It was rainy and cold for the first
part of Memorial Day weekend so I took the opportunity to rent a few
movies that were recommended to me. Yes, believe it or not we
actually have a video store near where I live. I know, I know, I too
thought they had gone the way of the Dodo, but this one opened up a
couple of years ago and I have enjoyed browsing in the brick and
mortar environment again. Anyway, as you can probably tell, this is
going to be another movie post. Well, it is Saturday night after
all.
I enjoyed all of the movies, but the
one that stands out for me was “Trumbo”. Bryan Cranston plays
Dalton Trumbo, one of the screenwriters who were subpoenaed to testify in 1947
before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). This committee was
looking into those who were members of the Communist party, which
included Dalton Trumbo. What Trumbo and 9 others did was refuse to
testify on the basis that Congress had no right to question anyone's
party affiliation. Trumbo and the others were charged with contempt
of Congress and sent to prison. But perhaps just as bad was the
reaction of Hollywood. The Hollywood Ten were subsequently
blacklisted by the Hollywood studios and weren't allowed to work in
the film industry. At least not openly. But they did eventually
work with the help of various people in the industry. So this is the
story of a group of people who refused to be intimidated, who,
despite what people may have thought of their beliefs, stood up for
something that is integral to what we believe our country to be.
In this election year perhaps we should
try to look more closely at what being an American should mean.
One of my favorite scenes, and whoever uploaded it cut if off. *sigh*
If
you haven't seen the movie, do. You won't be disappointed.
274 comments:
1 – 200 of 274 Newer› Newest»"Bryan Cranston plays Dalton Trumbo…"
I have trouble visualizing him as Dalton Trumbo.
I saw Trumbo's 1971 movie, Johnny Got His Gun, when I was quite young, and found it very disturbing but also intriguing. I bought the 1938 book on which it is based a couple of years ago, but haven't got round to reading it yet.
Marcus, you must be pretty confident of Sweden beating Ireland in the Euros tomorrow. I would be :-)
[Lee, from previous]: "You're remembering the story as you wish it had been."
LOL. I've still got the Wikipedia page about the mathematical fallacy you couldn't understand. I've got the link to the Einstein paper. Nothing magical or mysterious (except to you) -- they're all there in black and white. The not-so-curious thing about your perennial bleatings is that you never actually mention the content of that argument. So much easier to declare victory than revisit the crushing embarrassment of having to backtrack on your own admissions during it. Only you could have the neck to then witter on about denying reality. Thing is ... I'd be able to pick up where we left off at a moment's notice, whereas all you're ever gonna do is hope it fades from memory. Best o' luck with that, chump. ;-)
"I've still got the Wikipedia page about the mathematical fallacy
you couldn't understand."
Rapid change of subject there, and to an utter irrelevancy. Even Marcus and Lynnette will easily comprehend that you finding a Wikipedia page about an unrelated mathematical fallacy does not back up your assertion that you ever provided any math, dumbed down or otherwise, on anything concerning Einstein. You imaged those math proofs up all by yourself, and they exist only in your fertile imagination.
"I've got the link to the Einstein paper."
Also irrelevant. So, you got links. I got links. We can both get more links. Many links on many subjects can be had. What ya don't got, never did, are those mighty magical mystery maths you've imagined up, the ones that you remember ‘all too well’ in spite of the fact that they never existed.
Did he really just try to sell that sleight-of-hand, that off-topic babble, as a redemptive?
(I s‘pose it does make some sense that he waited until there was a new thread going so's to at least get some distance from his earlier fantasizing before trying that.)
"…as redemptive", no definite article called for.
And, I should probably explain that the ‘even Marcus and Lynnette’ characterization was meant to indicate only that you two guys probably weren't following this all that close, but even at some distance and maybe even more detachment, ya'll would be able to pick that one up as a fraud.
A mass shooting at a LGBT nightclub in Orlando. They are now saying 50 dead, 53 wounded. The suspect, who has been identified as Omar Saddique Mateen, is dead.
I have trouble visualizing him as Dalton Trumbo.
He does an amazing job. I have listened to the real Dalton Trumbo and have to say Cranston has his manner of speaking down pat. Cranston knows how to act.
I didn't know they'd ID'd the shooter for sure. First suspicions are it is a Da’esh affiliated attack, but they're proceeding cautiously on that allegation before they make it.
I saw Trumbo's 1971 movie, Johnny Got His Gun, when I was quite young, and found it very disturbing but also intriguing.
I have never seen it.
I have seen Roman Holiday and Sparticus years ago. Perhaps re-watching them now, especially after understanding what was happening in Trumbo's life at the time, may be something I would find more meaningful.
First suspicions are it is a Da’esh affiliated attack, but they're proceeding cautiously on that allegation before they make it.
I've kind of come into it at the tail end, but they are not ready to say yet whether it is a terror attack or a hate crime.
It sounds like the shooting occurred around 2:30. There was a hostage situation and SWAT was called in. There was an exchange of gunfire between them and the shooter around 5:00 and the shooter was killed.
They have confirmed 50 dead and 53 wounded just now.
The gunman was born in Florida, but his parents are from Afghanistan.
They had an imam speaking earlier on CNN asking for the help of the community for information. He was also asking the public not to rush to judgement.
The shooter used a handgun and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
This is now the largest mass shooting in US history.
My thoughts go out to the victims, as well as the family and friends of those killed and injured in this attack.
"What ya don't got, never did, are those mighty magical mystery maths you've imagined up"
The hilarious thing is that I was never gonna provide any novel maths, as you well know. They're there in the Einstein paper. All I was ever gonna do was explain them to ya. Turned out you were too dumb to comprehend. When we resorted to something more elementary by way of gentle introduction, ya couldn't comprehend that either. Yer "mystery maths" is only a mystery to you, chump. I'd have a tiny bit more sympathy for y'all if ya were merely dumb, but contradictin' both the Wikipedia page and yer own self in order to try to save face showed ya to be willfully and incorrigibly dumb.
And now outta respect for your country at a tragic time, I'm gonna put you on ignore for now.
Long lines of people forming to donate blood.
"And now outta respect for your country at a tragic time…"
My country is pretty much unperturbed by your attempts to recover from that public fantasy attack you suffered yesterday or whether or not you continue to attempts to recover some semblance of face. (You value yourself way too high there--only in your weirded mind are your attempts to restore your credibility a subject of even the briefest consideration when the subject of Orlando comes up.)
Trump's gonna have a problem making the Orlando attack into a set piece for his campaign. The shooter was an American Muslim, born in New York.
Pete: "Marcus, you must be pretty confident of Sweden beating Ireland in the Euros tomorrow. I would be :-)"
I expect Sweden to lose or at the very best draw in that game. It's the "easiest" game in our group but even so I doubt Sweden will rack up any better than 1 point. I have very low expectations for Sweden in this contest.
I did place a bet actually. I rarely ever bet but in the World Cup and European Cup I usually throw in a bet at the ultimate winner. Last World Cup I bet on Brazil and lost. This time I have about $50 on Italy. Not so much because I believe in Italy but because they gave 20 times the money and my best bets, France and Germany, only paid 4-5 times. I still think France or Germany are most likely to win, but not 4 times as likely as Italy is.
Lee: "Trump's gonna have a problem making the Orlando attack into a set piece for his campaign. The shooter was an American Muslim, born in New York.
You think? I expect him to use it and get traction from it. Small issues as where the terrorist was borne is not as important as the MUSLIM + TERROR angle is. Wait and watch.
He'll try to use it, of course; he can't help himself, even if he wanted to, but his casual bigotry and racism has already overshot what swing voters and moderates will accept. This is not gonna work for him; he won't be able to articulate an acceptable principle for discrimination. (Maybe solidify his position where he was already solid, but that's no real help to him.)
By the way, NBC is reporting that the shooter phoned a local news outlet and pledged allegiance to Da’esh and Bakr al-Baghdadi just before he started shooting.
Nope, 911 call, he made a 911 call and pledged allegiance to Da’esh and al-Baghdadi.
[Chump]: "My country is pretty much unperturbed..."
I guess neither logic nor grace are yore strong points.
"...that public fantasy attack you suffered...Even Marcus and Lynnette will easily comprehend that you finding a Wikipedia page about an unrelated mathematical fallacy does not back up your assertion
LOL. Remember this? Remember where you came unstuck? If y'all ever get past yer elementary misunderstandings the other stuff might yet be demystified for y'all, but it would need a dose of humility that I fear ya don't have in ya :-)
"Remember where you came unstuck?"
A further fantasy taking you down it seems. You were the one that got all frantic and frenzied (‘unstuck’ to use your words) when it became apparent that you didn't know the proper way to factor (a² - c²), your college education notwithstanding.
