Efendi

Does "1+1" some time make 2 some time randomly 3 or 5..?

Do the dices show the number with the effect of random supernatural forces or of stable natural forces?

Isn't it veird that nature behave randomly?

Labienus

1+1 always equals 2.
The dices show the number with the effect of stable natural forces.

Sharks and love

Only in economics.

Mandate of Heaven

Proof 1

Let , then
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


Proof 2

Let a = 1 and b = 1.

Therefore a = b, by substitution.

If two numbers are equal, then their squares are equal, too:

a^2 = b^2.

Now subtract b^2 from both sides (if an equation is true, then if
you subtract the same thing from both sides, the result is also
a true equation) so

a^2 - b^2 = 0.

Now the lefthand side of the equation is a form known as "the
difference of two squares" and can be factored into (a-b)*(a+b).
If you don't believe me, then try multiplying it out carefully,
and you will see that it's correct. So:

(a-b)*(a+b) = 0.

Now if you have an equation, you can divide both sides by the same
thing, right? Let's divide by (a-b), so we get:

(a-b)*(a+b) / (a-b) = 0/(a-b).

On the lefthand side, the (a-b)/(a-b) simplifies to 1, right?
and the righthand side simplifies to 0, right? So we get:

1*(a+b) = 0,

and since 1* anything = that same anything, then we have:

(a+b) = 0.

But a = 1 and b = 1, so:

1 + 1 = 0, or 2 = 0.

Now let's divide both sides by 2, and we get:

1 = 0.

Then we add 1 to both sides, and we get what your programming
teacher said, namely:

1 + 1 = 1.

sylla1

There are myriad indisputable examples of randomness in nature; the proverbial coin flip might be one of the more easily verifiable.

The opening statement of this post is quite different from stating that absolutely all in nature is random, as the OP seems to suggest.

Trying to use the latter statement as an evidence of the non-existence of randomness would be a flagrant fallacious faulty generalization.

okamido

oh god, I'm having Statistics flashbacks......

skizzerflake

Maybe what appears to be random is actually multi-factorial. Weather was once regarded as having certain degree of randomness, but each time a new generation of super-computers comes along that can calculate more factors with more accuracy, the apparent randomness decreases and the predictability increases. The assertion of randomness may just be a face-saving way of saying "too complex to calculate".

Efendi

In the first proof, the problem seem to be in part 3, can you divide anything with zero?


There can’t be x/0.
Now if you have an equation, you can divide both sides by the same
thing, right? Let's divide by (a-b), so we get:
You can divide them by the same things except for zero.
(a-b)*(a+b) / (a-b) = 0/(a-b).
If a=b you can’t divide anything with (a-b).

Efendi

Sylla,

Result of coin flip is not random act of nature, because it is binded to natural laws. Under the same given natural laws and values, the result will always be the same.

We can't set the result of coins, because our talents doesn't allow us. If you could adjust its whirling speed, and height, you could predict the result accuratelly. Neither your hand nor your sensor are so sensitive to that degree.

The sole reason why you call it random is simply your lack of capabilities, It is nothing to do with natural laws and nature itshelf.

corrocamino

"Randomness" observed in nature is actually just the absence of a net vector. Each flip of a coin follows physical cause and effect rigidly, although we can't measure the beginning state and ambient confluential factors adequately to demonstrate that. Such "randomness" is mistakenly interpreted as something happening "for no reason", or without cause.