Anyone who can catch a ball can do differential calculus, just the intuitive way.>> ^StukaFox:

Yay, Border Collies, the only dogs who can do differential calculus!

Yay, Border Collies, the only dogs who can do differential calculus!

>> ^VoodooV:

LOL!!! you're comparing this topic to the actual work that engineers and physicists do? That is hilarious. Yes, I'm sure the engineering world has much to thank the awesome ability of arguing on a message board over what .999... is equal to.
This has nothing to do with calculus. This has nothing to do with actual practical work. This has nothing to do with solving actual problems. This is about going onto a internet message board and browbeating others which has already happened as I predicted.
Before you start insulting the education of someone else, make sure YOU'RE not making any mistakes of YOUR own, eh?
Sorry I can't stay and "debate" with you on this truly fascinating topic. I have to go to my job tomorrow and do REAL work and solve ACTUAL problems. Sure it's not as grand and as thought-provoking as comparing .999... to 1, nor do I get to beat up on some hapless internet newb who happens to take the troll-bait. But hey, we have to get our satisfaction somehow.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^VoodooV:
So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?
This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.
You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.
This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.

This simple concept is one of the fundamental principles of calculus. Without it you don't have engineering, physics, or a million other things known as the modern world. It's not some obscure irrelevant math trivia only used by math geeks. It is a fundamental first year mathematics principle used by every scientist, engineer, and pharmacist in the work they do every day to make all the things you take for granted.
But yeah, just because your not educated enough to appreciate that you should rag all over it and insist it's unimportant. We should burn all the books you don't care for too, right?



Get over yourself. The video isn't supposed to start any kind of fight or internet debate. It's a simply instructive video about basic math.

If you want to be upset with anyone for starting an internet fight over something you consider unimportant blame the first poster in the thread that tried to turn it that way...

Oh, I see, it was you...

LOL!!! you're comparing this topic to the actual work that engineers and physicists do? That is hilarious. Yes, I'm sure the engineering world has much to thank the awesome ability of arguing on a message board over what .999... is equal to.

This has nothing to do with calculus. This has nothing to do with actual practical work. This has nothing to do with solving actual problems. This is about going onto a internet message board and browbeating others which has already happened as I predicted.

Before you start insulting the education of someone else, make sure YOU'RE not making any mistakes of YOUR own, eh?

Sorry I can't stay and "debate" with you on this truly fascinating topic. I have to go to my job tomorrow and do REAL work and solve ACTUAL problems. Sure it's not as grand and as thought-provoking as comparing .999... to 1, nor do I get to beat up on some hapless internet newb who happens to take the troll-bait. But hey, we have to get our satisfaction somehow.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^VoodooV:
So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?
This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.
You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.
This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.

This simple concept is one of the fundamental principles of calculus. Without it you don't have engineering, physics, or a million other things known as the modern world. It's not some obscure irrelevant math trivia only used by math geeks. It is a fundamental first year mathematics principle used by every scientist, engineer, and pharmacist in the work they do every day to make all the things you take for granted.
But yeah, just because your not educated enough to appreciate that you should rag all over it and insist it's unimportant. We should burn all the books you don't care for too, right?

>> ^VoodooV:

So enlighten me, o' wise ones. What is the point of this other than troll-bait and/or ego masturbation?
This topic is the intellectual equivalent of QM coming in here and making ad-homs about "His Earness" or waxing egocentric about why he is virtuous and true and the rest of us are all immoral entitlement whores.
You saw how quickly messenger called into question the entire sift's intelligence over Entropy's post.
This sort of thing does not lend itself well to civil discourse. Admit it, the only purpose of a topic such as this is to entice someone to come in here and to argue that .999... is not 1 so you can have a grand ole time stroking your ego and patting yourself on the back over how smart you are and how the other person is dumb.


This simple concept is one of the fundamental principles of calculus. Without it you don't have engineering, physics, or a million other things known as the modern world. It's not some obscure irrelevant math trivia only used by math geeks. It is a fundamental first year mathematics principle used by every scientist, engineer, and pharmacist in the work they do every day to make all the things you take for granted.

But yeah, just because your not educated enough to appreciate that you should rag all over it and insist it's unimportant. We should burn all the books you don't care for too, right?

I don't know why messenger sifted this, but as someone who gets paid to think about math, there are several features of this video that struck me as unusually worthwhile. Here are the two unusual points that I saw here:

1) Math is whatever we define it to be. The test of a new idea is whether it is self-consistent and whether it solves a problem that someone else is interested in. This is a good message for anyone who comes up against difficult abstract problems in their life.

2) To argue about a certain set of objects, you need to work within the framework of a theory that defines those objects. Specifically, to argue about infinite decimals, you need to work within the machinery of calculus. Hidden assumptions often make a true argument incomplete, or a plausible argument vacuous. We waste so many hours in heated arguments that are just a disagreement on definitions or assumptions.

You're right on two counts: first, I did think you were arguing against the point made; and second I shouldn't have insulted you. Sorry 'bout that.

FWIW, I dropped out of high school after grade 11, I have no college math except what I've been teaching myself recently, and I used none of it when I figured this out for myself. Everything Vi uses in her vids is high school or even grade school math, and if you trust yourself to do arithmetic, then this proof is accessible. She doesn't even hint that the idea of "limits" from calculus gives a quick solution to her 9th reason, the sum of an infinite series.

