largest known prime number discoverd

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:50 pm

Moreno wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Sure, but God has only ever been a contraption that exists in our heads.

Just so you know...you wrote this. Honest for a moment.


yeah, at least he admitted that God does exist, which I missed when I responded. Thanks for pointing that out, lol.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:06 pm

Random Factor wrote:
Yet you believe in God regardless. You just don't believe religions take on it.


I once did believe in the existence of the Christian God. But even then I suspected this was not the same thing as believing in the existence of prime numbers.

Prime numbers exist by definition: a whole number that can only be divided without a remainder by itself and one.

A number is either a prime or it is not. No dasein, no conflicting goods, no political economy.

And, sure, down through the ages folks have managed to define [or to deduce] God into existence any number of times. And, obviously, there are any number of folks who believe in the existence of God "in their head".

But that is still not the same thing as actually demonstrating why all rational men and women obligated to believe in the actual/factual existence of God. Let alone the God, my God.

Random Factor wrote:Do you not curse God here and there? Have you never asked God for help?


Sure. And I suspect lots of folks who do not believe in the actual/factual existence of God do so. Why? Because psychologically whenever we experience something particularly brutal in our lives we often long for there to exist an entity able to explain it to us in terms of "why me?". And then an entity able to give us a happy ending through, among other things, salvation and Divine Justice.

Who then can doubt why so many folks believe in God? After all, without God you have to accept the reality that truly terrible things can happen to truly good people for absolutely no reason at all. Just part and parcel of the brute facticity built into an essentially absurd and meaningless existence.

Random Factor wrote:I never said you were obligated to believe in any of it, but you definitely felt obligated to sit there and think I was cramming it down your throat anyway, pushing your negative and pessimistic viewpoints on me, your faulty arguments on me, etc., without any rational thought on the subject whatsoever, based solely in what you feel, your unstable emotionality. Yet, you claim all people who don't believe in God to be rational, when there is overwhelming evidence that this is not the case, given the condition of the world around us that they make worse just the same as people do who believe outright and publicly in God.


This is just your own subjective rendition of what us passing between us now. And at least I recognize the extent to which my reaction to you can only ever be the embodiment of dasein.

Again, for me what counts is not what folks claim is rational but what they are able to demonstrate that all rational minds are obligated to believe. Thus to state that the number 7 is a prime number would seem to be true objectively to me. It's not just a matter of opinion.

And to claim that God [a God, the God, my God] does in fact exist is certainly not necessarily irrational. How on earth could I possible believe that it is? Instead, I ask for an argument and for evidence able to persuade me that He does in fact exist.

You say...

Random Factor wrote:It's not religion that I'm cramming down your throat, but the reality of the belief if approached reasonably and rationally by accepting very disturbing facts about people, facts that they'd rather not face or only face the disturbing aspects thereof.


Okay, approach it reasonably and rationally such that all truth-seeking men and women will be convinced. What disturbing facts can you cite here. And how do you demonstrate that they are facts such that those who don't share them are necessarily not being reasonable.

Random Factor wrote:This has gotten slightly off-topic from Prime Numbers, yet you guided it this way and I won't sit there and let you bring forth an irrational argument against what I believe; not that I have to let you; you did that of your own free will. However, when I say 'I won't let you', I don't mean it that way, but in the sense that I won't let you get away with smearing the very strong possibility that I'm right just because you want to be unreasonable about it.


By being "unreasonable" of course you mean not sharing your own frame of mind. Whereas with respect to these deeply puzzling relationships I would never argue that my own point of view is anything but a personal opinion rooted in dasein.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:12 pm

I have approached it reasonably and rationally multiple times on this forum, am in fact getting tired of doing so, do know that you've paid attention to at least some of it, enough to know that I have done so to the best of my ability and you still deny all evidence even in reasonable conjecture. I don't care if you share my frame of mind or not, to reject all forms of evidence simply because it's not good enough for you is bullshit.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:17 pm

Moreno wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Sure, but God has only ever been a contraption that exists in our heads.

Just so you know...you wrote this. Honest for a moment.


I was making the distinction between the alleged existence of God and the manner in which I allege the existence of Kids here at ILP. Or what others call the "retards".

And I later acknowledged that the existence of Kids was in fact only an intellectual contraption "in my head".

With regard to the existence of God, the distinction that I always make is the same -- between those who claim to believe in His existence "in their head" and those able to demonstrate his actual/factual existence such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in His existence in turn.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:18 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Moreno wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Sure, but God has only ever been a contraption that exists in our heads.

Just so you know...you wrote this. Honest for a moment.


I was making the distinction between the alleged existence of God and the manner in which I allege the existence of Kids here at ILP. Or what others call the "retards".

And I later acknowledged that the existence of Kids was in fact only an intellectual contraption "in my head".

With regard to the existence of God, the distinction that I always make is the same -- between those who claim to believe in His existence "in their head" and those able to demonstrate his actual/factual existence such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in His existence in turn.


Were you? That was rather unclear. You should clarify in the process of speaking next time as it would save a lot on confusion.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:19 pm

And by the way, I am God; in all terms and my story has been greatly exaggerated by all sides and all facets and many have acted in my name as me or as 'God' that weren't me, which lead to mass confusion along the way.