You really oughta give this up. Neither Lynnette nor Marcus followed it closely enough to bother trying to sort it out this late in the game, and I'm way ahead of ya here. Ain't a tinker's chance in hell you're gonna confuse me with your display of madness no matter how passionately crazy you make yourself. Ain't a chance in hell--all you're doin’ is makin’ it clear to me, me at least if not the others, that you're not exactly real tightly wound these days, if you ever were.
And, you are not entitled to any grace; you're not a nice person. You probably would have liked to be; you probably wish you were a nice person, but you didn't make the cut.
I'm gonna do ya a favor anyway, and give you another good reason to give it up. Even though you are a petty nasty fat boy.
I don't really know for certain if you're trying to bullshit your way out of this one, or if you've actually managed to fantasize yourself up a back story in which you didn't make a fool of yourself. And what's important is: I don't care.
Think on that. Maybe it'll finally sink in with ya that it's time to let this one go.
I expect him to use it and get traction from it.
Nope, he managed to stick his foot in his mouth by tweeting that he appreciates the "congrats" for basically predicting an attack of this nature because of our poor security. It didn't sit well with many people who felt he was patting himself on the back while 50 people were dead and 53 more were wounded. Didn't look good at all, even with some normally Republican backers.
Nope, 911 call, he made a 911 call and pledged allegiance to Da’esh and al-Baghdadi.
Yes, I heard that. From what his ex-wife said I am thinking he was one of those people that Daesh appeals to because they are having difficulty in the real world, either because of mental illness, or because of some other problem.
"Nope, he managed to stick his foot in his mouth…"
Off to a poor start on this one, obviously, but there's time yet for him to either improve his position, maybe get back to even, or, more likely, to make a real ass of himself (not that his most passionate supporters will care).
@ Lynnette:
Time for another new post ya think? Or you s'pose he'll just drag it forward all over again?
It appears that Brexit is closer than I was thinking. That explains why one commentator was saying our stock market was getting jittery about it. That article also explains Petes' earlier comment about the campaign. The reasoning of some of the voters who answered those questions reminds me a little of some of the Trump voters out there. They don't think it will affect them. Hmmm....
Time for another new post ya think? Or you s'pose he'll just drag it forward all over again?
lol! Oh no you don't, Lee. I am a neutral observer here. Unlike Zeyad I have never been overly concerned about off topic postings. It actually was time for a new post. I was just teasing you two earlier.
"That article also explains Petes' earlier comment about the campaign."
I believe his earlier comment was to the effect that the exit side was gonna lose.
[Chump]: "You were the one that got all frantic and frenzied (‘unstuck’ to use your words) when it became apparent that you didn't know the proper way to factor (a² - c²), your college education notwithstanding."
LOL. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You really have given me a hearty little chuckle there, in spite of you bein' a thoroughly nasty piece o' crap.
[Chumpy McChump]: "You really oughta give this up. Neither Lynnette nor Marcus followed it closely enough to bother trying to sort it out this late in the game, and I'm way ahead of ya here."
And I have to confess, I underestimated y'all. I honestly thought you'd steer clear of the actual details of yer prior delusion. I thought, with it bein' so long since y'all argued -- for hundred upon hundred upon hundreds of posts -- for such an embarrassingly wrong premise, that y'all would hope for those details to be buried. After all, yore the one that refers disparagingly to Lynnette and Marcus as "the audience". Surely you wouldn't want to parade yer imbecility yet again. I'm actually startin' to believe the unbelievable: that y'all actually thought, and still think, that y'all was right. That is wasn't just an obfuscatory tactic to prevent the "magical mystery maths" from bein' explained to y'all, so that y'all could claim I never presented it. This really is astounding to me. Fortunately, every time I think y'all might rather be deserving of some pity, y'all remind us of how thoroughly nasty and hubristic y'all is. Saves me wastin' time on y'all.
And seeing as how you are so fond of keepin' yer "audience" informed, let us recall that you had googled yerself up a method for factorising the difference of two squares (such as a² - c²). Armed with this methodological hammer, y'all set about deciding that everything was a nail, including the right hand side of step 3 here. Having thus convinced yerself that not only were √(ab) - b)(√(ab) + b) factors of ab - b², but that they were the only factors, y'all believed y'all had spotted a flaw in the maths proceeding from step 3 to step 4.
Notwithstanding that this Wikipedia page had existed for nearly a decade before y'all's wondrous conclusion (and now for another four years since) y'all believed it to contain a basic schoolboy mathematical error (other than the one that it intentionally makes on step 5). That's the mind-bogglingly hubristic part. For you to be right, the Wikipedia page has to be wrong. It's revision history shows that that particular section has been edited several times. And not only have those disputed steps withstood editing for thirteen years, not only have there been god-knows-how-many visitors to the page, but the great Lee C is the only person ever to have found this flaw. The arrogance is breathtaking.
Furthermore, when y'all was invited to multiply out b x (a - b), to convince yoreself that the right hand side of step 4 did indeed contain factors of the RHS of step 3, y'all variously argued, stalled, played dumb, and a host of other tactics designed to avoid the obvious. Nevertheless, ya did three times reach the right conclusion ... and subsequently swore blind that y'all never did, when ya realised y'all could only save face by backtrackin'. Hilarious!
But then y'all have the audacity to claim I ran away from presentin' the "magical mystery maths" when y'all's self refused (and still do) to have the most elementary maths explained to y'all. What a hoot! What a chump.
If I were to bother to read all that it would shed absolutely no light, zero light, on the question of whether Petes was delusional or was bullshitting, nor would it make me care. I did read just enough to notice that Petes had made fairly grievous logical error in his babble just above. (Too passionately involved in his babble to actually read his Wikipage it would seem.)
Let us leave him alone for a spell and see if he can find it himself. (Not that him finding it himself will shed light on whether he is currently bullshitting or delusional.)
And the nation remains unperturbed by the discussion of, of… Of whatever the hell it is he thinks he's discussing…
Ah. That's more like the chump I know and dislike. ;-)
[Chumpy]: "If I were to bother to read all that... I did read just enough to notice that..."
Hilarious and pathetic all rolled into one. Chump is sizin' up to outchump hisself here ;-)
You should almost certainly elaborate on that last position. No sense in you tryin’ to exercise restraint at this point.
Looks like Chumpy has lost confidence in his dopy factorisation. He's right back in obfuscation mode. :-)
Blatant attempt to get me to reengage in the argument he lost last time, so that he might perhaps win it this time and redeem himself, in spite of…
"I haven't been eggin' y'all on any time recently, or even deigning to
engage y'all on any level…"
Petes @ Thu Jun 09, 08:57:00 pm
Not big on consistency, are ya fat boy?
Too late Chumpy. Y'all already reengaged by rememberin' that it was about factorisations [Chumpy at Sun Jun 12, 08:13:00 pm: "it became apparent that you didn't know the proper way to factor (a² - c²)"].
Problem was, you learned one to factorise the difference of two squares and assumed it was the only way. And when it came to factorisin' (ab - b²) as in the move to step 4 here, y'all refused to accept the correct factorisation given by Wikipedia. Thought ya knew better Chump, after one piece of furious googlin'.
No need for ya to reengage anymore than that. A six year old child could multiply out the factors given to prove they are correct. Even you managed it ... but then had to pretend you didn't. Didn't have the good sense ta stop diggin' when you were in a hole. LOL. Ciao, Chump.
one = one way
Go on Chump, make us laugh again. Tell us how you figgered out that:
b(a - b) ≠ ab - b²
"Too late Chumpy."
Wanna bet?
"…y'all refused to accept the correct factorisation given by Wikipedia"
You're comin’ dangerously close there to a full-on enthusiastic re-embrace of that ‘grievous logical error’ I mentioned before. I'll give ya another hint: Technically, it may not qualify as a strict logical error, maybe better described as an analytical error, and you're right on top of it. Now, we'll see if ya can figure it out for yerself finally. (I'm not holdin’ out much hope for ya though.)
You claimin' y'all did NOT refuse to accept the correct factorisation given by Wikipedia? Tryin' to rewrite that particular bit o' history, chump?
So tell us how ya figgered out that:
b(a - b) ≠ ab - b²
Or do you wanna admit the two sides are equal for the fourth time ... and then later change what passes for a mind on Planet Chumpy, like y'all did before?
"Tryin' to rewrite that particular bit o' history, chump?"
Your grasp on particular bit o' history is problematic. You remember ‘all too well’ stuff that never happened. (Petes @ Sat Jun 11, 05:11:00 am) So, let's not belabor that long dead point you lost long ago, but rather let's see if you can figure out where you're screwin’ it up this time. How ‘bout that for a good idea?
