Conquer Club

Pangea is the theory of all the tubercolosis?

To be continued, I believe.

im2good4theboard wrote:

Strife wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:Aaaaanyway, Pythagorases theorum. Is this potentially not correct in your opinion, given that it is a theory?

Hmm... I coulda swore that The Pythagorean theorem was a basic geometry concept. I believe the mistake wrote here is a mix up with Wegner's theory of Pangea.

Gonna throw this out, Im just starting to read this, but Strife was correct. The pythagorean therom is a way to calculate unknown side length of a right triangle when two side lengths are already known. A2+B2=C2 (note-2=squared) as A and B are the side lengths that meet at a 90 degree angle.
Pangea is thought to be correct. Pangea is the theory of all the ...tbc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

Wikipedia (and most people's general understanding) says Pythagoras's Theorem is

My question was - as it's *only* a theory, does that mean that it's potentially not correct?

Pythagoras's Theorem falls within the realm of Ecludian Gemoetry but you can actually go beyond this geometric model. General relativity for example is non ecludian. Most surface maps of the earth are non ecludian as well.

Pythagoras's Theorem is so wonderful because it was a visual proof. It's a nice visual proof as well.

tzor wrote:Pythagoras's Theorem falls within the realm of Ecludian Gemoetry but you can actually go beyond this geometric model. General relativity for example is non ecludian. Most surface maps of the earth are non ecludian as well.

Pythagoras's Theorem is so wonderful because it was a visual proof. It's a nice visual proof as well.

It's so... structured...

I've heard visual proof doesn't count for much in mathematics and geometry. Because you can never draw truly accurately.

MeDeFe wrote:I've heard visual proof doesn't count for much in mathematics and geometry. Because you can never draw truly accurately.

Well, it's better than most other fields. And I'd consider the equations themselves to be rather proofy-looking, and they are rather exact.

Neoteny wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I've heard visual proof doesn't count for much in mathematics and geometry. Because you can never draw truly accurately.

Well, it's better than most other fields. And I'd consider the equations themselves to be rather proofy-looking, and they are rather exact.

The equations, yes, but I don't think those count as visual proof even though you use your eyes to perceive them. Because they are merely abstract representations of even more abstract concepts.

MeDeFe wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I've heard visual proof doesn't count for much in mathematics and geometry. Because you can never draw truly accurately.

Well, it's better than most other fields. And I'd consider the equations themselves to be rather proofy-looking, and they are rather exact.

The equations, yes, but I don't think those count as visual proof even though you use your eyes to perceive them. Because they are merely abstract representations of even more abstract concepts.

Both are visual representations of an abstract concept. One just takes it one step further. Really, nothing exists, after all. (I can see forever!)

No, a drawing of a triangle with the squares above the sides would be an approximate example of one triangle for which the theorem holds true, from which we then extrapolate that it applies to all triangles that have certain features.

I don't know what your point is, exactly.

My point is that drawing a triangle with the sign for a 90° angle at one corner and squares over sides a, b, and c does not constitute proof for Pythagoras theorem, it's a visual tool that helps us understand the concept of the theorem, but it is not proof.


But the formula itself: a^2+b^2=c^2, and accompanying explanatory calculations for why this is the case in a triangle with a right angle does constitute proof within the closed system of mathematics that is represented by arbitrary, conventional symbols. This however, is not visual proof.

If you go to the wiki reference on one of the eariler messages there is a graphical proof from china that shows it in very elegant terms. (Not the common draw a square from each side of the triangle which is generally used as an illustration.) When you see that proof it is QED.

Admitted, that is visual proof. However, it is only visual proof for one specific kind of triangle, namely the triangle where the length of the sides are of the relation 3 to 4 to 5. It says nothing about other triangles, ones where the relative length of the sides is, for example, 3 to sqrt(135) to 12.

Pythagoras, irrelevant.

There is a difference between a "Theorem" and a "Theory". Further posts on the subject, however interesting, are a diversion.
Incidentally, I was at school with a guy who came up with what appeared to be a new proof of Pythagoras Theorem. Clever git. (Though it turned out to have been used previously after all)

i finally checked back on this thread and now it has dissolved into argueing mathamatics....

A theory and theorum are in this case the same. The pathagorean theorum has been tested and proven to be true. Pathagoras suggested it, and then somebody probably measured 1000 right triangles to prove it. The same with evolution. And gravity. Newton thought "If I let go of an apple, why does it move, unless it's being forced to move? And it's been proven by dropping something in Antarctica, because instead of going "down", it still went to the center of the earth. The same with evlolution. We now know that sometimes DNA can make a random (and very small) change, thus proving evolution. Some people think the theories of evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. They're not. There are plenty of people who believe in both.

Simon Viavant wrote:A theory and theorum are in this case the same. The pathagorean theorum has been tested and proven to be true. Pathagoras suggested it, and then somebody probably measured 1000 right triangles to prove it. The same with evolution. And gravity. Newton thought "If I let go of an apple, why does it move, unless it's being forced to move? And it's been proven by dropping something in Antarctica, because instead of going "down", it still went to the center of the earth. The same with evlolution. We now know that sometimes DNA can make a random (and very small) change, thus proving evolution. Some people think the theories of evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. They're not. There are plenty of people who believe in both.

First of all, it's spelt 'theorem' and the guy's name is Pythagoras.
Secondly, looking at drawings of triangles or circles and stuff does not constitute proof in mathematics, I learned that in grade 6.
Thirdly, what the hell are you talking about? Dropping things in Antarctica proves gravity? Of course they go down just like everything else because 'down' is locally (meaning on any given body with sufficient mass (such as a planet)) defined as 'towards the center of the body'. If you really want to prove gravity, go and discover the graviton and get a Nobel prize.
Fourthly, there's a lot more to evolution than genetic mutations.

if u don't believe a^2 + b^2 = C^2, go test it out and watch the results

My most posted in thread rises again! Huzzah!

Neoteny wrote:My most posted in thread rises again! Huzzah!

I wonder if it does if posts don't count anymore.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:My most posted in thread rises again! Huzzah!

I wonder if it does if posts don't count anymore.

I dunno. But it won't change as long as I don't post outside of the off-topics.

Neoteny wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:My most posted in thread rises again! Huzzah!

I wonder if it does if posts don't count anymore.

I dunno. But it won't change as long as I don't post outside of the off-topics.

I don't know what I'd post on outside of off-topics. I guess I could flame people or something...maybe talk about Risk...that seems kind of boring to me.

Frigidus wrote:
I don't know what I'd post on outside of off-topics. I guess I could flame people or something...maybe talk about Risk...that seems kind of boring to me.

Troll threads like me and DM do. It's fun.

Also, no it doesn't add to your postcount.