Re: Ramadan - good deeds or chaos?

On 27 Oct 2005 01:13:58 -0700, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Ahmad"
<othmana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Intruder wrote:
>> On 26 Oct 2005 04:22:12 -0700, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Ahmad"
>> <othmana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Intruder wrote:
>> >> On 24 Oct 2005 05:08:14 -0700, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Ahmad"
>> >> <othmana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >...
>
>...
>> >
>> >Then something must be wrong. It is no longer realistic because the
>> >real world is solveable,
>> Can you be more clear in what you mean "world is solveable"
>> What is meant with solving the world?
>
>Experiments, analogue computers where parts of real things are used as
>computers.
>
>>
>>
>> > as you can see, we are around doing our
>> >everyday things, without any confusion of unsolveables.
>> No I cannot see that.
>
>The molecules or atoms and nucleii, are solving equations every second
>of the day.
I wonder how you get along in daily life.
>
>> >
>> >Actually super computers can solve any equation,
>> Actually, you do not understand numerical mathematics.
>> >as long as we use
>> >small interval values, or granularities.
>> Numerical mathematics may give a numerical answer to the equation, but
>> it does not solve it. Have you had any course in i.e. diff. equations
>> or calculus.
>I did but in order to solve, usually I've to give numerical values to
>them.

>Even when I simplify equations symbolically before finally putting
>values to them. I don't call equations as solved just because they are
>simplified. Only when values are given, will they become solved.
I doubt you know much about differential equations or ever had lessons
in them. Solving differential equations are not mapping them to scalar
field.
Do you know what solving a differential equation actually mean. Do you
know what they are.
>
>I guess, you mean solving equations symbolically.
Not symbolically, I meant solving.

>Actualy even PCs are
>capable of doing this using softwares such as Maple and Mathematica.
Poor sod, you do not know much about differential equations and if you
did you hardly have any experience with them.
I will teach you then:
____________________________________________________________________
To solve a differential equation means to find a continuous function
of the independent variable that, along with its derivatives,
satisfies the equation.
____________________________________________________________________
That is what it means!
Where did you go the secundary school. I mean a whole bunch of linear
diff. equantion may be solved, but most of them not.
If you would ever had Fortran and looked in the Fortran libraries you
will zee zillions of differential equation (in continuous or whatever
number set) which cannot be solved analytically.

>
>But what symbolic manipulations do are just simplifying equations so
>that they are easier to be solved numerically.
You are hurting yourself with ignorance, sorry chap you should go back
to school.
I wonder if you are fooling around or really believe in what you say.
>
>F=ma, a Newton's law, is not solved, but simplified.
WHat has that got to do with differential equations.
>
>Similarly for Eistein's E=mc(sq).
What has that got to do with what you are saying.
>From one topic you jump to another one without understanding them.
I would advice you to learn and read more about differential equations
and what is means to solve them. Furthermore, get some lessons in
physics and try to understand what use it has.
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~physedu/mapletutorial/tutorials/diff_eqs/intro.html
>
>
>> I believe you do not have much baggage in physics or mathematics, so I
>> will supply you with a nice example.
>> Consider the equation of the two mass problem (gravitation) , i.e. the
>> motion of the Sun and the Earth. If they are the only bodies, than the
>> equation of motion can be solved analytically and numerical
>> calculation gives an exact position on time=t.
>> However, there is no analytical solution for many body problem, so we
>> rely on computers the very much predict what may be the position on
>> time =t. However, it is not possible to predict motion for all t, let
>
>So computers can solve them then.
What do you mean with "them" can you please be more precise in your
words!
>
>> alone allowing small pertubations in Mass of Earth and Sun.
>Why not? These are just assumptions of people who have not worked hard
>enough.
LOL! Assumption is the mother of all *** ups!
>
>The reasons they are not solved are not because they are not possible,
>but because computers have limited processing power, that is all.
Maybe they did not work hard enough! LOL!
>
>...
>
>> >> >The reason why no models were ever produced that mimic fluid behaviour
>> >> >at the molecular level and granularity, is the tremendous amount of
>> >> >supercomputer power that will be required.
>> >> What are you trying to say. It makes sense however but what you say is
>> >> not relevant.
>> >
>> >That is the crux of the whole argument,
>> The crux is thus what you said above?
>> >and yet you call it irrelevant.
>> Yes.
>
>> >You are the one who started that "stokes" theorem just to prove how
>> >macroscopic treatment is better than microscopic analysis.
>> I am indeed, and why do you think I did that. Reread your postings.
>
>I know precisely but you consider any attempts to dispute what you
>think, as irrelevant.
I know what is relevant, that 3 conditions could not be grouped
together to become 2 groups without producing bull***!

