Michael

Can you show me a mathematician who has questioned rational numbers like \frac{1}{9}?

Trump shares video of 'great people' shouting 'white power' at protesters But totally not a racist, right?

This doesn't answer my question. Do you think that mathematicians are aware that "the axioms are full of inconsistencies and contradictions. A lot of ...

You didn't really answer the question though. Do you believe that generations of mathematicians are aware of this, and yet for some reason continue to...

Neither is Trump apparently. Donald Trump Says Joe Biden Is 'Going to Be Your President' Because 'Some People Don't Love Me, Maybe'

We know that there isn't. I don't know why you think that you know more about maths than generations of professional mathematicians. With everything y...

It's my playlist. All the best songs that play at the nightclub I used to go to.

If you donate I'll tell you.

There's a remainder in my example: 1\div2=0.5\\0.5\times2=1 I don't understand why this is a problem. 1\div9=0.\overline{1}\\0.\overline{1}\times9=1 A...

I think because it doesn't explain what is meant by 0.111...

0.999... = 1, so you do get 1 by multiplying 0.111... by 9. 0.111...=\frac{1}{9}\\\frac{1}{9}\times9=\frac{9}{9}=1

1\div2=0.5 0.5\times2=1 What's the problem?

Nonsense can't be understood, that's why it's nonsense.

I haven't understand your arguments because they are nonsense as shown here and here.

I can safely say that Cantor and Euclid know more about maths than you do. Otherwise you would be publishing your ground-breaking thesis right now, no...

You can ignore what I said. I'm replying to you whilst watching TV and wasn't concentrating.

Right, got it. You're a kook. I wish you'd started with this.

So when Sleepy Joe Biden and his running mate Crooked Hillary cheat to win the 2020 election they can appoint Barack Osama Bin Laden as Attorney Gener...

I'm not introducing additional evidence. I'm stating the known fact that there is a 50% chance that the coin will land heads and a 50% chance that the...

Not in this case. Evidence C shows that there is a 100% chance that there is only 1 shooter. Yes, and I'm also saying: Evidence A shows that there is ...

It isn't fine. If Mary is the shooter then John isn't the shooter, so if there is a 75% chance that Mary is the shooter then there is a 75% chance tha...

I've gone over this before. If there's a 25% chance that he's guilty given the first evidence then there's a 75% chance that he's innocent given the f...

I really don't know how to explain this to you more simply than I already have. Look at steps 2 and 3: - Say we roll the die 100 times. - 20 times it ...

If the dice lands on a 10 20% of the time because it's weighted then the probability that the dice will land on a 10 when it's rolled is 20%. Because ...

And I asked you to explain what you mean by there being an additional 20% chance of it landing a 10. The only coherent interpretations of this are 10 ...

No, you don't. If a die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10 because it's weighted then the die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10. Just wow.

Excuse my French, but what the fuck? Honestly, if the above is your reasoning then you're beyond reasoning with.

What do you mean by "an additional 20% chance"? Do you mean that there's a (10 + 20) = 30% chance or that there's a (10 * 1.2) = 12% chance? Because w...

This honestly is one of the craziest things I've heard on here. Your evidence is just: 1. 50% of people who are charged with murder are found guilty 2...

How do you know this? Or are you saying that 90% of people up for trial are found guilty? Because that's not the same thing. In fact your reasoning wi...

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that in the above scenario there is a 75% chance that the defendant is guilty of murder? Your evidence i...

Now that've you've answered my previous question, let's consider a real example. We start from your initial distribution of 50% probability of guilt. ...

I'm multiplying the evidence of guilt given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second pie...

Before we continue, clarify something for me. If the initial distribution is 60% chance he is guilty, which of these is correct: 1. 60% guilty + 40% i...

Tell me what you think it means for evidence to imply a 50% chance that someone is guilty. Thank God you're not a juror. This is crazy.

So why doesn't the first piece of evidence (the finger prints on the knife) replace the initial, uninformed probability of 50% guilt based on lack of ...

It's exactly related to your calculation: In my example the initial distribution is 90% the dice roll is > 1 and 10% the dice roll = 1 and the first p...

We roll a 10-sided dice. If it rolls a 1 or a 2 I will place a red ball in a box. Before you check the box you consider that the initial probability t...

So are you saying that in a world without God then we can't have moral obligation?

I'm not saying that the evidence increases the chances of him being innocent. I'm saying that your method entails this. This is why your method doesn'...

So when we talk about morality/being obligated to do/not do something, we're just talking about hypothetical imperatives with a goal to better the gro...

Uh, yes? Guilt and innocence are a dichotomy. If something shows 50% chance of guilt then ipso facto it shows 50% chance of not-guilt, i.e. innocence.

Then read my previous post because I showed you. The math that leads to the conclusion that there is a 75% chance of guilt also leads to the conclusio...

Then either we have lots of misleading evidence or you should revise the probability that the evidence suggests guilt. I've already pointed out that y...

This calculation makes no sense. Let's say that the first piece of evidence says that he is 50% likely to be guilty. We don't then say 50% guilty + 50...

I think this is the fundamental problem of morality. One of these must be true: 1. That something is evil just is that one ought not do it, in which c...

Yes, it must, which is why your calculation in 5) is wrong. If the first piece of evidence means he's 75% likely to be guilty then he's 75% likely to ...

If 4) means that it is 75% likely he is guilty then it means that it is 25% likely that he is innocent. If we then use your logic in 5) we have 50% gu...

How would we approach it then? We look at what John says about morality and we look at what Mary says about morality, recognise that they're incompati...

3) would seem to suggest that meta-ethics is a wasted endeavour. There is no one correct answer to what it means to be moral as we don't all mean the ...