The user "DeathUnlimited" (minus the quotation marks) was the starter of this thread
Last edited by petermassingale (2007-02-24 13:09:58)
According to us humans and what we believe in...numbers are infinite. This has yet to be proven wrong.
And please, do not try and prove it wrong by a gramatical error or a way I have written this fact. Because then you are not disproving the fact, but the person who wrote the fact on these forums because of an error that has nothing to do with the fact itself.
And please, do not try and prove it wrong by a gramatical error or a way I have written this fact. Because then you are not disproving the fact, but the person who wrote the fact on these forums because of an error that has nothing to do with the fact itself.
You should write a book disproving Wittgenstein. Now that would be funny.DeathUnlimited wrote:
oug wrote:
The world is not all that is the case. the case is this.Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote:
1. The world is all that is the case.The world is a totality of things. Landscape, rocks, trees, houses etc. are not facts, They're things, not factsLudwig Wittgenstein wrote:
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.No. the things/facts are determined by the worldLudwig Wittgenstein wrote:
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.the case is already introduced by images.google.com.Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote:
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.The things, not facts!Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote:
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.booooooooooooringLudwig Wittgenstein wrote:
1.2 The world divides into facts.you can't put anything in a case, For example the case itselfLudwig Wittgenstein wrote:
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.
Disprove this.
ƒ³
Space is infinite!
Melt for making the finest rock wool requires a viscosity of 80 using a model H spinning machine!!!!!
Global warming.
communism is a party
Bf2s.com was created by Jeff Minard.
I just realized, a lot of the 'disproofs' here are not exactly disproofs but rather supporters of outside proofs, that don't explicitly disprove anything, rather just add a better candidate in an effort to implicitly push out the first statement, while most of the time both situations can be effectively true.
my surname is not fandangonizerhowzingstrumple
Not sure wehter this one has been done but Dell make/design/produce terrible computers and/or stuff
No it was the person behind the nick DeathUnlimited. (=me)petermassingale wrote:
The user "DeathUnlimited" (minus the quotation marks) was the starter of this thread
The biggest number is this: ∞Zimmer wrote:
According to us humans and what we believe in...numbers are infinite.
If we have the biggest number, the numbers aren't infinite to us.
Probably funny to read, but hard work to write...oug wrote:
You should write a book disproving Wittgenstein. Now that would be funny.
Done already, but shortly: Nothing can move faster than light, the space being infinite would require it move faster than light.[=][=]DADDYOFDEATH wrote:
Space is infinite!
the optimal viscosity depends very much on the chemical composition of the melt. 80 isn't always the best.Ubersturmbannfuhrer wrote:
Melt for making the finest rock wool requires a viscosity of 80 using a model H spinning machine!!!!!
http://www.inderscience.com/storage/f14 … 283759.pdf
CommieChipmunk wrote:
Global warming.
~1º of temperature rise in a decade is very normal. The whole "global warming" theory is a way to make ppl afraid.
Communism is an ideology. nothing even close to a party.surgeon_bond wrote:
communism is a party
bf2s is created using PunBB which is created by Rickard Andersson. Jeff gathered the PunBB code to make a working site, he didn't really create anything.Darkhelmet wrote:
Bf2s.com was created by Jeff Minard.
You really thought this could be possible by using exact disproofs?? this thread is based on impertinentality.Coolbeano wrote:
I just realized, a lot of the 'disproofs' here are not exactly disproofs but rather supporters of outside proofs, that don't explicitly disprove anything, rather just add a better candidate in an effort to implicitly push out the first statement, while most of the time both situations can be effectively true.
your forum surname seems to be "Raven"<<<FTDM>>>Gen.Raven wrote:
my surname is not fandangonizerhowzingstrumple
fandangonizerhowzingstrumple - gstrumplzihongonizefand = arwne = Rawen ~ Raven
A succesful computer company that makes terrible products? not possible. there must be something good in their products so that people buy them.Pea....Tear.....Griffen wrote:
Dell make/design/produce terrible computers and/or stuff
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
That must be the best yet...DeathUnlimited wrote:
your forum surname seems to be "Raven"<<<FTDM>>>Gen.Raven wrote:
my surname is not fandangonizerhowzingstrumple
fandangonizerhowzingstrumple - gstrumplzihongonizefand = arwne = Rawen ~ Raven
You registered with BF2s On the 17th of August 2006
Now prove that wrong
Now prove that wrong
DeathUnlimited, you are right, prove me wrong;)
Sorry to ruin your fun but... No I didn't.Kurazoo wrote:
You registered with BF2s On the 17th of August 2006
Now prove that wrong
You should have directed that question to DUUser Activity wrote:
Registered: 2006-08-12
Fourier Transform are formulas in advanced mathematics.
Def of Fourier Transform
-f(x) = 1/(2) g(t) e^(i tx) dt
Inverse Identity of Fourier Transform
-g(x) = 1/(2) f(t) e^(-i TX) DT
Fourier Sine and Cosine Transforms
Def of the Transforms
-f(x) = (2/) g(x) cos(xt) DT (Cosine Transform)
-f(x) = (2/) g(x) sin(XT) DT (Sine Transform)
Identities of the Transforms
IF f(x) is even, THEN FourierSineTransform( FourierSineTransform(f(x)) ) = f(x)
IF f(x) is odd, THEN FourierCosineTransform( FourierCosineTransform(f(x)) ) = f(x)
Prove it to be wrong or inconsistent.
Def of Fourier Transform
-f(x) = 1/(2) g(t) e^(i tx) dt
Inverse Identity of Fourier Transform
-g(x) = 1/(2) f(t) e^(-i TX) DT
Fourier Sine and Cosine Transforms
Def of the Transforms
-f(x) = (2/) g(x) cos(xt) DT (Cosine Transform)
-f(x) = (2/) g(x) sin(XT) DT (Sine Transform)
Identities of the Transforms
IF f(x) is even, THEN FourierSineTransform( FourierSineTransform(f(x)) ) = f(x)
IF f(x) is odd, THEN FourierCosineTransform( FourierCosineTransform(f(x)) ) = f(x)
Prove it to be wrong or inconsistent.
That is not a number, that is a synbol for an never ending number, which means that numbers are still infinite yet we can represent "infinite" with a symbol. You still have not dissproved me, because numbers are still infinite to us, no matter how much you know that symbol, as it does not represent any SPECIFIC number, meaning we could go on and on and never find a finite ending number.DeathUnlimited wrote:
The biggest number is this: ∞Zimmer wrote:
According to us humans and what we believe in...numbers are infinite.
If we have the biggest number, the numbers aren't infinite to us.
∞ it not a number its a symbol that means infinity
like zimmer wrote
new one for you: bf2s has a large community
like zimmer wrote
new one for you: bf2s has a large community
Last edited by kn0ckahh (2007-02-25 06:28:22)
Ha, thats easy, Ill do this one - Its circumstantial, and so, I define large as being 100 Million +, therefore, BF2s does not have a large community.kn0ckahh wrote:
∞ it not a number its a symbol that means infinity
like zimmer wrote
new one for you: bf2s has a large community
I am not always right. If I say each monkey has 1542535214 eyes, I am not right.junipertree wrote:
DeathUnlimited, you are right, prove me wrong;)
Too bad...--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
Fourier Transform are formulas in advanced mathematics.
Def of Fourier Transform
-f(x) = 1/(2) g(t) e^(i tx) dt
Inverse Identity of Fourier Transform
-g(x) = 1/(2) f(t) e^(-i TX) DT
Fourier Sine and Cosine Transforms
Def of the Transforms
-f(x) = (2/) g(x) cos(xt) DT (Cosine Transform)
-f(x) = (2/) g(x) sin(XT) DT (Sine Transform)
Identities of the Transforms
IF f(x) is even, THEN FourierSineTransform( FourierSineTransform(f(x)) ) = f(x)
IF f(x) is odd, THEN FourierCosineTransform( FourierCosineTransform(f(x)) ) = f(x)
Prove it to be wrong or inconsistent.
let's try a different approach: We only have 10 numbers anyway: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.Zimmer wrote:
That is not a number, that is a synbol for an never ending number, which means that numbers are still infinite yet we can represent "infinite" with a symbol. You still have not dissproved me, because numbers are still infinite to us, no matter how much you know that symbol, as it does not represent any SPECIFIC number, meaning we could go on and on and never find a finite ending number.
Just what I was about to answer, ty SarrkSarrk wrote:
Ha, thats easy, Ill do this one - Its circumstantial, and so, I define large as being 100 Million +, therefore, BF2s does not have a large community.kn0ckahh wrote:
new one for you: bf2s has a large community
Last edited by DeathUnlimited (2007-02-25 06:38:35)
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
DeathUnlimited is Brigadier General JuRtIkKa in BF2142. DeathUnlimited lives in Finland. Most humans exept for deformities or decapitations have 2 arms 2 legs and 2 eyes. Prove those wrong.
Yet again, you try to show me that there are only 10 symbols for numbers.DeathUnlimited wrote:
let's try a different approach: We only have 10 numbers anyway: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.Zimmer wrote:
That is not a number, that is a synbol for an never ending number, which means that numbers are still infinite yet we can represent "infinite" with a symbol. You still have not dissproved me, because numbers are still infinite to us, no matter how much you know that symbol, as it does not represent any SPECIFIC number, meaning we could go on and on and never find a finite ending number.
But 23 is STILL a number, so your claim in the fact that there are 10 SYMBOLS for the numbers we make up is useless. Because I could just as easily say.
Zero,One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine.
We are representing numbers with symbols, that stull does not mean there are only ten. You are approaching it as if I am talking about symbols, or the amount of numbers in the human alphabet.
Bullshit.
My statement is the fact there there are an infinite numbers ( not symbols ) in the universe.
The person behind those nicks is the same, nicks aren't the same.[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:
DeathUnlimited is Brigadier General JuRtIkKa in BF2142.
The person behind the nick DeathUnlimited lives in Finland[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:
DeathUnlimited lives in Finland.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=56399[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:
Most humans exept for deformities or decapitations have 2 arms 2 legs and 2 eyes.
k you wonZimmer wrote:
Yet again, you try to show me that there are only 10 symbols for numbers.
But 23 is STILL a number, so your claim in the fact that there are 10 SYMBOLS for the numbers we make up is useless. Because I could just as easily say.
Zero,One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine.
We are representing numbers with symbols, that stull does not mean there are only ten. You are approaching it as if I am talking about symbols, or the amount of numbers in the human alphabet.
Bullshit.
My statement is the fact there there are an infinite numbers ( not symbols ) in the universe.
most ppl don't keep arguing after my first try, so I win most cases, I have nothing to add in this case
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
I always win, unless I am playing BF2 and I am carrying a knife.