>
>The reason why you call it irrelevant is that you don't understand its
>relevancy. In the end, just like idiots, considering that any knowledge
>is irrelevent, just because they are too foolish to understand
>anything.
This is even more irrelevant.
Let me say again what is relevant!
And I will try agian and explain why 3 possibilities and not 2 without
too much irrelevant info such as "microscopic devices and solvable
world" ....
You claimed the person ( 20 october 2005 posting) satified one of the
beneath mentioned conditions.
He is:

anti islam and an idiot....... 1
anti islam and not an idiot.....2

not anti islam and an idiot.....3
anti islam and an idiot.........(1) === equal to the first.

You claimed it you meant to (and started using terminology you hardly
master).
I insisted that they cannot be combined together to form 2.
for condition 1 and 2 will give a person to be an idion and at the
same time not an idiot.
and 1 and 3 will give a person who is anti islam and not anti islam.
etc.
Either way it will produce nonsense.
Y

>
>To be honest, to any intelligent person, he'll always find relevancy in
>any topic to each other, because he can always find some knowledge to
>link them all together. After all, we are all in the same universe.
Again complete irrelevant info.
Try to be logically, clean your mind from to much noise.
Besides, you are talking about Universe, are you sure we belong to the
same Universe?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Because you're so weak in microscopic analysis, you failed to see the
>> >need for granularity and groupings.
>> I doubt you know what you are talking about. What is microscopic
>> analysis in the context?
>
>Whatever context that you want.
Again a non-sensical statement.

>
>> >
>> >Which is what I had been arguing all the time, with you changing topics
>> >in order to defend yourself with ridiculous examples.
>> I am answering your evading responses. Remember it began with
>> you mention 3 possibilities and saying you meant 2.
>> Instead of using simple secundary school statistics you use jargon you
>> hardly understand hoping you can give evidence that your false claims
>> are true.
>
>Understanding granulaity and grouping is very important in order to
>explain to you why I group some possibilites into 2 groups that I call
>another set of just 2 possibilities.
Yes, that is very important for people but it is of no use for people
who cannot understand them and use the illogically.

Try to use them again for:
Your claim the person ( 20 october 2005 posting) satified one of the
beneath mentioned conditions.
He is:

anti islam and an idiot....... 1
anti islam and not an idiot.....2

not anti islam and an idiot.....3
anti islam and an idiot.........(1) === equal to the first.

Try to figure out with your "grouping"and granulaity" why you can
group them to 2 without producing nonsense.

>
>Mind you, each possibility is just a group of sub-possibilities,
>ad-infinitum.
>
>...
>
>> >One thing is sure, macroscopic treatment is always a simplified
>> >treatment
>> Sure? I doubt you know what you are talking about. One thing is sure,
>> it is not a simplified treatment.
>
>It is already simplifed but still too complex for people like you.
Whatever.
You remind me of someone who studied for an exam, thought he master
the whole subject, thought it is so easy, but got an F! even failing
to know why after the teacher explained.
You do remind me of him, I just do not know why.
>>
>> >and cannot be used for microscopic problems, but the reverse
>> >is always possilbe, i.e microscopic treatments form any size problem.
>>
>> >You should
>> >You see, something that is closer to reality is more accurate and can
>> >be expanded indefinitely.
>> Something closer to reality???
>> Can you give a concrete example so I can understand what you observe.
>
>The smaller dimensions that you use to do your analysis, the closer you
>are to the atoms and component particles that make up matter, which are
>the real objects of the universe, i.e. reality.
Sorry, dit ever hear of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg
uncertaintity principle?
What do you mean with component particles? Can you supply me with a
link where that is defined.
So an atom is reality. What does it look like?....



>
>
>> >The problem is always computing power.
>>
>> >
>> >I wonder how well you know about Numerical Analysis or wasn't it
>> >covered by your level of Mathematics?
>> I do know one thing for sure, numerical analysis does not solve the
>> equation as you stated.
>> I will give you an example again. Fractals. Read about them!
>
>pseudo-random number generation. The fact that it is pseudorandom shows
>that there is still a finite possiblity that we can find the pattern
>equation.
Hmm, you are bullshitting again, however lets for the sake of argument
say you are right, whatever you mean.
Please predict what the pattern is after 10 exp 100000000000000
itterations.
Afterall computers can solve that problem, but can they...only the
number of itterations is to large even for mainframes.....
Just only if someone who can "work hard enough" to give an analytical
solution...
>The fact that we can draw these fractals show that we can solve them
>numerically.
Sorry but you bull*** again. Tthe drawing is not the solution but it
merely for the people to show what it can produce. One of the unique
things about fractals is that they have non-integer dimensions. ??
Apa itu lah? While you are in the 3d dimension, looking at this on a
flat screen which can be considered more or less the 2nd dimension (I
hope you understand taht) fractals are in between the dimensions.
Fractals can have a dimension of 1.8, or 4.12. Although fractals may
not be in integer dimensions, they always have a smaller dimension
than what they're on. If you make a fractal by drawing lines that obey
a certain rule, like Koch's Curve, that fractal can't have a dimension
higher than the paper it's drawn on, which would be 2 etc.....


