Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

[Libertarian666]

Day 14 here.....and for the record....I last had any alcohol in December 1974 (45 years ago) and, also, no other recreational drugs since.

Vinny

So that's your problem.
Makes sense to me.

Obviously I don't consider it a problem. Always looking at the financial aspect of it, a ton of money that got invested instead.

Vinny

You might find that your current fixed ideas aren't really that accurate.

[Mountaineer]

Day 14 here.....and for the record....I last had any alcohol in December 1974 (45 years ago) and, also, no other recreational drugs since.

Vinny

So that's your problem.
Makes sense to me.

. No disrespect intended. That’s just funny!

I know that you know that the Statement of Faiths for some churches (I'd bet the vast majority of Baptist ones) have something to the effect of:

"We do not believe in the use of alcohol" (and, now updated to, "or, the use of any recreational drug")

Vinny

I know that some denominations promote that, however, there is no Biblical basis for it (I think the Bible focuses on not getting drunk; i.e. maintain self-control). "No alcohol" is just another man-made, not God-made, rule. That is similar to the issue of the Pharisees turning the 10 Commandments (God-made) into 613 man-made rules; in my opinion so they could feel good about faith in works righteousness as a means to get to heaven vs. faith in God and His promises.

Reminds me of an old joke: The worst thing that can happen to a Baptist is to run into a fellow pew sitter in the liquor store.

[Libertarian666]

Day 14 here.....and for the record....I last had any alcohol in December 1974 (45 years ago) and, also, no other recreational drugs since.

Vinny

So that's your problem.
Makes sense to me.

. No disrespect intended. That’s just funny!

I know that you know that the Statement of Faiths for some churches (I'd bet the vast majority of Baptist ones) have something to the effect of:

"We do not believe in the use of alcohol" (and, now updated to, "or, the use of any recreational drug")

Vinny

I know that some denominations promote that, however, there is no Biblical basis for it (I think the Bible focuses on not getting drunk; i.e. maintain self-control). "No alcohol" is just another man-made, not God-made, rule. That is similar to the issue of the Pharisees turning the 10 Commandments (God-made) into 613 man-made rules; in my opinion so they could feel good about faith in works righteousness as a means to get to heaven vs. faith in God and His promises.

Reminds me of an old joke: The worst thing that can happen to a Baptist is to run into a fellow pew sitter in the liquor store.

I heard it more or less this way:
Protestants don't recognize the authority of the pope.
Anarchists don't recognize the authority of the state.
Baptists don't recognize each other in a liquor store.

[dualstow]

That's good.

[WiseOne]

There's also the Mormon/Utah paradox: they are also strictly alcohol-free, except for a very specific type of grain alcohol that is easy to find, or at least was around 20 years ago. The stuff is pure paint thinner. I forget what it's called.

Trying to think of a line to add to Tech's little poem? Maybe: Mormon's don't recognize grain alcohol as liquor.

[yankees60]

Day 14 here.....and for the record....I last had any alcohol in December 1974 (45 years ago) and, also, no other recreational drugs since.

Vinny

So that's your problem.
Makes sense to me.

Obviously I don't consider it a problem. Always looking at the financial aspect of it, a ton of money that got invested instead.

Vinny

You might find that your current fixed ideas aren't really that accurate.

You need to further elaborate on your above sentence as currently it has no meaning to me.

Vinny

[yankees60]

Day 14 here.....and for the record....I last had any alcohol in December 1974 (45 years ago) and, also, no other recreational drugs since.

Vinny

So that's your problem.
Makes sense to me.

. No disrespect intended. That’s just funny!

I know that you know that the Statement of Faiths for some churches (I'd bet the vast majority of Baptist ones) have something to the effect of:

"We do not believe in the use of alcohol" (and, now updated to, "or, the use of any recreational drug")

Vinny

I know that some denominations promote that, however, there is no Biblical basis for it (I think the Bible focuses on not getting drunk; i.e. maintain self-control). "No alcohol" is just another man-made, not God-made, rule. That is similar to the issue of the Pharisees turning the 10 Commandments (God-made) into 613 man-made rules; in my opinion so they could feel good about faith in works righteousness as a means to get to heaven vs. faith in God and His promises.

