Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[body&soul]

Here I am again (just like the old days) explaining my position why I am here:

First, I am not selling any of my books here. It did not come to my mind since my publisher is the one doing the selling. In places like this, in terms of probabilities, it will be to slim to even get one buyer. My books are fully distributed in the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. They are also available to over 5000 retail outlets not mentioning that they are also reviewed by various publications. So do you think I need to spam?

Second, I did not ask anyone, in any forums that I joined, about their educational background or expertise. Why, because it does not matter at all. Everything we do here is just an opinion. Religious people believe in god, even there are no evidences to prove his existence, because it is a matter of opinion. Some believe in the big bang others do not. Why, it is a matter of opinion. Also never did I introduce myself as an author, an engineer, an educator or a computer guru, for a simple reason - I am not sure if the person I am chatting with is an expert on his field at least or widely knowledgeable in all fields in both religion or science. But I do not look for credentials, because no one in his sound mind will hang out on this kind of place to discuss matters like my theory. My peers will even sarcastically laugh at me if they find out about this. But I am different. I always do things differently because I like to learn things differently. For me, I don’t care whether I am debating to a fifth grader, a bum, a religious leader, a physicist or a bot. What matter is that I love to exercise my thoughts? So do you call it arrogance?

And finally, no one ever stayed long in any debate that I have signed up. I do not like to see the obvious. I do not like to think otherwise. And when they are caught in the corner, they would talk about fallacy, they would add topics that are not related, they would even ban me, close my account, delete my thread, locked my forum, be too personal or simply label my theory nonsense. Do I care? No. It is your opinion and I respect that! But if it becomes a pattern, then I need to change the channel right now!

BY simply looking at the formulas, we can see at once that they are all equal. Resistance = Impedance = Reactance

Resistance(R) = voltage / current

Impedance(Z) = voltage / current

Reactance(X) = voltage / current

These three variables belong to the family called Forces. Forces are classified as contact forces and Action at a distance forces. In this family, aside from these 3 frictional forces, the other members are gravitational, spring, electrical, air resistance, magnetic and so on. These individuals can regroup to create new families too by following the 7 laws of creation.

Current is a family of frequency, resistance is a family of force like the example above and voltage is a family of energy. All of them fall in the family called electrical power at the least. I am intellectually guessing here but you gave me a good homework. Lolz

Definition of a Family:

Family is a collection of related individuals with common features acquired by all its members.
Family is a partnership of two of something, the first pair and the alter pair.
Family can collaborate with another family to generate a new family.

Definition of Pair:

Pairs are made up of the first pair and a second pair called an alterpair.
Pairs are two of something matched together to create a family.
Pairs are two individuals that have common attributes.
Pairs interact together to produce offspring.
A pair can be matched to any alter pair within a family.

A common attribute is a character that distinguish a family from another family. A cat has a common attribute that distinguish them from other families of cats like tigers, lion, puma, cheetah and leopard to name a few. A dog does likewise. Both cat and dog belongs to a family called mammals. Mammals belong to the animal family. Which belongs to living organism family, which in turns belong to the celled family, then molecular family, the elements family, then atoms family, the mass family and the grand family of everything(nabse-space duality).


"Time, Force, Mass and Motion are the ingredients of dualities that created the Universe" excerpt from the book Evolution of Creation by Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin

[byofrcs]

Here I am again (just like the old days) explaining my position why I am here:

First, I am not selling any of my books here. It did not come to my mind since my publisher is the one doing the selling. In places like this, in terms of probabilities, it will be to slim to even get one buyer. My books are fully distributed in the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. They are also available to over 5000 retail outlets not mentioning that they are also reviewed by various publications. So do you think I need to spam?

Don't think we are stupid !. The ISBN decoder for 978-1-60047-217-6 it is a ISBN for the Wasteland publishing. This is a self-publish group. Yes, they would handle distribution like any self-publish or POD service but given the very poor returns on any self-publish book you do need to spam it.

So yes you do need to plug it everywhere because the facts are that it won't sell otherwise. This is reality of the self-publish world.

Second, I did not ask anyone, in any forums that I joined, about their educational background or expertise. Why, because it does not matter at all.

And also I (we) have never asked you about your educational background and expertise, though you have stated outright that I am one of the "people who still think that the earth is still flat".

Everything we do here is just an opinion. Religious people believe in god, even there are no evidences to prove his existence, because it is a matter of opinion. Some believe in the big bang others do not. Why, it is a matter of opinion. Also never did I introduce myself as an author, an engineer, an educator or a computer guru, for a simple reason - I am not sure if the person I am chatting with is an expert on his field at least or widely knowledgeable in all fields in both religion or science. But I do not look for credentials, because no one in his sound mind will hang out on this kind of place to discuss matters like my theory. My peers will even sarcastically laugh at me if they find out about this. But I am different. I always do things differently because I like to learn things differently. For me, I don’t care whether I am debating to a fifth grader, a bum, a religious leader, a physicist or a bot. What matter is that I love to exercise my thoughts? So do you call it arrogance?

When you presented your claims without any support then I googled for them to see what the heck you were talking about.

I ended up with SINGLE DIGIT HITS. This means that the person who is claiming it here is probably very much involved with the source of the hits.

Sure enough you are that author.

You became arrogant when you started insulting people. If you just debated without trying to pound through your theory at all costs then you would not be arrogant.

And finally, no one ever stayed long in any debate that I have signed up. I do not like to see the obvious. I do not like to think otherwise. And when they are caught in the corner, they would talk about fallacy, they would add topics that are not related, they would even ban me, close my account, delete my thread, locked my forum, be too personal or simply label my theory nonsense. Do I care? No. It is your opinion and I respect that! But if it becomes a pattern, then I need to change the channel right now!

You haven't met me so "no one" is a bit of a premature. I will argue this until all the issues within my understanding of your argument are resolved or until you give up, whichever comes first.

I do not see why they should ban you or delete this thread. What I write is my copyright work and I would strongly object to the loss of this work as I assert my moral right to what I have written.

Truthfully I think you haven't actually debate much anyway. You should stay and learn.

BY simply looking at the formulas, we can see at once that they are all equal. Resistance = Impedance = Reactance

Resistance(R) = voltage / current



Impedance(Z) = voltage / current

Reactance(X) = voltage / current

These three variables belong to the family called Forces. Forces are classified as contact forces and Action at a distance forces. In this family, aside from these 3 frictional forces, the other members are gravitational, spring, electrical, air resistance, magnetic and so on. These individuals can regroup to create new families too by following the 7 laws of creation.

I'm curious what inertia is ? Is it a frictional force ? I do not know these 7 laws of creation so please state them here (don't link to some web site etc).

If you theory is just one of creating a taxonomy for all created things then fine. There are many taxonomies created. It needn't mean that is how it actually happened.

I spent 2 years studying transmission lines so when someone is a bit loose with impedance and resistance I get upset like anyone should. Like if you ask someone what fuel does the car take and they say "fuel, its all just fuel" when you want to know if its petrol or diesel. Yes, it is "fuel" in the family of, fuel.

Current is a family of frequency, resistance is a family of force like the example above and voltage is a family of energy. All of them fall in the family called electrical power at the least. I am intellectually guessing here but you gave me a good homework. Lolz

Actually current is not a family of frequency but the movement of electrical charge and though the ampere is currently referred to in terms of newtons and meters in the end what makes current is electrons moving past a point over time.

What is time in this family ?

Definition of a Family:

Family is a collection of related individuals with common features acquired by all its members.
Family is a partnership of two of something, the first pair and the alter pair.
Family can collaborate with another family to generate a new family.

