MathGuy2

I wouldn't be surprised at a teacher using "shut up". What really worries me is a) cursing at the teacher and b) the manner of approaching the situation. Apparently you told the teacher you didn't understand "her method". A better phrasing would be "Ma'am, I don't understand how one would use the subjunctive. I understand how to form it, but I didn't get where to use it. Could you please explain that for me?". If you have a real problem with the teacher's method in general, speak to her after the class NICELY. My friend says that his Algebra II substitute doesn't teach anything but just puts an example and assigns homework; he ought to ask the teacher "This is all new stuff for me, and I'm having trouble getting it. Could you explain it slowly for me?" I disagree with Son Goten. I just got into high school this year, and I know am on very good terms with the teachers and have quite a few rights. Being nice can get you far. If you have a positive reputation, teachers will respect you and give you enough rights. (Last year, even I was in middle school French II (didn't take it in 7th grade), I was allowed into a French III class for a few weeks to prepare for the Fr. I + II credit exams. If I had offended my teachers, either the Fr. III teacher or my PE teacher would not let me do this.)

[quote] [i]All of these from above post by Crazy White Boy[/i] The characters on screen aren't molecules, but pixels existing on a program in which they carry out artificially implemented actions and patterns. [/quote] What is the fundamental difference between molecules in space and pixels on screen (or more accurately, bits on a RAM chip)? These "artificially implemented actions" just take on a MUCH more complicated structure in the human body. Science, if given enough dedication, could easily create a perfect human (not physically/morally perfect, but carbon-copy perfect) on a computer. What is our brain? A path of interconnected neurons. Each receives input from somewhere (say our eyes), performs simple scaled summation with the bias (scl(1)*inp(1)+scl(2)*inp(2)+bScl*bias), and outputs a pulse (or not) and modifies the bias. Stick trillions of these, tuned perfectly, and voila! a human brain. We've also recently decoded the length of the human genome, and have long known how to make proteins/polypeptides from DNA codons. [quote] Because they do not breathe, possess vision, hear, or have the abilities to feel or think for themselves, "they" can't be defined as living. [/quote] A blade of grass has none of these. Yet it is still living. The definition I learned in prebiology last year for "living" was: ability to grow, reproduce, consume nourishment, and respond to change. Sims can perform all of these, right? I think it was Sims' package that says, "If it were any more realistic, it'd be illegal to turn it off." I am not, nor have I ever, claimed that the dreams exist as anything more than "shadows of [my] psyche". But yes, they exist as those shadows (ahh, I can't type easily now), in that "dreamland". All I am stating is that unless we agree on "prove" and "exist", we cannot "prove we exist", disprove we exist, or prove the inability to (dis)prove we exist. My definition of existence is this: if an object causes effects on another object, then the former exists as much as the latter. Apparently, your definition of existence is being a human in this world. No offense intended, but this discussion aims to identify whether we exist any more than being in this world. (A shadow of my psyche exists in my psyche, but according to you it doesn't exist.) My proof: we cannot prove anything without basic unprovable but true statements. Existence is one topic that calls into question these axioms - most involve existence itself. Therefore, true, pure, absolute existence is an axiom itself; it is un(dis)provable. [b]Proof that a dream exists[/b] This keyboard exists in this world - a human in this world can feel it, see it, and hear it. A dream keyboard exists in a dream world - a dream human can feel it (in the way dream humans do anything). In addition, I can see that keyboard in my dream, and it affects me when I wake if I remember the dream. If I dream up (literally) a new, efficient layout for the keyboard, I might become world-famous. Therefore, the dream affected me - and existed. [b]Proof that we can't prove existence[/b] Proof by contradiction: Assume that we were able to prove our existence. Therefore, there must be a proof that proves our existence. (of course) #1: This proof defines existence in the process of proving our existence. Therefore, does the proof exist? Say the proof said "If an item exists, it can be described in three sentences. Humans can be described by their name, age, and location. Therefore, humans exist." That proof is not rigorous enough to prove existence properly. A proof that describes existence cannot be used to define its own existence, and using another definition of existence naturally invalidates the proof. Therefore, a proof of existence cannot exist, and we cannot prove our existence. #2: This proof must start with some basic statements. (E.g., "God never lies. The Bible is God's word.") Eventually, these statements will lead to existence. ("The Bible says that God created us, and we exist.") This leads to a circular path - because we exist, we exist. Also, the original statements themselves imply existence. Therefore, existence must be a base of all basic statements, and sort of a "super-axiom". Therefore we cannot prove existence. QED is demonstrated twice.

(I'm typing this as I think...) Let's see. Five coins on each side, two still on the table. If the 5+5 balance, balance one of the two against one of the ten (which we know is real). If they balance, the remaining coin is fake. If they don't, then the tested coin is fake. QED in two moves. If the 5+5 don't balance, then take the left side (e.g.) split it into group of 3 on the left, group of 2 on the right. err.....mathematical aside here, what are the unknowns? weights of twelve coins. What are the ....never mind, mind overanalyzed problem. okay, 3 from left on left, 2 from left on right. Pile originally on right kept on right side of table, leftover 2 - take one and put it on the group of two, keep the other behind the balance. If the two groups don't balance, then take the left group against 3 of the "known good" from right of balance...now we know if it's heavier, but there go our tests. Er...let me name the coins, ABCDEFGHIJKL. Split into three groups of 4. Balance ABCD and EFGH. If they balance, balance IJ and KL. wait..........I got it! It's a trick question! The first time you use the balance - alternate putting coins on left and right sides. Every two, watch the balance. When it goes off balance, take one of the last two you balanced with another coin (not the same one that was added that turn). If they unbalance, then that coin's the fake, otherwise, the other one that you didn't test is the fake. no, that can't be the answer....somehow it doesn't seem correct... er...(think) I is (am) heavy fake, ABC DEF/GHI JKL, ABC GHI/DEF JKL, either light fake is in DEF or heavy fake in GHI. so measure DEF against (e.g.) ABC, if they balance fake is in GHI. no!!! one more balance... I frankly don't think the problem can be solved in three moves - you've got too many unknowns (which of [b]12[/b] and unknown light/heavy) and too few knowns (# of balances). I really think it can only be done in four moves. I'll give it to my friends, anyway... Good job in advance to anyone who can solve it (including the person who came up with the riddle, if he/she knew the answer).

