Announcement

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6099|Cambridge (UK)

psychotoxic187 wrote:

If you think building a structure is the same as slapping leaves and sticks together, you really are ignorant. You CANNOT build a structural building without math, it's impossible. How would you know if the material you are using can support what you're building? Guess what, you need math for that. How tall will it be? How wide? Guess what math AGAIN.
Trial and error. Experience. Experimentation.

That's how.

I build a house out of sticks. It blows away.

I build a house out of mud. It doesn't blow away.

I didn't need any understanding of math to realise that mud is a better building material than sticks.

As to how big you make it - you make it big enough. How do you know it's big enough - when it's not too small.

These things do not require math.
psychotoxic187
Member
+11|6042

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

psychotoxic187 wrote:

If you think building a structure is the same as slapping leaves and sticks together, you really are ignorant. You CANNOT build a structural building without math, it's impossible. How would you know if the material you are using can support what you're building? Guess what, you need math for that. How tall will it be? How wide? Guess what math AGAIN.
Trial and error. Experience. Experimentation.

That's how.

I build a house out of sticks. It blows away.

I build a house out of mud. It doesn't blow away.

I didn't need any understanding of math to realise that mud is a better building material than sticks.

As to how big you make it - you make it big enough. How do you know it's big enough - when it's not too small.

These things do not require math.
You said a space station. You are also comparing small shelters to buildings made from structural steel. Get real, you cannot build a structurally sound building without math.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6099|Cambridge (UK)

psychotoxic187 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

psychotoxic187 wrote:

If you think building a structure is the same as slapping leaves and sticks together, you really are ignorant. You CANNOT build a structural building without math, it's impossible. How would you know if the material you are using can support what you're building? Guess what, you need math for that. How tall will it be? How wide? Guess what math AGAIN.
Trial and error. Experience. Experimentation.

That's how.

I build a house out of sticks. It blows away.

I build a house out of mud. It doesn't blow away.

I didn't need any understanding of math to realise that mud is a better building material than sticks.

As to how big you make it - you make it big enough. How do you know it's big enough - when it's not too small.

These things do not require math.
You said a space station. You are also comparing small shelters to buildings made from structural steel. Get real, you cannot build a structurally sound building without math.
Yes. Space station. Structurally sound building. The World Trade Center. Anything.

Would you agree that bones are incredibly structurally sound?
Did mother nature sit down with her calculator and figure out how to build a bone?

No.

Bones evolved, through a process of trial and error.

We could build everything we have now, everything we ever going to have, and more, all through the process of trial and error, keeping those things that work and abandoning those things that don't.

Engineering may be a more efficient way of doing it, but that doesn't mean it is the only way.
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|5796|meh-land
you could, but you'd make the note that things that are a certain size are better for one job, and you take note that it takes a certain number of things to make a building, etc


it will involve the usage of mathematics eventually
psychotoxic187
Member
+11|6042

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

psychotoxic187 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Trial and error. Experience. Experimentation.

That's how.

I build a house out of sticks. It blows away.

I build a house out of mud. It doesn't blow away.

I didn't need any understanding of math to realise that mud is a better building material than sticks.

As to how big you make it - you make it big enough. How do you know it's big enough - when it's not too small.

These things do not require math.
You said a space station. You are also comparing small shelters to buildings made from structural steel. Get real, you cannot build a structurally sound building without math.
Yes. Space station. Structurally sound building. The World Trade Center. Anything.

Would you agree that bones are incredibly structurally sound?
Did mother nature sit down with her calculator and figure out how to build a bone?

No.

Bones evolved, through a process of trial and error.

We could build everything we have now, everything we ever going to have, and more, all through the process of trial and error, keeping those things that work and abandoning those things that don't.

Engineering may be a more efficient way of doing it, but that doesn't mean it is the only way.
You bet your ass mother nature used math. It's called DNA, and RNA.

Also, steel does not evolve. Neither would a building just evolve into what you want it to be.

Last edited by psychotoxic187 (2007-03-19 03:12:05)

.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6162

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

psychotoxic187 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:


Trial and error. Experience. Experimentation.

That's how.

I build a house out of sticks. It blows away.

I build a house out of mud. It doesn't blow away.

I didn't need any understanding of math to realise that mud is a better building material than sticks.

As to how big you make it - you make it big enough. How do you know it's big enough - when it's not too small.

These things do not require math.
You said a space station. You are also comparing small shelters to buildings made from structural steel. Get real, you cannot build a structurally sound building without math.
Yes. Space station. Structurally sound building. The World Trade Center. Anything.

Would you agree that bones are incredibly structurally sound?
Did mother nature sit down with her calculator and figure out how to build a bone?

No.

Bones evolved, through a process of trial and error.

We could build everything we have now, everything we ever going to have, and more, all through the process of trial and error, keeping those things that work and abandoning those things that don't.

Engineering may be a more efficient way of doing it, but that doesn't mean it is the only way.
so we'd have to wait a few hundred million years to make a space station?!
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6054|Sydney, Australia
I find it rather amusing that one should actually argue the maths is unimportant. From maths we have gotten sciences - for they (especially physics) are applying maths in 'the real world'.

