Astner
The Ghost Who Walks
You'll have to excuse my absence I've basically been studying at full time for my upcoming exams in my second course in quantum mechanics and mathematical modeling. Though I have to say I'm disappointed in your response. But I'll address that point by point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So, basically, you bring in a bunch of strawman arguments because you simply can't say, "I was wrong." My professors or teachers have nothing to do with you posting something wrong.
It wasn't an argument, thus not a fallacy. The title of the example has no relevance whatsoever. It doesn't make the example or solution wrong, deal with it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, you need to quote me where I said that the given formula only applied to perfect cubes. Please, I beg you, show me where I said that.
Third page, second post:
"Wrong. You cubed the same number...that's not accurate (unless the katana is a perfect cube)."
Further ironically not what I did in that formula.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's called context and you don't understand it. You can't even follow a simple internet conversation. L*W*H is a very simple formula. That was the context of the convo, you could not follow it.
So I couldn't follow it because I was able to point out that it didn't only work for fixed values but also for any given function? After pointing that out and your failure to give a proper response I'd say that you were the one that couldn't follow.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I have no idea what I'm talking about because I make massive mistakes in all of my math, eliminate essential "variables" from my calculations, and then throw a fit when someone points out where I went wrong. Oh, wait, that's you. 😬
You have to understand the difference between a mathematical and a numerical problem, which again is basic algebra. I'm not denying the fact that I made a numerical error. However, I formulated the mathematical problem correctly and you fail to understand it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh man. It's all too clear, now.I'm sorry I took you seriously for even a little bit. My bad.
Ironic. Especially since you were unable to comply with the mathematical problem I gave you, one which I solved several years back.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So this is how you admit you're wrong?
That was sarcasm, though I can't say I expected more of you.
I bet it pisses you off to no end that I reversed your own work against you to see if you'd argue against yourself.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, I will not humor your massive load of fail when it comes to SI. You've gone too far into fail for me to be willing to humor you.
It's saddening to see that you fail to admit that you're wrong when you said that grams were an SI-unit, it's not more of an SI-unit than a stone or pound.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ugh. Man, you've gone too far. Why does the mass matter at all to the actual point?
Because that's what we're trying to calculate, if it didn't matter. We wouldn't do the calculation. Either--if not both--of your estimations (density and volume of an actual katana) are ridiculous.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, they were. You just don't get it. You think this is a "math definition" of "arbitrary numbers", but it clearly is not.
Ironically, mathematical definitions or axioms are regious and injective (one-to-one) if they weren't problems wouldn't be well defined to begin with, rendering maths useless.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, it is not necessary, even in the slightest, and, like I said, I have never seen it. Please, kind sir, link me to something on the internet that shows when "[-]" is supposed to be used. Please, I beg you.
More often than not it's simply let out, however regious solution always contain the units in brackets the dimensionless unit being wrote out as either: [-], [ ] or [1].
I couldn't find any notation of the dimensionless (or even with dimension) unit in brackets. Even though it's scientifically stipulated.
As for references: [-] is Kusse, Bruce R.'s notation in "Mathematical Physics: Applied Mathematics for Scientists and Engineers"
But then again, with junior high dimension analysis you should had figured it out. [kg]*[something] = [kg]. Naturally [something] can't have any unit.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't read that image crap you are posting.Regardless, you still don't get it
And that's an ad hominem. I like how you not once in this entire post do any attempt to do any actual refutations. Rather you go on and on with you logical fallacies "it's wrong because it stupid", sorry life isn't that simple.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess you need to retake highschool because you can't even make simple calculations, much less understand the relationship between volume and density to mass.
Is that how it is? I'm not the one failing to understand the relation between volume and mass, you are. As I said, and you dismissed.
Gamabuta's katana length = [GKL]
Original katana length = [OKL]
Gamabuta's katana volume = [GKV]
Original katana volume = [OKV]
Gamabuta's katana desnity = [GKD]
Original katana density = [OKD]
Gamabuta's katana mass = [GKM]
Original katana mass = [OKM]
[GKV] = ([GKL]/[OKL])^3 * [OKV] - The volume formula applies to a arbitrary body (cubes, cuboids, spheres, etc.).
Now the [OKD] and [GKD] have the same density if they're made of the same materials (unaffected by scale). So [OKD] = [GKD].
If we now decide to multiply the LHS and the RHS of the equation with the density we would get.
[OKD]*[GKV] = ([GKL]/[OKL])^3 * [OKV]*[OKD]
or
[GKM] = ([GKL]/[OKL])^3 * [OKM] Q.E.D.
Now if you make an actual response and manage to refute any of these points, then I will address these points.
However if your following post, like your previous one is void of any legit argument I'll ignore it. No, "your wrong, this is stupid" isn't an argument against anything, it's an ad homiem.
Neither is addressing my previous numerical error (like you did 4-5 times in this post) which I conceded in was incorrect several posts back.