I have a better idea, chump... how about we verify whose grasp on history is correct (and, by the converse, who is a lyin' sack o' shit) by lookin' at yore actual comments online. Feel free to check this link and search for the first comment of "Friday, May 25, 2012". That comment would be you, asserting that the only factors of (ab - b²) are the ones you derived by the difference of two squares method. Wikipedia says different. Ergo, you get to be the lyin' sack o' shit.
I was discussing the factorization of a binomial square equation; (ab - b²) is not a binomial square equation. Apparently your better idea chump just gets you lost and confused again.
So, how ‘bout we concentrate on you figurin’ out where you're getting lost and confused this time instead of discussing how you couldn't tell (ab - b²) from a proper binomial equation last time? How's that for a good idea?
Gotta fix this; Petes is getting to the point where he'll be exploiting any typing error, spelling error, or typo he can find, so I gotta fix this one.
"…from a proper binomial square equation last time?"
[Chumpy McChump]: "I was discussing the factorization of a binomial square equation; (ab - b²) is not a binomial square equation."
Pathetic attempt at obfuscation. I will leave aside that you just demonstrated you don't understand what an equation is. I will even leave aside that yore whole comment is a meaningless crock o' shite. I will simply quote what you wrote there in black and white:
[Chump, on Friday, May 25, 2012]: "(ab - b²) has a subtraction sign. That makes it first a ‘difference of squares’ problem; and factoring from ‘first’ makes it factor out as (√(ab) -b)(√(ab) + 3)".
You provided those factors. Wikipedia provides different factors. Ergo, you are a lyin' sack of shite. Give it Chumpy, ya can't win this one.
I recommend against readin' the other 309 comments in that thread, unless y'all want to be reminded that y'all's grasp on elementary algebra is tenuous (if one was to be very generous) :-)
Oh dear, how many times is Chumpy gonna subject hisself to the same whuppin'? :-)
Petes @ Mon Jun 13, 10:25:00 am
You jumped down the page there from the original subject to a different discussion of a somewhat different particular. Probably should have let people know that--so I've here fixed it for ya. I'll not bother takin’ a bow. You're unlikely to be grateful for the correction.
"Oh dear, how many times is Chumpy gonna subject hisself to the
same whuppin'?"
So, you're playin’ the Baghdad Bob of the blogs again are ya? Well, have fun with that.
[Lyin' Chump]: "You jumped down the page there from the original subject to a different discussion of a somewhat different particular."
I see. Then y'all should be able to explain what it was that y'all actually meant by this:
[Chump, on Friday, May 25, 2012]: "(ab - b²) has a subtraction sign. That makes it first a ‘difference of squares’ problem; and factoring from ‘first’ makes it factor out as (√(ab) -b)(√(ab) + 3)".
You provided those factors. Wikipedia provides different factors. Ergo, you are a lyin' sack of shite. But feel free to entertain us with yer hilarious story of how ya actually meant the opposite of what you said. Give it up Chumpy, ya can't win this one.
So now that we have established that y'all are the one with the tenuous grasp on history, and that you did indeed contradict Wikipedia, are y'all still claimin' that you are right and Wikipedia is wrong?
"Then y'all should be able to explain what it was that y'all actually
meant by this and etc."
The fact that I would be able to does not make it a useful exercise. I'm not here to allow you a second chance at winnin’ that old argument.
Question before us is where you're screwin’ up now.
You be sure and let me know when you're ready to get to that Baghdad Bob.
‘Cause I'm content with how that old argument came out (seein’ as how you lost); you're the one that's ego-driven to revisit it.
Ok, we usually get to the stage where Chumpy realises he's cornered and refuses to play any more. Seems like we're there again already. So, Chumpy did contradict Wikipedia. It's there in black and white. (He prolly thought those old threads were gone by now, and his tracks were covered). He's refusin' to say whether he still thinks he's right and Wikipedia's wrong.
Well, ya can lead a horse to water but ya can't make him understand elementary algebra. And if ya can't make him understand elementary algebra, ya certainly can't teach him no "magical mystery maths". And therein lies Chumpy's contradiction -- insistin' on bein' told somethin' he's proven he can't understand.
Well, enough of this banter. Got more important things to do than whuppin' Chumpy again.
And, so Baghdad Bob exits the stage for the time being…
Ya know it occurred to me… (And this message is for Lynnette)
We started out with ol’ Petes who remembered ‘all too well’ a set of explanations of Einstein that never happened, and it ended up with him ranting on ‘bout me supposedly contradicting a Wiki page that had nothing to do with Einstein and closing down the account there.
No friggin’ way to keep that boy on topic.
Does this not remind you of Donald Trump? (You don't have to answer that in public; I don't expect that; I just thought I'd flag the identity in argument style.)
[Lynnette]: That article also explains Petes' earlier comment about the campaign.
[Lee]: I believe his earlier comment was to the effect that the exit side was gonna lose.
I meant this part of it:
As I said, both sides are doing their best to infantilise the population with "Project Fear".
I can't speak for the maturity level of the voters in Britain, but I suspect that there are many that listen to the sound bites and form their opinions from them, like some in our country.
Haven't waded through the other comments yet...
You actually bother with those?
I'm sensing a turning of the screws on the question of gun control. This is the second time that high-profile, home-grown, American jihadi have done some serious damage with AR-15s with extended capacity magazines.
What's new is that the Republicans are running scared this time.
[Chump]: "You actually bother with those?"
Why not -- you do. :-)
[Chump]: "We started out with ol’ Petes who remembered ‘all too well’ a set of explanations of Einstein that never happened, and it ended up with him ranting on ‘bout me supposedly contradicting a Wiki page that had nothing to do with Einstein and closing down the account there."
It had plenty to do with Einstein. It was an introductory explanation of a important (even if straightforward, for most people) principle. Problem was, we never got to the principle, 'cos y'all never got to the end of the Wikipedia example. That's 'cos ya devoted circa 500 posts to claimin' yer own factorisation was correct and Wikipedia's was wrong. Must seem like quite a waste now, seen as y'all's not even prepared to still pursue the same claim. (That's on account of yore gonna look like an even bigger chump if ya do, but that can't be helped now, seein' as ya disappeared so far down that rabbit hole).
Problems for ya now is: (a) ya can't deny y'all contradicted Wikipedia cos we got the evidence for that one in black and white. Yore attempts to lie yer way out of that one backfired on ya. (b) Ya can't claim that the Wikipedia factorisation is wrong, there's too much weight of evidence for that one. Plus I have another 250 independent opinions as to its correctness queued up just in case y'all try. (c) Ya can't claim y'all were denied the "magical mystery maths" seein' as you're the one that wasted 500+ posts of everyone's time (might well have been 1,000) on yer obfuscatory nonsense, and stopped us gittin' there.
Marcus, seems you were right. Sweden depended on an own goal from Ireland to rescue a draw. Was pleased to see scenes of Swedish and Irish fans drinking together... if only to show up the Brits and the Russians ;-)
Well Pete, it did end a draw, 1-1. I have to say I thought Ireland, while not playing well, was the better team. Sweden got lucky and got a point, and there will be no more of those going forward I'm afraid.
"It had plenty to do with Einstein."
Didn't; still doesn't.
Who you think you're bullshittin’ here? They got dubbed the ‘‘mighty magical mystery maths’ because you flat out refused to present them on various claims ranging from the claim that you'd presented them earlier but nobody ever noticed to the claim that I'd ‘waived’ any right to ever see them by expressing doubts about your fine genius and the existence of any such math in the first place.
Really man, who do you think you're bullshitting here? Even Marcus and Lynnette will remember the fuss well enough to recognize that as the bullshit line that it is (least I'm pretty sure, sure enough to rely on that), and they weren't all that interested even at the time.
"Didn't; still doesn't"
It was, in fact, one of the side trips you took us on to distract people from the fact that you had no ‘proofs’ to offer; the supposed mighty magical mystery maths were a fraud from the beginning; you had no such thing; never did; never will. It was no different then than are your attempts today to distract everybody from the fact that you started out this time by remembering ‘all too well’ that you did present those supposed proofs. (Only to realize that fraud story was never gonna fly.) It's all about muddying up the water for you.
[Chumpy McChumpface]: "They got dubbed the ‘‘mighty magical mystery maths’ because you flat out refused to present them ... blah blah blah "
LOL. You really are a mendacious twerp. Provide me a link where I ever refused to present them. In fact, I was in the processing of presenting them when you decided to obfuscate for 500+ posts in order to disrupt it.