We're all doing the best we can with what we've been given.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:28 pm

Random Factor wrote:I have approached it reasonably and rationally multiple times on this forum, am in fact getting tired of doing so, do know that you've paid attention to at least some of it, enough to know that I have done so to the best of my ability and you still deny all evidence even in reasonable conjecture. I don't care if you share my frame of mind or not, to reject all forms of evidence simply because it's not good enough for you is bullshit.


Tell me that this isn't a classic example of the "objectivist mind". He assures us that he has already encompassed these relationships As They Really Are "multiple times". And he is getting pissed off because I don't just nod my head and agree with the points that he raises. Which, of course, makes me "one of them".

Now, with prime numbers, we don't often come across this division between "own of us" [those who believe in the existence of prime numbers] and "one of them" [those that do not].

Do we?

And the fact that it just doesn't work that way pertaining to the existence of God is something that the True Believer simply can not fathom.

After all, they have informed over and over and over again why there is really no difference here at all.

Oh, yeah, and I forgot: His is God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:35 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Random Factor wrote:I have approached it reasonably and rationally multiple times on this forum, am in fact getting tired of doing so, do know that you've paid attention to at least some of it, enough to know that I have done so to the best of my ability and you still deny all evidence even in reasonable conjecture. I don't care if you share my frame of mind or not, to reject all forms of evidence simply because it's not good enough for you is bullshit.


Tell me that this isn't a classic example of the "objectivist mind". He assures us that he has already encompassed these relationships As They Really Are "multiple times". And he is getting pissed off because I don't just nod my head and agree with the points that he raises. Which, of course, makes me "one of them".

Now, with prime numbers, we don't often come across this division between "own of us" [those who believe in the existence of prime numbers] and "one of them" [those that do not].

Do we?

And the fact that it just doesn't work that way pertaining to the existence of God is something that the True Believer simply can not fathom.

After all, they have informed over and over and over again why there is really no difference here at all.

Oh, yeah, and I forgot: His is God.


Actually, if you read my entire post, I'm getting pissed off because you reject all forms of evidence that I submit. I'm not asking you to nod your head and agree with me. When you ask for proof and proof is given; when you ask for evidence and evidence is given and you just deny it or say that it's not good enough, that makes you a fucking prick and its bullshit. 'One of them.' Right. One of the idiot millions of people that sits there in their own bullshit, maybe.

Ok, motherfucker; what about negative prime numbers? They count out all those positive ones, surely there's got to be a negative one somewhere, right? Explain that to me or explain the impossibility of it.

I can fathom quite well your fucking mindset, because it took me a length of time to believe in God myself; I performed tests, framed theories and hypotheses that I carried out; not coldly; but in the manner prescribed somewhat by religion, with an open heart; following the work of Jesus in helping others, looking at the world around me, seeing the problems and addressing them one by one in turn. I have personal testimony of the proof of God beyond just my own self, but again that isn't enough for you, since my personal testimony is only so much more evidence that YOU do not accept, it not being good enough for YOU.

You can fuck off, you piece of shit.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:39 pm

Hey, I know; how about you piss me off some more all for calling you on your bullshit, you weak-minded little bitch. I fucking dare you. How about you piss me off even more to where I bust through this swearing and insulting and name-calling and actually get to the point where I start completely schooling you again and again and breaking you down bit by fucking bit as you come at me with the same manner of attacks as so many others. How about that? How about you follow the same tired lines of so many others before you, prove your own unoriginality in the process as I move from a ground I've already triumphed over, your psychology, your methods, now that I'm on more familiar ground here with your direct reply as you've just presented it, and the arguments themselves. I only get better as time goes on. People like you tend to devolve until they don't even bother anymore because they know they have no leg to stand on; no true argument save their own infantile dark emotion.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:50 pm

Random Factor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Random Factor wrote:I have approached it reasonably and rationally multiple times on this forum, am in fact getting tired of doing so, do know that you've paid attention to at least some of it, enough to know that I have done so to the best of my ability and you still deny all evidence even in reasonable conjecture. I don't care if you share my frame of mind or not, to reject all forms of evidence simply because it's not good enough for you is bullshit.


Tell me that this isn't a classic example of the "objectivist mind". He assures us that he has already encompassed these relationships As They Really Are "multiple times". And he is getting pissed off because I don't just nod my head and agree with the points that he raises. Which, of course, makes me "one of them".

Now, with prime numbers, we don't often come across this division between "own of us" [those who believe in the existence of prime numbers] and "one of them" [those that do not].

Do we?

And the fact that it just doesn't work that way pertaining to the existence of God is something that the True Believer simply can not fathom.

After all, they have informed over and over and over again why there is really no difference here at all.

Oh, yeah, and I forgot: His is God.


Actually, if you read my entire post, I'm getting pissed off because you reject all forms of evidence that I submit. I'm not asking you to nod your head and agree with me. When you ask for proof and proof is given; when you ask for evidence and evidence is given and you just deny it or say that it's not good enough, that makes you a fucking prick and its bullshit. 'One of them.' Right. One of the idiot millions of people that sits there in their own bullshit, maybe.

Ok, motherfucker; what about negative prime numbers? They count out all those positive ones, surely there's got to be a negative one somewhere, right? Explain that to me or explain the impossibility of it.

I can fathom quite well your fucking mindset, because it took me a length of time to believe in God myself; I performed tests, framed theories and hypotheses that I carried out; not coldly; but in the manner prescribed somewhat by religion, with an open heart; following the work of Jesus in helping others, looking at the world around me, seeing the problems and addressing them one by one in turn. I have personal testimony of the proof of God beyond just my own self, but again that isn't enough for you, since my personal testimony is only so much more evidence that YOU do not accept, it not being good enough for YOU.