Anyway, I'm happy to see then that my original prediction has held so far, and nobody here is starting a stupid argument about their feelings about whether this is true.>> ^entr0py:

No reason to be quite that much of a jerk about it. Not everyone has had as much college level math as you. And presumably her videos are about teaching people who don't already know everything she does.
But if you thought I was making an argument against the idea, you're wrong. Vihart presents it very convincingly. I was just trying to think of the implications.
Honestly after watching that video late at night I could no longer wrap my head around inequalities like X < 1. I used to think that meant X could be a number infinitely close to one, but that doesn't work because infinitely close to one is one (most of the video is about explaining why this is true). So, what is the highest possible number that satisfies X < 1? It seems there might be no sensible way of expressing that boundary, and thinking about it just puts you into a spiral of non-working logic exactly like Zeno's paradoxes. Looking back, at 1:23 she mentions what I'm talking about, but doesn't go into it.
Ultimately, she finds this interesting enough to talk about for 10 minutes, and we find it interesting enough to watch. So why should it evoke rage and insults when there's a chance we might talk about it amongst ourselves?

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^messenger:
I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:
As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.

>> ^Jinx:
Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.


Yeah, I think you're right. Mathmatics is the language of Science. People are turned off by seeing equations with wierd triangles in them, and letters with subscript 1s and 0s when its really just shorthand for things they already understand. I think it would be possible to describe almost all the contents of this video in plain english with simple maths, but it wouldn't be nearly as concise or precise.
Basically. I watched this video because my 16yr old sister has been doing relativity in school and I thought she might find it useful. After watching for about a minute I realised she wouldn't get any of it.


I'm doing physics at a master's level right now, i understood the video because i already understood the physics, however the maths explanations were too fast and confusing for me to even relate to the maths that i already know must appear! It's only when i saw it on a huge screen of formulae that i strung it all together.

As for your sister; that's why i mentioned the text book. This is degree level stuff, and anyone understanding it either already knows it or would get far more from a textbook anyway. Tipler 6th edition for example explains this in less time (!) and better.

It's just a bad presentation, but i knew it would get 10 votes and i'm happy to see you lose your p. (to bloodscourge that is, ofc)

>> ^messenger:

I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:
As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.

>> ^Jinx:
Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.


Yeah, I think you're right. Mathmatics is the language of Science. People are turned off by seeing equations with wierd triangles in them, and letters with subscript 1s and 0s when its really just shorthand for things they already understand. I think it would be possible to describe almost all the contents of this video in plain english with simple maths, but it wouldn't be nearly as concise or precise.

Basically. I watched this video because my 16yr old sister has been doing relativity in school and I thought she might find it useful. After watching for about a minute I realised she wouldn't get any of it.

I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:

As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.


>> ^Jinx:

Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.

Ta-Nehisi Coates says it well:

All parties agree that Ron Paul is not, personally, racist and that he didn't write the passages. This is comforting. I am not an anti-Semite. But give me a check to tell Harlem the Jews invented AIDS, and I'll do it.

As I've said before, we all must make our calculus in supporting a candidate or even claiming he is "good" for the debate. But it must be an honest calculus.

If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.

What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?


First off, I agree it's clear there's value to this question. I think a logical, utilitarian ethical calculus has to rely on some definition of a "live human" and a "future live human" (not "could be" but "will be"). I think, going by a materialist view, this definition of life has to itself be based on some definition of "being human" involving capacity for thought or reason. And I think it also can't rationally be binary (not live human/live human); there has to be weighting (almost dead guy, 12 week-old fetus, guy in coma, etc... should probably all be partially weighted).

But humans aren't rational utilitarians when it comes to ethics. We're superstitious. We're habituated to rely on deontology. We value aesthetics.

And that's why debates like this take place is terms of analogies and emotions. And that's why, I think, you aren't putting down your simple answer for "when does life begin" - because we understand that having a single answer gets a whole deontological train moving. If we take any single answer there as a premise, we're driven to accept other answers we don't like, so instead it's arguing in the margins and specific cases.

It's a deadlock inherent in our irrationally based ethical system. Sorry.

Actually I don't think the issue of representation is critical here. I think it's very easy to point out where Ariane went wrong:

"What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity."

That's our intuition, but it's wrong. That's why this thought experiment is interesting. The likelihood is perhaps 1 in 10^10000000, but it is very much not "about 1 in infinity".


>> ^Sotto_Voce:

>> ^Ariane:
Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.
So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.
So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.

You're using the wrong probability distribution. If we do what you suggest and convert each possible string of characters into a binary number, then the monkey experiment will not give us a uniform distribution over the binary numbers. It won't be like a random number generator. The monkey experiment gives us a uniform distribution over individual characters, and this does not translate into a uniform distribution over strings. As an example, consider the string "ee" vs. the string corresponding to Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".

>> ^Ariane:

Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.
So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.
So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.


You're using the wrong probability distribution. If we do what you suggest and convert each possible string of characters into a binary number, then the monkey experiment will not give us a uniform distribution over the binary numbers. It won't be like a random number generator. The monkey experiment gives us a uniform distribution over individual characters, and this does not translate into a uniform distribution over strings. As an example, consider the string "ee" vs. the string corresponding to Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".

Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.

So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.

So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.