>
>Symbolically, we can only simplify using a naming scheme to identify
>the large sequences of pattern generation equations.
Naming scheme. Please explain the naming scheme. Give an example.
>
>What is wrong by not being able to solve/simplify symbolically these
>fractals?
There is nothing wrong with that.

>
>
>...
>
>> >I didn't say that it is easy, it only becomes easy if you know, unlike
>> >you,
>> >who pretend to know.
>> I do not pretend to know, I know you are wrong. That is the
>> difference.
>
>So you must be an idiot, as your Professor had claimed.
I am glad you say , than somebody with intelligence or with an
academic degree.
>
>
>> Your 3 possibilities cannot be grouped to 2!
>> Period.
>> >
>> >> than he is a liar!
>> >
>> >Only those who think that they know, such as yourself.
>> Getting more personal does not help your argumentation.
>
>You only feel personal if you know that it is the truth.
>
>...
>
>
>> >I want to emphasise the "either" vs "both", so I mentioned only 2
>> >possibiliteis.
>> >
>> >> You mentioned 3 possibilities!
>> >
>> >Grouped into 2 possibilities.
>> >
>> >Talking about possibilities, are you aware that in each possibility you
>> >can come up with many other possibilites?
>> Again you are bullshitting. You are not a liar but you are
>> bullshitting.
>> Do you know the difference between bullshitting and lying?
>> Lying is when one exactly knows what he talking about but does not
>> tell the truth, bullshitting is one who does not know what he is
>> talking is about but does not care whether it is true or not, as long
>> as it serves his own interests.
>So you claim that everyone is bulshitting
Sorry, you are bullshitting again.....only you are bullshitting
period.

> because everyone will pretend to know everything even though they know nuts.
false premisises and worse illogical conclusions...
I am just saying:
You pretend to know even though you know nuts. Remember, I did not use
the group "everyone".
>
>...
>
>
>> >> So will try agian and explain why 3 possibilities and not 2 without
>> >> too much irrelevant info:
>> >> Secundary school statistics is used
>> >> The person you claim satifies beneath mentioned conditions.
>> >>
>> >> anti islam and an idiot....... 1
>> >> anti islam and not an idiot.....2
>> >>
>> >> not anti islam and an idiot.....3
>> >> anti islam and an idiot.........1 equal to the first.
>> >
>> >How about not-anti Islam and not an idiot?
>> Why don't you read what I wrote furtheron before you write without
>> analysing?
>> >
>> >How about pro-Islam, an idiot,
>> What about it? What are you trying to say her.
>> If you use use logic: the above statement not anti-islam means
>> pro-islam.
>
>It depends on the reference logic that you use.
>not-anti-islam can also mean neutral.
Yes, but that does not help you very much, mr. Illogic!
You cannot be anti-islam and neutral at the same time.

>
>You are right, if we only use binary logic as our basis, another aspect
>of granularity.
Sorry, you tend to invent words, but I will correct you!
There is not such thing as BINARY LOGIC, but I think you meant bolean
algebra.
However, to stick to the point, I did not use bolean algebra but
simple logic.
One just cannot be an idiot and not an idiot at the same time.
One cannot be described as anti-islam and neutral.