You can fuck off, you piece of shit.



Sigh...

It was only a matter of time of course.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:54 pm

iambiguous wrote:Sigh...

It was only a matter of time of course.


Yep. Wasn't it, though? I love the subtle insinuation that you make of my psychology that I was bound to degenerate to this again based on so much of my actions here already, as if getting pissed off at shit is a degeneration of self, or if swearing and insulting and genuinely being upset over something worth being upset about is wrong. I love again how you infantilely try to put yourself higher up than me without having actually earned the right to do so. Isn't it amazing how much body language one can pick up just in a few simple words that someone else drops? I think it's fucking amazing as Hell, but then what does it matter what I think? What's the proof, sir; what's the evidence that that is what he meant how he meant it and aren't you inferring too much; assuming just a bit past your own ass and does not that make an ass out of you and me or at least just you?

Why don't you save yourself the trouble.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:30 pm

Thank you for adding to my glory, btw, if even unintentionally, if it was unintentional. Kind of reinforces religion a little bit, since even if God wills evil to be evil or not; even if God didn't create it and does not allow it but it happens anyway; even if God does not wish for things that get in the way and interfere with the fact that even God itself is similar to so many of its supposed creations, such is the fact that even all those things still add to the glory of this 'God' that is able to overcome all those things and put them in their place, whether it likes to do so or not.

I personally don't care for these interactions or these 'fights'. I would not have them if not for the proud and egotistical; if not for those that hunger for power and control over others; to raise themselves high without actually earning. I would rather have peace and pleasant conversation, but I can not ignore the fact that even this adds to the glory that I never sought for myself, that I never wanted. I never went in search of glory, can't even enjoy it the same as those who did search for glory and having found a small piece, contented themselves with that piece like a cat with a ball of yarn or a piece of string.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:44 pm

Random Factor wrote:Thank you for adding to my glory, btw, if even unintentionally, if it was unintentional. Kind of reinforces religion a little bit, since even if God wills evil to be evil or not; even if God didn't create it and does not allow it but it happens anyway; even if God does not wish for things that get in the way and interfere with the fact that even God itself is similar to so many of its supposed creations, such is the fact that even all those things still add to the glory of this 'God' that is able to overcome all those things and put them in their place, whether it likes to do so or not.

I personally don't care for these interactions or these 'fights'. I would not have them if not for the proud and egotistical; if not for those that hunger for power and control over others; to raise themselves high without actually earning. I would rather have peace and pleasant conversation, but I can not ignore the fact that even this adds to the glory that I never sought for myself, that I never wanted. I never went in search of glory, can't even enjoy it the same as those who did search for glory and having found a small piece, contented themselves with that piece like a cat with a ball of yarn or a piece of string.



What the fuck does any of this have to do with the points that I raised with you above regarding the distinction between establishing the existence of prime numbers and establishing the existence of a God, the God, your god.

Or you as God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:53 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Random Factor wrote:Thank you for adding to my glory, btw, if even unintentionally, if it was unintentional. Kind of reinforces religion a little bit, since even if God wills evil to be evil or not; even if God didn't create it and does not allow it but it happens anyway; even if God does not wish for things that get in the way and interfere with the fact that even God itself is similar to so many of its supposed creations, such is the fact that even all those things still add to the glory of this 'God' that is able to overcome all those things and put them in their place, whether it likes to do so or not.

I personally don't care for these interactions or these 'fights'. I would not have them if not for the proud and egotistical; if not for those that hunger for power and control over others; to raise themselves high without actually earning. I would rather have peace and pleasant conversation, but I can not ignore the fact that even this adds to the glory that I never sought for myself, that I never wanted. I never went in search of glory, can't even enjoy it the same as those who did search for glory and having found a small piece, contented themselves with that piece like a cat with a ball of yarn or a piece of string.



What the fuck does any of this have to do with the points that I raised with you above regarding the distinction between establishing the existence of prime numbers and establishing the existence of a God, the God, your god.

Or you as God.



Uh, why was it so important for you to make those points? What did prime numbers have to do with God at all?

You asked, 'Why can't God just tell us what the largest prime number actually is?' -paraphrase

And I think I answered: 'Don't numbers just keep going as high as anyone cares to count and therefore there would be no 'largest' prime number since another would, theoretically, always be found?' -also paraphrase

You're the one who, then, wanted to focus more on God than on Prime numbers, an argument you therein lost as you side-tracked yourself from the conversation and lost through so many other factors, not simply because you side-tracked yourself from your own initial conversation.

I find that my question of 'I wonder if there is an Optimus Prime Number' was more reasonable of a question than your:

What the fuck does any of this have to do with the points that I raised with you above regarding the distinction between establishing the existence of prime numbers and establishing the existence of a God, the God, your god.


Because the answer to that is that there is no correlation between establishing the existence of prime numbers and establishing the existence of God. But, you started that line of conversation and I felt compelled to follow along with it. Anytime you want to go back to talking about Prime Numbers, you're more than welcome to do so.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:18 pm

Random Factor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
What the fuck does any of this have to do with the points that I raised with you above regarding the distinction between establishing the existence of prime numbers and establishing the existence of a God, the God, your god.

Or you as God.