Reminds me of an old joke: The worst thing that can happen to a Baptist is to run into a fellow pew sitter in the liquor store.

You are correct in all you say. However, reading that in the statement of beliefs of that church was one my five reasons why I decided to quit. One of the others is that I no longer wanted to be a part of in any way supporting an industry that has proven to be so destructive to the lives of so many individuals and their families. Even so many innocents and their families being affected by the actions of drunk driving.

I know you also know that the Bible states to not do some things you can handle because it can cause the weaker to be tempted and to not handle it well.

You and everyone else may well responsibly be handling all your alcohol consumption. But you are keeping an industry alive that provides no health benefits and, as stated earlier, results in much destruction in our society.

But, in the end, I've made my decisions that fits my conscience and you and everyone else in this country is free to make those you fit into yours. I'm sure I do certain things you have chosen not to do.

Vinny

[Libertarian666]

Day 14 here.....and for the record....I last had any alcohol in December 1974 (45 years ago) and, also, no other recreational drugs since.

Vinny

So that's your problem.
Makes sense to me.

Obviously I don't consider it a problem. Always looking at the financial aspect of it, a ton of money that got invested instead.

Vinny

You might find that your current fixed ideas aren't really that accurate.

You need to further elaborate on your above sentence as currently it has no meaning to me.

Vinny

You might find that some recreational drugs do in fact have the mind-expanding properties that they are said to have.
I know that many very creative people have taken advantage of those properties even before it was socially acceptable.

[Mountaineer]

Day 14 here.....and for the record....I last had any alcohol in December 1974 (45 years ago) and, also, no other recreational drugs since.

Vinny

So that's your problem.
Makes sense to me.

. No disrespect intended. That’s just funny!

I know that you know that the Statement of Faiths for some churches (I'd bet the vast majority of Baptist ones) have something to the effect of:

"We do not believe in the use of alcohol" (and, now updated to, "or, the use of any recreational drug")

Vinny

I know that some denominations promote that, however, there is no Biblical basis for it (I think the Bible focuses on not getting drunk; i.e. maintain self-control). "No alcohol" is just another man-made, not God-made, rule. That is similar to the issue of the Pharisees turning the 10 Commandments (God-made) into 613 man-made rules; in my opinion so they could feel good about faith in works righteousness as a means to get to heaven vs. faith in God and His promises.

Reminds me of an old joke: The worst thing that can happen to a Baptist is to run into a fellow pew sitter in the liquor store.

You are correct in all you say. However, reading that in the statement of beliefs of that church was one my five reasons why I decided to quit. One of the others is that I no longer wanted to be a part of in any way supporting an industry that has proven to be so destructive to the lives of so many individuals and their families. Even so many innocents and their families being affected by the actions of drunk driving.

I know you also know that the Bible states to not do some things you can handle because it can cause the weaker to be tempted and to not handle it well.

You and everyone else may well responsibly be handling all your alcohol consumption. But you are keeping an industry alive that provides no health benefits and, as stated earlier, results in much destruction in our society.

But, in the end, I've made my decisions that fits my conscience and you and everyone else in this country is free to make those you fit into yours. I'm sure I do certain things you have chosen not to do.

Vinny

Thank you for your response. If you don't mind my asking, what were the other 3 reasons? And, what if anything, would cause you to reconsider? No need to respond if those are inappropriate questions for you. I'm not at all asking to judge, just to better understand the things that turned you off of Christianity (presumed since you paraphrased some Christian Scripture quite well).

[dualstow]

...
I no longer wanted to be a part of in any way supporting an industry that has proven to be so destructive to the lives of so many individuals and their families.

You could probably say the same about the sugar industry.

[yankees60]

...
I no longer wanted to be a part of in any way supporting an industry that has proven to be so destructive to the lives of so many individuals and their families.

You could probably say the same about the sugar industry.

For certain! I am almost a total non-participant in that industry also. But not for that reason. Strictly for my own persona health reasons.

Vinny

[Smith1776]

I am 90% of my way through finishing the last math assignment I will ever have to do... for the rest of my life!

By the way, infinite sequences and series suck. Like... a lot. Did you know that the sum of all positive integers from 1 to infinity is -1/12? Okay, fine, that's actually pretty interesting. Still, they suck. A lot.