>
>> >pro-islam, not an idiot and so many other.
>> Many others: truely you are not very equipped with mathematics.
>> >
>> >How did I want to mention only 2 groupings of possibilities?
>> >
>> >(anti-islam or an idiot) or ( anti-islam and an idiot)
>> >
>> >The above is a perfectly correct logical equation, if you still
>> >remember your secondary school maths.
>> You really do not understand yourself, let alone me!
>
>Why? I do not understand what I'm writing about?
Try to understand there is no such thing is binary logic!
Try to understand there cannot be a condition that one is an idiot and
not an idiot, and pro-islam and anti-islam or for your part neutral.
Try to understand that, and if you do, try to understand that there
the 3 description you made of the person cannot be grouped to 2 with
producing nonsense.
If you understand that then you might understand me!
>
>...
>
>> >logical equations are logical.
>> ?? what are you talking about: do you know what I said?
>> All other combinations are not satisfied, because you mentioned ONLY 3
>> conditions!
>
>Why? Despite knowing and realising that there are infinite other
>possibilities.
Again, you are hurting yourself!
For the sake of argument let say there can be infinite (whatever you
want to say by that) the number is still greater than 2.
So mr. haji there is no way a grouping of the person you described as
anti islam or a idiot or both can result in 2.
>
>> Do you mengerti?
>
>Do you understand?
I do, understand you lack of understanding.
>
>...
>
>> >Actually mathematics allow you to group them whatever you like but
>> >results will show the nonsene of it all.
>> Exactly, you produces nonsense by combining i.e. which results in a
>> condition that a person can be an idiot and not an idiot.
>
>If there is not error in mathematical manipulation, then it must
>explain something.
It explains you are wrong all along!
>
>> That is what you did. Think about it.
>
>Why don't you think about it?
I did and I showed you exactly what I think:
again:
being an idiot, anti-islam or both just cannot be combined to 2
possibilities without producing nonsense.
Think about it.

>Mathematics is just a language and it never explains reality in
>totality.
whatever you say, but be aware you are not adding anything.
It may never explain reality in totality (????) but it is sufficicient
to say you are wrong!
>
>...
>
>> I know you chose to emphasize and be ignorant to a higher grain?
>> Again back to the point with irrelevant jargon!
>> You mentioned 3 possibilities a certain person in SCM can be.
>> an idiot, anti-islam or both.
>> You tried to combine them to 2 possibilities.
>
>To you it may not appear that anyone can be either an idiot or
>anti-islam, but reality is otherwise.
Now you are not bullshitting, but you are lying to evade the obvious.
You had better tell the truth and say, "Intruder! indeed no one can be
either an idiot and not an idiot or pro-islam or anti-islam (neutral
for you). I made a mistake.


>
>
>> You cannot because they would produce nonsense.
>> However, did not mention that the person could be an idiot an
>> pro-islam. This possibility did not not satisfy the person (as you
>> claimed) however, it describes you perfectly. No offence though!
>
>
>Actually it is implied.
Yes, it is? Don't you think?
>That is the relevance of the 2 groupings of
>possiblities.
>an idiot or anti-islam, can be an-idiot but pro-Islam, but still in
>this category of possiblity.
At last you are gaining insight and know what I am talking about!
EURAKA! You are now on good track.

I still do not see how can can group that person to only to
possibilities.
You mention 3 possible conditions:
1. anti-islam
2. an idiot
3. anti-islam AND an idiot

and you combined one: being an (idiot AND pro-islam) .....(4)
1 and 4 (anti and pro islam cannot be combined)
1 and 3 (......same)

so you still have 3 groupings which cannot be combined to 2.








>
>By grouping into these 2 possiblities, I cover many other possibilities
>that are yet to be mentioned specifically.
Still see 3 mr haji!

>
>
>...
>
>> Using jargon without understanding does not help you understand you
>> were wrong.
>
>Do you understand these jargons?
The question does not make it better for you!
>Usually people who do not understand,call them jargons,but those who
>understand, call them facts.
You understand these facts!
You understand elementary practises with combinations?
>Most probably it is you who do not understand these facts.
Let say I do not understand the bull***
the combination being an idiot and not an idiot produces.
Tell me!
>
>> Your three possibilities cannot be combined to 2 possibilities without
>> generating nonsense.
>
>You are devoid of any facts/jargons, so you are completely wrong.
Fact is: you cannot be an idiot and not an idiot at the same time.
The fact you either you ignore or do not understand.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> And again, I mention again, I do not understand your observation.
>> >
>> >Do you know what my observations are?
>> I know now... they are illogical and produce nonsense.
>
>This is not an observation, but a judgement.
That is right. It is a judgement made from observing you what you
write.
Like I said, an idiot cannot also be not an idiot.
someone pro-islam cannot be anti-islam
I observe how you evaded this discussion with thing you do not master
and indeed made my judgement.

>
>>
>> >If so, no wonder you don't understand.
>> I think I undertand your personality now.
>
>I always know about your personality. Are you female?
If you know my personality, why ask?

>
>> Thanks for responding anyway.
>No problem. Just for fun. Useful for my teaching profession as well.
Yes, what a world SCM is, I am glad it is not reality!
>
>
>> Selamat buka puasa!

.

Loading