Uh, why was it so important for you to make those points? What did prime numbers have to do with God at all?


Because, as I noted in the OP, I was pondering how the existence of prime numbers [and finding the largest one so far] factors into the meaning of "all there is". And if that doesn't [eventually] nudge us in the general direction of God...

Random Factor wrote: You asked, 'Why can't God just tell us what the largest prime number actually is?' -paraphrase
And I think I answered: 'Don't numbers just keep going as high as anyone cares to count and therefore there would be no 'largest' prime number since another would, theoretically, always be found?' -also paraphrase


Okay, but doesn't that prompt you to ponder Why That Is? What is the ontological [teleological?] nature of "all there is" -- Existence, Reality -- such that prime numbers exist at all. And then when we go down the road even further and ponder why there is existence rather than no existence at all, God is certainly one of the possible explanation. At least until we ask why is there a God instead of No God?

On the other hand, I can well understand why folks invents "the gods" in order to delude themselves that they have access to the actual answer.

Not even counting all the other reasons: immortality, slavation, devine justice etc.

But, in my view, that still doesn't take the existence of a God, the God, your God [or you as God] out of your head such that all rational men and women are obligatied to believe it in turn.

And isn't that basically the whole point of philosophy -- to establish that which we can know beyond all doubt as true objectively? True beyond what any particular one of us merely believes to be true subjectively "in our head"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby James S Saint » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:32 pm

iambiguous wrote:And isn't that basically the whole point of philosophy -- to establish that which we can know beyond all doubt as true objectively? True beyond what any particular one of us merely believes to be true subjectively "in our head"?

Considering that you fight against that at every possible turn, talking to you would not convince me of what you just said.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:45 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:And isn't that basically the whole point of philosophy -- to establish that which we can know beyond all doubt as true objectively? True beyond what any particular one of us merely believes to be true subjectively "in our head"?

Considering that you fight against that at every possible turn, talking to you would not convince me of what you just said.


To "fight against that at every turn"? Well, this means that you refuse to come to the same conclusions that James has. Or, in the vernacular of others, that you are a "retard".

Or has James actually succeeded somewhere in establishing that what he believes to be true "in his head" regarding the relationship between conflicting value judgments, the existence of the Real God and RM/AO is in fact the obligation of all rational men and women.

I challenge anyone to link me to a post where he has accomplished this.

Including James himself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:08 pm

Because, as I noted in the OP, I was pondering how the existence of prime numbers [and finding the largest one so far] factors into the meaning of "all there is". And if that doesn't [eventually] nudge us in the general direction of God...


Maybe it's just something to do for the sake of having something to do? I'd be more curious if there was a mathematical equation that could be used to locate prime numbers that hadn't been found yet. Personally, I don't see why prime numbers would be any different than anything else, as in, to factor into the meaning of all there is, as more than just a small part of it all, since prime numbers are, after all, a very small part of mathematics, regardless of how seemingly important anyone can make them appear to be.

Honestly, I wouldn't even know where to begin stating that the existence of prime numbers nudges us in the general direction of God because I don't see how the idea of numbers, prime or not, would nudge everyone in that direction. I would merely state that people tend to search for God or be nudged towards the search for God in a variety of ways and it's not necessarily the prime numbers of math that are used to do that, in fact, the nudging is not dependent on them at all, merely, perhaps, that people decide to go in search or move toward the general direction of God for reasons other than numbers and are merely focused primarily on numbers throughout their lives simply because they enjoy numbers and upon reaching a 'stopping point', so to speak, might then find reason to pursue other avenues of thought.

iambiguous wrote:
random factor wrote:You asked, 'Why can't God just tell us what the largest prime number actually is?' -paraphrase
And I think I answered: 'Don't numbers just keep going as high as anyone cares to count and therefore there would be no 'largest' prime number since another would, theoretically, always be found?' -also paraphrase

Okay, but doesn't that prompt you to ponder Why That Is? What is the ontological [teleological?] nature of "all there is" -- Existence, Reality -- such that prime numbers exist at all. And then when we go down the road even further and ponder why there is existence rather than no existence at all, God is certainly one of the possible explanation. At least until we ask why is there a God instead of No God?


Not really. People talking about God prompts me more to ponder why that is. I'm more of a realistic mindset insofar as thinking that prime numbers exist simply because numbers exist and through math, the questions eventually being asked if there were numbers that were only able to be positively divided by themselves and 1 to come to a whole number. Why do numbers exist? We had need to count things and keep track of things that needed to be counted. Why did complex math come into existence? To simplify basic math, because it is easier and simpler to state 3x3=9 rather than add 3 to itself 3 times. And then, as they developed their math further, found a whole lot of other math, including the whole 'if this, then this' functions of calculus and physics. I believe that people were able to do such computations naturally without any thought of numbers or measurement before they started the creation of math and numbers and the awareness of those definitions and labels stinted a bit their own ability to do what had already come to them naturally, starting a distancing from nature in the process of their learning curve, which began to beg the question, once that awareness hit, of how we knew such things instinctively without having to be taught a single bit of it, which may have then lead to the concept of God; of what else might be out there helping us along.

On the other hand, I can well understand why folks invents "the gods" in order to delude themselves that they have access to the actual answer.


