but the prob is, that even maths contains conflicts between facts derived directly from axioms...
And brewbuck, I did not understand your questions, sorry
This is a discussion on Understanding formulas, shapes, algorithms etc within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; but the prob is, that even maths contains conflicts between facts derived directly from axioms... And brewbuck, I did not ...
but the prob is, that even maths contains conflicts between facts derived directly from axioms...
And brewbuck, I did not understand your questions, sorry
Programming is a form of art.
We are creating laws that work in certain circumstances... But possibly, not in all...
Programming is a form of art.
The 1/3 * s * h formula can be proven without calculus.
Consider the unit cube, with vertices (0,0,0), (0,0,1), through (1,1,1).
There are three faces that don't touch the origin. Connecting them to the origin forms three congruent cones (or pyramids, since they have square bases) with base area 1 and height 1 that fill up the volume of the cube.
Any other cones are formed by linear transformations and rearranging the bases' shapes. (The rearranging the bases' shapes part can be proven without going through all of calculus, too, but that depends on what your definition of 'area' and 'volume' are. And on how radically you're willing to rearrange bases' shapes.)
Last edited by Rashakil Fol; 04-16-2007 at 01:27 PM.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.
Can you give an example?
My question is about the quantifiable nature of reality. The only way we can really quantify anything is to measure it via some measuring apparatus. If the quantity being described is unmeasurable, can it really exist?And brewbuck, I did not understand your questions, sorry
The real question is, "What does it mean to measure something?"
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.
I hate proofs with a passion.
I think this is an example(though i am not sure, maybe my definitions are errenous).
Given a straight line and a point, there is only one line that goes through that point and is parallel to the other line. (I think this is one of the axioms...).
In case we are talking about a sphere, then there can be no such thing... (ofcourse, nothing is derived here). Actually, i don't know of any good examples about colliding derivations. And maybe I missed out a part of the definition...
Programming is a form of art.
Trying to apply such an axiom to the surface of a sphere is nonsensical. For one thing, you haven't defined "line" and "parallel" in the context of a sphere. A line on the surface of a sphere, when considered in a Euclidean space, isn't a line at all.
You see contradictions because the axioms have been (over) simplified.
very possible - i just need to recheck them
Programming is a form of art.
If you're doing geometry on the surface of a sphere, you're working with a different set of axioms. There's nothing contradicting, you're just working with a different set of axioms. That's like defining your own addition operator on the integers and saying there are conflicts in the axioms because what you've defined implies 2 + 2 = -4 while another definition of addition implies that 2 + 2 = 4.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.
yup, that axiom just doesn't work on a sphere.
Programming is a form of art.