Ya see, the presentation requires a soupçon of math a tad more complicated than the algebraic equivalent of 1 + 1 = 2... the level that y'all showed yerself incapable of understanding. Even tried to dumb it down for y'all, and present it in baby steps. If y'all ever figure out that factorisation, it might be possible to proceed. You've shown no promise in nigh on five years though, so it seems unlikely yore gonna larn it now.
I expect you'll keep yakkin' on about me refusin' to engage. Prolly yer best bet when you ain't got nothin' else I suppose.
Pete: "Was pleased to see scenes of Swedish and Irish fans drinking together..."
I've previously had the opinion that swedes and irish folks do seem to get along well. Probably partly a shared fondness for enjoying a drink or twelve. That said I was also pleased to see the good natured supporters from both countries not only managing not to not fight but to actually get along.
We have a national hooligan scene but it's pretty lame (which is a good thing) by european standards from what I can tell, and they don't seem that intent on trying out their BS in the international arena. I hope that remains so.
Yep, Donald Trump, definite similarities… Double down and try to blow your way through. I rather doubt it'll work (certainly ain't gonna work on me), possible it'll work on the others, but rather think not. But, it's all ya got I guess if I don't wander ‘round your diversions with ya.
Some news from the siege and attempted re-capturing of Fallujah:
http://afp.omni.se/26940b26-382a-4904-83cb-1a4d3ac80b92
I sure wouldn't want to be a civilian there right about now. If you stay you risk being killed in the fighting or later labeled a Daesh supporter because you staid. If you try to run Daesh might/will try to kill you for it. If you get through (and you're male) you risk getting detained and "interrogated" by the government forces, or worse by shiite militias. Not a lot of safe choices.
How to factor binomial squares, for Dummies
Should be about your speed.
Or maybe you can comprehend Special Factoring from PurpleMath
There are, of course, many more.
"f you stay you risk being…later labeled a Daesh supporter…"
Fairly good bet that most who stayed were Da’esh supporters, by inclination at least, if not active supporters.
You actually bother with those?
Well, I started looking through them last night, but I fell asleep and didn't finish. I'll skim them eventually. :)
From Marcus's article:
In the north of the country, US Apache helicopters conducted strikes against IS targets for the first time in Iraq, near Qayyarah south of Mosul, the Pentagon said Monday.
Pentagon chief Ashton Carter has since early December made it clear to the Iraqi government that the US military is willing to use its Apaches based in Iraq to support local forces, but the government had until now declined.
US officials say this is because Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi did not want to anger Shiite militias, who oppose the ramping up of US combat operations in Iraq.
Fools and their lives are soon parted.
"Well, I started looking through them…"
Ah, well then,
"…the polynomial x2 − 4 factors as (x − 2)(x + 2). In all cases, a
product of simpler objects is obtained.
"The aim of factoring is usually to reduce something to “basic building
blocks”, such as numbers to prime numbers, or polynomials to
irreducible polynomials."
Wiki on Factorization
Petes' fallacy involves reducing (ab - b²) to b(a - b) (where a = b and thus (ab) is actually the same as a²); b(a - b) is not a reduction to polynomials, as "b" is not a polynomial ((a - b) is). That's where Petes screwed up. (Not that this had a damn thing to do with anything involving Einstein--this was just smoke and dust and diversion, but he's got this part wrong too.)
[Chump]: "How to factor binomial squares, for Dummies. Should be about your speed."
Yawn. Been there, multiple times. I'll lay this out for "the audience", 'cos you have shown yerself incapable of the merest glimmer of understanding too often to waste any remedial effort on y'all. So just bear in mind, this ain't for you.
The first sentence of Chumpy's link says why the "difference of two squares" (DTS) is not a suitable technique for factoring ab - b² as Chumpy tried to do. ab is not a perfect square, simple as that.
But Chumpy's total lack of understanding goes much, much deeper. It's not that DTS can't produce a valid answer in this case, it's just not a very useful one. Chumpy's problem (well, one of many) is that he actually thinks there is only one possible valid factorisation! It's easy to demolish this myth (although not in a way that he's going to understand).
Take any number, let's represent it by x. Now take any other number, let's call it b. Square that number and add it to x. Divide the result by the same number, b. Take the result of that, and assign its value to another number, a. In other words, we have done this:
a = (x + b²)/b
A simple algebraic rearrangement gives this:
ab - b² = x
Now, that expression: ab - b² was the one that Chumpy wanted to factorise. What he is claiming is that x has no factors other than the ones he derived. But remember, we didn't specify what x was. It could be any number whatsoever. So he's saying that no number in existence has anything other than a single pair of factors. That's dumb!
Here, of course, Chumpy will raise another objection which makes his total and utter confusion apparent. I won't ask you to trawl that 310-comment thread unless you really want to, but this is the same argument he made there. He will actually refuse to acknowledge that ab - b² can be equal to some other number x, and that its factors are the same as the factors of x.
Basically Chumpy doesn't know what algebra is for. He will claim that "x is a variable", not a number. He will claim that because it is a polynomial expression "(ab - b²) is neither an integer nor a number and has no integer factors" (that's a direct Chumpy quote from here, btw).
Of course, Chumpy has no excuse. He could've just Googled any number of respectable pages on algebra to search for "let x be a number" to disabuse him of these silly notions. But his lack of understanding runs too deep. There are too many unknown unknowns for him to join the dots. Above all else, he can't countenance being lectured by me. And that's why he's gonna stew in his own ignorance. :-)
"ab is not a perfect square, simple as that."
Your fallacy begins with the premise that a = b; so, of course, ab is every bit as perfect a square as is b². Check it for yourself; opening conditions state that: "1. Let a and b be equal, non-zero quantities; a = b"
Otherwise your trick doesn't work.
There's a reason Petes' explanations are so long and convoluted. He's trying to tell you that if there are two ways of doing something and one way yields incorrect results like 2 = 1, and the other way does not, then the correct way to do it is to use the method that can yield incorrect results.
We shall henceforth call this ‘Catholic Math’. Petes uses ‘Catholic Math’. Nobody else does.
I will fix that link though.
Or, maybe we should call it ‘Catholic Maths’ with an ‘s’ on the end, to keep up with an affectation he's fond of and has treated us to on numerous occassions.
Ah, I see Chumpy has posted again in the meantime. I'm afraid there's a limit to how many of his asinine mistakes I can correct in any one day, in fact, I'd imagine that's part of his plan of obfuscation. But in brief:
"The aim of factoring is usually to reduce something to..."
... and the word usually is in there because there is absolutely no requirement for factorisation to produce "simpler building blocks". That just tends to be why you're doing it, so it's pointless if you don't get factors that are simpler than the original expression. The irony, of course, is that Chumpy's own factorisation was (√(ab) + b) × (√(ab) - b) which is not at all simpler than (ab - b²).
As for the vastly more sensible factors b(a - b), Chumpy already accepted that the definition of a polynomial includes monomials, so his argument that "b" is not a polynomial is one he already conceded four years ago. But then, we are not remotely surprised to find him bein' a lyin' sack o' shite again.
And now I'm tiring of this silly banter. Fact of the matter is that b(a - b) is not my factorisation -- it's the one on a Wikipedia page visited by tens of thousands of people who find it completely unobjectionable. There's also a question on Quora.com using the exact same procedure, answered by 250+ people including maths professors who use the exact same factorisation.
That leaves one question for Chumpy -- why would anyone take his sub-ten-year-old understanding of algebra seriously, when he shows no glimmer of wantin' to improve his understanding, yet is prepared to argue with an encyclopedia in order to save himself from embarrassment. That's a surefire recipe for lifelong stupidity (as he he is amply demonstrating).
[Chumpy]: "Or, maybe we should call it ‘Catholic Maths’ with an ‘s’ on the end, to keep up with an affectation he's fond of and has treated us to on numerous occassions."
I realise y'all don't get outta the backwoods very often, so I'll explain that one for ya. Where I come from mathematics is always abbreviated as maths and never as math. Not bein' a parochial dumbass like yerself, I'm well aware that you Yanks do it differently, which is why I use the abbreviation math for y'all's benefit. Sometimes I slip up and use my version. Hopefully this information will be of some use to y'all, should you ever venture beyond yer own monocultural patch o' grass.
" it's the one on a Wikipedia page visited by tens of thousands of
people who find it completely unobjectionable."
Top of the page:
"In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited,
and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept of mathematical
fallacy."
There are mistakes in your proof; says so right there, first line. What's there to object to?
But, better question is why should the rest of us follow or accept your Catholic Math knowing going in that it can lead to mistaken results, when there's a right way to do it that does not lead to mistaken results?
"And now I'm tiring of this silly banter."
