The Instigator
Surrealism
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Math Debate - Vi-spex's choice of topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,088 times Debate No: 66046
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

Surrealism

Con

I have seen many people debate vi_spex on math topics in ways that don't always address the big picture. I will debate any math topic vi_spex wants, most preferrably that any finite number times zero is zero.
vi_spex

Pro

0=no time=false=NOTHING=information
1=time=true=something=matter

so what happens when adding no time 1 time, to whatever the number 1 is defined by? what does that mean

only the time of now is true

1+0=1 is a false equation, as something can never be added to nothing, and nothing can never be added to something

1+0 means, 1, or to show it didn't go through, 1+0(1)

any equation that equals 0 is false, so this can only be explained not equated
Debate Round No. 1
Surrealism

Con

I would like to begin by pointing out my opponent's misuse of the = sign. The proper usage of this symbol involves the equating of two expressions, and an expression can be any of the following:

A number: eg 1, 14, 35293255235, etc.

A variable: eg x, y, z, etc.

A monomial: eg 3x, 28zy, 32x^4, etc.

A polynomial: eg 4x 5, 7x^4 - 18x, etc.

Given that, let us examine what my opponent has attempted to equate:

"0=no time"

RIght off the bat, we can see that "no time" is NOT an expression, as it does not fall into any of the categories for one. Additionally, 0 is simply a number, and can be used to express information, but scientifically, unless you use unit cancellation, you cannot simply add or remove unit names for no reason, even if we accept that 0 automatically means 0 seconds.

"no time=false"

Neither of these are expressions. Additionally, they cannot even be said to mean the same concept. "false" is a descriptive word about the boolean aspect of a statement. "no time" is merely an amount of time. The two cannot be said to be equated.

"false=NOTHING"

Irrelevant and incorrect for the same reasons as before.

"NOTHING=information"

Ditto.

The second set of faulty equations falls under the same rebuttals.

"so what happens when adding no time 1 time, to whatever the number 1 is defined by? what does that mean"

What it means is that there is one occurrence of adding 0 to 1, which results in, not surprisingly, one.

"only the time of now is true"

Settings cannot be "true", only statements can.

"1 0=1 is a false equation, as something can never be added to nothing, and nothing can never be added to something"

Why not? If I have a salt shaker, and I do nothing to it, I am inactively adding nothing to it.

"any equation that equals 0 is false, so this can only be explained not equated"

Why is an equation false because one of its sides is 0? That doesn't follow at all. Here is an example:

0=0

Clearly zero is equal to itself.

Let's see if we can solve the expressions 1 0 and 1*0 by graphing them.

Looking at the graphs of y=x and y=x+1, we can see that adding 1 to 0 results in 1, while multiplying 1 by 0 results in 0.

Over to vi_spex.
vi_spex

Pro

show me 0 bananas

no time is false because time is true, like no thing and something
Debate Round No. 2
Surrealism

Con

Show you zero bananas? Okay. Don't blink or you'll miss it.



















There. There were zero bananas in that clump of blank space.

In what way is time true? One is a dimensional concept, the other a boolean descriptor. The two aren't compatible linguistically.
vi_spex

Pro

i didn't see any bananas, where were they?

there can never be 0 bananas in space, as 0 bananas are not real
Debate Round No. 3
Surrealism

Con

Why would you have seen any bananas? There were zero of them!

Zero just means none of in this case, so all I did was show you no bananas. Hence, any place in which there are not bananas can be said to have zero bananas.
vi_spex

Pro

so you didn't show me any bananas to show me 0 bananas is what your saying

how could you have shown me when I didn't see any
Debate Round No. 4
Surrealism

Con

You wouldn't have seen any because there were zero bananas there. Zero bananas is the same as no bananas.
vi_spex

Pro

so you HAVE, no bananas in your hand?
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
"Creating cities in your mind from nothing, I am not unaware that I am god creating worlds"
-Me
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-Friedrich Schiller
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
the opposite of physical is mental, everything is something, and something is physical

0=separation=information=nothing
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
No they are not. But not being real and being nothing are not the same.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
unicorns are real?
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
*stultitium
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
Unicorns are not nothing.

Adversum stultitia dei contendent nequiquam.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
no bananas=nothing=unicorns

so you see unicorns in your kitchen huh
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
in your kitchen that is something, you see NO banans?
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
Yes.
No votes have been placed for this debate.