Definition of Pair:

Pairs are made up of the first pair and a second pair called an alterpair.
Pairs are two of something matched together to create a family.
Pairs are two individuals that have common attributes.
Pairs interact together to produce offspring.
A pair can be matched to any alter pair within a family.

A common attribute is a character that distinguish a family from another family. A cat has a common attribute that distinguish them from other families of cats like tigers, lion, puma, cheetah and leopard to name a few. A dog does likewise. Both cat and dog belongs to a family called mammals. Mammals belong to the animal family. Which belongs to living organism family, which in turns belong to the celled family, then molecular family, the elements family, then atoms family, the mass family and the grand family of everything(nabse-space duality).

So it does appear simply a hierarchy and taxonomy. Fine, we all create hierarchies and taxonomies, but because you can create a hierarchy and a taxonomy of things the existence of the hierarchy/taxonomy isn't a proof of the hierarchy/taxonomy any more than writing God in a book is proof of God.

In the end, the problem I have with all this theory is how it relates to the SI units for length, mass, time, electric current, temperature, amount of stuff, and luminous intensity and how these are regarded as independent though the base units i.e. metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, mole, and candela – are partly interrelated.

Show us how your theory manages those because if it cannot then your theory is of little practical use as a hierarchy and taxonomy for reality.

[body&soul]

I can not say if you are stupid or not since I do not have proof. But if you say “we� it means that you are also including yourself. Just teasing! But seriously who is arrogant between you and me? “You became arrogant when you started insulting people�. What will you say about all the stones that you hurled to me. Lines like , to satisfy your pet theory; this is the kind of imprecise nonsense that we would expect from spiritualist tracts; personally I think you are here to pump your neologisms. This is commercial spam; As an aside "family pairing theory" does not Google and "family duality theory" has 6 hits, none of which can be considered to be remotely peer reviewed, scientific, or scholarly; thus family duality/pairing theory is NOT a new theory about Evolution except in the disingenuous Creationist sense of the word; let's see a reference to a peer reviewed article that says it is an actual scientific theory, rather than just some strange ideas that use some 'scientific' terms in a religious manner; so far, your description sounds religious in nature. your theory (and it is ONLY your theory) sounds like crap when you try and stretch it to apply to all of creation.

I have never insulted any people in this forum just like how you insulted me. It is just, you just do not understand, you misunderstood it or you put colors to what you understand.

This is another false claim: I have never posted my ISBN in this forum, since I learned my lesson from your neighbors. I found out that when you cite your book or your ISBN, it is automatically labeled a spam or advertisement. But they found out too that copyright has to be taken into consideration. When you site a quote, a statement or a paragraph, you also need to cite the source of your reference. Just like your copyright issues. It just so happened that the source is my book. And since you love to google, I usually post both the name of my book and ISBN for a simple reason: some of the companies that sell my book either use the keywords Creation by Laws, my isbn or my name but not all three at the same time. So what happened to these forums, their rules were revised because of me. They are looking to such question: when do you consider a post a spam or a turkey? Another thing, I do not care if I sell a single book or not, this was never been my concern. It is not money, fame or intelligence that defines life. Life simply means to have fun, to enjoy it to the fullest. That is life is all about, aside from having a decent meal.

You are correct that the duality theory is a hierarchy system that brings you to connect all forms of individuals in a family to another family or families. Obviously, this is all true since the beginning of time, because we are evolving. And as we evolve, we are also expanding. ( The laws of Continuous Transformation and Exponential Procreation, respectively). It looks like that I am laying all my cards about the seven laws of creation to process evolution. You got three already. The first one is I called the Law of reciprocating duality.

Length, mass, time, temperature and so on belong to the family called measurement (fundamental or derived). Meter, kg, sec, amp and so on belong to the family called units of measurement(static or dynamic). If you notice, there are two families in this example. And when they combine, they form another family called Dimension.


Like with other objects, some formulae originate from other simple formula and others regroup to create more complex equations using dimensional analysis.

These are seven basic units of measurements:
Meter (m) - is a unit to measure Length
Kilogram (kg) - is a unit to measure Mass
Second (s) - is a unit to measure Time
Kelvin (K) - is a unit to measure Temperature
Ampere (amp) - is a unit to measure Current
Mole (mol) - the chemical amount of a substance
Lumen (lm) - the intensity emitted by a light source

I will simplify my discussion here using Length, Mass and Time. These three parameters are the cornerstone of most equations but they belong to a duality called measurement ( I know you will ask me about this). Length tells us how long an entity is. Mass tells us the amount of materials. Time is a period of events.

When we want to measure the sides of a book, we are measuring the length of each side. We call the first side the length, the second side the width and the third side the height. Take note that width and height are just another name for length. Another common length is the line coming from the center point of a circle named the radius. The diagonal line in a triangle is named the hypotenuse, the perpendicular line is named the altitude and the horizontal line is called the base. All of them are called length.

Let us use the capital letter "L" to represent "Length". When we multiply two lengths together, the resulting product is called the AREA, when we multiply three lengths the product is called VOLUME.

(Length) x (Length) = Area
(Length) x (Length) x (Length) = Volume

As we say, we can differentiate one length from another by giving them their own names.

(Length) x (Length) = Area ( of a cube)
(Length) x (Height) = Area (of a rectangle)
(Width) x (Height) = Area (of a surface)
(Base) x (Altitude) = Area (of a parallelogram)
(Radius) x (Radius) = Area (of a circle)
(Length) x (Length) x (Length) = Volume
(Length) x (Height) x (Width) = Volume
(Radius) x (Radius) x (Height) = Volume

Units of measurement also inherited this system of conversions. So if an Area = Length x Height and meter is the unit of measurement for both lengths then the unit equation will be meter x meter = meter².

Then:
Area = Length x Width
= (meter x meter) = meter² = m²
Volume = Length x Width x Height
= (m x m x m) = m³
Density = Mass / Volume
= (kilogram / meter³) = kg/m³
Velocity = Length / Time = meter / second
= m/s = mps
Force = (kg x m) / (sec x sec)
= kg-m/s² = Newton (N)
Frequency = cycle / second
= c/s = cps

Therefore, we now know that m² is a unit of measurement for Area, m³ is for Volume, mps represents Velocity, Newton is a derived unit for Force and cps is a unit for frequency. If I say that impedance has a unit I coined cubic ohms, I will at once conclude that it is a volume. If I say that current is a flow of electrons per unit time, these cycles of electrons per second is called a frequency. But this is just a beginning. You also need to prove them dimensionally and equationally.

Also if you notice whether it an area of a cube, rectangle, a circle and so on, as long as the unit is meter² or m² (metric units) then we are definitely sure that we are talking about an area. This logical approach is the same for resistance, impedance and reactance. They may have complicated equations, but it will always boil down to the original unit which is ohms. When you prove a problem in math, make sure you prove them, by equation, by dimensional and by units of measurement. This analysis will give you a big edge that your formula is correct. That is why I claimed that Einstein famous equation was simply derived from Sir Newton's F=ma and Sir Coriolis' W=fd.

By the way this concept is all explained in my book under the heading Evolution of numbers, formulas and dimensions - the anatomy of an equation.

[Sjoerd]

I can not say if you are stupid or not since I do not have proof. But if you say “we� it means that you are also including yourself. Just teasing! But seriously who is arrogant between you and me? “You became arrogant when you started insulting people�. What will you say about all the stones that you hurled to me. Lines like , to satisfy your pet theory; this is the kind of imprecise nonsense that we would expect from spiritualist tracts; personally I think you are here to pump your neologisms. This is commercial spam; As an aside "family pairing theory" does not Google and "family duality theory" has 6 hits, none of which can be considered to be remotely peer reviewed, scientific, or scholarly; thus family duality/pairing theory is NOT a new theory about Evolution except in the disingenuous Creationist sense of the word; let's see a reference to a peer reviewed article that says it is an actual scientific theory, rather than just some strange ideas that use some 'scientific' terms in a religious manner; so far, your description sounds religious in nature. your theory (and it is ONLY your theory) sounds like crap when you try and stretch it to apply to all of creation.

I have never insulted any people in this forum just like how you insulted me. It is just, you just do not understand, you misunderstood it or you put colors to what you understand.

This is another false claim: I have never posted my ISBN in this forum, since I learned my lesson from your neighbors. I found out that when you cite your book or your ISBN, it is automatically labeled a spam or advertisement. But they found out too that copyright has to be taken into consideration. When you site a quote, a statement or a paragraph, you also need to cite the source of your reference. Just like your copyright issues. It just so happened that the source is my book. And since you love to google, I usually post both the name of my book and ISBN for a simple reason: some of the companies that sell my book either use the keywords Creation by Laws, my isbn or my name but not all three at the same time. So what happened to these forums, their rules were revised because of me. They are looking to such question: when do you consider a post a spam or a turkey? Another thing, I do not care if I sell a single book or not, this was never been my concern. It is not money, fame or intelligence that defines life. Life simply means to have fun, to enjoy it to the fullest. That is life is all about, aside from having a decent meal.

You are correct that the duality theory is a hierarchy system that brings you to connect all forms of individuals in a family to another family or families. Obviously, this is all true since the beginning of time, because we are evolving. And as we evolve, we are also expanding. ( The laws of Continuous Transformation and Exponential Procreation, respectively). It looks like that I am laying all my cards about the seven laws of creation to process evolution. You got three already. The first one is I called the Law of reciprocating duality.

Length, mass, time, temperature and so on belong to the family called measurement (fundamental or derived). Meter, kg, sec, amp and so on belong to the family called units of measurement(static or dynamic). If you notice, there are two families in this example. And when they combine, they form another family called Dimension.


Like with other objects, some formulae originate from other simple formula and others regroup to create more complex equations using dimensional analysis.

These are seven basic units of measurements:
Meter (m) - is a unit to measure Length
Kilogram (kg) - is a unit to measure Mass
Second (s) - is a unit to measure Time
Kelvin (K) - is a unit to measure Temperature
Ampere (amp) - is a unit to measure Current
Mole (mol) - the chemical amount of a substance
Lumen (lm) - the intensity emitted by a light source

I will simplify my discussion here using Length, Mass and Time. These three parameters are the cornerstone of most equations but they belong to a duality called measurement ( I know you will ask me about this). Length tells us how long an entity is. Mass tells us the amount of materials. Time is a period of events.

When we want to measure the sides of a book, we are measuring the length of each side. We call the first side the length, the second side the width and the third side the height. Take note that width and height are just another name for length. Another common length is the line coming from the center point of a circle named the radius. The diagonal line in a triangle is named the hypotenuse, the perpendicular line is named the altitude and the horizontal line is called the base. All of them are called length.

Let us use the capital letter "L" to represent "Length". When we multiply two lengths together, the resulting product is called the AREA, when we multiply three lengths the product is called VOLUME.

(Length) x (Length) = Area
(Length) x (Length) x (Length) = Volume

As we say, we can differentiate one length from another by giving them their own names.

(Length) x (Length) = Area ( of a cube)
(Length) x (Height) = Area (of a rectangle)
(Width) x (Height) = Area (of a surface)
(Base) x (Altitude) = Area (of a parallelogram)
(Radius) x (Radius) = Area (of a circle)
(Length) x (Length) x (Length) = Volume
(Length) x (Height) x (Width) = Volume
(Radius) x (Radius) x (Height) = Volume

Units of measurement also inherited this system of conversions. So if an Area = Length x Height and meter is the unit of measurement for both lengths then the unit equation will be meter x meter = meter².

Then:
Area = Length x Width
= (meter x meter) = meter² = m²
Volume = Length x Width x Height
= (m x m x m) = m³
Density = Mass / Volume
= (kilogram / meter³) = kg/m³
Velocity = Length / Time = meter / second
= m/s = mps
Force = (kg x m) / (sec x sec)
= kg-m/s² = Newton (N)
Frequency = cycle / second
= c/s = cps

Therefore, we now know that m² is a unit of measurement for Area, m³ is for Volume, mps represents Velocity, Newton is a derived unit for Force and cps is a unit for frequency. If I say that impedance has a unit I coined cubic ohms, I will at once conclude that it is a volume. If I say that current is a flow of electrons per unit time, these cycles of electrons per second is called a frequency. But this is just a beginning. You also need to prove them dimensionally and equationally.

Also if you notice whether it an area of a cube, rectangle, a circle and so on, as long as the unit is meter² or m² (metric units) then we are definitely sure that we are talking about an area. This logical approach is the same for resistance, impedance and reactance. They may have complicated equations, but it will always boil down to the original unit which is ohms. When you prove a problem in math, make sure you prove them, by equation, by dimensional and by units of measurement. This analysis will give you a big edge that your formula is correct. That is why I claimed that Einstein famous equation was simply derived from Sir Newton's F=ma and Sir Coriolis' W=fd.

By the way this concept is all explained in my book under the heading Evolution of numbers, formulas and dimensions - the anatomy of an equation.

What a load of pseudoscience crap. You know what, I have an even easier way to derive E = mc²: Just take the formula for kinetic energy, E = 1/2 mv², and substitute only Velocity for another Velocity. Since 1/2 is of the Family Dimensionless, this is perfectly allowed. Right?

[body&soul]

Hahaha. Sjoerd, your inquisition is really what you call a pseudoscience crap.

If you substitute V with V then the formula will not change. It will stay the same no matter what. This is plain algebra. On the other hand if you want to multiply V with another V then you are right PE will be einstein simplified formula. But if you multiply PE with V, you are destroying the nature of the formula for PE.


"Simplify your life, always go back to Basics" .... Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin

[Sjoerd]

Hahaha. Sjoerd, your inquisition is really what you call a pseudoscience crap.

If you substitute V with V then the formula will not change. It will stay the same no matter what. This is plain algebra. On the other hand if you want to multiply V with another V then you are right PE will be einstein simplified formula. But if you multiply PE with V, you are destroying the nature of the formula for PE.

You are completely right, this is pseudoscience crap. Here's another one for you: since Temperature is nothing more than the Velocity of molecules, they clearly belong to a single Family. Therefore, Entropy, which is Energy divided by Temperature, is equivalent to Momentum, which is Energy divided by Velocity multiplied by another Dimensionless Quantity.

[body&soul]

Sjoerd: Are you saying that T = V
and if S = E / T
and if M = E / V
substitute T = V as in M = E / T
Then S = M
Yes, you are correct, us how I understand your "question" ( I do not see any question at all)? However, the above exercise is not enough, you need more proof to say that S = M.You must use dimensional analysis and unit of measurement analysis to confirm that your formula is correct. But as I said it is not always true that 1 = 1.

If you can provide me the complete units of measurement ( like what is the unit of you energy in entrophy and in momentum, how about temperature and velocity and what is the unit of this constant or dimensionless quantity). Can I also have the correct formulas of S and M since you mentioned a dimensionless quantity,i assumed that it is not complete. I will try my best to prove to you that S = M.

And by the way if these are all pseudoscience crap, then obviously the output will be a pink unicorn. But for me, the possibility of creating a pink unicorn as a new specie is conceivable. It is just a matter of time.

[byofrcs]

Sjoerd: Are you saying that T = V
and if S = E / T
and if M = E / V
substitute T = V as in M = E / T
Then S = M
Yes, you are correct, us how I understand your "question" ( I do not see any question at all)? However, the above exercise is not enough, you need more proof to say that S = M.You must use dimensional analysis and unit of measurement analysis to confirm that your formula is correct. But as I said it is not always true that 1 = 1.

If you can provide me the complete units of measurement ( like what is the unit of you energy in entrophy and in momentum, how about temperature and velocity and what is the unit of this constant or dimensionless quantity). Can I also have the correct formulas of S and M since you mentioned a dimensionless quantity,i assumed that it is not complete. I will try my best to prove to you that S = M.

And by the way if these are all pseudoscience crap, then obviously the output will be a pink unicorn. But for me, the possibility of creating a pink unicorn as a new specie is conceivable. It is just a matter of time.

As I read it the dimensionless quantity is the multiplier factor of plancks constant without all those yucky joules per second.

It does sound though that if you do agree that 1 need not equal to 1 (or S = M) then your first proof of the day is to disprove the law of identity which I kind of hold dear as axiomatic, so I'm interested in what you come up with in your predicate logic for extension.

ps: operator overload of = using C++ doesn't count (I hate C++).

[body&soul]

This is a classic solution to prove that 1 = 1 is not always true. I will also present here that the equation 2 = 1 is correct.

Here is the proof that 1 = 1 is not always true.

-1 = 1 {negative one is equal to one}
(-1)^2 = (1)^2 {square both sides}
1 = 1

Here is the proof that 2 = 1 is correct.

a = b {a is equal to b}
aa = ab {multiply both sides by a}
a^2 = ab {simplify}
a^2 – b^2 = ab-b^2 {subtract both sides by – b^2}
(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b) {transpose}
a+b = b {divide both sides by (a-b)}
b+b = b {since a = b then 1b + 1b = (1+1)b = 2b}
2b = b {divide both side by b}
2 = 1

Take note that while these "proofs" may look correct, they contain some errors, and are therefore not real proofs. That is why unit of measurements and dimensional analysis are an important tool for any equations or formulas.

I hate C++ too. I love machine language.

[byofrcs]

This is a classic solution to prove that 1 = 1 is not always true. I will also present here that the equation 2 = 1 is correct.

Here is the proof that 1 = 1 is not always true.

-1 = 1 {negative one is equal to one}
(-1)^2 = (1)^2 {square both sides}
1 = 1

Here is the proof that 2 = 1 is correct.

a = b {a is equal to b}
aa = ab {multiply both sides by a}
a^2 = ab {simplify}
a^2 – b^2 = ab-b^2 {subtract both sides by – b^2}
(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b) {transpose}
a+b = b {divide both sides by (a-b)}
b+b = b {since a = b then 1b + 1b = (1+1)b = 2b}
2b = b {divide both side by b}
2 = 1

Take note that while these "proofs" may look correct, they contain some errors, and are therefore not real proofs. That is why unit of measurements and dimensional analysis are an important tool for any equations or formulas.

I hate C++ too. I love machine language.

No, these proofs are not stated correctly in that the first statement is wrong and you thus have to use square root and that has both a positive and negative results which means that you can't then ignore half the set.

e.g. you must state it using with the square root of 1 is equal to the square root of 1.

The square root of a number is both plus and minus that number thus square root of 1 is both 1 and -1.

But if we consider (1,-1) to be a set then it is equal (by extension) to the other set of (1,-1) in that each individual member has an identical partner, but obviously this need not mean that all members of each set are identical to all other members in that same set.

Thus you haven't really proven that something is not equal to itself because one attribute in the set that describes the object is equal to another element in the set of the other object.

This is probably the crux of the matter in that to you, all is equal if you ignore the bits that are not equal but then you want to claim that set A is related to set B simply because, for example, A{0) is equal to B(3) even though A{1,2,3,4,5} are not equal to B{0,1,2,4,5}.

That's an unacceptably loose union of those sets.

As far as I can see you have not proven the predictability of your taxonomic system in that you have not explained why we ignore the elements of the attributes of set A unless they match with any of the elements of set B.