Yeah, no doubt. It's pretty much impossible to come back from where ya are now. But, I'm in no mood to cut ya any slack, so Catholic Math guy. How ‘bout you now try to explain what the hell this has to do with Einstein's theories? My guess is it'll take you days to figure out you can't bluff your way past that one either. Should be great fun doggin’ you in the meantime.
"so I'll explain that one for ya."
Waste of time; I'm aware of the source and background of your affectation.
(Mind ya'll; give it six months and ol’ Petes here will have convinced himself he won this round, and he'll have it chalked up in his memory as another of his mighty champion performances.)
[Chumpy]: "Your fallacy begins with the premise that a = b; so, of course, ab is every bit as perfect a square as is b². Check it for yourself; opening conditions state that: "1. Let a and b be equal, non-zero quantities; a = b"
This is another one yore deep misunderstandings -- the kind that can't be easily remediated, because y'all's "not even wrong". The factorisations done between steps 3 and 4 are intended to be general -- valid regardless of the values of a and b. Anyway, let's not waste time on this. I've never said your factorisation is invalid, just not very useful in this case, and definitely not unique.
Let's just focus on those two steps and check what Wikipedia itself says about the factorisation. The right hand side is factored by extracting b from both terms. I won't bother asking why you think you're right and Wikipedia's wrong when it blatantly contradicts you. We know the answer to that already. 'Cos it makes you out to be the arrogant asshole who argued for hundreds of posts 'bout somethin' he knows jack shit about.
From here on you can take up the argument with Wikipedia. In fact, since yore original link was to the Edit page, I can see y'all's already checkin' to see if you can change things in yore favour. LOL ;-)
[Stupid Lyin' Chump]: "Top of the page:
'In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept of mathematical fallacy.'
There are mistakes in your proof; says so right there, first line. What's there to object to?"
You tryin' to act stupider than we already know you are? I quote, from the article: "The fallacy is in line 5". Not in line 3. Not in line 4. Unless y'all think they put extra fallacies in there to catch the unwary. Ciao, Chump.
"The factorisations done between steps 3 and 4 are intended to be
general -- valid regardless of the values of a and b."
Nope predicate condition was stated: "a = b". That does not go away just because you wish it would have gone away. The whole point of the article is that this proof is not valid. That's the point!
Again for the general audience, not for Chumpy who's already said he doesn't "get it"...
b(a - b) = ab - b²
This is true, by definition, by the distributive law of multiplication. Therefore b and (a - b) are factors of ab - b². Most ten year old maths student can figure this out. But not Chumpy.
a = b when we start.
a = b at the end when Petes needs to divide by zero.
But, a = b goes away in the middle to support Petes' invocation of Catholic Math.
Goes away and then comes back.
Yeah, right.
It's fairly clear, by the way, you may well have fabricated a fantasy event in which you won this last time, but you know now that you're wrong, and you're being wrong on purpose.
This is not a fantasy; this is you being Petes, and being wrong on purpose, 'cause that's who ya are when the chips get down for ya.
You know better; but you think you can bullshit Lynnette and Marcus, and you're willing to do that.
Maybe bullshit Lynnette and Marcus; personally I think you're done--cooked; time to stick a fork in ya.
So, how ‘bout we move on along to the part where you try to think up some way to connect this to anything Einstein had to say? That oughta be fun. This can't be fun for ya anymore, and I think you're cooked, so… Let's move on along to the Einstein connection--explain that one for us. Please do.
(Just in case the rest of ya'll have forgotten… None of this has got squat to do with anything Einstein said. Petes just made that part up out of whole cloth. This was diversionary from the beginning. So, watchin’ him struggle with tryin’ to dream up a connection might be a lot of fun.)
[Chump]: "The whole point of the article is that this proof is not valid. That's the point!"
Nope. The point of the article -- it bein' an encyclopedia an' all -- is to explain why it's not valid. It does that: it's there in black and white. It says the fallacy is the division by zero in line 5. There is no fallacy on any other line. You would have to be a crack addict or terminally stupid to imagine an encyclopedia article that explains a mathematical fallacy would intentionally hide additional fallacies within the explanation. The whole point is that the proof is valid until we get to line 5. Yore contention is that the article intentionally and inexplicably gives an invalid factorisation of the right hand side of step 3. So which is it? ... crack addict or terminally stupid?
[Chumpy]: But, a = b goes away in the middle to support Petes' invocation of Catholic Math.
The two factorisations that occur between steps 3 and 4 are valid whether a = b or not. They are also true if either a or b, or neither, is zero. They are completely general. So, no Chump, nothin' "goes away in the middle" -- it's just completely irrelevant whether a = b at that point. It ain't irrelevant at step 5, because if a = b there is a division by zero. That's the point. Sometimes it's relevant, sometimes it ain't. At steps 3 and 4, it ain't.
Again -- WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME??? Your beef is with Wikipedia. Take it up there, where you can enjoy bein' laughed at by a lot more people than just the few here.
"There is no fallacy on any other line."
There is an error between line 3 and line 4 where they mis-factor the binomial square expression. Perhaps it does not technically meet the definition they use there for a math fallacy but that does not make it any less an error.
If there are two ways to do a math problem, one which always yields the correct result, and one which is know to sometimes yield an incorrect result it is an error to use the method known to occasionally yield erroneous results. That's obvious to everybody except you. Doesn't matter that this error may not be called a fallacy on that particular Wiki page; everybody else knows that's an error. You are probably the single sole follower of ‘Catholic Math’ in the universe. Nobody else. I have no argument with Wikipedia. (I've had arguments with them before, but I got no argument with them here.)
And, for the benefit of Marcus and Lynnette; take note that the single, sole authority for Petes' contention that it's okay to pretend that ab is not a ‘perfect square’ in spite of the fact that a = b and ab = b² is Petes. He's all he's got. And he's willing to lie.
Well at least finally Chumpy has come right out and said that the Wikipedia page is flat out wrong.
[Chumpy]: "one [way] which is know (sic) to sometimes yield an incorrect result"
Chumpy will now explain how the extraction of a common term, using the distributive law of multiplication -- which is what happens between lines 3 and 4, as the text tells us -- is known to sometimes yield an incorrect result. A single example would suffice, thank you very much.
[Lyin' Chumpy]: " the single, sole authority for Petes' contention that it's okay to pretend that ab is not a ‘perfect square’ in spite of the fact that a = b and ab = b² "
Could get ya plenty of references, but they are irrelevant. Fact is, Wikipedia uses a different factorisation to yours. You say it's because Wikipedia is in error. Nnow all ya gotta do is explain how, exactly.
And just to be perfectly clear, let's review "Chump's Law" again:
[Chumpy]: If there are two ways to do a math problem, one which always yields the correct result, and one which is know to sometimes yield an incorrect result it is an error to use the method known to occasionally yield erroneous results."
I presume that statement isn't meant to be quite as asinine as it appears. It is, by definition, never an error to use a procedure that works. What you need to know is the limits of its applicability.
So again, over to Chump to explain the limits of applicability of extracting a common multiplicative term under the distributive law. (That'll keep him Googlin' furiously for a while, seein' as there aren't any ;-)
"Well at least finally Chumpy has come right out and said that the
Wikipedia page is flat out wrong."
I know how to say that if I had wanted to say that. I wrote what I meant; I meant what I wrote.
"Explain how the extraction of a common term [is an error]"
Easily done. Mis-application of what you call the ‘distributive law of multiplication’ is the error (I will use that term for the time being.) It was misused in connection with a math expression that called for the use of the ‘difference of squares’ factorization. If you need a simple analogy--think about a guy who multiplied where he should have added or added where he should have divided--it's that sort of error (mind you I said ‘that sort’ of error. They applied the wrong process is what happened, and they did it on purpose so's to set up the fallacy which followed.).
Or, to put it another way, the way I put it the first time; You factored that wrong dumbass.
And, for the benefit of Marcus and Lynnette; take note that the single, sole authority for Petes' contention that it's okay to pretend that ab is not a ‘perfect square’ in spite of the fact that a = b and ab = b² is Petes. He's all he's got. And he's willing to lie.
(Good closing; didn't wanna lose it.)
[Chumpy]: "You factored that wrong dumbass."
You've read the Wikipedia article enough times to know it's not my factorisation. So take yer bitchin' over to Wikipedia and see if they entertain ya.
[Chumpy]: "They applied the wrong process is what happened, and they did it on purpose so's to set up the fallacy which followed."
And I'd like to say here we have finally completely jumped the shark. But Chumpy did that a long, long time ago.
