0410: "Math Paper"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
HiEv
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:45 am UTC

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby HiEv » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:49 am UTC

Robin S wrote:There are a couple of pretty major errors in the previous post. First, the implication that the authors of the Bible "made things up" without genuinely believing them. I haven't seen convincing evidence for this.
They sometimes gave exacting details about things that they could not have possibly known, as you yourself admit in the next line. How is that not "making things up"? As for the "without genuinely believing them" part, those are your words, not mine. And just because you convince yourself your made up story is true, it doesn't make it any less made up. They may have believed their own tales sometimes, sure, but that's irrelevant to my point that they made stuff up.

Robin S wrote:Secondly, academic consensus is that the books of Moses were written many centuries after the events depicted, whereas the Gospels were written less than a century later.
Actually, the "academic consensus" is that some of it was stolen from other religious and literary sources, such as Noah's flood being plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh and other earlier myths. There are some "doublets" where you can see two similar-but-different stories repeated, such as creation and the flood. The conflicting stories show that at least one story is at least partially fabricated, if not both. ("Misremembered" if you want to be reeeally generous.)

The actual academic consensus is that the Old Testament came from a few oral traditions that had been around for a long time before they were written down, but the consensus is not that they actually happened (for the most part.)

Furthermore, yes, the Gospels may have been "written less than a century later," but most were written decades after the supposed events. The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew were probably written after 70 CE, the Gospel of Luke was probably written around 80-90 CE, and the Gospel of John, was most likely written somewhere around 90-100 CE. Heck, the last part of Mark (16:9-end) did not exist in the original text, and was tacked on at a later date. This means the authors were likely not even alive during the time when these events supposedly occurred, it's clear that Matthew and Luke plagiarized some of Mark, and some of Mark was added by someone else. It's not hard to conclude that some of the material must have been "made up."

Beyond all of that, there is little or no archaeological evidence for some major Biblical events, such as Noah's flood (despite what some creationists claim) and the Exodus. These are clear of examples that there were people who "made things up" that ended up in the Bible.

Only wishful thinking or blind faith would lead you to believe that nothing in the Bible was made up.

Robin S wrote:And finally, inventing the central character of a religion within a few decades of his reported death presents far more problems than inventing a single miracle within half a millennium.
Today? Yes. Back then? Heck no! Seriously, do you think people could have just Googled to see if Jesus existed? Where is the contemporary, unbiased, historical evidence of Jesus' existence? There isn't any! Funny how such a supposedly major figure made so little impact at the time. Heck, for someone so important, why don't we even know his last name?

To take another angle on your argument, before Jesus' time, the god Mitra (a.k.a. Mithra, a.k.a. Mithras) was the son of Ahura-Mazda ("God"; born on Dec. 25th no less), had 12 disciples, performed miracles, healed the sick, sacrificed himself to redeem humanity, and was resurrected three days later. He was written about in the Vedas. If the Vedas claimed that this has happened just a few decades prior to its writing, would that mean that Mithra must have really existed too? 'Cause according to your argument, it would. Even today you can make stuff up that didn't happen (George Washington and the cherry tree, for example), and many people will believe you if they want to, and that was sooo much easier to do 2000 years ago.

Look, there were lots of "Jesuses" back then, it was a common name, but there is no good objective reason to believe any of them did all or most of what the New Testament claims its Jesus did. Even if he was based on a real human being, the character in the Bible is at least partially, if not mostly, fiction. For more, see "Did Jesus of Nazereth Actually Exist? All sides to the question"

Oh, and finally, inventing miracles isn't hard either. My grandfather could fly, brought back the dead, and predicted the Internet. See? Easy-peasy. Go ahead, prove he didn't. :wink:
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits.

User avatar
GCM
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Metropolis City, Planet Kerwan, Solana Galaxy
Contact:

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby GCM » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:16 pm UTC

Um... I don't think this is related to Math Paper...

HiEv wrote:Heck, for someone so important, why don't we even know his last name?


Also, it was Christ, wasn't it? Unless there's something I'm missing here.
All warfare is based on heavily-armed robotic commandos.
~Sun Tzu

Notes: My last avatar was "Vote Robot Nixon", so I'm gonna keep a list here. :D

User avatar
Celtic Minstrel
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:44 pm UTC
Location: Sitting on a cloud

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby Celtic Minstrel » Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:25 pm UTC

GCM wrote:Also, it was Christ, wasn't it? Unless there's something I'm missing here.
"Christ" is more of a title – it's basically the Greek version of "Messiah". I think he simply may not have had a last name.

trvsdrlng
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:45 am UTC
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby trvsdrlng » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

Celtic Minstrel wrote:
GCM wrote:Also, it was Christ, wasn't it? Unless there's something I'm missing here.
"Christ" is more of a title – it's basically the Greek version of "Messiah". I think he simply may not have had a last name.

Last names were something of a novelty back then. Some Biblical figures had them (i.e., Caesar Augustus). The indication is that Jesus would have been known as "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth". Of course, when he came to prominence, there were a host of names to choose from.
My GPS has a fetishistic relationship with OK State Highway 9.

LafinJack wrote:Never ever let basic physics get in the way of your dreams.


The Hyphenator wrote:Why is it that every time I visit this thread, I'm not wearing pants?

User avatar
GCM
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Metropolis City, Planet Kerwan, Solana Galaxy
Contact:

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby GCM » Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:04 pm UTC

trvsdrlng wrote:
Celtic Minstrel wrote:
GCM wrote:Also, it was Christ, wasn't it? Unless there's something I'm missing here.
"Christ" is more of a title – it's basically the Greek version of "Messiah". I think he simply may not have had a last name.

Last names were something of a novelty back then. Some Biblical figures had them (i.e., Caesar Augustus). The indication is that Jesus would have been known as "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth". Of course, when he came to prominence, there were a host of names to choose from.


Uhh, my history's a but rusty. So, you could essentially pick a last name that you wanted?
All warfare is based on heavily-armed robotic commandos.
~Sun Tzu

Notes: My last avatar was "Vote Robot Nixon", so I'm gonna keep a list here. :D

aliosha
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:05 am UTC
Location: Witney, England.
Contact:

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby aliosha » Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:33 pm UTC

It's not hard to conclude that some of the material must have been "made up."

There's more evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Caesar did. HiEv, do you dispute that? Whether or not he's the son of God, or the Messiah, he was a man, who existed, at around 30AD. Oh, and he was put to death by Pilate, the governor of Judaea. I believe admiral Pliny mentions him...

User avatar
Celtic Minstrel
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:44 pm UTC
Location: Sitting on a cloud

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby Celtic Minstrel » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:00 pm UTC

GCM wrote:Uhh, my history's a but rusty. So, you could essentially pick a last name that you wanted?
No, it's just that last names are a relatively new thing* in the Western world. Back in the Roman period, plenty of people simply didn't have one (they just had their given name).

*Note: That's not to say that they did not exist back then – they simply weren't as ubiquitous as they are now.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby JoshuaZ » Sun May 04, 2008 10:23 pm UTC

aliosha wrote:There's more evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Caesar did.


That claim is false. For example, we have Caesar's Gaelic wars in essentially unaltered forms. This text makes sense in the context of broader archaelogical and historical discussions of the campaigns in Gaul. We also have Caesar's account of the Civil War which again fits in with other known historical details. Both of these accounts are clearly written by the same individual (based on linguistic evidence). We also have coins dating back to Caesar with his face on them which date to his reign. Caesar also overhauled the Roman calendar which is discussed in multiple nearly contemporaneous sources (and the change in the calendar with the addition of the month of July is something that is confirmed by a variety of historical and archaelogical sources). These are but many of the independent lines of evidence for Caesar's existence. This is in sharp contrast to what we have for Jesus. I think that the balance of evidence favors the existence of a historical Jesus but the evidence is slim. Comparing it to the massive historical footprint Julius Caesar left is at best inaccurate.

DavidS
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:16 am UTC

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby DavidS » Thu May 15, 2008 11:53 am UTC

From this morning's arXiv:

On the Form of Odd Perfect Gaussian Integers

http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/0805.2092

Abstract: We extend the sum-of-divisors function to the complex plane via the Gaussian integers. Then we prove a modified form of Euler's classification of odd perfect numbers.

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby scarletmanuka » Mon May 19, 2008 6:48 am UTC

My brother sent me this cartoon.

So I immediately sent back the link to "Math Paper". Well, what else could I do?

Jefff
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:04 am UTC

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby Jefff » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:30 am UTC

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I noticed no one provided any examples of 'imaginary friends', which is one of the reasons I came looking for this topic in the first place. So I gave it a shot myself and defined the divisor function to include all Gaussian integers in the first quadrant. A quick computer search turned up 4, and 74. 4's divisors are 1, i, 2i, 4i, 4, 1+i, 2, 2+2i, the sum of which is 10+10i. And 74's divisors are 1, i, 2i, 37i, 74i, 1, 1+i, 1+6i, 2, 2+12i, 5+7i, 6+i, 7+5i, 12+2i, 37, 37+37i, 74, the sum of which is 185+185i. Dividing these by 4 and 74 give 5/2 + (5/2)i for both of them, which by my definition makes them 'imaginary friends'. Sorry if this math sucks, as I'm still in high school math and mainly got this by pulling definitions out of my ass :P .

User avatar
siecraticmethod
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:32 am UTC

Re: "Math Paper" Discussion

Postby siecraticmethod » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:34 am UTC

Sorry for bumping, but I just had a thought. Is it just me, or should the alt-text have been: "BUT HOW WILL I DERIVE HOME?"

rsilvers
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:04 pm UTC

Re: 0410: "Math Paper"

Postby rsilvers » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:27 pm UTC

If a and b are friendly numbers, then a+ai and b+bi should also be friendly numbers if I did my math right. For instance, with 6+6i and 28+28i...

(1)+(6+6i)+(2)+(3+3i)+(3)+(2+2i)+(6)+(1+1i)= 24+12i
(24+12i)/(6+6i)= (4+2i)/(1+i)= 3-i

(1)+(28+28i)+(2)+(14+14i)+(4)+(7+7i)+(7)+(4+4i)+(14)+(2+2i)+(28)+(1+1i)= 112+56i
(112+56i)/(28+28i)= (4+2i)/(1+i)= 3-i

There you have it, imaginary friends!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BytEfLUSh, Wowfunhappy and 107 guests