hurricanes during the ice age?

jwoodward48 wrote:Not every segment has a local maximum!

jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.

IBdaMann wrote: Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

No, it's not.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.

What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.
You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.

No, you misunderstand. Kirchhoff's Law states that the absorptivity at a particular wavelength is equal to the emissivity at a particular wavelength. It doesn't say that absorptivity and emissivity can't vary with wavelength. It is therefore perfectly possible for a substance to be a good absorber (and emitter) at one wavelength and a poor absorber (and emitter) at another wavelength.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.

What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.
You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.

No, you misunderstand. Kirchhoff's Law states that the absorptivity at a particular wavelength is equal to the emissivity at a particular wavelength. It doesn't say that absorptivity and emissivity can't vary with wavelength. It is therefore perfectly possible for a substance to be a good absorber (and emitter) at one wavelength and a poor absorber (and emitter) at another wavelength.

Gawd it must suck to have an education as crappy as yours.

If an atom absorbs a certain frequency, it will always emit on that same frequency (if it emits at all), or on a lower frequency (if it emits at all).

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.

Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.

Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.

IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.

They are circular arguments.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.

Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.

Wait, what? We aren't discussing my argument.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm talking about how IB's statement of "If no gas exists that doesn't violate Planck's, then you are wrong" is technically true, but since the antecedent is false, the consequent is not supported.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) Define 'surface'.

"the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent)"

Solids have surfaces, since there is a clear boundary between a solid and not-the-solid. Liquids have surfaces, as there is a clear boundary between a liquid and not-the-liquid. Gases can sometimes have surfaces, if they are confined within something.

Opaque solids radiate solely from their surface. Ditto for opaque liquids. Gases and transparent solids/liquids both have a problem - the surface does not contribute all of the radiating

When we are discussing the atmosphere, it does not have a surface that it radiates from. It radiates from a whole volume of space.

This seems insufficient and vague. After all, a solid is mostly empty space. So is my hand. Why can't I put my hand, which is mostly empty space, through a metal bar, which is mostly empty space? Why can I put my hand into a liquid or a gas without resistance? After all, liquids have a surface that is obvious, just like a solid.

That's irrelevant.

jwoodward48 wrote:
A solid has a clear boundary between itself and everything else,

jwoodward48 wrote:
as does a liquid

jwoodward48 wrote:
- but a gas does not, unless it is constrained.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Solids and liquids don't need to be constrained in order to keep their volume. Gases do.

All have mass. Just what exactly is a 'surface' anyway?

Nothing to do with mass.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Just the boundary between a given something and everything that isn't that something. Solids have surfaces, liquids have surfaces, since they don't naturally expand.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Gases naturally expand, so unless they are constrained, they won't have a surface

jwoodward48 wrote:
- the atmosphere blends with the vacuum.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Where does the atmosphere end and space begin?

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.

What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.

No, it's not.

jwoodward48 wrote:
First of all, I am stating that a given substance can be opaque to one wavelength and transparent to another, which is definitely true. But to counter your point, that's not true - even in a gas, molecules have so many collisions every second that it's more likely that the absorbed radiation will go toward heating up the gas; the gas will then radiate its emission spectrum in all directions, including down. The radiation that goes down will mostly be absorbed by the Earth (barring re-absorption and re-emission, which just complicates things but doesn't change this fact). When a photon strikes the Earth, the ground doesn't know what temperature the radiating body was that produced the photon. It only knows what wavelength the radiation has - and we know that the Earth is a good absorber of longwave radiation. It won't all be reflected. Much will be absorbed. This increases the temperature, since the Earth is also getting solar radiation.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.

Planck's is not applicable. The Planckian distribution does not match up with the Earthly radiation seen from space - this has a continuous domain, by the way.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Not every segment has a local maximum!

Yes, it absolutely will. I think we're done on this one.

jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.

IBdaMann wrote: Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

No, it's not.

Yes it absolutely is. I think we're done here as well.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".

In computer programming, and in English grammar, the "If A then B" is a conditional statement.

In logic it is an implication. If the antecedent is false then the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.

I'm not going to tell you again.

.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.

Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.

Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.

IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.

They are circular arguments.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.

Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.

Wait, what? We aren't discussing my argument.

We ARE discussing your argument. Since you want to drop it now, consider it done.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm talking about how IB's statement of "If no gas exists that doesn't violate Planck's, then you are wrong" is technically true, but since the antecedent is false, the consequent is not supported.

The stated antecedent is negative, the unstated antecedent is affirmative (that you are making an argument), and the conclusion is negative. No problem with logic here. This is a perfectly valid form.

jwoodward48 wrote:

[b]IBdaMann wrote:[/b}
You don't lose a point here. You just need to brush up on your terminology.

"A -> B" is an implication
"A" is the antecedent
"B" is the consequent

If the antecedent is false, the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.


.

No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Not every segment has a local maximum!

Yes, it absolutely will. I think we're done on this one.

IB, I think you're confusing "local maximum" with "global maximum".

jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.

IBdaMann wrote: Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

No, it's not.

Yes it absolutely is. I think we're done here as well.

If you want to stop, sure. Let it never be said that I forced anybody to continue typing.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".

In computer programming, and in English grammar, the "If A then B" is a conditional statement.

In logic it is an implication. If the antecedent is false then the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.

I'm not going to tell you again.

.

Ah, it seems that the logical definition of "implication" is quite distinct from the layman's definition. You're right.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.

Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.

Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.

IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.

They are circular arguments.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.

Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.

Wait, what? We aren't discussing my argument.

We ARE discussing your argument. Since you want to drop it now, consider it done.

If you want to discuss my argument, by all means, but we are currently talking about IB's statement that is a response to my argument.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm talking about how IB's statement of "If no gas exists that doesn't violate Planck's, then you are wrong" is technically true, but since the antecedent is false, the consequent is not supported.

The stated antecedent is negative, the unstated antecedent is affirmative (that you are making an argument), and the conclusion is negative. No problem with logic here. This is a perfectly valid form.

Do you mean "negative" as in ~A?

I am talking about how if the antecedent is false, A=>B is always true. This says nothing about the truth value of B.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not

"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not

"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?

No.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not

"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?

No.

Could you explain?
I'm no expert on formal logic, but I'd have thought that

!A & B -> !B

is the same as writing

(not A) and B implies (not B )

which is obviously not true.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not

"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?

No.

Could you explain?
I'm no expert on formal logic, but I'd have thought that

!A & B -> !B

is the same as writing

(not A) and B implies (not B )

which is obviously not true.

Example:

a) a fish is found with no scales.
b) fish have scales.
Therefore, not all fish have scales.

This particular fish might be missing its skin, and is staring at you from your plate with one eye, ready to eat.

!A&B->!B

jwoodward48 wrote:
"Fish have scales" is a bit unclear. Which of the following is it?

1. All fish have scales.
2. Some fish have scales.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not

"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?

No.

Could you explain?
I'm no expert on formal logic, but I'd have thought that

!A & B -> !B

is the same as writing

(not A) and B implies (not B )

which is obviously not true.

Example:

a) a fish is found with no scales.
b) fish have scales.
Therefore, not all fish have scales.

This particular fish might be missing its skin, and is staring at you from your plate with one eye, ready to eat.

!A&B->!B

I can't say that makes a whole load of sense to me. What is A? A fish is found? What is B? The fish (or any fish?) has scales?

jwoodward48 wrote:
"Fish have scales" is a bit unclear. Which of the following is it?

1. All fish have scales.
2. Some fish have scales.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
"Fish have scales" is a bit unclear. Which of the following is it?

1. All fish have scales.
2. Some fish have scales.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's very important to distinguish between the two. If it's the former, than the antecendents contradict each other. If the latter, then "not all fish have scales" is not the negative of B, which is now "some fish have scales" - these obviously don't contradict each other. So the consequent cannot be written as !B, but rather as C.

jwoodward48 wrote:
1. I found a fish without scales (this is equiv. to "not all fish have scales").
2. All fish have scales.
3. Therefore, not all fish have scales.

The problem with this should be evident, but I'll spell it out - you cannot deduce !B from B. That breaks logic. Don't do that.