[b]Regarding the exact meaning of the question posed[/b] "Can we prove we exist?" Can we prove? What is "prove"? How does one show that something is true? We can say, for example, that grass is green. What is green? What is color? We cannot prove anything; we can only assume things and define things and create derivations from there. Green is this color shade we define. Grass is this plant we define. Grass is therefore green. We exist? What is exist? Before discussing existence, let us define it. I would say that anything that manifests itself, that causes something to happen in any way, exists in some form. I exist in that I type this message. This message exists because it is on the thread. The thread exists because it is in the forum. The forum, on my screen; the screen, seen by me. [b]Defining existence, and on the Sims[/b] The Sims exist, of course! They are seen by you, they cause interactions amongst themselves, they are discussed on this forum. Does this world exist? For all of the members of this world, for all practical purposes yes. People in my dream exist in my dream; they cause others to be affected by them - others withing the dream, and all who notice the dream (normally just me). Does this world exist? We cause things to happen in this world. Therefore, we exist within the realm of this world. It is irrelevant whether or not we exist within another realm - that requires the existence or realms to be demonstrated. [b]"Cogito ergo sum"[/b] "I think therefore I am" does not imply "I think not therefore I amn't," no? E.g., Hurricane Lili thought not, but she definitely was! "If I think, I am" is not enough to quantify am-ness. Only "If and only if I think [or something else], I am" can prove existence sufficiently. I say, "If and only if I can affect something else, I am at the same level of existence that the other thing is." [b]Analogy from Digimon[/b] This leads me to an interesting parallel with Digimon. Ken, who was originally one of the bad guys, turned good when everyone else convinced him that Digimon were real. How? The Digimon were able to exist in the real world, not only the Digital World. But did this prove their existence? What if the bad guy was "Kenmon" and other Digimon had to prove him humans were real (existed) by stating they were able to be in the Digital World? That would be equally valid, right? What is the true realm that exists? (Why am I talking like that girl from the "Zits" comic who punctuates everythings with question marks?) [b]Attempting to define existence[/b] [quote][i]Originally found on Dictionary.com from the American Heritage Dictionary[/i] ex·is·tence n. 1. The fact or state of existing; being. [other definitions removed] ex·ist n. 1. To have actual being; be real. be v. 1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am. [/quote] Which brings us to a circular definition. (existence - state of existing, exist - have being, be - exist) No, existence cannot be proven to any level more than our sufficient existence for our needs. I exist to type this reply. Yes, I exist, yes I can prove it - given that the reply exists. If my "dreamer" wakes up in a few minutes, will that dequalify my existence and put me as a dream? If my "programmer" stops the universe, will that make me only bits and bytes? No, I will have existed - as a part of the dream or program. [b]Conclusion[/b] So......we cannot prove existence without assuming existence of other things, or precisely and unambiguously define existence, being, and reality. We can, however, state (and all we can state) that we exist enough to do what we need and want to do, and that I exist as much as everyone and everything else does. QED!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=royalblue]Go outside and dig a hole in the ground. That proves you exist. Why? Because your actions have impacted another object. Just look at pollution and things like that; if mandkind didn't "exist", then our waste wouldn't be affecting the Earth in the way that it is. So...of course we can prove that we exist. Just as we can prove that dinosaurs existed; we leave behind evidence of our existence. Whether it's a fossil in a rock, or a Coke can on the beach. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] The hole in the ground, the pollution in the air, the fossils and Cokes: they all exist only to the extent we notice them. Do I exist? I have a center, somewhere, that can output signals and input signals. If this center outputs the signal known as "move my arm", then somehow signals are send back saying "see arm moving" and "feel arm touching body". What is this center? From the signals I have input, I have a stored signal stating that this signal is in an area known as "brain", a "word" that is made up of signals called "see lines intersecting in this pattern" and "hear sound", and has the meaning of an area that can only be detected indirectly, and happens to be located in the position that is "behind" my "eyes". I have often thought about our free will. Most scientific theories cannot work without an absence of free will. I was destined to type this reply. Dell was destined to make this computer that I am using. Time travel certainly sounds plausible, but what if one goes back in time and kills his/her unmarried mother or father? The answer: you can't. There is no chance of that happenning. What is our existence, then? A command center able to process messages. Among these are messages that represent everyone else, and these we know are. ("be" hereafter often used in the sense of intransitive "exist") The Otakuboards may well not exist, and just be a figment of my imagination. You might be but elements of my creativity. What is, then? Nothing is, at least that can be proven. I believe in everyone else, therefore they are for me, but may not be for everyone. I believe in God, therefore he is for me. He may well be, and that is where I say I believe he is. In algebra, geometry, and other mathematics, one starts with a set of "axioms" and "postulates", statements that define what is in this mathematics. Why does 2+2=4? I can say it equals five. That gives me another mathematics, another "world" if you will. Many famous mathematicians, attempting to prove (and demote to a theorem) Euclid's Fifth Postulate (take a line "L", and a point "P" outside it, and you can only draw one line parallel to "L" that goes through "P"), found that it cannot be proved: if you change the theorem to no parallels or many parallels, you get spherical and hyperbolic geometries (respectively) rather than flat, normal, Euclidean geometry. So what does this say? If the Euclidean point not only is but also thinks, then it notices that in can stick a line through itself only one way to make a parallel. The spherical point cannot do this at all. Does this imply existence of the points? Only within their respective geometries. Do these geometries exist? Only from the view of the observer. (Science note: our universe may actually be slightly skewed and hyperbolic, not pure Euclidean - planets' orbits calculate more precisely using hyperbolic geometries.) Anyway, does the observer exist? Only from...ad infinitum. Existence itself cannot exist anymore than one who exists, exists. "I think, therefore I am." Does a braindead human therefore not exist? We see him, we notice his physiological functions. He does not think. So is he not? What about this reply? Is it? It thinks not, it exists not physically, but it is to our perceptions. Gosh, this is confusing. So, am I? I am, because it's easier for me to be than not to be. Maybe I am not. I've never seen [i]The Matrix[/i], but gathering from here, there is a red pill that modifies our thoughts to put us in a virtual other perfect world. That existence would be as valid as this one, if it emulates and encapsulates known life perfectly. ("Encapsulate" is a C++ word, it means a computer program can implement these outside abilities without anyone worrying about how - e.g., a computer encapsulates what is does through keyboard and monitor.) Therefore, one definition of existence is what we notice. But I personally would not take the pill. I am a Christian, I believe in God, and that is for me what defines what isn't and what is. God Himself said, "I am who I am;" that is the simplest definition of being. (Edit: my, I type a lot.)

These both are probably minor code patterns that turn into bugs under my browser (IE5.0, Win2000). [b]Problem #1:[/b]The link in the gizmo at the top goes to http://otakuboards.com/ . I always enter the site through http://[b]www.[/b]otakuboards.com/ . This causes cookies to fail because of different domain names, and I must either relogin or use the back button to do anything. Could someone change the code to use relative paths, e.g., href="/" and href="/register.php", instead of the existing code? [php] [/php] [b]Problem #2:[/b] When I use the Quick Reply box at the bottom of a thread, IE complains of an "Object Expected". The line number changes, though it's often 700-something or 1100-something. This only seems to happen on this version of Internet Explorer (5, Win2K).

