Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[Tomdstone]

It is as if the professor has said, here’s the answer to this problem:

f(θ)=100(A2B3−A3B2)2−(c1B3−c2B2)2−(c2A2−c1A3)2=0,
where:
A2=3cos(θ)−5
B2=3sin(θ)
A3=3(cos(θ)−sin(θ))
B3=3(cos(θ)+sin(θ))−6
c1=p22−25−A22−B22
c2=−16−A23−B23

The answer is: “23!”
and I believe the answer is “32!”

I need to change my computations.

That’s the Catholic way. The smart way. The way to become a good mathematician.

the problem doesn’t make sense because p22, A22, B22, A23 and B23 are not defined.You say that this is the Catholic way? Are you saying that the Catholic way does not make sense?

 

[PRmerger]

the problem doesn’t make sense because p22, A22, B22, A23 and B23 are not defined.You say that this is the Catholic way? Are you saying that the Catholic way does not make sense?

I didn’t include the rest of the problem because it’s not about the formula, Tomdstone. I did not want you to solve the equation.

It would be like my saying, “Do you believe this analogy is true?”

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring

and your providing us with an explication regarding the history of the Christmas tree.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...PKISxu59Juinkzpy5VObi5lab3qL-xy5fenh1H1D2p3a-

The point is that the analogy is a good one, and one ought not get caught up in the minutiae of the analogs.

 

[PRmerger]

When he is not, what do you think this means, exactly, Tomdstone?

So, Tombdstone, I’d like to explore this a bit more with you.

When a pope is not holy, what import do you believe this gives to whether the Catholic Church’s teachings are true?

 

[Tomdstone]

I didn’t include the rest of the problem because it’s not about the formula, Tomdstone. I did not want you to solve the equation.

It would be like my saying, “Do you believe this analogy is true?”

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring

and your providing us with an explication regarding the history of the Christmas tree.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...PKISxu59Juinkzpy5VObi5lab3qL-xy5fenh1H1D2p3a-

The point is that the analogy is a good one, and one ought not get caught up in the minutiae of the analogs.

You said that the problem illustrates the Catholic way. And now you admit that as stated the problem does not make sense. What does that tell us about the Catholic way?

 

[PRmerger]

You said that the problem illustrates the Catholic way. And now you admit that as stated the problem does not make sense. What does that tell us about the Catholic way?

It’s not about the math problem, Tomdstone.

I know you understand that, and I will not address this with you again.

Look at the analogy. Not at the Christmas tree and the fact that the analogy doesn’t mention that there are songs about Christmas trees that weren’t included in the analogy.

 

[bzkoss236]

You said that the problem illustrates the Catholic way. And now you admit that as stated the problem does not make sense. What does that tell us about the Catholic way?

You are focusing too much on the equations, when that isn’t the necessary part of the analogy.

PR, if I may generalize.

Say a professor gives you a set of equations and asks you to solve for a specific variable given certain constants. After you finish, the professor gives the answer. If the answer the professor gives is different than what we have, it is more likely that you are wrong and the professor is right.

 

[PRmerger]

You are focusing too much on the equations, when that isn’t the necessary part of the analogy.

PR, if I may generalize.

Say a professor gives you a set of equations and asks you to solve for a specific variable given certain constants. After you finish, the professor gives the answer. If the answer the professor gives is different than what we have, it is more likely that you are wrong and the professor is right.

Bingo.

The answer is: the professor is correct.

And I think the better analogs would be: we are like kindergartners. The Church is like the author of the textbook.

So if k-gartners come to a different answer than the author, it’s the k-gartner who needs to say, “I need to re-do the math until I come to the same answer as the author.”

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s not about the math problem, Tomdstone.

I know you understand that, and I will not address this with you again.

Look at the analogy. Not at the Christmas tree and the fact that the analogy doesn’t mention that there are songs about Christmas trees that weren’t included in the analogy.

You are changing the subject to Christmas trees but your original statement had nothing to do with Christmas trees and concerned a specific mathematics problem. You said that this math problem illustrates the Catholic way. But the math problem that you presented does not make any sense. If a math problem that does not make any sense illustrates the Catholic way, what is a reasonable person supposed to conclude about the Catholic way?

 

[bzkoss236]

You are changing the subject to Christmas trees but your original statement had nothing to do with Christmas trees and concerned a specific mathematics problem. You said that this math problem illustrates the Catholic way. But the math problem that you presented does not make any sense. If a math problem that does not make any sense illustrates the Catholic way, what is a reasonable person supposed to conclude about the Catholic way?

He never said that the specific math problem explained the Catholic way. He said that the analogy explains the Catholic way. The specifics of the equation are not a part of the explanation. It’s like saying an example of someone getting injured is falling on concrete and breaking their leg. The fact that they fall on concrete is not important, it is the fact that they broke their leg. So in PR’s analogy, the fact that the professor is right and the student is not is the important thing, the problem itself has no value to the analogy.

 

[PRmerger]

You are focusing too much on the equations, when that isn’t the necessary part of the analogy.

Indeed.

 

[Porknpie]

Porknpie;10990425:

I have always been curious about the difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Here is something I dug up:

"]"Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite.

There are many Catholics in the East who are not Roman Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics. These are all in communion with the pope, but they are not members of the Roman rite, so they are not Roman Catholics."

Also, as I understand it, the term “catholic” appears for the first time in Ignatius’s writings. So, in his zeal to promote Christianity as the correct religion, he applied the term “catholic”.

I’m sure that you are correct that St Ignatius in being a disciple of St John was spirited in promoting the Christian faith over all others. And the word Catholic was used to describe the true apostolic followers of Christ, the one faith throughout the entire world that followed the seven sacraments instituted by Christ.

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

So it just amounts to a change of name.

With the understanding that those who followed the apostolic Catholic Church, the Christian Church instituted by Christ all followed the seven sacraments, including belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The term “Christianity” was a descriptive term for a faith whose official name was changed to a descriptive term for an officially correct religion. By definition, Christians automatically became Catholics because of Ignatius’s promotion of the term.

it is incorrect to say that St Ignatius promoted the word Catholic or that Christians became Catholic because of his using the name. It is however the first recorded writing that we have through history with the name being used in a Christian context. We can assume that he was not the first one to use the name and that it was already being used prior, perhaps by a decade earlier or even more.

 

[Tomdstone]

He never said that the specific math problem explained the Catholic way. He said that the analogy explains the Catholic way. The specifics of the equation are not a part of the explanation. It’s like saying an example of someone getting injured is falling on concrete and breaking their leg. The fact that they fall on concrete is not important, it is the fact that they broke their leg. So in PR’s analogy, the fact that the professor is right and the student is not is the important thing, the problem itself has no value to the analogy.

Here is the quote:

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, would never proclaim something to be true which is untrue.

So your example is a nonsensical one. It’s untrue that popcorn is made out of buttercups, so the Church would never proclaim that to be so.

However, if the Church proclaims something to be black that I once viewed as white, then I would conform to the Church’s view and work backwards, attempting to understand why it is indeed black.

And I would invoke Cardinal Newman’s quote here again: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

It is as if the professor has said, here’s the answer to this problem:

f(θ)=100(A2B3−A3B2)2−(c1B3−c2B2)2−(c2A2−c1A3)2=0,
where:
A2=3cos(θ)−5
B2=3sin(θ)
A3=3(cos(θ)−sin(θ))
B3=3(cos(θ)+sin(θ))−6
c1=p22−25−A22−B22
c2=−16−A23−B23

The answer is: “23!”
and I believe the answer is “32!”

I need to change my computations.

That’s the Catholic way. The smart way. The way to become a good mathematician.

He says that the first example is a nonsensical one, and then he proceeds to give a nonsensical example himself, claiming that this is the Catholic way.

 

[bzkoss236]

Here is the quote:
He says that the first example is a nonsensical one, and then he proceeds to give a nonsensical example himself, claiming that this is the Catholic way.

His example is not nonsensical if you look at it in the context which he intended it to be read, which seemed obvious to me.

 

[mek42]

So we are agreed that the Roman Catholic church of today can trace its roots all the way back to St. Peter, and thus to Christ?

As can, then, the Protestant denominations, yes? For ease of discussion, let’s define them as the ones with baptism recognized by the Catholic Church.

Also, PR, I appreciate the grace shown agreeing about corruption being at least part of the seed of the Protestant movement. If this forum had a karma feature I would add to yours. Yes, I note irony of this statement.

 

[mek42]

He never said that the specific math problem explained the Catholic way. He said that the analogy explains the Catholic way. The specifics of the equation are not a part of the explanation. It’s like saying an example of someone getting injured is falling on concrete and breaking their leg. The fact that they fall on concrete is not important, it is the fact that they broke their leg. So in PR’s analogy, the fact that the professor is right and the student is not is the important thing, the problem itself has no value to the analogy.

Quite often, though, the professor is wrong. I presume this is a failure of the analogy?

 

[Major_Tom]

Quite often, though, the professor is wrong. I presume this is a failure of the analogy?

Speaking of limits of analogies…

Hate to break up the vibrant discussion, but math is a tad relative, isn’t it? I appreciate that part of this miscommunication is over the understanding of what an analogy is. But consider….at the subatomic level, according to quantum physics, two electrons can exist in the same place at the same time. Fundamental math and physics are quite different there. So “proving” something can or can’t exist (using math), has it’s limits doesn’t it? If God created the universe, he created the subatomic universe too, and all the rules that apply there.

 

[Major_Tom]

FYI, today’s Washington Post has an article titled “U.S. reviewing 27 death penalty convictions for FBI forensic testimony errors”.

washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-reviewing-27-death-penalty-convictions-for-fbi-forensic-testimony-errors/2013/07/17/6c75a0a4-bd9b-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html

 

[Major_Tom]

Incidentally, Tom, in the context of a discussion such as this, if you were to tell me, 'PR, you are disordered"

my response would be, “Sadly, you are absolutely right.” :sad_yes:

So I don’t think there’s anything inherently incorrect about telling a person that he/she is disordered.

NB: Please note, folks, that this is not* carte blanche* permission to tell me I am disordered. There may be many a time when it is an inappropriate response to our dialogue, and I just may report you for telling me I am disordered.

Disorderlies of the world, unite! I’m right there with you.

 

[mek42]

Speaking of limits of analogies…

Hate to break up the vibrant discussion, but Matthew a tad relative, isn’t it? I appreciate that part of this miscommunication is over the understanding of what an analogy is. But consider….at the subatomic level, according to quantum physics, two electrons can exist in the same place at the same time. Fundamental math and physics are quite different there. So “proving” something can or can’t exist (using math), has it’s limits doesn’t it? If God created the universe, he created the subatomic universe too, and all the rules that apply there.

I’m a wave guy not a particle guy, so I subscribe that all particles simultaneously exist over all space, just that each of them exist much more strongly in certain discrete areas of space than the remainder of space.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m a wave guy not a particle guy, so I subscribe that all particles simultaneously exist over all space, just that each of them exist much more strongly in certain discrete areas of space than the remainder of space.

But what about the wave collapse? And you assume simultaneity which is a big mistake if you’re in motion relative to another.