Can you imagine a world without science? Without the advantages that it brings?



Meh, I'll do a more 'long winded' answer tomorrow...

Mcminty.
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|5973|Your moms bedroom
reading before i post

ahh screw it, it would just be pointless to try and argue with someone who thought math wasnt important
seeings how they are typing on a computer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_computer

Last edited by Locoloki (2007-03-19 05:33:33)

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6099|Cambridge (UK)

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

so we'd have to wait a few hundred million years to make a space station?!
Yes, as I said, engineering is more efficient, but that does mean it's the only way.

psychotoxic187 wrote:

...steel does not evolve. Neither would a building just evolve into what you want it to be.
Did I say that steel or a single building does evolve? No I did not.

We, as individuals, are not evolving. We, as a species, are. Again, this is quite a simple but fundamental difference.

Actually, you know what, I can't be arsed to continue with this. It's clear that some of you just can't grasp the difference between 'reality' and 'ideas' or between 'what is' and 'what could be'. Without a grasp of such fundamentals, continuing this discussion is pointless.
Canadian_Sniper_X
Member
+45|5822|Kamloops, BC Canada
I think some people just don't get the point.

If humans could not understand any form of math then we would be one of the dumbest creatures on earth, therefore humans would probably not exist.

You might say that well there are a lot of dumb creatures out there that are still around. But the thing is that they are tiny don't die easily.

Humans would be the equivalent of 5 foot slugs. We would get eaten and we would not be able to do anything about it.

Are you saying a deer could evolve a space station? because if they couldn't we can't.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6099|Cambridge (UK)

Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:

I think some people just don't get the point.

If humans could not understand any form of math then we would be one of the dumbest creatures on earth, therefore humans would probably not exist.

You might say that well there are a lot of dumb creatures out there that are still around. But the thing is that they are tiny don't die easily.

Humans would be the equivalent of 5 foot slugs. We would get eaten and we would not be able to do anything about it.

Are you saying a deer could evolve a space station? because if they couldn't we can't.
Many primitive languages had no words for numbers and no concept of quantity. The ancient egyptians, IIRC (and I could be wrong on the details here, but I can't be arsed to check my facts) only had about a dozen numbers - 1 thru 5 and 'many'.

Were the beings that used those languages not humans?
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6099|UK
As ive already said, read how long is a piece of string, it shows how maths applies to everything, nature uses maths in vast amounts.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6099|Cambridge (UK)
No. Maths applies to everything in nature. Not the other way round. Nature is nature. Math is an artificial language that we created to describe nature.
EVieira
Member
+105|5811|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:

My co-worker claims that math is unimportant for our existence... and that everything we have now could eventually have been obtained/created/invented without math. (He's a philosophy guy)
Ask your co-worker for example of things that could be obtained/created/invented without math. I really wonder what this genius will come up with...
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
heggs
Spamalamadingdong
+581|5721|New York
We can live without math, we have well before it was discovered. In this day in age when we have very impressive technology? Absolutely not. Just about everything is based off of calculus and other advanced mathematics in one way or another. ie Cd's spin at variable speeds inside your disc drive, this is a calculus application to determine the spin speeds, and how they must change over the course of time to properly read data.

Scorpion is correct. We use math and science to model nature. This is our concrete way to figure out exactly what is going on. Things will happen whether we understand them or not, it's a matter of if we can figure out what is going on, and our ability to utilize that information in different ways. This is the basis of engineering and applied sciences. Science and math figures out what is going on, engineering and applied science figures out how to utilize that in constructive ways for humans.
Remember Me As A Time Of Day
Canadian_Sniper_X
Member
+45|5822|Kamloops, BC Canada

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

1 thru 5
Thanks for supporting my argument. Seeing as 1 through 5 are numbers. Hence used to describe quantity.



also...


Yes math was is a creation. But when we are born we are born with the ability to understand quantity. (It's created within ourselves when we are born)

If you were born without that, then you are not a human.

Even if ancient cultures had different ways to describe quantity, THEY STILL UNDERSTOOD QUANTITY.

I seriously think people are arguing with me because they want to and not because they believe what they are arguing about.
EVieira
Member
+105|5811|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Trial and error. Experience. Experimentation.

That's how.

I build a house out of sticks. It blows away.

I build a house out of mud. It doesn't blow away.

I didn't need any understanding of math to realise that mud is a better building material than sticks.

As to how big you make it - you make it big enough. How do you know it's big enough - when it's not too small.

These things do not require math.
Oh... My... God...

Do you have the minimal, slightest, tiniest, concept of all the math that it takes just to build the computer you are using?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6099|Cambridge (UK)
Right. I'm not continuing with this pointless drivel. Some of you just need to learn to READ WHAT IT IS THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY WRITTEN, NOT WHAT YOU THINK THEY HAVE WRITTEN. The is called comprehension. Please learn some.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard