Difference between revisions of "Talk:Banach-Tarski Paradox"
From Conservapedia
m |
(long row to hoe) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Since the article doesn't explain how the sphere is split, we'd better describe it as a '''claim''' made by certain parties, much as the claim made by [[AGW]] supporters that their [[global climate model]]s explain or predict anything. Since GCMs have never been explained in any encyclopedia article I've read, I assume they are too esoteric for us laymen to understand (or check). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:15, 4 January 2010 (EST) | Since the article doesn't explain how the sphere is split, we'd better describe it as a '''claim''' made by certain parties, much as the claim made by [[AGW]] supporters that their [[global climate model]]s explain or predict anything. Since GCMs have never been explained in any encyclopedia article I've read, I assume they are too esoteric for us laymen to understand (or check). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:15, 4 January 2010 (EST) | ||
:Not at all. I can have a complete description of the Banach-Tarski paradox up by tonight which will be accessible to anybody who understands irrational numbers. I'll try and have it up by tonight. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 4 January 2010 (EST) | :Not at all. I can have a complete description of the Banach-Tarski paradox up by tonight which will be accessible to anybody who understands irrational numbers. I'll try and have it up by tonight. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 4 January 2010 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Er, well, I don't understand [[irrational numbers]]. I just know how to do arithmetic with them, based on the concept that '''i''' squared is -1. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:50, 4 January 2010 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:50, January 5, 2010
Since the article doesn't explain how the sphere is split, we'd better describe it as a claim made by certain parties, much as the claim made by AGW supporters that their global climate models explain or predict anything. Since GCMs have never been explained in any encyclopedia article I've read, I assume they are too esoteric for us laymen to understand (or check). --Ed Poor Talk 19:15, 4 January 2010 (EST)
- Not at all. I can have a complete description of the Banach-Tarski paradox up by tonight which will be accessible to anybody who understands irrational numbers. I'll try and have it up by tonight. JacobB 19:30, 4 January 2010 (EST)
- Er, well, I don't understand irrational numbers. I just know how to do arithmetic with them, based on the concept that i squared is -1. --Ed Poor Talk 19:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)