Thanks AnimeLover and everyone else. Saturday evening, our family is home safely, but the power's out in parts of Lafayette (including our neighborhood - phone works, and this computer's a laptop). Road signs along the way were bent almost fully over. Billboards were either ripped to shreds hanging like clotheslines or on the ground. Thankfully, very few buildings suffered damage, at least from what I saw. Lili thankfully decreased from Cat4 to Cat2 before it hit us. Weather forecasting is still very unsure. "Science is too complicated for anyone other than God Himself to figure out, let alone come up with." -me. We evacuated because of the rising category of the storm, but Lili dropped back when it hit. I just hope the power comes back soon - it's hot, smelly (rotting refrigerator contents), and dark in here. There's an official curfew for all citizens 7pm-7am because of the power outage. My parish's schools were closed last week Wed-Fri because of TS Isidore and this week Wed-Fri for Lili. I hope Kyle doesn't decide to head this way. It's somewhat okay to have no school, but it's terribly annoying to have school/off proportions switch (5 days off, 2 of school, not vice versa). [quote]O God, our help in ages past, Our hope for years to come, Our shelter from the stormy blast, And our eternal home.[/quote] ________________________________ EDIT: The power came back on a few hours later - hopefully it will stay on. School's closed until Wednesday - gosh, we never get this many days off even for Thanksgiving!

Well. Here in Lafayette, LA, school's closed for today, Thursday, and Friday. We're in the path of a Category 4 storm, and already getting lots of rain. Our family is evacuating (non-mandatory) west to Houston (northbound is probably clogged, eastbound is probably soaked). If you go to [url]http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/[/url], you can see Lafayette's straight in the eye's path. Is anyone else suffering now, or has been through a hurricane? "When peace like a river attendeth my way, When sorrows like sea billows roll, Whatever my lot Thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well with my soul."

Erm...I wasn't here last year. What is this "Big Brother Competition"?

Wait, that's not what I said. I didn't complain about closing the thread, I was just expressing my disapproval about not being able to participate in the "Grill the Christian" thread. I have no complaint whatsoever if it or any thread were closed. I only don't like the disappointment at seeing "Sorry, because of x reason I believe this thread is closed". Moderators are good people. Without moderators, this whole forum would be a mess. It is the work of the moderators that gives this forum the quality it has. Uh..okay, never mind. I just need to pay closer attention to the icons.

Just write after your AIM name, "MSN: ". The text there isn't an AIM hyperlink.

I've been noticing something. When a moderator closes a thread, it's normally because he/she feels that the topic does not need to be discussed. So why aren't the threads deleted from the forum? Many times, the last post from the moderator says "This topic is just taking up space". In addition, I have sometimes entered a thread, not noticing the closed-lock icon, prepared to enter the discussion, and find that the thread has been closed. I strongly believe that threads that are closed when there are barely any or no replies should be removed from the forum.

Paintbrush (Paint) can resize images, go to Image|Stretch and Skew. Unfortunately, you can't resize to a pixel, but just divide your wanted pixels by current pixels to get the percentage. Some versions of Paint can save to GIFs and/or JPEGs. (Does anyone know what controls this ability?)

I'm in my church's youth choir. Conversation from my language arts class: (somehow we got to talking about people who sing) Teacher: Does anyone here like to sing? Me: [somewhat raises hand] Teacher: Do you sing? [to class] Does he like to sing? Classmate: Yes, in the halls. :-)

How about this: on the left side, where the name is: [b]MathGuy314159[/b] [size=1]Newbie (Formerly MathGuy2)[/size] or in reverse, for older posts: MathGuy2/Newbie/AKA MathGuy314159 Just an idea... (not that I want to change my name) AND WHY OH WHY DOES THE "OBJECT" KEEP GETTING "EXPECTED" IN LINE 615? (on the quick reply) IT'S VERY ANNOYING, EVEN THOUGH IT POSTS ALRIGHT! SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THE JAVASCRIPT WORKS UNDER IE5!