You realise that you are now completely delusional? You are saying that there is an intentional but completely unmentioned and unexplained error in a procedure, just so that they can make another error in the next step which is mentioned and explained. Piss off, sonny. Even you can't believe that. Well, ok, maybe YOU can, but either way we're done. I'll remember to laugh as soon as I get over the shock that someone as stupid as you can exist. Ciao.
"You are saying that there is an intentional but completely unmentioned
and unexplained error in a procedure…"
They called it a ‘mistake’, but it is mentioned. First line; ‘mistaken proof’:
"In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited,
and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept of mathematical
fallacy."
"You've read the Wikipedia article enough times to know it's not my factorisation."
And, just by the way, it was your factorization that you screwed up. You just found that Wiki page later and glommed onto it, trying to use it as authority for the number job you'd already screwed up. I do remember.
[Delusional Chump]: " it was your factorization that you screwed up. You just found that Wiki page later and glommed onto it
And it just so happened that the Wikipedia factorisation, which according to you is an intentional mistake, is exactly the same as mine? Are the laws of probability different in Chump Land, to render that likely?
"I'll remember to laugh as soon as I get over the shock that someone
as stupid as you can exist. Ciao."
Does this mean you're gonna evade and avoid the part where you explain how you manage to connect this to anything Einstein said?
Damn; I's lookin’ forward to that; I's gonna dog you unbearably; was gonna be so much fun…
Well folks; I believe he actually fled the jurisdiction this time.
What else is there to talk ‘bout?
"Are the laws of probability different in Chump Land, to render that likely?"
When you go lookin’ for sumptin’ to support ya, and ya ain't any more particular than you were ‘bout how close it had to match up--odds you can find something on Wiki are fairly good. Too bad you that was the best you could do.
[Delusional Chump]: "They called it a ‘mistake’, but it is mentioned. First line; ‘mistaken proof’:"
It also mentions which line it's on: line 5. It also calls it the "Division by zero fallacy". Not the "Incorrect factorisation fallacy". That isn't mentioned.
Anyway, it no longer matters whether you are just the dumbest cluck ever to blight planet earth, or just playin' along for face-savin' reasons. I'm done with y'all.
"It also mentions which line it's on: line 5."
No, it doesn't say where the mistake is; it says the fallacy is on line five, but it didn't actually mention where the mistake was that lead to the fallacy. However, we know where the mistake is, so that's not a problem for us.
Remember folks, if ya don't make the mistake between lines 3 and 4, you cannot stumble into the fallacy on line 5.
Well, I think he finally fled this time (‘course, I've thought that before).
On to another subject then:
Newt Gingrich (major Trump supporter) is advocating a new House UnAmerican Activity Committee to be aimed at the persecution of American Muslims. Politico.com Man, we gotta beat Trump. That's gotta happen.
Hillary's up on Trump by 12 points in the latest Bloomberg poll. (PDF file)
[Delusional Chump]: "No, it doesn't say where the mistake is; it says the fallacy is on line five, but it didn't actually mention where the mistake was that lead to the fallacy."
So there's a fallacy, and then there's another fallacy that leads to the fallacy ... one that's never mentioned by the encyclopedia page about fallacies. Keep diggin' that hole Chump. Y'all might find a brain down there some day. LOL.
Chumpy oughta augment that Wikipedia page with "the Fallacy of the Unmentioned Fallacy". He obviously enjoys drawin' attention to his delusional ravings, and I'm sure the subsequent ban for vandalism wouldn't dent his cocksure opinion of hisself one tiny bit. ;-)
[Lee]: Newt Gingrich (major Trump supporter) is advocating a new House UnAmerican Activity Committee to be aimed at the persecution of American Muslims.
From Lee's article:
Newt Gingrich responded Tuesday to President Barack Obama's fierce denunciation of the rhetoric employed by his party's presumptive nominee on Tuesday, reupping his call for a congressional commission to investigate what he terms "Islamic supremacism and terrorism in the United States."
*sigh*
Unfortunately if people don't recall history they are doomed to repeat it. And, obviously, nobody really reads this blog so my reminders fall on deaf ears.
Of course, it doesn't help any that there is the possibility of the shooters wife knowing about his intent to attack the nightclub in Orlando and not reporting it. That does deserve investigating.
"…and then there's another fallacy that leads to the fallacy ..."
I don't think you're that stupid. You get stupid when you get pissed, so there is the possibility, but, it's highly unlikely. I'm gonna guess this is an intentional misinterpretation and let you stew in it for awhile. Make you bring it up more than once (I don't think you'll be able to let it go--you're gonna havta double down on bein’ stupid; the compulsion has got its grip on ya, and ya can't get back to bein’ sane just yet).
"…there is the possibility of the shooters wife knowing about his
intent to attack the nightclub…"
They're gonna be eager for a scapegoat; need to guard against that.
[Chump]: "I don't think you're that stupid."
Whereas I have no such doubts about you. I harbour one niggling doubt about whether y'all's chronic phobia about losing face might be part of it, but then there's nothing stoppin' y'all from bein' a delusional narcissist as well as dumb as a box of rocks.
While we're on the subject of y'all's stupidity, here's the self same mathematical fallacy, line for line, but this time analysing specifically what is wrong with it. Nearly three hundred answers, from maths students to maths professors and, surprise, surprise, not a single one of them finds your hilarious "mistake leading to the fallacy".
Seems like that factorisation that you said "everybody knows" is unique to yer delusional self. But you knew that. Now run along Chump, ya got some thinkin' (which in yore case means lyin') to do about why zero out of 300 people thought to mention y'all's error as part of the explanation. Even though ya said the fallacy can't occur without the prior mistake, not one single person out of hundreds mentioned that. Y'all are gonna need another delusion to peddle.
They're looking for the ‘fallacy’, or so it says in the title of the page. It is no small wonder that they found what they were looking for. Not all errors (i.e. ‘mistaken proofs’) are fallacies; there are other kinds of errors.
Here's another way to make the same error that doesn't involve division by zero, but does contain the same type of factoring error. (About two/thirds of the way down--clearly marked with the caption 'Here's a [mistaken] proof that doesn't use division by zero’. You should be able to find it without too much trouble.)
"Even though ya said the fallacy can't occur without
the prior mistake, not one single person out of hundreds
mentioned that."
I don't see where they were asked that. You'll need to find that question for us.
Remember folks; Petes is arguing for the proposition that: Given that there may appear to be two ways of factoring a certain math expression, (e.g. a² - b²) when one way can lead to erroneous results and the other way does not, then the way that leads to erroneous results is the correct way to factor the expression in question.
This is the absurdity he's proposing for you. Let us know when he's convinced you.
[Chumpy]: "They're looking for the ‘fallacy’, or so it says in the title of the page. It is no small wonder that they found what they were looking for."
The page is divided into sections. Each concerns a different fallacy. Most people would realise this is a logical way to organise the page. The section we're looking at is about the "Division by Zero" fallacy. It tells us that division by zero occurs at line 5. It doesn't mention any "factorisation fallacy" that occurs somewhere else. That's 'cos no such thing exists.
[Chumpy]: "Here's another way to make the same error that doesn't involve division by zero, but does contain the same type of factoring error. (About two/thirds of the way down--clearly marked with the caption 'Here's a [mistaken] proof that doesn't use division by zero’...)"
No, Chumpy, it doesn't contain "the same sort of factoring error". It contains the "positive and negative roots" fallacy. The Wikipedia page has a separate section devoted to that one.
You tryin' to make us believe that in the section on "Division by zero", Wikipedia lobbed in a whole different type of fallacy without mentionin' it? Give it up, Chumpy. Yes, you are this stupid, but surely even you realise that yore failure to find support among hundreds of references, including yer own, is indicative of something :-)
"…It contains the ‘positive and negative roots’ fallacy."
Ah, so they have a name for that and have found a way to describe the error as a math fallacy. Well, good for them.
That seems to accurately describe and identify the error made between lines 3 and 4 of your ‘divide by zero’ fallacy. Seems like you done my work for me. Excellent.
[Lyin' Chump]: "Remember folks; Petes is arguing for the proposition that: Given that there may appear to be two ways of factoring a certain math expression, (e.g. a² - b²) when one way can lead to erroneous results and the other way does not, then the way that leads to erroneous results is the correct way to factor the expression in question."
Nope, lyin' Chump. Yore the only person who ever mentioned such a thing. I am merely saying that extracting a factor using the distributive law of multiplication is valid. And so it is, under all circumstances. You say that can lead to erroneous results. I challenged you to show us how. You didn't do that, 'cos you can't. You just switched to a different set of lies, which is your standard obfuscatory tactic. So tell us how, Chump. Should be easy for y'all. Don't bother postin' any shit about "difference of two squares". I am askin' how the distributive factorisation can produce erroneous results.
