Seems I did get under your skin. Sorry to hear that, I thought things were just honest disagreements.
So here’s the score: Motor said that you cannot divide a pie into 3 even pieces, but you can divide a pie into 4 even pieces. This is, of course, a claim about pies and not a claim about the base10 number system.
Obsrvr agrees that everything Motor says is perfectly accurate, so because 1/3 is an infinite decimal in the base 10 number system, both of these guys think that justifies statements about pies and how you can evenly split them.
Neither one seems willing to acknowledge that pies don’t have to abide by things you can show in a base 10 number system, because reality, and pies themselves, do not necessarily rely on base 10.
When given the chance to limit the claims he’s making to just the base10 number system, Motor insisted “In reality you can not divide 1 pie into 3 equal pieces.” In his next post, he said “1 pie divided into 4 equal pieces is 1/4=.25. […] So yes, you can divide a pie into 4 equal pieces”. view the posts here for context
It seems unamiguously clear that the claims here are NOT being limited to being about the base 10 numbering system, but are actually about the possible ways things can be divided.
Just making everything perfectly clear for any observers. The claim is, pies in reality cannot be divided into 3 equal pieces because 1/3 is a repeating decimal in base 10, and it doesn’t seem to matter that 1/3 in other bases is not a repeating decimal. [edit] and I think it’s fair to assume that the claim isn’t just about pies, but in principle about anything.
Again - just you projecting - your “skin” in jeopardy - not mine.
You are welcome to believe that at any time - I won’t be disagreeing.
So you just pick something that you can twist into an objection and ignore what everyone is saying?
Abstinence?
I agree with what HE said - not with what you choose to read from it.
You like contrived strawmen - don’t you.
And he was right about that in both senses - physically real and abstractly.
And that is where you display your abstinence.
It has been explained to you over and over and over - he/we have been talking about abstract quantities in the language of base 10 maths - nothing to do with real physical objects.
Do you just have trouble understanding the difference between abstract objects and physical objects? That would certainly explain why you believe in QM mysticism.
Stawman lie.
You should run for political office - you would fit right in.
You should ask me this in the relevant place, if it’s a genuine question. This isn’t the relevant place for it.
Bringing up general unrelated disagreements in every thread you see me isn’t really the done thing. If I disagree with you about a matter of science, that’s not some big issue that needs to keep you awake at night. You don’t need to drag it into every thread you see me post in. Keep it relevant please.
No - this IS the relevant place - no excuses please.
We/He have been talking about abstract concepts - just as you have on other threads. But now you insist that there is no difference because he said “a pie divided in four equal pieces”.
You insist that he MUST MEAN PHYSICAL PIES!!! - disregarding the number of times you have been told otherwise.
That is not only wrong - it is RUDE and most likely disingenuous.
You ignore his genuine intentions just to make a strawman argument against him.
I’ve just searched the entire thread for the word ‘physical’. I never used it in any of my posts until this one. Motor has never used the word ‘physical’ either outside of quoting other users. It certainly feels like this is something you’ve just invented out of thin air to me. Nobody has told ME anything about ‘physical’ or otherwise until now.
The closest I’ve gotten is using the word ‘reality’, as in my question “Are you making a claim about the base 10 number system, or are you making a claim about reality?” His later response to that is “In reality you can not divide 1 pie into 3 equal pieces.” Nothing about ‘physical’, just the word ‘reality’, and he insisted that his claims are about reality, and not just about base 10.
This ‘physical’ thing is your thing, not mine, and not motor’s.
I don’t see any posts of mine that say physical, or where anybody told me anything about physical or otherwise. That’s not a debate I engaged in until you just brought it up in these last few posts.
You’re grasping at straws for this point, and I don’t understand why.
No, you didn’t show it to me. You showed me a post where someone told someone else something about this ‘physical’ conversation.
You said “You insist that he MUST MEAN PHYSICAL PIES!!! - disregarding the number of times you have been told otherwise.”
I have never insisted that he must mean physical pies, because I didn’t use the word ‘physical’ anywhere, and nobody has ever told ME otherwise, because why would they? Of course they wouldn’t, because I never used the word ‘physical’, so there was no reason to tell me otherwise. It’s not a relevant point to any post I’ve made.
I have no idea what you’re on about anymore. Like I said, I never used the word “physical” prior to this conversation with you.
The word I have used was “reality”, and the first context I used it in was a question to motor, asking him to clarify if he was making claims about the base 10 number system, or if he was making claims about reality.
At this point motor could have said “I’m not making claims about reality, I’m making claims about the base 10 number system”, but he didn’t. Instead, he said this: “In reality you can not divide 1 pie into 3 equal pieces.”
The only thing I’m insisting is that he said what he said, and that he meant it. I’m not insisting anything else.
I think the person you need to ask that question to is motor, in fact, because he’s the person saying these claims are about reality. I didn’t make him say that, so I can’t make him unsay it.
What he said was “in reality —” in the sense of “in truth” - NOT in the sense of “in physical reality”.
If he had pushed the idea that he could divide a physical pie into quarters - I would have objected - as I did concerning dividing it by 3.
“I don’t feel the need to answer” - a very rude response. You are the one insisting that we are just having a disagreement - not emotional - yet here you are “I don’t feel the need to respond to your questions - so there!”
You “don;t feel the need” because if you do answer - you either have to say something really dumb or state the obvious fact that you have been wrong - a rude and childlike way to escape culpability. Like I said - you belong in parliament with your kind.
It’s up to him to decide what he meant, not you. I asked him if his claims were about the base 10 number system, or if they were about reality. He chose the way he responded.
He can come back at any time and say he’s merely making claims about the base 10 number system, but until then it’s pretty clear that that’s not what he said and not what he meant.
