Debate Rounds (3)
all math equations are triangles square or circles etc..
because a sphere is 1 and it has only 1 side.. so 10 multiplied by 10 could be balls or spheres put togeather
but a box is 4 balls put togeather.. so 1 can mean points that allow for something to exist
any equation is 100 percent.. so to diviede an equation it must be equal.. which is to say it has a shape, wheather its a box or triangle or ball/sphere
Pro's reasoning is kind of a mess. Let me clarify some things here.
First line first error. 5 + 5 * 5 + 5 = 35 It's a matter of order. In that kind of calculation you first have to do the multiplication and then the addition. So you would multiply 5 times 5, that is 25 and then add up 5 plus 25 plus 5. That will give you 35, not 100.
"all math equations are triangles square or circles etc.."
That's not true. Actually, if you had the opportunity (or burden hahah) of studying math you would know that most equations are lines, curves.
This is wrong. A can't be 1. If with one you mean sides, a circle has no sides, just a surface, so a circle would be 0 instead of 1.
Then, double is not a geometrical figure.
"a sphere is 1 and it has only 1 side"
Spheres are tridimensional bodies, so they don't have sides at all. They have edges. Anyway, a sphere don't have edges. Spheres are just a curve surface.
"but a box is 4 balls put togeather.. so 1 can mean points that allow for something to exist"
I feel that there's a confusion going on here between values and shapes. Values don't have a shape, values are completely abstract.
Points are dimensional things, but 1 is just a value. You can't mix things like that.
" to diviede an equation it must be equal"
Well, an equation is always equal. If an equation is not equal, then it is not an equation but an inequation.
An interesting way of looking at maths, but a wrong one.
a sphere has top and botm, its 1..
a=1=something=soda bottle in my hand
there are no other shapes then lines or curves, straight or bent, 1 or 0
the sphere is also an example, it can be points that allows for 3 sides to exist.. so a triangle is 1+1+1=3 circles
you cant multiply with 0 and 1, its seams you might have over looked the headline
i see it as a ball has 1 side, you dont kick no sides of the ball
"a sphere has top and botm, its 1.."
Spheres don't have a top and a bottom. A sphere is equal from any given point of view, so you can't tell what's bottom and what's top. Anyway, having a top and a bottom does not mean a sphere is one.
"a=1=something=soda bottle in my hand"
There's no explanation on this...
"there are no other shapes then lines or curves, straight or bent, 1 or 0"
Lines are not shapes, lines form shapes.
"the sphere is also an example, it can be points that allows for 3 sides to exist.. so a triangle is 1+1+1=3 circles"
I don't want to sound rude but this is none sense. Saying 1+1+1=3 circles implies that circles are lines or side. Like a triangle has 3 sides, then it has 3 circles. This is not true. A circle is not a side, a circle doesn't even have sides.
"you cant multiply with 0 and 1"
Come on!! 0*1=0. However if what you mean is that if only zeros and ones existed we wouldn't be able to multiply, that's false too.
In the binary system you can multiply.
" see it as a ball has 1 side, you dont kick no sides of the ball"
Again, a sphere has no sides but one surface. You kik the surface of the ball.
I don't really get Pro's point here. He says in the title "multiply=combine sides" but he doesn't explain this claim. So far, he just posted some misleading math, full of errors.
Hope to have a better explanation of Pro's point. Cheers!
a sphere is not 2 spheres
triangle=3 sides=3 points for it to exist
did you kick all of the surface of the ball?
the equations are merly examples.. any multiplication equation is sufficient for you to prove your case
There's no cohesion nor coherence on Pro's argument. The resolution of this debate was that multiply=combine sides, however Pro didn't give any single reason or explanation of this.
There's no way multiplying is the combination of sides. Pro did not show any link between the operation and the geometry world.
The burden of proof was on Pro, but he did not prove his point. Vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.