"You tryin' to make us believe that in the section on "Division by zero",
Wikipedia lobbed in a whole different type of fallacy without mentionin' it?"
You just showed us exactly that. There it is.
[Chump]: "That [‘positive and negative roots’ fallacy] seems to accurately describe and identify the error made between lines 3 and 4 of your ‘divide by zero’ fallacy. "
Apart from the obvious stupidity of includin' two fallacies for the price of one (without mentioning one of them at all), there are no roots taken on the RHS of step 4, whether positive or negative. Wrong again Chump.
This is too easy. Chumpy can only be a stupid lyin' sack o' shite for so long before everything starts to be transparently ridiculous. :-)
Not my job to argue against Wiki being stupid sometimes.
"…there are no roots taken on the RHS of step 4"
There are no zeros in step 4 either. Neither fact proves anything.
Just to note: even Chumpy acknowledged that the method used in the factorisation of the RHS of step 3 to 4 was the extraction of a common term, not the taking of roots. So this stuff about a "positive and negative roots" fallacy is transparently crap.
Speaking of which, any more comment on how that distributive factorisation can produce erroneous results? You claimed it could. Now put up or shut up. Show us how.
[Chump]: "There are no zeros in step 4 either."
Another illustration of yer total lack of understanding. Every division in an algebraic procedure must explicitly acknowledge that it is invalid if a divisor is zero. Got rapped over the knuckles enough times by maths professors for forgetting to point that out. There are no exceptions. If there is a division, the procedure must either show how the divisor cannot be zero, or document its own restricted applicability.
The factorisation on step 3-4 has no such restricted applicability. It is valid for all values of a and b. You claimed it isn't. We're still waitin' for you to show how. You won't 'cos you can't, 'cos it simply ain't true.
"So this stuff about a ‘positive and negative roots’ fallacy is
transparently crap."
Well it's your terminology:
"It contains the ‘positive and negative roots’ fallacy."
Petes @ Wed Jun 15, 05:19:00 am
You wanna call it crap now, you go right ahead; I'm not here to argue your shifting definitions with ya.
[Chumpy]: "You wanna call it crap now"
Quit lyin' and read what I wrote, Chump.
Any progress on that factorisation error?
"You claimed it isn't."
We appear to have isolated your error here. I make no such claim. I claimed instead that this is an erroneous method of factoring the binomial expression (I'll try to get the jargon right--I think that's the right jargon).
The correct method is specifically called special factoring and is to be applied to binomials. You can look that up. Or Lynnette or Marcus can look it up. They'll find it always says to factor that into smaller binomials not a binomial multiplied by monomial. Always it will say that, no matter where they find the expression explained.
And, I'm sure you're well aware of that fact. Can't prove it if you keep on playing stupid, but I'm sure.
And remember folks; he's lying to us on purpose here; he knows better, he just thinks he's clever enough he can lead you down the garden path for no better reason than just for the fun of it. At his base, he is not a nice person.
[Chumpy]: "I claimed instead that this is an erroneous method of factoring the binomial expression"
You said, and I quote: "If there are two ways to do a math problem, one which always yields the correct result, and one which is know to sometimes yield an incorrect result it is an error to use the method known to occasionally yield erroneous results." [Chumpy Tue Jun 14, 04:39:00 pm]
The factoristion used by Wikipedia is this: (ab - b²) --> b(a - b).
It extracts the common term b, using the distributive law of multiplication. You say this method is "known to occasionally yield erroneous results". Show us how. Give us one example where this method yields an erroneous result. Any example, no matter how trivial will do.
I suppose I should have said "…one which is known to occasionally lead to erroneous results"; consider the statement so corrected.
Still waitin'...
For what?
[Chump]: " "…one which is known to occasionally lead to erroneous results"
LOL. Pretty clear what Chumpy is leading up to here. He's gonna claim that the correct factorisation at steps 3-4 is gonna cause a future error at step 5. Now that is magical mystery maths. Chumpy's equations can travel into the future and cause mayhem. ROFL. ;-)
Back, in the real world, still waitin' for one single example of how extraction of a common term can yield an erroneous result. If it cannot yield an erroneous result, then the result is not erroneous. Ergo, the interim result at step 4 is not erroneous.
"He's gonna claim that the correct factorisation at
steps 3-4 is gonna cause a future error at step 5. Now
that is magical mystery maths."
Wrong. INCORRECT factorization between steps 3 and 4. And that's what I've been saying all along. You can't pretend that only you among us don't know this. (Well, not successfully anyway, so you're welcome to try.)
Extracting the "b" from (ab - b²) is an incorrect choice, that is an error, because (ab - b²) is actually a binomial square (concealed, but still is) and those require ‘special factoring’.
Takin’ you too much time; I'm guessin’ you're gonna circle ‘round and start over somewhere back up the line now and pretend you found something new?
[Chumpy]: "Extracting the "b" from (ab - b²) is an incorrect choice"
Already dealt with that false dichotomy. You said it can "sometimes yields an erroneous result". Give us one example where it can lead to an erroneous result. You can't.
b(a - b) is not erroneous because when you perform the distributed multiplication:
(b x a) - (b x b)
... you get the original expression:
(ab - b²)
So it's not wrong in this instance. Over to Chumpy to show how it is, as he claimed, wrong in any instance. He won't, 'cos he can't, 'cos it ain't true.
"Already dealt with that false dichotomy."
There is none; so you can't have.
"You said it can ‘sometimes yields an erroneous result’."
Yeah, I wrote it down that way originally, but then I found you weaseling into the cracks, and realized I'd have to tighten up my language to keep you from weaseling. So, I did.
Lee C. ― U.S.A. said...
"I suppose I should have said ‘…one which is known to occasionally
lead to erroneous results’; consider the statement so corrected."
Wed Jun 15, 06:09:00 am (emphasis in original)
And again; Petes is still arguing for the proposition that the correct way to factor a concealed binomial square math expression is to do it so that it one can produce an obvious math error (2 = 1), when we all know there is a ‘special factoring’ rule which will prevent this error from arising. But, he's telling us the right way to do it is the way that leads to error. Who's buyin’ that? I'm takin’ a poll.
LOL. Chumpy's stickin' to his notion of time-travelin' equations that can disappear into the future and screw things up.
And he's still hangin' onto the idea that even though an answer works out right, it can still be wrong by virtue of havin' used the wrong technique. It's as if we divided 6 by 2 to get 3, so that 2 x 3 = 6. Chumpy thinks we shoulda divided 6 by 3 to get 2, therefore 2 x 3 = 6 is wrong.
How do we verify that 2 x 3 = 6. We perform the multiplication and, yep, the answer is 6, so our factorisation is correct. Likewise:
b x (a - b) = (ab - b²), so it's a correct factorisation.
Also:
(√(ab)+b) x (√(ab)- b) = (ab - b²), so that's a correct factorisation too.
Chumpy's fixated on this dogma that only one factorisation is possible. Anyone who can multiply can see that he's talkin' through his ass.
Here we come to another concept that has eluded Chumpy. How do we verify that we used the right factorisation technique? Easy: we multiply out the result and verify that we recover the original expression. There's no other way.
Well actually, there is one another way. We could use one of the many maths software packages that are out there. In fact, there's one online, written by Stephen Wolfram, an acknowledge genius who studied at Eton, Oxford, Caltech and Princeton. And we can ask it to:
factorise (ab - b²)
Well look at that! It comes up with b(a - b). Chumpy will now explain how he's still right, while 10,000 Wikipedia visitors, 300 maths students, a software package, a Princeton professor, and yours truly, are all wrong. Take it away Chumpy! LOL. ;-)
Long pause… Petes must be lookin’ for what else he can misrepresent and maybe get away with.
We'll have to wait and see what he comes up with.
I do believe it's worth sayin' that again:
factorise (ab - b²)
Well look at that! It comes up with b(a - b). Chumpy will now explain how he's still right, while 10,000 Wikipedia visitors, 300 maths students, a software package, a Princeton professor, and yours truly, are all wrong. Take it away Chumpy! LOL. ;-)
"And he's still hangin' onto the idea that even though an answer
works out right…"
This worked out to 2 = 1. 2 = 1 is an example of an answer that ‘works out right’? Get real boy.
"Well look at that! It comes up with b(a - b)"
You forgot to tell it that a = b.
I'm curious, what ‘Princton professor’ do you think told you that the special factoring rules don't apply to binomial squares anymore? I missed that one.
[Chump]: "This worked out to 2 = 1. 2 = 1 is an example of an answer that ‘works out right’?"