If by answer, you mean what you said prior to that of 'At least until we ask why is there a God instead of No God,' I can only surmise the answer is, because there was one that they gave that term and label to, that it already existed somewhere and they only pulled the information out that such a thing existed along that term and definition and had made claims, whether true or not, that were at least true in some facets of it if not being true in all facets. I believe that there might have been a lot of general misunderstandings during learning processes, since the complexities of the thought processes involved were not always able to be easily understood, given the roundabout nature of the explanations themselves, which tied them into so many other things as they showed the complex interconnected weaving of all of everything as it blended and mixed together in our physical reality.

But, in my view, that still doesn't take the existence of a God, the God, your God [or you as God] out of your head such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it in turn.


I never said that all people were obligated to believe anything. But, I do believe that the truth makes itself known whether the obligation is there or not; whether people want to believe it or not, whether they're able to accept it or not; whatever the truth may be. That people have almost an infinite variety of 'the' truth, I try to take into account. But, what is the overall truth of it? I look at our present reality and try to answer as concisely and correctly as possible for our current reality, taking into account the possibility of alternate realities where all of their truths may be true each in their own place and yet our reality does see a blending of those truths in several facets and factors, being comprised of all of those truths and having space for all of them within itself.

And isn't that basically the whole point of philosophy -- to establish that which we can know beyond all doubt as true objectively? True beyond what any particular one of us merely believes to be true subjectively "in our head"?


Precisely. That is precisely why I blend all philosophies together, why I blend all personal truths together, even the lies, even the truths that state that people run from truths into lies that may also be true in their respective fashions and see how much is objectively true for our current reality based on the blend of it all together, such as our reality must be for housing it all together.

And for doing this ultimate philosophy better than any other and actually putting it forth and setting it in motion here and in this place, I do consider myself to be the God that all others talk about and have talked about and will talk about throughout much of time and space, since I have to blend it all together within my own self, create a neutral place as much as possible within myself, settle down some of the worst just to get their answers, their rationality, their reasons, their truths, etc., just to be able to provide the answers that might fit best. And, I fight like none other, and I don't fight alone, but with a lot of 'help' that isn't always help. A lot of 'help' that pretends to be help but is really trying to interfere with my work and then a lot of 'help' that is actually help, but not actually helping me at all and still interfering with my work regardless of the helpers intent. It's hard to sift through it all, but I do my best.

I wouldn't sit there and claim to be God for no reason like so many others. I work on a system of meritocracy. If I can suitably and reasonably believe that I am God for the work that I do, then I'm content with stating that I am. If I can't, I fully expect to burn in whatever Hell may or may not exist for my hubris and over-stepping of boundaries. I accept that as a possibility for all that I do. Just one possibility, out of an infinite, but still a possibility. And, at a certain point of blending, one has to begin to look at the strongest possibilities, no matter how subtle.

It's like, if you know someone well enough, or even know yourself well enough, and say, for example, you went to a store to get peanut butter for sandwiches, you may theoretically and possibly get more than just peanut butter, but lets say for this example that you are a person who tends to know what they want, who tends not to waste time shopping and are the type to go in and get what you want and then get out. You would be more likely to get just peanut butter than the person who does spend more time shopping for whatever reason, who may also wind up getting hot dogs, hot dog buns, mustard, ketchup, etc., maybe a bottle of pickles or relish,maybe some steak for the evening meal, possibly a gallon of milk because you remember you ran out of it or are almost out; if you drink milk. Or, the person who is more erratic and goes to buy peanut butter and gets cookies and oranges and completely forgets the peanut butter until they get home and then realize that their bread has begun to mold anyway, something they didn't realize before they set out and are glad they got the cookies and oranges, but realizes they have to go back to the store for something to drink, perhaps milk, but wind up getting another loaf of bread to go with the peanut butter, forgetting why they went to the store and then still have to go back a third time for milk or something else to drink if they don't drink milk, maybe orange juice, and might still forget what they went to the store for.

And all of these types of individuals exist together in a singular reality with so many others; such as the people who do all their shopping online and have it delivered to them, or people who have someone else do the shopping for them, or people who don't eat healthy at all and instead get only snack food or 'bachelor/bachelorette' food, if it can be termed as such without being a sleight to the married couples or non-married couples that eat like that anyway instead of having actual meals. And then you have the alcoholics who generally have liquid meals. And the tweakers that don't eat for days at a time. And each of them have a set of possibilities that are stronger than others and you can therefore find some pattern to them based on the strongest possibilities exhibited by a string of behavior over a set period of time, dependent on the person. Other possibilities might break through here and there and might break through more and more over that extended period of time and more even after that period of time is over, or they might not ever break through and the person might remain perfectly predictable their entire life.

But, those are individuals. The same dynamics exist for groups, though; there is a pattern to be found that states still that even groups have strong possibilities and other possibilities, but usually the strongest do win out and present themselves over a set period of time. Therefore, as ever-changing as things all are, even groups can remain predictable or not based on their components and the factor of time. Therefore, same must hold true for reality itself, especially our reality as it holds the knowledge of an almost infinite variety of other realities within it, and on a small scale, for all of the atoms and molecules there must also be the same pattern of predictable to unpredictable behavior based on each component and then each group of components and even the most predictable can change at any moment based on an unexpected turn of events within the whole of the singular by its components, what some would deem adaptation or evolution or simple popularity, at a certain point, or maybe the command of brain cells for more of a purpose than mere existence or the return to mere existence.

