Originally Posted by Mahratta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedel%... ness_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

In short: no, it can't.

You took his comment too literally, let the man dream!

Originally Posted by Mahratta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedel%... ness_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

In short: no, it can't.

There is a reason why industries like to hire young talents.

Mainly because they will work for shitty $$$.

The other is young people don't limit themselves with "no"s. You can't be creative when you put constrains everywhere.

Originally Posted by jeboi7

You took his comment too literally, let the man dream!

I agree, let me dream.

If I'm wrong then I don't want to be right.

I agree, let me dream.

If I'm wrong then I don't want to be right. [/quote]

Damn, sound like some inception

Originally Posted by Needlenose

I agree with you, Kendoon. McClelland is kind of awful. It's a little funny how he reads aloud the answers from the slides, stands blinking feverishly for a while, and then tries to convey the concept in his own words. This only makes matters worse, as he speaks so haltingly that he ends up confusing the majority of the class.

I hate how the notes are organized. You feel like a dull kid as you copy answers from the board. And yes, the Comic Sans font doesn't help at all. What's wrong with the Biology department at McMaster?

Everything.

Which is why I intend on doing my thesis/graduate work under someone preferably in the kinesiology department T_T

Originally Posted by RyanC

Wut? Can you dumb down the reason for your link for non-maths students?

The first link encapsulates my point, actually - explaining the 2nd one would be pretty technical. Any sufficiently powerful system (viz. our present mathematics & deductive logic, and thus the deductive component of our science) is 'doomed' to either incompleteness or inconsistency. The actual proof is technical, but that's the result. Out of the two, everyone's hoping that the former is the case...

On a similar note, the empirical component of science has its own problem, the problem of induction.

Originally Posted by phln3

There is a reason why industries like to hire young talents.

Mainly because they will work for shitty $$$.

The other is young people don't limit themselves with "no"s. You can't be creative when you put constrains everywhere.

Unfortunately, enthusiasm and rhetoric haven't found & won't find fault in Goedel's proof (unless, of course, you approach it from outside its system, which would only validate my point).

Originally Posted by Kendoon

Everything.

Which is why I intend on doing my thesis/graduate work under someone preferably in the kinesiology department T_T

Bro why are you in life sci? You hate Bio, and you hate chem.

I loathe biology but at least I like chem/physics/math -_-

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Unfortunately, enthusiasm and rhetoric haven't found & won't find fault in Goedel's proof.

No, but it gives hope.

Once again, the thread diverted from backpacks into theorems and biology -_-

Sidenote: Oh yeah, that was a woman and it was so loud =/! About Bio 2A03, I actually don't really hate it all that much. Besides the fact that it's 600 people all coughing at the same time, and it's at 5:30 PM. It's pretty interesting. As for biology and kinesiology, I'm taking Kin 1YY3 right now, and honestly, I regret chosing Life sci over Kinesiology

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Bro why are you in life sci? You hate Bio, and you hate chem.

I loathe biology but at least I like chem/physics/math -_-

I don't hate biology, I just dislike biology courses that are taught by uninspired numb-brained twats in a fashion that does not in any way, shape or form convey just how interesting biology truly is. The professors at McMaster that teach kinesiology and psychology courses exhibit a true appreciation and understanding for the subject outside of their labs and research and therefore are an example of how biology itself should be taught at our school.

I also hate chemistry for reasons that I will not mention (no, I didn't fail anything).

Physics to me is like a recurring one night stand that I may eventually fall for and spend the rest of my life with.

Math to me is physics' hot older sister that occasional jumps in for a threesome.

Edit: fixed for mahratta-ness.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

The first link encapsulates my point, actually - explaining the 2nd one would be pretty technical. Any sufficiently powerful system (viz. our present mathematics & deductive logic, and thus the deductive component of our science) is 'doomed' to either incompleteness or inconsistency. The actual proof is technical, but that's the result. Out of the two, everyone's hoping that the former is the case...

On a similar note, the empirical component of science has its own problem, the problem of induction.



Unfortunately, enthusiasm and rhetoric haven't found & won't find fault in Goedel's proof (unless, of course, you approach it from outside its system, which would only validate my point).

I liked how you backed up your statements. Now thanks for killing some of my brain cells trying to figure out what you were saying! lol

Originally Posted by Kendoon

Math to me is physics'cold, dignified and immensely attractive elder sister that occasional jumps in for a threesome.

Fix'd.

damnthis12characterno nsense

Originally Posted by ~*Sara*~

Once again, the thread diverted from backpacks into theorems and biology -_-

Sidenote: Oh yeah, that was a woman and it was so loud =/! About Bio 2A03, I actually don't really hate it all that much. Besides the fact that it's 600 people all coughing at the same time, and it's at 5:30 PM. It's pretty interesting. As for biology and kinesiology, I'm taking Kin 1YY3 right now, and honestly, I regret chosing Life sci over Kinesiology

Welcome to the club.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Fix'd.

damnthis12characterno nsense

Yeah I totally botched that analogy, math is technically the older more experienced sister of physics that can get you off without even touching you

Originally Posted by Kendoon

I don't hate biology, I just dislike biology courses that are taught by uninspired numb-brained twats in a fashion that does not in any way, shape or form convey just how interesting biology truly is. The professors at McMaster that teach kinesiology and psychology courses exhibit a true appreciation and understanding for the subject outside of their labs and research and therefore are an example of how biology itself should be taught at our school.

I also hate chemistry for reasons that I will not mention (no, I didn't fail anything).

Physics to me is like a recurring one night stand that I may eventually fall for and spend the rest of my life with.

Math to me is physics' hot older sister that occasional jumps in for a threesome.

Edit: fixed for mahratta-ness.

Curious why you like bio and physics/math to an extent but not chemistry -_-

I consider chemistry an intermediate between biology and physics, so why the hate?

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Curious why you like bio and physics/math to an extent but not chemistry -_-

I consider chemistry an intermediate between biology and physics, so why the hate?

Of course it's an intermediate:

Math -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Psychology -> "others"

I dislike chemistry because of exactly that reason. It is the unwanted step-middle-child of the bunch. It holds all of the intrigue of the others but does not present and answer similar questions in a way that is stimulating enough in the real world.

I simply have no interest in drawing sticks, dots, arrows and letters when I can be learning theorems, solving complex real-life puzzles using my knowledge of math and physics, learning in-depth about the human body's pathways and functions (obviously, I do follow through with a certain defined level of biochemistry...), or learning how it all comes together on the other end of the spectrum with psychology and other sciences such as humanities and whatnot.