[Mountaineer]

Greetings and salutations on this wet Sunday morning. Hope everyone is coping. Here is something to brighten your day. Be sure to express the appropriate reverence.
... Mountaineer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN86d0CdgHQ

[Libertarian666]

I am 90% of my way through finishing the last math assignment I will ever have to do... for the rest of my life!

By the way, infinite sequences and series suck. Like... a lot. Did you know that the sum of all positive integers from 1 to infinity is -1/12? Okay, fine, that's actually pretty interesting. Still, they suck. A lot.

I'm pretty sure that isn't right. I suspect that is an example of how not to sum infinite series.

But of course there really isn't any such thing as an infinite series. That is just an abstraction that can be useful sometimes and wildly off-target other times.

[Smith1776]

I am 90% of my way through finishing the last math assignment I will ever have to do... for the rest of my life!

By the way, infinite sequences and series suck. Like... a lot. Did you know that the sum of all positive integers from 1 to infinity is -1/12? Okay, fine, that's actually pretty interesting. Still, they suck. A lot.

I'm pretty sure that isn't right. I suspect that is an example of how not to sum infinite series.

But of course there really isn't any such thing as an infinite series. That is just an abstraction that can be useful sometimes and wildly off-target other times.

It is unbelievable but true. I've been studying this section for a good while and so much of it still doesn't make sense to me.

https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/the ... cc23dea793

https://youtu.be/w-I6XTVZXww

The mathematician in the youtube video literally does the proof, and I still don't have my mind quite wrapped around it.

[Libertarian666]

I am 90% of my way through finishing the last math assignment I will ever have to do... for the rest of my life!

By the way, infinite sequences and series suck. Like... a lot. Did you know that the sum of all positive integers from 1 to infinity is -1/12? Okay, fine, that's actually pretty interesting. Still, they suck. A lot.

I'm pretty sure that isn't right. I suspect that is an example of how not to sum infinite series.

But of course there really isn't any such thing as an infinite series. That is just an abstraction that can be useful sometimes and wildly off-target other times.

It is unbelievable but true. I've been studying this section for a good while and so much of it still doesn't make sense to me.

https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/the ... cc23dea793

https://youtu.be/w-I6XTVZXww

The mathematician in the youtube video literally does the proof, and I still don't have my mind quite wrapped around it.

No it isn't true. It's an excellent example of why you can't treat "infinite series" like actual things.
Again, they are abstractions, not reality.

Here's a simpler example which is equally valid:

Assume that we have two variables a and b, and that: a = b

Multiply both sides by a to get: a2 = ab

Subtract b2 from both sides to get: a2 - b2 = ab - b2

This is the tricky part: Factor the left side (using FOIL from algebra) to get (a + b)(a - b) and factor out b from the right side to get b(a - b). If you're not sure how FOIL or factoring works, don't worry—you can check that this all works by multiplying everything out to see that it matches. The end result is that our equation has become: (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)

Since (a - b) appears on both sides, we can cancel it to get: a + b = b

Since a = b (that's the assumption we started with), we can substitute b in for a to get: b + b = b

Combining the two terms on the left gives us: 2b = b

Since b appears on both sides, we can divide through by b to get: 2 = 1

[Libertarian666]

The whole thing is based on believing that 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1......infinity = 1/2. Does it? Taking an average because you don't know when it ends seems suspect.

That series doesn't converge, so it has no sum.
Infinite series have their place in analysis but you have to treat them with great caution because they are abstractions that aren't anchored in reality.

[Mountaineer]

I'm more into Schrödinger's cat. Should I have posted this in the Kat thread?

[shekels]

I'm more into Schrödinger's cat. Should I have posted this in the Kat thread?

I will just believe you did..

[Mountaineer]

I'm more into Schrödinger's cat. Should I have posted this in the Kat thread?

I will just believe you did..

Outstanding Sheckels, just outstanding!

[Smith1776]

No it isn't true. It's an excellent example of why you can't treat "infinite series" like actual things.
Again, they are abstractions, not reality.