But, simply stated, nothing is instantaneous even if it seems as such and miracles don't just happen overnight, even if they appear that they do and things don't change in a moment, even if they appear to do so, even if it is snap and sudden. There's always a lot more that goes into such things than people are aware of and we can know this because we can see it in so many things on our level and see, then, the truth that exists for all these other things by applying that knowledge to those other things and seeing if it also holds true for them, which it does. And, I don't ask you to take that on blind faith, but to see the obvious work that I must have put into ascertaining that such is true and to go see for yourself, perform your own fieldwork, your own study, to see for yourself if it's true or not.

There are too many things in our society already that beg you to just accept what they say on blind faith, from religion to science to math, everything to them is absolute. I say, go and do the work for yourself, see for yourself and if you come to different conclusions, that's cool, but I bet they're still accounted for by my ultimate philosophy and can be incorporated into it; but I would assume at a certain point that eventually, you would come to the same conclusions that I've come to, if you're giving it the honest effort and keeping an open mind. Also, a certain freedom from negativity and lies and pessimism must also be had, at least in part.

What's the point of such knowledge? To lay arguments to rest that people and things will probably still argue for the rest of existence anyway, but at least you yourself may be satisfied to some extent that you put the work in and found out for yourself. At the point where knowledge interferes with your ability to live, to enjoy and participate in life, it's pointless, but there's no changing the fact that you know it, even if all others ostracize you for it, or hate you for it and you would then have to learn how to deal with those things, as well, whether you deal with it all positively or negatively, but that's also dependent on the set patterns of the individuals that they may or may not be able to break based on their own time lines and how much work they've already put into such things or didn't put in.

And to all of this knowledge, Prime numbers really don't make all that big of a difference, at least to me.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby James S Saint » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:Or, in the vernacular of others, that you are a "retard".

You think that I am a retard relative to you?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:34 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Or, in the vernacular of others, that you are a "retard".

You think that I am a retard relative to you?


Absolutely. Though not objectively. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:58 pm

Random Factor wrote:
Because, as I noted in the OP, I was pondering how the existence of prime numbers [and finding the largest one so far] factors into the meaning of "all there is". And if that doesn't [eventually] nudge us in the general direction of God...


Maybe it's just something to do for the sake of having something to do? I'd be more curious if there was a mathematical equation that could be used to locate prime numbers that hadn't been found yet. Personally, I don't see why prime numbers would be any different than anything else, as in, to factor into the meaning of all there is, as more than just a small part of it all, since prime numbers are, after all, a very small part of mathematics, regardless of how seemingly important anyone can make them appear to be.

Honestly, I wouldn't even know where to begin stating that the existence of prime numbers nudges us in the general direction of God because I don't see how the idea of numbers, prime or not, would nudge everyone in that direction. I would merely state that people tend to search for God or be nudged towards the search for God in a variety of ways and it's not necessarily the prime numbers of math that are used to do that, in fact, the nudging is not dependent on them at all, merely, perhaps, that people decide to go in search or move toward the general direction of God for reasons other than numbers and are merely focused primarily on numbers throughout their lives simply because they enjoy numbers and upon reaching a 'stopping point', so to speak, might then find reason to pursue other avenues of thought.

iambiguous wrote:
random factor wrote:You asked, 'Why can't God just tell us what the largest prime number actually is?' -paraphrase
And I think I answered: 'Don't numbers just keep going as high as anyone cares to count and therefore there would be no 'largest' prime number since another would, theoretically, always be found?' -also paraphrase

Okay, but doesn't that prompt you to ponder Why That Is? What is the ontological [teleological?] nature of "all there is" -- Existence, Reality -- such that prime numbers exist at all. And then when we go down the road even further and ponder why there is existence rather than no existence at all, God is certainly one of the possible explanation. At least until we ask why is there a God instead of No God?


Not really. People talking about God prompts me more to ponder why that is. I'm more of a realistic mindset insofar as thinking that prime numbers exist simply because numbers exist and through math, the questions eventually being asked if there were numbers that were only able to be positively divided by themselves and 1 to come to a whole number. Why do numbers exist? We had need to count things and keep track of things that needed to be counted. Why did complex math come into existence? To simplify basic math, because it is easier and simpler to state 3x3=9 rather than add 3 to itself 3 times. And then, as they developed their math further, found a whole lot of other math, including the whole 'if this, then this' functions of calculus and physics. I believe that people were able to do such computations naturally without any thought of numbers or measurement before they started the creation of math and numbers and the awareness of those definitions and labels stinted a bit their own ability to do what had already come to them naturally, starting a distancing from nature in the process of their learning curve, which began to beg the question, once that awareness hit, of how we knew such things instinctively without having to be taught a single bit of it, which may have then lead to the concept of God; of what else might be out there helping us along.

On the other hand, I can well understand why folks invents "the gods" in order to delude themselves that they have access to the actual answer.


If by answer, you mean what you said prior to that of 'At least until we ask why is there a God instead of No God,' I can only surmise the answer is, because there was one that they gave that term and label to, that it already existed somewhere and they only pulled the information out that such a thing existed along that term and definition and had made claims, whether true or not, that were at least true in some facets of it if not being true in all facets. I believe that there might have been a lot of general misunderstandings during learning processes, since the complexities of the thought processes involved were not always able to be easily understood, given the roundabout nature of the explanations themselves, which tied them into so many other things as they showed the complex interconnected weaving of all of everything as it blended and mixed together in our physical reality.