The "this" you refer to is the entire procedure. It went wrong on line 5, like Wikipedia told you it did. There's nothing wrong with lines 3-4.
I do believe it's worth sayin' that again:
factorise (ab - b²)
Well look at that! It comes up with b(a - b). Chumpy will now explain how he's still right, while 10,000 Wikipedia visitors, 300 maths students, a software package, a Princeton professor, and yours truly, are all wrong. Take it away Chumpy! LOL. ;-)
"Well look at that! It comes up with b(a - b)"
And again, you forgot to tell it that a = b and that ab = a².
I don't think anybody's gonna be impressed that you managed to confuse a simple online bot. Maybe, but I don't think so. If that's the best ya got… It's time to ask who's buyin’ that crap.
The term is ‘special factoring’; it governs the factoring of binomial squares. Ya'll can look it up for youselves; it's all over the net if you've forgotten the basic algebra they taught ya in school. Petes is gonna keep on pretending there is no such thing, or that it doesn't govern the factoring of binomial squares, or that when a = b (ab - b²) is somehow not a binomial square. Anybody buys any of those arguments…
The rest is all just Petes bullshittin’ ya and hopin’ you're fool enough to fall for it.
"humpy will now explain how he's still right, while 10,000 Wikipedia visitors,
300 maths students, a software package, a Princeton professor, and
yours truly, are all wrong. Take it away Chumpy! LOL. ;-)"
This, by the way, is known formally as the ‘Argumentum ad numerum’ fallacy, with shades of the ‘ad populum’ and ‘ad verecundiam’ fallacies thrown in for good measure.
He seems to be plottin’, or restin’. Or ‘goggling furiously’ as he often describes it. Sumpin’.
I'll wander of myself for awhile--check back later.
[Chump]: You forgot to tell it that a = b ... you managed to confuse a simple online bot.
LOL. Wolfram Alpha has 15 million lines of code, and runs on 10,000 CPUs. "Simple online bot"? Ya really are an iggerant donkey! :-)
You think it wouldn't know if it makes a difference whether a = b? If you ask it to do something where it does matter, like plot 1/(a-b) it tells you.
Here, let's get it to evaluate your chosen factors:
evaluate (√(ab)+b) (√(ab)- b)
Oh look! It says an alternate form is b(a - b). And the expanded form is (ab - b²).
Both sets of factors are correct. IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
See ya loser.
Chumpy: "or that when a = b (ab - b²) is somehow not a binomial square"
You can do factorisation when you are dealing with unknowns. That's what the wikipedia page does. Extracting a common term works, for all values, in every circumstance, every time. You don't need to know what the values are. There would be no point to algebra if you had to know what the values were before you could do anything. That wouldn't be algebra. That would be arithmetic.
There are certain things you can't do with unknowns. You can't use them as an divisor unless you say your method is only applicable where the divisor is non-zero.
Wolfram Alpha knows when it makes a difference, and when it doesn't. So do I. Chumpy doesn't. That's why he can't give us an example where extraction of a factor is invalid. That's why he won't just simply do the multiplications to verify that the factorisation is correct. That's why he's stickin' to his religious dogma that there's only one way to factorise. He's the ultimate Jesuit ;-)
Hey Chumpy, what do you get when you multiply b by (a - b)?
"Wolfram Alpha has 15 million lines of code, and…"
And, Wolfram Alpha describes itself as a search engine plus more. What you showed us is not the search engine plus, it's a simple bot on one of their many pages.
"You can do factorisation when you are dealing with unknowns.
That's what the wikipedia page does."
No, that's not what the Wiki page does. The Wiki page knows. It specifically states that a = b ≠ 0. You know that.
And, that's enough to also know that (ab - b²) is a binomial square expression.
[Chump]: The Wiki page knows.
It doesn't use that knowledge in the factorisation. It doesn't need to. It's irrelevant.
So tell us Chumpy, what do you get when you multiply b by (a - b)?
If you can show me how the algebraic result depends on the values of a and b, I will concede that you were right all along.
C'mon Jesuit boy, peer through the telescope:
What do you get when you multiply b by (a - b)?
"evaluate (√(ab)+b) (√(ab)- b)"
Wolfram Alpha seems to have made a mistake there; somebody made a mistake. It says that b = 0 ("real root") and yet Wiki's parameters for this explicitly state that a and b are "non-zero quantities". Ya got a glitch in your system somewhere; you need to get that straightened out I'd reckon.
"What do you get when you multiply b by (a - b)?"
That depends on the values you assign to a and b.
"It's irrelevant."
Then why did they make a point of specifying those parameters if they're irrelevant? Answer is: YOU'RE WRONG; NOT IRRELEVANT.
Why is not irrelevant the audience might ask…?
a must equal b in order to get past the second step, a² = ab. NOT IRRELEVANT. Ya can't even get a start on it unless this is true.
"What do you get when you multiply b by (a - b)?"
That depends on the values you assign to a and b.
Nope. I asked you for the algebraic result. That's the result in terms of the unknowns, a and b. That doesn't depend on the values you assign. So what's the answer? Do you know?
"Then why did they make a point of specifying those parameters if they're irrelevant?"
Because they become relevant in step 5 (and not before), where a division by (a - b) is illegal. Wikipedia told you that.
"Nope. I asked you for the algebraic result."
Well then, since we know that a² = ab (from step two) what you ‘get’, the algebraic result, is a binomial square. Which means that it would need to be factored using the special factoring rules.
[Chumpy]: Why is not irrelevant the audience might ask…? a must equal b in order to get past the second step, a² = ab. NOT IRRELEVANT.
Ya utter donkey. The previous step is never irrelevant when you are deriving the current step from it. What is irrelevant is the equality of a and b when performing the factorisation in steps 3-4. The factorisation does not depend on it. IT IS IRRELEVANT.
That's why Wikipedia doesn't mention it. "The audience" might wanna consider your other-worldly explanation that it didn't mention it in order to slip in a gigantic mistake that makes a subsequent step go wrong. Uh, we don't need yore time-travelin' equations. The subsequent step is wrong all by its own self, just like wikipedia said.
"Because they become relevant in step 5 (and not
before)…"
If a² ≠ ab then you never get to step 5. Unless a² = ab you never get to step 5. It does not magically become relevant only at step 5; it's a requirement to get to step 5.
Well then, since we know that a² = ab (from step two)
Where did you see any step 2 in my question, ya donkey? Let's try a different one to void yer confusion:
What do you get when you multiply y by (x - y) ?
"What do you get when you multiply y by (x - y) ?"
Depends on the values you assign to x and y.
Yore actin' real stupid here, but I'll try one more time. I told you (twice) that I am looking for the algebraic result in terms of the unknowns, in this case x and y. That does NOT depend on the values of x and y. So what is it?
"…I am looking for the algebraic result…"
Then that depends on the parameters you assign to x and y. What ya don't got is the math problem set out on the Wiki page in question where a = b and a² = ab, that is, unless x = y, and then you're right back where we were before. Ya never get to step 5 without the preliminary steps.
Maybe this'll help ya along.
Step 3: ‘a² - b² = ab - b²’ if and only if a = b and a² = ab. Else it all comes apart way before you ever get to step 5.
Can't say that it's irrelevant until you want it to be relevant ‘cause if it ain't true ya never get to the place where you want it to be relevant. It's a precondition to ever getting to the place where you suddenly want to notice it's true, like it was a bolt the blue or something.
I'm ready to take a vote. Why don't you join me in that? We'll ask Lynnette and Marcus whom they believe here, and you can finally let this rest and quit making a fool of yourself.
"…I am looking for the algebraic result…"
Then that depends on the parameters you assign to x and y.
Nope. It does not. Allow me to help if y'all are strugglin' with that piece of kiddie algebra:
y multiplied by (x - y)
It's (xy - y²)
You got any dispute with that, Chumpy? You sayin' that answer is wrong for some values of x and y?
"You got any dispute with that, Chumpy? You sayin' that answer is
wrong for some values of x and y?"
I'm sayin’ that somebody, either you or Wolfram Alpha, assigned parameters to x and y where x = y. Says so right there on the page you directed me to (‘bout halfway down the page). So, we're right back to where we were before a = b, y = x, swappin’ letters makes no difference.
Personally, I think they made the assignment on account of Petes thought (incorrectly) that he didn't need any parameters, that free-floating letters somehow constituted algebra, so they provided some parameters for him. I'm guessin’ that's what happened.
You ready to take that vote now, or you gonna keep playin’ with the bot?
Nope, it doesn't say that. It says the "real root" of b. Y'all don't know what that means but are clutchin' at it as if to say they assumed certain values for a and b. They didn't.
Post a Comment