to others about what displeases you without first asking why it happens seldom has your desired result. If you value style above content you're welcome to it. It seems a bit shallow and controlling but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Laura Zone 5 said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it have been simpler just to answer?
> ...


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm betting there won't be any answers more meaningful than what has already been given
> 
> (And to anyone interested, I clicked on "quote" as I always do, and got the result above without any further manipulations)
> 
> It's a software problem inherent to the forum


Thanks for letting me Know. 

But I am betting if you preview your post and check for missing quote brackets it can be corrected in edit mode. I am not seeing any issues myself but I do use a regular computer and not one of those smart thingies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MattB4 said:


> Thanks for letting me Know.
> 
> But I am betting if you preview your post and check for missing quote brackets it can be corrected in edit mode. I am not seeing any issues myself but I do use a regular computer and not one of those smart thingies.


I'm on a desktop computer, and it doesn't happen every time.
It's been going on for months if I'm not mistaken, and I believe there's a thread about it in "Announcements and Support"

Here it is, from 8 months ago:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ad...nts-support/538909-quoting-posts-changes.html


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

https://youtu.be/HIXcq_UPFKc


I found this interesting, but I'm still confused about it all!


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm on a desktop computer, and it doesn't happen every time.
> It's been going on for months if I'm not mistaken, and I believe there's a thread about it in "Announcements and Support"
> 
> Here it is, from 8 months ago:
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ad...nts-support/538909-quoting-posts-changes.html


Interesting. I noticed that in the support Thread that the situation was not resolved. But are people checking their posts for the error? You can see forum code whenever you quote a person. A quote needs a beginning quote and end quote in order to function. 

From what I can notice about this error is that people have the original beginning quote code with the proper post, but another beginning post format code is inserted with their name before the final end quote is generated. Thus it looks like they have quoted themselves. 

It should be correctable by those folks that read their posts for errors before submitting. A quote must end with [/quote] it must start with [quote + forum identifier] to link it to the person being quoted.

ETA: Don't quote this post with the format code I put into it or it will create all kinds of issues as it runs between the start quote, end quote functions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It should be correctable


It doesn't happen every time



> But are people checking their posts for the error?


It doesn't bother me enough to worry over it

It only seems to happen when there are other quotes in the post being quoted.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't happen every time
> 
> 
> It doesn't bother me enough to worry over it
> ...


I have seen it more for the fellow I put on ignore than I have seen it elsewhere. Perhaps if someone grabs a screenshot of the reply box with the quotes before posting to a thread it can be brought to the Forum gods attention. 

I have not encountered it myself, that I know of, but than again I am always checking my posts to try to achieve some semblance of coherency and readability since I am not a good writer and suffer from spelling words inside out. It is possible that I corrected it anytime it had happened without noting it.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Matter of semantics.
If you address a Thesaurus, Discover and Invent are both Synonyms for each other. 
So if you answered A or B , your right LOL.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MattB4 said:


> I have seen it more for the fellow I put on ignore than I have seen it elsewhere. Perhaps if someone grabs a screenshot of the reply box with the quotes before posting to a thread it can be brought to the Forum gods attention.
> 
> I have not encountered it myself, that I know of, but than again I am always checking my posts to try to achieve some semblance of coherency and readability since I am not a good writer and suffer from spelling words inside out. It is possible that I corrected it anytime it had happened without noting it.


Testing 1 2 3

(Edited: It didn't happen that time :shrug


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Testing 1 2 3
> 
> (Edited: It didn't happen that time :shrug


If you are talking about the quoting problems most of the times it happens when you try to split a msg and put your response below the part of the msg you are responding to.

Its a screwy system and it took me some trial and error to figure it out. The way to do it is cut and past the [ QUOTE=someone;12345 ] that is at the start of the msg and put that at the start of the part you want to quote and cut and paste the [ /QUOTE ] at the end.

If its a long msg with a lot of sections I preview my post to make sure I didn't miss one or the other.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

I had to think about this. I'd say some math was discovered while some was invented. 

2 + 2 = 4. That we can see in the natural world and in our normal everyday dealings. But where in the natural word would you see 2 - 4 = -2 you can't take away form something more than it is. That would have been invented. 

Another invention would be imaginary numbers. What's the square root of a negative number? That a impossibility, but they used an imaginary number to represent it so they can run there calculations.

WWW


----------