But, in my view, that still doesn't take the existence of a God, the God, your God [or you as God] out of your head such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it in turn.


I never said that all people were obligated to believe anything. But, I do believe that the truth makes itself known whether the obligation is there or not; whether people want to believe it or not, whether they're able to accept it or not; whatever the truth may be. That people have almost an infinite variety of 'the' truth, I try to take into account. But, what is the overall truth of it? I look at our present reality and try to answer as concisely and correctly as possible for our current reality, taking into account the possibility of alternate realities where all of their truths may be true each in their own place and yet our reality does see a blending of those truths in several facets and factors, being comprised of all of those truths and having space for all of them within itself.

And isn't that basically the whole point of philosophy -- to establish that which we can know beyond all doubt as true objectively? True beyond what any particular one of us merely believes to be true subjectively "in our head"?


Precisely. That is precisely why I blend all philosophies together, why I blend all personal truths together, even the lies, even the truths that state that people run from truths into lies that may also be true in their respective fashions and see how much is objectively true for our current reality based on the blend of it all together, such as our reality must be for housing it all together.

And for doing this ultimate philosophy better than any other and actually putting it forth and setting it in motion here and in this place, I do consider myself to be the God that all others talk about and have talked about and will talk about throughout much of time and space, since I have to blend it all together within my own self, create a neutral place as much as possible within myself, settle down some of the worst just to get their answers, their rationality, their reasons, their truths, etc., just to be able to provide the answers that might fit best. And, I fight like none other, and I don't fight alone, but with a lot of 'help' that isn't always help. A lot of 'help' that pretends to be help but is really trying to interfere with my work and then a lot of 'help' that is actually help, but not actually helping me at all and still interfering with my work regardless of the helpers intent. It's hard to sift through it all, but I do my best.

I wouldn't sit there and claim to be God for no reason like so many others. I work on a system of meritocracy. If I can suitably and reasonably believe that I am God for the work that I do, then I'm content with stating that I am. If I can't, I fully expect to burn in whatever Hell may or may not exist for my hubris and over-stepping of boundaries. I accept that as a possibility for all that I do. Just one possibility, out of an infinite, but still a possibility. And, at a certain point of blending, one has to begin to look at the strongest possibilities, no matter how subtle.

It's like, if you know someone well enough, or even know yourself well enough, and say, for example, you went to a store to get peanut butter for sandwiches, you may theoretically and possibly get more than just peanut butter, but lets say for this example that you are a person who tends to know what they want, who tends not to waste time shopping and are the type to go in and get what you want and then get out. You would be more likely to get just peanut butter than the person who does spend more time shopping for whatever reason, who may also wind up getting hot dogs, hot dog buns, mustard, ketchup, etc., maybe a bottle of pickles or relish,maybe some steak for the evening meal, possibly a gallon of milk because you remember you ran out of it or are almost out; if you drink milk. Or, the person who is more erratic and goes to buy peanut butter and gets cookies and oranges and completely forgets the peanut butter until they get home and then realize that their bread has begun to mold anyway, something they didn't realize before they set out and are glad they got the cookies and oranges, but realizes they have to go back to the store for something to drink, perhaps milk, but wind up getting another loaf of bread to go with the peanut butter, forgetting why they went to the store and then still have to go back a third time for milk or something else to drink if they don't drink milk, maybe orange juice, and might still forget what they went to the store for.

And all of these types of individuals exist together in a singular reality with so many others; such as the people who do all their shopping online and have it delivered to them, or people who have someone else do the shopping for them, or people who don't eat healthy at all and instead get only snack food or 'bachelor/bachelorette' food, if it can be termed as such without being a sleight to the married couples or non-married couples that eat like that anyway instead of having actual meals. And then you have the alcoholics who generally have liquid meals. And the tweakers that don't eat for days at a time. And each of them have a set of possibilities that are stronger than others and you can therefore find some pattern to them based on the strongest possibilities exhibited by a string of behavior over a set period of time, dependent on the person. Other possibilities might break through here and there and might break through more and more over that extended period of time and more even after that period of time is over, or they might not ever break through and the person might remain perfectly predictable their entire life.

But, those are individuals. The same dynamics exist for groups, though; there is a pattern to be found that states still that even groups have strong possibilities and other possibilities, but usually the strongest do win out and present themselves over a set period of time. Therefore, as ever-changing as things all are, even groups can remain predictable or not based on their components and the factor of time. Therefore, same must hold true for reality itself, especially our reality as it holds the knowledge of an almost infinite variety of other realities within it, and on a small scale, for all of the atoms and molecules there must also be the same pattern of predictable to unpredictable behavior based on each component and then each group of components and even the most predictable can change at any moment based on an unexpected turn of events within the whole of the singular by its components, what some would deem adaptation or evolution or simple popularity, at a certain point, or maybe the command of brain cells for more of a purpose than mere existence or the return to mere existence.

But, simply stated, nothing is instantaneous even if it seems as such and miracles don't just happen overnight, even if they appear that they do and things don't change in a moment, even if they appear to do so, even if it is snap and sudden. There's always a lot more that goes into such things than people are aware of and we can know this because we can see it in so many things on our level and see, then, the truth that exists for all these other things by applying that knowledge to those other things and seeing if it also holds true for them, which it does. And, I don't ask you to take that on blind faith, but to see the obvious work that I must have put into ascertaining that such is true and to go see for yourself, perform your own fieldwork, your own study, to see for yourself if it's true or not.

