/sci/ - Science & Math

I fucking hate that image macro. What the fuck is wrong with her eyes? And what is this "consider the following"? How about a cup of fuck you?

Other than that, the question seems interesting. But I hate that image so much that I can't concentrate on the fucking text.

Not to offend you, but you sound like a douche. Why don't you just refuse his theories in silence, or at least without making yourself sound like an asshole?

It's a troll thread obviously.

>>4055762
and you're mad.

>and you're mad.
Really? I thought I was experiencing love and compassion.

>>4055769
I don't know, it just annoyed the fuck out of me that he couldn't come up with an explanation. He could've said that a cutting point magically appeared because Voldemort's missing nose was in the way. Y'know it isn't perfect, but it's better than not have an explanation at all!

>>4055777
Learn to control your emotions. This is nothing to get mad over. If you really do desperately need to attack the opinions of this guy, do it in privacy and don't talk like a douche.

<div class="math">Edgy</div>

>>4055786
He-hey! Didn't realize I got trips! But anyhoe...
I don't need to attack his opinions, I just found it annoying that two parallel lines cross in eternity. End of story. I just wanted proof from him, something I didn't get. Try focusing on the question, not me being an ass or not.

>I can't see it so it's not real
I hope no one ever tries to tell you that the integers are an infinite set.
I mean, if you can't see all of the integers, how can they be infinite?

>>4055802
lol'd. No I can understand stuff like that, but can you please tel me how to straight lines next to each other will ever cross? Thank you.

Captcha: ofports nosepads

>>4055815
It only applies in higher dimensions. In 2D and 3D it's bullshit.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StereographicProjection.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GnomonicProjection.html

>>4055820

See this. THIS POST. IT GAVE ANSWERS. Thanks.
You, see people, this is a fine answer. Is it good or bad? It's neither. It's an answer

>>4055836
You seem really frustrated. Relax

>>4055755
parallel lines dont usually meet at infinity in geometric space so you are actually right to tell your teacher that he is wrong. however projective space can be created where parallel lines will meet however projective space is a mathematical construct and has not been observed as a physical manifestation.

this is another example of the public getting their hands on a maths paper, then butchering the point completely and drawing false conclusions of it.

parallel lines DO NOT MEET AT INFINITY

>>4055837
Brotip: never tell a frustrated person to relax. You are only frustrating them further this way.

>>4055837
Yeah, guess I am a bit uptight, actually. Well, maybe I'll go play some Skyrim whilst awaiting other posts.

Well, did he mention ANYTHING about this depending on the definition of your geometry?

>>4055846

Ahem. Let me rephrase my last post on playing Skyrim. I will now bust some skulls.

>>4055846
>projective space is a mathematical construct and has not been observed as a physical manifestation
While we're at it:
line is a mathematical construct and has not been observed as a physical manifestation
parallel lines are a mathematical construct and have not been observed as a physical manifestation
infinity is a mathematical construct and has not been observed as a physical manifestation

>>4055851
Nope. This is apparently valid everywhere in projective geometry.

Hm, actually, OP was right to get fed up with this shit FOR general geometry.

However, as OP stated, the teacher WAS TALKIǸG about projective geometry.
So, in fact OP screwed up.

>>4055874
Wut. Why weren't I right in getting fed up with that two parallel lines cross in projective geometry? Explain yourself, ruffian.

>>4055805
Leave out the distractions next time then. Skip the story and get to the question.
About the question itself: I have no idea. It does seem illogical but many things in math do. Geometry is not my speciality.

>>4055874
>mfw I thought the dot above N was dirt on the screen and I tried to force it off with my finger

>>4055901
>Geometry is not my speciality.
Then why the fuck did you even bother?

>>4055755
OP: Read about the parallel postulate. It's an axiom, and can't be proven either way. There's nothing wrong with entertaining a thought experiment, because both geometries are consistent. That's all you can ask for in math: necessary conclusions given deductive analysis of premises. If you think anything else you do has grounding in fact, you're sorely mislead.

I just can't get past OP's use of the word 'cut'. Maybe it's something lost in translation, but 'cut in eternity' makes no sense to my American English mind.

>>4056009
THEY WONT FUCKING CUT

>>4055988

This is also a fine answer.

>>4056009

Yes, it is lost in translation. Norfag, y'see.

>>4056027
>projective geometry
>no intersection of parallel lines
ISHYGDDT

>>4056009
What OP almost certainly meant was "intersect at infinity."

>>4056052
It was. Thanks.

>>4055912
Where in my posts have I tried to come up with an answer to OP's questions?
I just pointed out how annoying must have OP been in eyes of his classmates and lecturer.

>>4056063
I love people who try to redeem themselves after a fatal blow to the nuts.

>>4056066
What exactly are you pointing out? When did I receive "fatal blow to the nuts" and how am I trying to redeem?

>>4055755
This is the best troll thread I've ever seen, and it's an axiom, same way euclid used the parrallel postulate as an axiom, in fact, what your teacher is stating is the converse

Also, just because a proof is way over your head mathematically does not mean the proof doesn't exist, what kind of bullshit logic is that?

Continuing from >>4056074
>>4055755
Also, the reason it is called projective geometry is because it is done in curved space, the entire point of the field is to understand geometry in such a space, and once again, it's a fucking axiom, just because it's counterintuitive doesn't mean that either the parrallel postulate or its converse have more support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_geometry#Axioms_for_projective_planes

>>4056074
>Best troll thread he's ever seen
>Argument wildly for your cause

>>4056074
I didn't mean it like if I can't comprehend it, it can't be true. I just wanted to know if it was possible that two parallel lines could intersect. Now is it? Explain. No matter how, the very fact that there is proof that it is possible is all it takes.

Your teacher is a troll babysitter and you are a retard. The word "paralell" is defined a certain way, the definition is that two lines, in two dimensions, will never meet. To say that parallel lines will eventually meet is like saying that in the alphabet, the letter "A" is actually the letter "B".

>>4056136
Then my teacher is a jerk.

>2011
>not viewing geometry as a space of points acted on by transformations groups (the Klein view)
>not treating Bolyai-Lobachevskian geometry as an equal (or, in fact, better) to Euclidean
ISHYGDDT

>>4056355