Here's a simpler example which is equally valid:

Assume that we have two variables a and b, and that: a = b

Multiply both sides by a to get: a2 = ab

Subtract b2 from both sides to get: a2 - b2 = ab - b2

This is the tricky part: Factor the left side (using FOIL from algebra) to get (a + b)(a - b) and factor out b from the right side to get b(a - b). If you're not sure how FOIL or factoring works, don't worry—you can check that this all works by multiplying everything out to see that it matches. The end result is that our equation has become: (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)

Since (a - b) appears on both sides, we can cancel it to get: a + b = b

Since a = b (that's the assumption we started with), we can substitute b in for a to get: b + b = b

Combining the two terms on the left gives us: 2b = b

Since b appears on both sides, we can divide through by b to get: 2 = 1

The idea that the sum of all positive integers from 1 to infinity equaling -1/12 isn't just hocus pocus though. It has structure in the form of the Ramanujan Summation.

The Ramanujan Summation has practical applications and is used in real world physics calculations, particularly in string theory.

Given that it has legitimate real world use in physics calculations such as the Casimir Effect, it's fair to say it's an actual "thing."

[WiseOne]

I am 90% of my way through finishing the last math assignment I will ever have to do... for the rest of my life!

By the way, infinite sequences and series suck. Like... a lot. Did you know that the sum of all positive integers from 1 to infinity is -1/12? Okay, fine, that's actually pretty interesting. Still, they suck. A lot.

Oh come on Smith....Taylor series and the rabbit & turtle race analogy are both pretty cool!

[Smith1776]

Oh come on Smith....Taylor series and the rabbit & turtle race analogy are both pretty cool!

It's all indeed actually very fascinating, but I'm kind of glad that any math going forward is going to be optional.

For posterity: in defense of Numberphile's video, yes it's true that in traditional maths, you can't say that the sum of all natural numbers equals -1/12. They actually explain why they pulled their slight of hand in a follow up video. They needed the video to be simple enough for general audiences. https://youtu.be/8hgeIDY7We4

It's not "true" in the traditional sense as 1 + 1 = 2, but it's a perfectly legitimate value to assign to the sum for theoretical maths and string theory.

[Libertarian666]

No it isn't true. It's an excellent example of why you can't treat "infinite series" like actual things.
Again, they are abstractions, not reality.

Here's a simpler example which is equally valid:

Assume that we have two variables a and b, and that: a = b

Multiply both sides by a to get: a2 = ab

Subtract b2 from both sides to get: a2 - b2 = ab - b2

This is the tricky part: Factor the left side (using FOIL from algebra) to get (a + b)(a - b) and factor out b from the right side to get b(a - b). If you're not sure how FOIL or factoring works, don't worry—you can check that this all works by multiplying everything out to see that it matches. The end result is that our equation has become: (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)

Since (a - b) appears on both sides, we can cancel it to get: a + b = b

Since a = b (that's the assumption we started with), we can substitute b in for a to get: b + b = b

Combining the two terms on the left gives us: 2b = b

Since b appears on both sides, we can divide through by b to get: 2 = 1

The idea that the sum of all positive integers from 1 to infinity equaling -1/12 isn't just hocus pocus though. It has structure in the form of the Ramanujan Summation.

The Ramanujan Summation has practical applications and is used in real world physics calculations, particularly in string theory.

Given that it has legitimate real world use in physics calculations such as the Casimir Effect, it's fair to say it's an actual "thing."

Ok, then you pay me an amount of money equal to each positive integer from 1 to infinity, and I'll pay you -1/12th of a dollar, and we'll call it square.

Also note that "real world physics calculations" and "string theory" don't really belong in the same sentence without a negating qualifier...

[Libertarian666]

Oh come on Smith....Taylor series and the rabbit & turtle race analogy are both pretty cool!

It's all indeed actually very fascinating, but I'm kind of glad that any math going forward is going to be optional.

For posterity: in defense of Numberphile's video, yes it's true that in traditional maths, you can't say that the sum of all natural numbers equals -1/12. They actually explain why they pulled their slight of hand in a follow up video. They needed the video to be simple enough for general audiences. https://youtu.be/8hgeIDY7We4

It's not "true" in the traditional sense as 1 + 1 = 2, but it's a perfectly legitimate value to assign to the sum for theoretical maths and string theory.

A. It's "sleight of hand".
B. If you have to use sleight of hand, that means you are deceiving the audience.

Q. E. D.