There are too many things in our society already that beg you to just accept what they say on blind faith, from religion to science to math, everything to them is absolute. I say, go and do the work for yourself, see for yourself and if you come to different conclusions, that's cool, but I bet they're still accounted for by my ultimate philosophy and can be incorporated into it; but I would assume at a certain point that eventually, you would come to the same conclusions that I've come to, if you're giving it the honest effort and keeping an open mind. Also, a certain freedom from negativity and lies and pessimism must also be had, at least in part.

What's the point of such knowledge? To lay arguments to rest that people and things will probably still argue for the rest of existence anyway, but at least you yourself may be satisfied to some extent that you put the work in and found out for yourself. At the point where knowledge interferes with your ability to live, to enjoy and participate in life, it's pointless, but there's no changing the fact that you know it, even if all others ostracize you for it, or hate you for it and you would then have to learn how to deal with those things, as well, whether you deal with it all positively or negatively, but that's also dependent on the set patterns of the individuals that they may or may not be able to break based on their own time lines and how much work they've already put into such things or didn't put in.

And to all of this knowledge, Prime numbers really don't make all that big of a difference, at least to me.


You note all of this as pure speculation. But how does any of this conjecture get you any closer at all to demonstrating that what you believe "in your head" about God here is what other rational people are obligated to believe in turn?

On the other hand, the existence of prime numbers seems to be indisputable. Any man or woman might be of the opinion that they do not exist, but I think that it can be demonstrated that this point of view is objectively irrational.

And, as Kriswest noted above, there are "real life" implications here:

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions ... me-numbers

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-prime-num ... me-numbers

But: If there are "real life" implications you can be certain that different folks will use these applications to precipitate programs and behaviors that come into conflict.

And that is when the existence of God becomes of particular importance to me. Why? Because sans God there would appear to be no font able to resolve the disputes omnisciently. And there would appear to be no font able to offer rewards to or exact punishments on those who either do the right thing with them or the wrong thing.

Thus demonstrating why the actual existence of a God, the God, my God becomes of particular importance to folks like me.

So, does He in fact exist or not?

What's tricky about the existence of prime numbers [to me] is when we ponder whether or not they would exist had the human race not first evolved to define what they are? And then we get to thinking about any other intelligent life in the universe that might be privy to the existence of prime numbers. And then [sooner or later] we get around to speculating about who or what brought existence into existence in the first place.

God for example. Or the God who created Him or Her or It.

Is it Gods all the way down?

Or is it science?

Philosophy?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:11 pm

I've already answered every question you could every ask. It is all applicable to something or another; all relative to something or another; no matter how seeming similar, no matter how seeming different. I could sit there and hold your hand as you ask so many questions that would be better answered by your own viewing of life mixed in with all of your encounters with others, both surface and deeper and your own personal place in the universe. It is up to you to live your own life and to see how the answers apply to your own situations. Nobody else can do that for you. Even if you were to open yourself up entirely for the viewing of another and they were able to do such a thing with wisdom, how then would it serve you or help you at all if you yourself remain unable to do so or to even understand what is being done or how it can be applied to other things?

Einstein's theory of relativity is sadly lacking and through no fault of his own; I blame society, both for inhibiting the geniuses and for not continuing their work; for simply setting it in place as the 'be all, end all' of the subject.
Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby James S Saint » Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:45 pm

Random Factor wrote:Einstein's theory of relativity is sadly lacking and through no fault of his own; I blame society, both for inhibiting the geniuses and for not continuing their work; for simply setting it in place as the 'be all, end all' of the subject.

=D>
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby Uccisore » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:48 am

Back in my day the highest known prime number was 7, and it was good enough for us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: largest known prime number discoverd

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:01 pm

Random Factor wrote: I've already answered every question you could every ask. It is all applicable to something or another; all relative to something or another; no matter how seeming similar, no matter how seeming different. I could sit there and hold your hand as you ask so many questions that would be better answered by your own viewing of life mixed in with all of your encounters with others, both surface and deeper and your own personal place in the universe. It is up to you to live your own life and to see how the answers apply to your own situations. Nobody else can do that for you. Even if you were to open yourself up entirely for the viewing of another and they were able to do such a thing with wisdom, how then would it serve you or help you at all if you yourself remain unable to do so or to even understand what is being done or how it can be applied to other things?


What on earth does this have to do with our main point of contention: distinguishing between the existence of prime numbers and the existence of God?

We believe in the existence of prime numbers because they can in fact be demonstrated to exist. By definition for example. And "for all practical purposes" they can be used given the information I provided in the links above.

Now, how do you go about demonstrating in turn the existence of a God, the God, your God? Or demonstrating [tongue in cheek?] that you are God?

Instead, as with all of the others here who profess to believe in one or another God [denominational or otherwise], this never gets much beyond what you claim to know about Him "in your head".

Right?

Random Factor wrote: Einstein's theory of relativity is sadly lacking and through no fault of his own; I blame society, both for inhibiting the geniuses and for not continuing their work; for simply setting it in place as the 'be all, end all' of the subject.


Again: Huh?

What the fuck does this have to do with the existence of prime numbers and the existence of God? Einstein's theory of relativity has been shown time and again to predict any number of things that science has confirmed to be in accordance with the laws of nature/matter/physics.

What theologian [or philosopher] can make the same claims regarding God?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26512
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users