Response to area formula: a=l*w a/w=l*w/w a/w=l. Then plug in numbers: 24 ft^2/8ft = 3 ft. About that fancy kilogram formula: This is a stupid system (IMO) that is based on manipulating units. Yes, you can just move the decimal point. Yes, if you give me your teacher's e-mail I will try to convince him/her why moving the decimal point is an accepted method, not cheating. But to answer your question: The formulae in that format are based on fractions equal to one. 1000 g ------ = 1 (cancel out, equal values) 1 kg or equivalently 1kg/1000g. Therefore, to convert, say 3kg to grams: [code] 3 kg 1000 g 3000 g ------ * ------ = ------ (1) 1 kg (1) [/code] The kilogram unit on numerator and denominator cancel, leaving 3000 g. The (1) I use to designate the nonexistence of a unit: the problem is equivalently 3kg*(1000g/kg)=300g. This technique I have come to hate due to excessive use in our class. "2pi radians/360 degrees times 1 degree/60 minutes * 1 minute/60 seconds times the square of a joule divided by phi ohms..."

Just let users set an option in profile to not view objectionable posts. If the poster or moderator rates it objectionable, that post is left out of the thread (or thread out of forum) for users with that setting enabled. If a user is under 10, the option cannot be disabled.

The gizmo seems to be working for me (Internet Explorer 5, Win2K, 22 Sep 02 2:45PMCDT). A few minutes ago, however, the old style showed for me - the one where the all-index gizmo was on the left and the six buttons were on the right. Seems like either my browser cached it or you just fixed it five minutes ago. [b]EDIT:[/b] when I clicked "Submit", my browser complained that an object was expected on line 1275 or something. (This was via Quick Reply.) The message posted fine, though.

I want to take over the world - wait, please hear me out - ban all nuclear weapons (like destroy them), make everybody be friends (i.e., world peace), cause the Muslims, Jews, and Christians to realize we're all worshiping the [i] same God[/i], and then step down. Seriously, I'd like to work for some slight degree of friendship in this seriously corrupted world. And some morality also. I know this seems like an absurd idea, but it can't hurt to be nice, can it?

I got a 162 on the first test. I also got a 187 on iqtest.com and a 145 somewhere else. I seriously doubt the accuracy of these tests that hawk "intelligence profiles" - they might inflate your score so you feel that you are smart, and should buy their product to see how smart you are (not). IQ Tests (I think) are the ratio of the age of an average-intelligence person with your intelligence to your age. Therefore, being 13, I have an (average) mental age of a 21.4-year-old. I've always suspected true anime/video-game enthusiasts and Internet users were smarter than the general population. Does anyone know where one can take an "official" IQ test, one that one gets a valid score (e.g., that Mensa will accept)?

[quote]If x+y=7 and z=3x+8, what is the value of z?[/quote] If x+y=7, then x=7-y (subtract y from both sides). Substitute this value for x in the second equation, giving z=3(7-y)+8. Distribute 3 over 7-y, giving z=3*7-3*y+8. Simplify: z=29-3y. There is a theorem somewhere that says that if you want an exact numerical answer, and your equations have [i]n[/i] variables, then you need at least [i]n[/i] equations. The best you can do otherwise is get the answer in terms of another variable. [quote]also, when finding the volume of a cylinder, is the formula *Xr(squared)Xthe height or is it different? i have a test tomorrow, so...[/quote] The formula is (pi)r^2*h, pi times square of radius times height. This comes because the base for a cylinder is a circle, with area (pi)r^2, and that circle is repeated vertically [i]h[/i] times. -HS Freshman in Trig About your history and science questions, try some online encyclopedias. Two questions of my own: what is the plural of "virus", "viruses" or "viri"? And what is the origin of the word "subtend"?

I notice a lot of threads will be kind of objectionable for many (especially younger children) - could we have an option to mark a thread "PG13" or "R" or something similar? I don't like the idea of people putting whatever material they want in a post - even though they have a valid point.

I was looking for websites about Digimon. Somehow I found theOtaku.com/Digimon, and I visited it frequeently. I didn't join the boards for a while, but I'm happy I decided to.

I PMed DemonZ about it. Anyway, once they get the redirect working (they need to get the webserver to root at ~otakub35 and get the DNS entry changed for otakuboards.com), it should be working. I assume they will be fixing that in a few days - 209.123.85.4/~otakub35 is slightly harder to type than theotaku.com ;)

Many people's signature pictures were being hosted by otakuboards.com. With the redirect enabled, the "otakuboards.com" URLs don't work. That, however, is not the reason the avatars are broken; the URLs mention 209.123.85.4/~otakub35, not otakuboards.com. Didn't Adam or someone say that the official sites are/will be boards.theotaku.com and artist.otaku.com rather than otakuboards.com and otakuartists.com ?