Posted on **04/02/2013 6:57:24 PM PDT** by **BenLurkin**

first previous 1-50,

To: **E. Pluribus Unum**

If you don’t mind me asking, just what does the STAPLE symbol represent ? I know, I’m a dummy, so help out a guy, would ya?

To: **Buddygirl**

And yet... how easily we ignore it.

To: **Boogieman**

Color me confused.

To: **Squawk 8888**

I bet he kept it to himself.

To: **UCANSEE2**

I was trying to find the ASCII pi symbol. That’s what I found.

55
posted on **04/03/2013 8:20:52 AM PDT**
by E. Pluribus Unum
("Somebody has to be courageous enough to stand up to the bullies." --Dr. Ben Carson)

To: **kjam22; catnipman**

Odd, then, how it is that most poorly educated, or lower IQ people have a rather strong faith in the Creator, while it is the 'higher-educated' people who claim there is no 'creator'.

To: **unread**

Yes... but you do realize that it is in 'metric' ?

To: **UCANSEE2**

The notion of intelligent design is not necessarily the same thing as Creator with a capital C.

58
posted on **04/03/2013 8:30:10 AM PDT**
by catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)

To: **stig**

Gee... hope we don't run into this.

To: **PIF**

Do you know why God made the Universe?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Because he could.

To: **E. Pluribus Unum**

OK. Thanks. Now your comment makes complete sense.

To: **catnipman**

Yeah... but do complete idiots know the difference ?

To: **UCANSEE2**

That is not the “Question That Can Never Be Asked.”

63
posted on **04/03/2013 8:59:58 AM PDT**
by PIF
(They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)

To: **PIF**

Well... I had the "Question That Can Never Be Asked" right on the tip of my tongue, but couldn't pull it in. I had to go with what I had.

To: **UCANSEE2**

“Yeah... but do complete idiots know the difference ? ‘

Heck if I know. I try to stay away from complete idiots as much as possible.

65
posted on **04/03/2013 10:42:25 AM PDT**
by catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)

To: **catnipman**

I know, I know, let's go to space.

To: **UCANSEE2**

“On the fields of Trensalore, at the fall of the 11th, when no living creature can speak falsely or fail to answer, a question will be asked. A question that must never, ever be answered........The first question. The oldest question in the universe, hidden in plain sight.”

A clue.

67
posted on **04/03/2013 11:12:15 AM PDT**
by PIF
(They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)

To: **UCANSEE2**

To: **UCANSEE2**

1 Cor. 1:26-29 -

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 that no flesh should glory in his presence.

To: **UCANSEE2; catnipman**

I don’t know the stats for IQ based on creation or spontaneous combustion :)..... but what I do know is that only a fool would truly believe that life accidentally created itself from dead stuff. Maybe it’s more than foolishness for some. Maybe its just arrogance? Some people have a need to seem smarter than everyone else. To be more sophisticated. To spend more money on items just because they can. etc etc etc. And some just buy snake oil because they’re fools.

70
posted on **04/03/2013 2:46:55 PM PDT**
by kjam22
(my newest music video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gNI9bWO3s)

To: **kjam22; UCANSEE2**

“but what I do know is that only a fool would truly believe that life accidentally created itself from dead stuff. Maybe it’s more than foolishness for some. Maybe its just arrogance?”

The real reason is that “science” is unable to accept that there’s not a “natural” explanation for all phenomena. Curiously enough, or perhaps simply part and parcel of that attitude, is that life on Earth and humans must be unique in the universe. Such an attitude is simply another incarnation of the geocentric attitude that was a fundamental part of religion and philosophy for thousands of years, and which took REAL scientists several hundred years to overturn. The current crop of “scientists” are not even aware that they implicitly subscribe to neo-geocentricism.

Even more ironic, the current so-called theory of evolution is nothing more than the preceding theory of spontaneous generation dressed up in a bunch of pseudo-science and double-talk. There’s not one single bit of fossil evidence or bio-molecular evidence that supports the fundamental tenets of the “modern” theory of evolution.

71
posted on **04/03/2013 3:16:59 PM PDT**
by catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)

To: **catnipman**

The blueprint for life is coded right into the atom, otherwise there would be no life.

72
posted on **04/03/2013 3:51:49 PM PDT**
by E. Pluribus Unum
("Somebody has to be courageous enough to stand up to the bullies." --Dr. Ben Carson)

To: **Boogieman**

Actually, it’s fairly trivial to prove that between any two distinct real numbers there is a number whose decimal expansion contains every finite sequence of decimal digits: first construct one such number (necessarily between 0 and 1) as follows:

Concatenate all one digit strings, followed by the concatenation of all 2 digit strings, followed by the concatenation of all 3 digit strings, etc. with the strings of given length listed in lexicographic order with respect to the usual order on the digits

(the number’s decimal expansion begins

.0123456789000102030405060708091011121314151617181920212223... )

Now it’s just a matter of multiplying this by a small enough power of 10 and adding some digits at the front to get it in between the two given numbers. I leave the details as an exercise.

I think, however, that what you are intuitively grasping for is the assertion that

almost every real number has a decimal expansion in which every finite sequence of decimal digits occurs — where “almost every” had the technical meaning of the complementary set being of measure zero (can be contained in a union of intervals the sum of whose lengths may be chosen to be less than any given positive number).

I think I can see a route to proving this: since the number of finite decimal strings is countable and countable unions of sets of measure zero are of measure zero, it actually suffices to show that for every finite decimal string, the set of real numbers whose decimal expansion does not contain it is of measure zero. And I think the set you get by removing the places where the given string occurs in the decimal expansion will end up being a (subset of a) Cantor set, and thus of measure zero (but it’s getting late here and I’m not going to try to set down a rigorous proof tonight).

By the way — if it’s a foregone conclusion logically, then there’s a mathematical proof, and conversely. The only things which are foregone conclusions logically are mathematical theorems.

73
posted on **04/03/2013 9:19:43 PM PDT**
by The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)

To: **The_Reader_David**

“I think, however, that what you are intuitively grasping for is the assertion that

almost every real number has a decimal expansion in which every finite sequence of decimal digits occurs — where “almost every” had the technical meaning of the complementary set being of measure zero (can be contained in a union of intervals the sum of whose lengths may be chosen to be less than any given positive number).”

Yes, that’s probably what I was getting at, but not having had to engage in any real mathematical arguments for many years, I’m too rusty to get my thoughts across as well as you :)

“By the way — if it’s a foregone conclusion logically, then there’s a mathematical proof, and conversely. The only things which are foregone conclusions logically are mathematical theorems.”

Yes, I should have said a foregone conclusion intuitively, which is often, but not always an indicator that a mathematical proof can be found. For example, when I used to solve polynomials day in and day out, I could intuitively know what the solutions would be without having done the “grunt work” of solving them by the proper means. Most of the time, once I did the work, my intuition was right. Our unconscious minds are constantly doing complex math intuitively that most people struggle with understanding consciously. So, I think that accounts for why some tricky mathematical problems seem to have intuitively true solutions, even if mathematicians can’t figure out the exact proofs yet.

To: **PIF**

So in what 'field' did Doctor Who have a doctorate in ?

To: **UCANSEE2**

Right guy, wrong question.

Gotta be careful, as if the question is asked, the universe ends ...

76
posted on **04/04/2013 4:54:45 PM PDT**
by PIF
(They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)

first previous 1-50,

**Disclaimer:**
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson