<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_18_2320213</id>
	<title>Tracking the World's Great Unsolved Math Mysteries</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1258545960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"Some math problems are as old as the wind, experts say, and many remain truly unsolved.  But a new open source-based site from the American Institute of Mathematics looks to help track work done and <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48054">solve long-standing and difficult math problems</a>.  The Institute, along with the National Science Foundation, has opened the <a href="http://aimpl.org/">AIM Problem Lists</a> site to offer an organized and annotated collection of unsolved problems, and previously unsolved problems, in a specialized area of mathematics research. The problem list provides a snapshot of the current state of research in a particular research area, letting experts track new developments, and newcomers gain a perspective on the subject."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " Some math problems are as old as the wind , experts say , and many remain truly unsolved .
But a new open source-based site from the American Institute of Mathematics looks to help track work done and solve long-standing and difficult math problems .
The Institute , along with the National Science Foundation , has opened the AIM Problem Lists site to offer an organized and annotated collection of unsolved problems , and previously unsolved problems , in a specialized area of mathematics research .
The problem list provides a snapshot of the current state of research in a particular research area , letting experts track new developments , and newcomers gain a perspective on the subject .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "Some math problems are as old as the wind, experts say, and many remain truly unsolved.
But a new open source-based site from the American Institute of Mathematics looks to help track work done and solve long-standing and difficult math problems.
The Institute, along with the National Science Foundation, has opened the AIM Problem Lists site to offer an organized and annotated collection of unsolved problems, and previously unsolved problems, in a specialized area of mathematics research.
The problem list provides a snapshot of the current state of research in a particular research area, letting experts track new developments, and newcomers gain a perspective on the subject.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151520</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257084060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It shouldn't be a mystery because we created it to model the world around us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should n't be a mystery because we created it to model the world around us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It shouldn't be a mystery because we created it to model the world around us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151566</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a deep mystery at all. It's by design. We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe. Just take Euclid axioms of the plane geometry, or natural number axioms (like Peano's), etc.</p><p>It's no wonder then that what we construct out of them resembles what is out there (at least somewhat). Other modeling problems try to be even stricter and model the observed phenomena even closer than axioms could ever hope to describe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a deep mystery at all .
It 's by design .
We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe .
Just take Euclid axioms of the plane geometry , or natural number axioms ( like Peano 's ) , etc.It 's no wonder then that what we construct out of them resembles what is out there ( at least somewhat ) .
Other modeling problems try to be even stricter and model the observed phenomena even closer than axioms could ever hope to describe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a deep mystery at all.
It's by design.
We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe.
Just take Euclid axioms of the plane geometry, or natural number axioms (like Peano's), etc.It's no wonder then that what we construct out of them resembles what is out there (at least somewhat).
Other modeling problems try to be even stricter and model the observed phenomena even closer than axioms could ever hope to describe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154792</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1258637160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like I said in another post, I'm a pure mathie (masters in it), and minor in CS as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like I said in another post , I 'm a pure mathie ( masters in it ) , and minor in CS as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like I said in another post, I'm a pure mathie (masters in it), and minor in CS as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152184</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Evil Pete</author>
	<datestamp>1257088440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YES! This has long been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Unreasonable\_Effectiveness\_of\_Mathematics\_in\_the\_Natural\_Sciences" title="wikipedia.org">acknowledged</a> [wikipedia.org] by people who we usually assume know a little bit about the physical world. It seems reasonable to me, but demonstrating why it is reasonable is another thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YES !
This has long been acknowledged [ wikipedia.org ] by people who we usually assume know a little bit about the physical world .
It seems reasonable to me , but demonstrating why it is reasonable is another thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES!
This has long been acknowledged [wikipedia.org] by people who we usually assume know a little bit about the physical world.
It seems reasonable to me, but demonstrating why it is reasonable is another thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151968</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some say math is discovered. Others say it is invented.</p> </div><p>And still others (especially those in grade school and high school) say that math should neither have been invented nor discovered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some say math is discovered .
Others say it is invented .
And still others ( especially those in grade school and high school ) say that math should neither have been invented nor discovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some say math is discovered.
Others say it is invented.
And still others (especially those in grade school and high school) say that math should neither have been invented nor discovered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30173386</id>
	<title>Any time now</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1258741620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>High school students begin posting math homework problems there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>High school students begin posting math homework problems there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High school students begin posting math homework problems there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152782</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Beetle B.</author>
	<datestamp>1257094200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would claim that the ratio of a circle to its diameter is independent of being observed, or indeed there being an observer.</p></div><p>What's a circle? What's a diameter? What's a ratio? Who defines these?</p><p>And while we're at it, you do realize that the universe is non-Euclidean? So how do we view the results from Euclidean geometry, given that reality is not Euclidean?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Radioactive decay follows an exponential decay curve. It will have done so long before anyone could add, let alone handle irrational numbers like e.</p></div><p>That some mathematics models the real world does not mean most of mathematics is not invented. It need not be a binary scenario. What would you say of mathematical constructs that have no analogs in nature (but that <i>could</i> be depicted if desired)?</p><p>Your arguments are along the lines of "The bicycle was not invented, because the laws of the universe would always have allowed a bicycle to work and exist."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would claim that the ratio of a circle to its diameter is independent of being observed , or indeed there being an observer.What 's a circle ?
What 's a diameter ?
What 's a ratio ?
Who defines these ? And while we 're at it , you do realize that the universe is non-Euclidean ?
So how do we view the results from Euclidean geometry , given that reality is not Euclidean ? Radioactive decay follows an exponential decay curve .
It will have done so long before anyone could add , let alone handle irrational numbers like e.That some mathematics models the real world does not mean most of mathematics is not invented .
It need not be a binary scenario .
What would you say of mathematical constructs that have no analogs in nature ( but that could be depicted if desired ) ? Your arguments are along the lines of " The bicycle was not invented , because the laws of the universe would always have allowed a bicycle to work and exist .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would claim that the ratio of a circle to its diameter is independent of being observed, or indeed there being an observer.What's a circle?
What's a diameter?
What's a ratio?
Who defines these?And while we're at it, you do realize that the universe is non-Euclidean?
So how do we view the results from Euclidean geometry, given that reality is not Euclidean?Radioactive decay follows an exponential decay curve.
It will have done so long before anyone could add, let alone handle irrational numbers like e.That some mathematics models the real world does not mean most of mathematics is not invented.
It need not be a binary scenario.
What would you say of mathematical constructs that have no analogs in nature (but that could be depicted if desired)?Your arguments are along the lines of "The bicycle was not invented, because the laws of the universe would always have allowed a bicycle to work and exist.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154030</id>
	<title>Re:here is one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258624680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You kinda forgot that log(1) = 0, and that log(a^b) = b*log(a), so log(1^k) = k * log(1) = k * 0 = 0.</p><p>So you just tired to say for all numbers k, 0 * k = 0; therefore k = 0/0; therefore all k are equal.</p><p>Fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You kinda forgot that log ( 1 ) = 0 , and that log ( a ^ b ) = b * log ( a ) , so log ( 1 ^ k ) = k * log ( 1 ) = k * 0 = 0.So you just tired to say for all numbers k , 0 * k = 0 ; therefore k = 0/0 ; therefore all k are equal.Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You kinda forgot that log(1) = 0, and that log(a^b) = b*log(a), so log(1^k) = k * log(1) = k * 0 = 0.So you just tired to say for all numbers k, 0 * k = 0; therefore k = 0/0; therefore all k are equal.Fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153994</id>
	<title>Here's mine...</title>
	<author>rayharris</author>
	<datestamp>1258623660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>P = NP?<br>
<br>
I so want it to be true. Quantum computing is our best hope right now of shedding light on this problem.<br>
<br>
And it's not on their list...</htmltext>
<tokenext>P = NP ?
I so want it to be true .
Quantum computing is our best hope right now of shedding light on this problem .
And it 's not on their list.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P = NP?
I so want it to be true.
Quantum computing is our best hope right now of shedding light on this problem.
And it's not on their list...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153260</id>
	<title>.999...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they can explain why most math "teachers" think 1  =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999...
<br> <br>
Retards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they can explain why most math " teachers " think 1 = .999.. . Retards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they can explain why most math "teachers" think 1  = .999...
 
Retards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151204</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257082020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You beg the question "does wind necessarily precede intelligence," which it does not.</p><p>And yes, I only posted this for the sake of using "beg the question" in a sentence.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You beg the question " does wind necessarily precede intelligence , " which it does not.And yes , I only posted this for the sake of using " beg the question " in a sentence .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You beg the question "does wind necessarily precede intelligence," which it does not.And yes, I only posted this for the sake of using "beg the question" in a sentence.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30155744</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258644000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not a deep mystery at all. It's by design. We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe. Just take Euclid axioms of the plane geometry, or natural number axioms (like Peano's), etc.</p><p>It's no wonder then that what we construct out of them resembles what is out there (at least somewhat). Other modeling problems try to be even stricter and model the observed phenomena even closer than axioms could ever hope to describe.</p></div><p>How about the surprising applications of complex analysis in Quantum Mechanics? Or Minkowski space in SR? Or  Differential Geometry in GR? Group Theory in the standard model? etc, etc. All of these mathematical fields were discovered before , not together, with a physical application. And all of these are not naturally or at least trivially derived from the macroscopical world. Obviously there is a deep connection at work.The interesting thing is to discover what it is. This is one of the most fascinating puzzles we face. Some people speculate about the fact that our universe is a mathematical construction ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ) others say that cellular automata are the underpin of all our physical laws. Another more outlandish propose is  that we live  in a computer simulation. And I grant you a fourth one, that a sufficient intelligent brain  constructed  following certain physical laws has the power to inevitably create a formal system which may represent such laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a deep mystery at all .
It 's by design .
We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe .
Just take Euclid axioms of the plane geometry , or natural number axioms ( like Peano 's ) , etc.It 's no wonder then that what we construct out of them resembles what is out there ( at least somewhat ) .
Other modeling problems try to be even stricter and model the observed phenomena even closer than axioms could ever hope to describe.How about the surprising applications of complex analysis in Quantum Mechanics ?
Or Minkowski space in SR ?
Or Differential Geometry in GR ?
Group Theory in the standard model ?
etc , etc .
All of these mathematical fields were discovered before , not together , with a physical application .
And all of these are not naturally or at least trivially derived from the macroscopical world .
Obviously there is a deep connection at work.The interesting thing is to discover what it is .
This is one of the most fascinating puzzles we face .
Some people speculate about the fact that our universe is a mathematical construction ( http : //arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ) others say that cellular automata are the underpin of all our physical laws .
Another more outlandish propose is that we live in a computer simulation .
And I grant you a fourth one , that a sufficient intelligent brain constructed following certain physical laws has the power to inevitably create a formal system which may represent such laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a deep mystery at all.
It's by design.
We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe.
Just take Euclid axioms of the plane geometry, or natural number axioms (like Peano's), etc.It's no wonder then that what we construct out of them resembles what is out there (at least somewhat).
Other modeling problems try to be even stricter and model the observed phenomena even closer than axioms could ever hope to describe.How about the surprising applications of complex analysis in Quantum Mechanics?
Or Minkowski space in SR?
Or  Differential Geometry in GR?
Group Theory in the standard model?
etc, etc.
All of these mathematical fields were discovered before , not together, with a physical application.
And all of these are not naturally or at least trivially derived from the macroscopical world.
Obviously there is a deep connection at work.The interesting thing is to discover what it is.
This is one of the most fascinating puzzles we face.
Some people speculate about the fact that our universe is a mathematical construction ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ) others say that cellular automata are the underpin of all our physical laws.
Another more outlandish propose is  that we live  in a computer simulation.
And I grant you a fourth one, that a sufficient intelligent brain  constructed  following certain physical laws has the power to inevitably create a formal system which may represent such laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153714</id>
	<title>here is one</title>
	<author>nerdyalien</author>
	<datestamp>1258662120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1^0 = 1<br>1^1 = 1</p><p>hence 1^0 = 1^1</p><p>taking log to the base 1 from both sides,</p><p>0 = 1</p><p>by extending to 1^2, 1^3 etc...</p><p>0 = 1 = 2 = 3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ^ 0 = 11 ^ 1 = 1hence 1 ^ 0 = 1 ^ 1taking log to the base 1 from both sides,0 = 1by extending to 1 ^ 2 , 1 ^ 3 etc...0 = 1 = 2 = 3 .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1^0 = 11^1 = 1hence 1^0 = 1^1taking log to the base 1 from both sides,0 = 1by extending to 1^2, 1^3 etc...0 = 1 = 2 = 3 .....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152744</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Beetle B.</author>
	<datestamp>1257093900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe.</p></div><p>You don't hang around mathematicians, do you? Go play with a number theorist and you'll realize how wrong you are.</p><p>It's certainly true that some mathematicians are motivated by  modeling the world. But many, and perhaps most, aren't. They'll freely construct mathematical objects that have little basis in the physical world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe.You do n't hang around mathematicians , do you ?
Go play with a number theorist and you 'll realize how wrong you are.It 's certainly true that some mathematicians are motivated by modeling the world .
But many , and perhaps most , are n't .
They 'll freely construct mathematical objects that have little basis in the physical world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We chose our axioms to resemble what we observe.You don't hang around mathematicians, do you?
Go play with a number theorist and you'll realize how wrong you are.It's certainly true that some mathematicians are motivated by  modeling the world.
But many, and perhaps most, aren't.
They'll freely construct mathematical objects that have little basis in the physical world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154188</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258626960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Axioms are invented. Theorems are discovered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Axioms are invented .
Theorems are discovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Axioms are invented.
Theorems are discovered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154678</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Bromskloss</author>
	<datestamp>1258634940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mathematical tools, however, are invented and not discovered.</p></div><p>Indeed. Pen and paper come to mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematical tools , however , are invented and not discovered.Indeed .
Pen and paper come to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematical tools, however, are invented and not discovered.Indeed.
Pen and paper come to mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152468</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some say math is discovered.  Others say it is invented.  You are one of the latter.</p></div><p>Math is a language of symbols used to represent patterns observed in nature. Physics is the discipline of actually discovering such rules, and Physics uses the language of Math to describe those rules.</p><p>So "math" is invented because it is a language, but the things that math describes are discovered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some say math is discovered .
Others say it is invented .
You are one of the latter.Math is a language of symbols used to represent patterns observed in nature .
Physics is the discipline of actually discovering such rules , and Physics uses the language of Math to describe those rules.So " math " is invented because it is a language , but the things that math describes are discovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some say math is discovered.
Others say it is invented.
You are one of the latter.Math is a language of symbols used to represent patterns observed in nature.
Physics is the discipline of actually discovering such rules, and Physics uses the language of Math to describe those rules.So "math" is invented because it is a language, but the things that math describes are discovered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151634</id>
	<title>Re:Strange point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody bothers to check it because it's published on Arxiv. In the math community, Arxiv is basically a very detailed blog. Say anything you want, and some people will read it and maybe be interested. But nobody will really take you seriously. After all, there's tons of flat-out wrong papers on Arxiv and no form of quality control whatsoever.</p><p>There are many, many peer-reviewed journals. If this paper is good, it should be published in one of those. The fact that it's not raises doubts about its quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody bothers to check it because it 's published on Arxiv .
In the math community , Arxiv is basically a very detailed blog .
Say anything you want , and some people will read it and maybe be interested .
But nobody will really take you seriously .
After all , there 's tons of flat-out wrong papers on Arxiv and no form of quality control whatsoever.There are many , many peer-reviewed journals .
If this paper is good , it should be published in one of those .
The fact that it 's not raises doubts about its quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody bothers to check it because it's published on Arxiv.
In the math community, Arxiv is basically a very detailed blog.
Say anything you want, and some people will read it and maybe be interested.
But nobody will really take you seriously.
After all, there's tons of flat-out wrong papers on Arxiv and no form of quality control whatsoever.There are many, many peer-reviewed journals.
If this paper is good, it should be published in one of those.
The fact that it's not raises doubts about its quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257081480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some say math is discovered.  Others say it is invented.  You are one of the latter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some say math is discovered .
Others say it is invented .
You are one of the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some say math is discovered.
Others say it is invented.
You are one of the latter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1257084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would claim that the ratio of a circle to its diameter is independent of being observed, or indeed there being an observer. I would also claim that the laws of geometry, probability and topology are universal and also do not depend on the existence of observers, let alone their ability to perform maths.</p><p>Radioactive decay follows an exponential decay curve. It will have done so long before anyone could add, let alone handle irrational numbers like e.</p><p>This puts me firmly in the category of maths being discovered, not invented. Mathematical tools, however, are invented and not discovered. I consider these to be quite different. If you were to imagine an alien lifeform on some distant world, they'll have an identical math but their experience of it, the way they treat it, the systems they use, those will all be unique to them because those are inventions and not anything fundamental to maths itself.</p><p>In a simpler example of the same concept, we can use ancient Greek maths today even though they didn't have a concept of zero and had (to modern eyes) very alien views on the way maths worked. We can use ancient Greek maths because the results don't depend on any of that.</p><p>We can use Roman results, too, despite the fact that their numbering system doesn't really follow a number base in any way we'd understand. It doesn't matter, though, because the important stuff all takes place below such superficial details. Even more remarkable, we can read many of the numbers written in Linear A, even though we can't read the language itself and know very little about the culture or people.</p><p>None of this would be possible if what lay under maths was invented. It's very hard to rediscover lost inventions, as there's many ways of producing similar results. But when you can rediscover lost number systems with comparative ease - well, doesn't that tell you there has to be something a bit more universal to it?</p><p>(I won't get into parrots being able to discover the notion of zero, but it's again pertinent as it's an example of a universality that transcends the invented language it's described in.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would claim that the ratio of a circle to its diameter is independent of being observed , or indeed there being an observer .
I would also claim that the laws of geometry , probability and topology are universal and also do not depend on the existence of observers , let alone their ability to perform maths.Radioactive decay follows an exponential decay curve .
It will have done so long before anyone could add , let alone handle irrational numbers like e.This puts me firmly in the category of maths being discovered , not invented .
Mathematical tools , however , are invented and not discovered .
I consider these to be quite different .
If you were to imagine an alien lifeform on some distant world , they 'll have an identical math but their experience of it , the way they treat it , the systems they use , those will all be unique to them because those are inventions and not anything fundamental to maths itself.In a simpler example of the same concept , we can use ancient Greek maths today even though they did n't have a concept of zero and had ( to modern eyes ) very alien views on the way maths worked .
We can use ancient Greek maths because the results do n't depend on any of that.We can use Roman results , too , despite the fact that their numbering system does n't really follow a number base in any way we 'd understand .
It does n't matter , though , because the important stuff all takes place below such superficial details .
Even more remarkable , we can read many of the numbers written in Linear A , even though we ca n't read the language itself and know very little about the culture or people.None of this would be possible if what lay under maths was invented .
It 's very hard to rediscover lost inventions , as there 's many ways of producing similar results .
But when you can rediscover lost number systems with comparative ease - well , does n't that tell you there has to be something a bit more universal to it ?
( I wo n't get into parrots being able to discover the notion of zero , but it 's again pertinent as it 's an example of a universality that transcends the invented language it 's described in .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would claim that the ratio of a circle to its diameter is independent of being observed, or indeed there being an observer.
I would also claim that the laws of geometry, probability and topology are universal and also do not depend on the existence of observers, let alone their ability to perform maths.Radioactive decay follows an exponential decay curve.
It will have done so long before anyone could add, let alone handle irrational numbers like e.This puts me firmly in the category of maths being discovered, not invented.
Mathematical tools, however, are invented and not discovered.
I consider these to be quite different.
If you were to imagine an alien lifeform on some distant world, they'll have an identical math but their experience of it, the way they treat it, the systems they use, those will all be unique to them because those are inventions and not anything fundamental to maths itself.In a simpler example of the same concept, we can use ancient Greek maths today even though they didn't have a concept of zero and had (to modern eyes) very alien views on the way maths worked.
We can use ancient Greek maths because the results don't depend on any of that.We can use Roman results, too, despite the fact that their numbering system doesn't really follow a number base in any way we'd understand.
It doesn't matter, though, because the important stuff all takes place below such superficial details.
Even more remarkable, we can read many of the numbers written in Linear A, even though we can't read the language itself and know very little about the culture or people.None of this would be possible if what lay under maths was invented.
It's very hard to rediscover lost inventions, as there's many ways of producing similar results.
But when you can rediscover lost number systems with comparative ease - well, doesn't that tell you there has to be something a bit more universal to it?
(I won't get into parrots being able to discover the notion of zero, but it's again pertinent as it's an example of a universality that transcends the invented language it's described in.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152766</id>
	<title>Disambiguation reveals the simple answer</title>
	<author>Brain-Fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257094080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those things which we use mathematics to describe (relationships of every variety) are discovered (by observation and experience)</p><p>The language with which we describe them (symbols, axioms, and rules of transformation) is invented (and refined over time, as a quick review of the history of mathematics will promptly reveal)</p><p>Additional products of this language (logical consequences of the axioms we have invented) are subsequently discovered.</p><p>We equivocate the term "Mathematics" to mean all three of these things (that described, the language of description, and logical consequences of the axioms of that language). When the word means all three of these things at once, it seems that we have both discovered and invented it, and lively (though misguided) debate ensues.</p><p>When we establish clarity about our topic of discussion (through disambiguation of our terms), then whether it was invented or discovered becomes clear, as I have just demonstrated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those things which we use mathematics to describe ( relationships of every variety ) are discovered ( by observation and experience ) The language with which we describe them ( symbols , axioms , and rules of transformation ) is invented ( and refined over time , as a quick review of the history of mathematics will promptly reveal ) Additional products of this language ( logical consequences of the axioms we have invented ) are subsequently discovered.We equivocate the term " Mathematics " to mean all three of these things ( that described , the language of description , and logical consequences of the axioms of that language ) .
When the word means all three of these things at once , it seems that we have both discovered and invented it , and lively ( though misguided ) debate ensues.When we establish clarity about our topic of discussion ( through disambiguation of our terms ) , then whether it was invented or discovered becomes clear , as I have just demonstrated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those things which we use mathematics to describe (relationships of every variety) are discovered (by observation and experience)The language with which we describe them (symbols, axioms, and rules of transformation) is invented (and refined over time, as a quick review of the history of mathematics will promptly reveal)Additional products of this language (logical consequences of the axioms we have invented) are subsequently discovered.We equivocate the term "Mathematics" to mean all three of these things (that described, the language of description, and logical consequences of the axioms of that language).
When the word means all three of these things at once, it seems that we have both discovered and invented it, and lively (though misguided) debate ensues.When we establish clarity about our topic of discussion (through disambiguation of our terms), then whether it was invented or discovered becomes clear, as I have just demonstrated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153464</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1257103140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, I just gotta link to xkcd here: <a href="http://xkcd.com/55/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/55/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I just got ta link to xkcd here : http : //xkcd.com/55/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I just gotta link to xkcd here: http://xkcd.com/55/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157784</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1258650720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mathematics can model anything at all that is a logical possibility. Physics is necessarily a subset of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematics can model anything at all that is a logical possibility .
Physics is necessarily a subset of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematics can model anything at all that is a logical possibility.
Physics is necessarily a subset of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154686</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>???<br>Imagine a world with absolutely no order. Life cannot exist in such a world as far as I know. If it can, it would still be quite uninteresting to "study" the world because the human mind will soon realize there is no order. So there is some order. This order can always be abstracted into mathematics, or maybe it cannot. Imagine none of it can, then we again would not study it anymore, cause it is just random. Imagine some of it can, then we study this part and ignore the rest in western sciences (remember, occams razor and all that, the spiritual ideas that cannot be put into math are neither explained clearly in words nor accepted in western physics). All this is basic logic as far as I can see. We see no non-mathematical things because we choose to ignore them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>? ?
? Imagine a world with absolutely no order .
Life can not exist in such a world as far as I know .
If it can , it would still be quite uninteresting to " study " the world because the human mind will soon realize there is no order .
So there is some order .
This order can always be abstracted into mathematics , or maybe it can not .
Imagine none of it can , then we again would not study it anymore , cause it is just random .
Imagine some of it can , then we study this part and ignore the rest in western sciences ( remember , occams razor and all that , the spiritual ideas that can not be put into math are neither explained clearly in words nor accepted in western physics ) .
All this is basic logic as far as I can see .
We see no non-mathematical things because we choose to ignore them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>??
?Imagine a world with absolutely no order.
Life cannot exist in such a world as far as I know.
If it can, it would still be quite uninteresting to "study" the world because the human mind will soon realize there is no order.
So there is some order.
This order can always be abstracted into mathematics, or maybe it cannot.
Imagine none of it can, then we again would not study it anymore, cause it is just random.
Imagine some of it can, then we study this part and ignore the rest in western sciences (remember, occams razor and all that, the spiritual ideas that cannot be put into math are neither explained clearly in words nor accepted in western physics).
All this is basic logic as far as I can see.
We see no non-mathematical things because we choose to ignore them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30155346</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258641960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even math is discovered, math <i>problems</i> could only be around as long as there are people for whom it's a problem. Math may have been around since the big bang (indeed, perhaps the universe is nothing but a mathematical construct), but math problems haven't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even math is discovered , math problems could only be around as long as there are people for whom it 's a problem .
Math may have been around since the big bang ( indeed , perhaps the universe is nothing but a mathematical construct ) , but math problems have n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even math is discovered, math problems could only be around as long as there are people for whom it's a problem.
Math may have been around since the big bang (indeed, perhaps the universe is nothing but a mathematical construct), but math problems haven't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157836</id>
	<title>Re:.999...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258650840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>10a - a = 9.999... - 0.999...</p></div><p>
There's your problem. What makes you think you can take an infinitely long number and ADD or SUBTRACT it to another infinitely long number?
<br> <br>
Please work out the whole addition sequence for me till you reach the end.
<br> <br>
Thanks,<br>
Reality</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>10a - a = 9.999... - 0.999.. . There 's your problem .
What makes you think you can take an infinitely long number and ADD or SUBTRACT it to another infinitely long number ?
Please work out the whole addition sequence for me till you reach the end .
Thanks , Reality</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10a - a = 9.999... - 0.999...
There's your problem.
What makes you think you can take an infinitely long number and ADD or SUBTRACT it to another infinitely long number?
Please work out the whole addition sequence for me till you reach the end.
Thanks,
Reality
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153332</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>mctk</author>
	<datestamp>1257100980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you were to imagine an alien lifeform on some distant world, they'll have an identical math but their experience of it</p></div><p>
I'm not sure if I'm on board with you here.  That's quite a claim to make.  Just because it's hard to imagine math that's not identical to our own, does not mean it does not exist.  I can imagine a quantum sized life-form living in a probabilistic world, never coming up with the integers.  Or maybe a universe-sized creature who has absolutely no need for the idea of oneness.  <br>
<br>
Since I'm posting, here's what I think is a fun problem:<br>
2178*4 = 8712<br>
21978*4 = 87912<br>
219978*4 = 879912<br>
<br>
There's one other family of numbers (i.e. a four digit number, expanded in a similar pattern) that does this, if we throw out palindromes and numbers with leading zeros.  What is it and can you show that these are the only two such families?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were to imagine an alien lifeform on some distant world , they 'll have an identical math but their experience of it I 'm not sure if I 'm on board with you here .
That 's quite a claim to make .
Just because it 's hard to imagine math that 's not identical to our own , does not mean it does not exist .
I can imagine a quantum sized life-form living in a probabilistic world , never coming up with the integers .
Or maybe a universe-sized creature who has absolutely no need for the idea of oneness .
Since I 'm posting , here 's what I think is a fun problem : 2178 * 4 = 8712 21978 * 4 = 87912 219978 * 4 = 879912 There 's one other family of numbers ( i.e .
a four digit number , expanded in a similar pattern ) that does this , if we throw out palindromes and numbers with leading zeros .
What is it and can you show that these are the only two such families ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were to imagine an alien lifeform on some distant world, they'll have an identical math but their experience of it
I'm not sure if I'm on board with you here.
That's quite a claim to make.
Just because it's hard to imagine math that's not identical to our own, does not mean it does not exist.
I can imagine a quantum sized life-form living in a probabilistic world, never coming up with the integers.
Or maybe a universe-sized creature who has absolutely no need for the idea of oneness.
Since I'm posting, here's what I think is a fun problem:
2178*4 = 8712
21978*4 = 87912
219978*4 = 879912

There's one other family of numbers (i.e.
a four digit number, expanded in a similar pattern) that does this, if we throw out palindromes and numbers with leading zeros.
What is it and can you show that these are the only two such families?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154466</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The former are Socratists, the latter are Aristotelians.  The first group figures there must be an original, perfect form of everything; a blueprint, a divine thing.  The second group are just nerds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The former are Socratists , the latter are Aristotelians .
The first group figures there must be an original , perfect form of everything ; a blueprint , a divine thing .
The second group are just nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The former are Socratists, the latter are Aristotelians.
The first group figures there must be an original, perfect form of everything; a blueprint, a divine thing.
The second group are just nerds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970</id>
	<title>Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can math problems exist before people start using mathematics? Last I checked, math was nothing more than a representation of the hypothetical that as closely models our universe as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can math problems exist before people start using mathematics ?
Last I checked , math was nothing more than a representation of the hypothetical that as closely models our universe as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can math problems exist before people start using mathematics?
Last I checked, math was nothing more than a representation of the hypothetical that as closely models our universe as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153188</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Alpha830RulZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some say math is discovered.  Others say it is invented.  You are one of the latter.</p></div><p>And then there's the one about there being two kinds of people: those that divide things into two groups and those that don't.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Maybe it's a bit of both. Non-euclidian geometry seems inventive, pi, seems discoverable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some say math is discovered .
Others say it is invented .
You are one of the latter.And then there 's the one about there being two kinds of people : those that divide things into two groups and those that do n't .
: PMaybe it 's a bit of both .
Non-euclidian geometry seems inventive , pi , seems discoverable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some say math is discovered.
Others say it is invented.
You are one of the latter.And then there's the one about there being two kinds of people: those that divide things into two groups and those that don't.
:PMaybe it's a bit of both.
Non-euclidian geometry seems inventive, pi, seems discoverable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154396</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1258630320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that mathematics, even very abstract mathematics, accurately models the natural world is a deep mystery.</p></div><p>Of course, you have to pick your maths to find one that models the world.</p><p>When I add boxes of apples, they don't happen to conform to modulo 2 arithmetic. Why? 3D space doesn't conform to Euclidean geometry, even though for hundreds of years people thought it did. Why?</p><p>There are different arithmetics and geometries. Maybe I could design a world which uses a different arithmetic, or a different geometry to our world. Why does our world make the mathematical choices that it does?</p><p>What mathematics the real world uses can only be known empirically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that mathematics , even very abstract mathematics , accurately models the natural world is a deep mystery.Of course , you have to pick your maths to find one that models the world.When I add boxes of apples , they do n't happen to conform to modulo 2 arithmetic .
Why ? 3D space does n't conform to Euclidean geometry , even though for hundreds of years people thought it did .
Why ? There are different arithmetics and geometries .
Maybe I could design a world which uses a different arithmetic , or a different geometry to our world .
Why does our world make the mathematical choices that it does ? What mathematics the real world uses can only be known empirically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that mathematics, even very abstract mathematics, accurately models the natural world is a deep mystery.Of course, you have to pick your maths to find one that models the world.When I add boxes of apples, they don't happen to conform to modulo 2 arithmetic.
Why? 3D space doesn't conform to Euclidean geometry, even though for hundreds of years people thought it did.
Why?There are different arithmetics and geometries.
Maybe I could design a world which uses a different arithmetic, or a different geometry to our world.
Why does our world make the mathematical choices that it does?What mathematics the real world uses can only be known empirically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154116</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1258625940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mathematics is a rigorous  way to describe the relationships between things.  In so far as physics is describable, there's no great mystery that a branch of mathematics arises to describe it, so that we may more precisely and unambiguously understand what happens in the universe.</p><p>But of course, you're wrong about accurate models.  What physics now tells us is that we can very accurately model exactly how the universe cannot be modeled mathematically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematics is a rigorous way to describe the relationships between things .
In so far as physics is describable , there 's no great mystery that a branch of mathematics arises to describe it , so that we may more precisely and unambiguously understand what happens in the universe.But of course , you 're wrong about accurate models .
What physics now tells us is that we can very accurately model exactly how the universe can not be modeled mathematically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematics is a rigorous  way to describe the relationships between things.
In so far as physics is describable, there's no great mystery that a branch of mathematics arises to describe it, so that we may more precisely and unambiguously understand what happens in the universe.But of course, you're wrong about accurate models.
What physics now tells us is that we can very accurately model exactly how the universe cannot be modeled mathematically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30155066</id>
	<title>A math problem I would love to see solved...</title>
	<author>Shawn Way PE</author>
	<datestamp>1258640040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> is why there never is enough money in my account...
---
Shawn Way...</htmltext>
<tokenext>is why there never is enough money in my account.. . --- Shawn Way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> is why there never is enough money in my account...
---
Shawn Way...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157656</id>
	<title>Math + Chicks</title>
	<author>toilettext</author>
	<datestamp>1258650300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always respected my engineering friends in college who were busy solving complicated problems.  I was a humanities major, so I was far more interested in solving this math problem with the hot chicks in my social sciences classes:  let's add ourselves together, subtract our clothes, divide our legs and multiply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always respected my engineering friends in college who were busy solving complicated problems .
I was a humanities major , so I was far more interested in solving this math problem with the hot chicks in my social sciences classes : let 's add ourselves together , subtract our clothes , divide our legs and multiply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always respected my engineering friends in college who were busy solving complicated problems.
I was a humanities major, so I was far more interested in solving this math problem with the hot chicks in my social sciences classes:  let's add ourselves together, subtract our clothes, divide our legs and multiply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157222</id>
	<title>Re:.999...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258649100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is you can't add and sting of infinitely long #'s.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333 repaint for ever does not = 1/3.  You can't ever convert 1/3 into decimal form.  We pretned we can and then then we make 1/3 EQUAL to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333 with a line over it.  Well, of course if you add 3 of those representations you get 1.  1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =equals one.

<br> <br>

Where your little<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999... equals one falls apart is EVERY OTHER # system.<br> <br>
If you go to the 9s number system 1/3 =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3  and in 9s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3 +<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3 +<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3 = 1!<br> <br>

Try doing you LITTLE MAGIC show of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999 in HEX and guess what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999.. does not equal 1, but you can do you magic on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fff... which looks like it equals one.<br> <br>
But you said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999.. equals one, which is 9/10th +90/100 = 900/1000th.
<br> <br>
But in hex you have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fff... which is 15/16th +<nobr> <wbr></nobr>......
<br> <br>
Where it really starts to fall apart is in # systems that have less room/precision.

<br> <br>
Start doing your "fancy math" in BINARY.  <br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.555... = 1<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.666... = 1 <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.777... = 1<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.888... = 1<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999... = 1<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.aaa... = 1<br>
<br> <br>
Does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.555... really equal one because that little trick works in BINARY!?!<br> <br>
Hell, no, it means you plain CAN'T represent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.888... (i.e. 8/9) perfectly in binary.
<br> <br>
So same with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999... go to a # system with more precision like the 11s, 12,s etc and you can then represent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999...
<br> <br> <br>
Other wise you are just doing divison from 3rd grad.  3 goes in to 1.0000 , you get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3 with a remainder of !!!! 1/3!!!  You're back were you started.<br> <br>
So 1/3 in decimal is really<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333r1/3 .  That r1/3 is there wherever you stop.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333r1/3 +<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333r1/3 +<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333r1/3 =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999r9/9 which of course is 1..
<br> <br>
The fact that you can't realize just putting a line over it means r1/3 is sad.  Of course the real representation of 9 repeating after the . litteraly just means keep moving (adding) 9/10th closer than the last power of ten.
<br> <br>
You can't take an infinitly long # like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333... and do math to it.  It's impossible.  If you pretend it is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333r1/3 then you can and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333... +.333.. repeating is really<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.333r1/3 +.333r1/3 =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.666r2/3.
<br> <br>
Try it.  In decimal take 2 and divide by three.  You always will have 2/3 left.  You can't magically get rid of it by a line. <br> <br>
Try to cut a 1/3 of a pie.  Now try to cut<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3333333.... of a pie.  You can't because they are not the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is you ca n't add and sting of infinitely long # 's .
.333 repaint for ever does not = 1/3 .
You ca n't ever convert 1/3 into decimal form .
We pretned we can and then then we make 1/3 EQUAL to .333 with a line over it .
Well , of course if you add 3 of those representations you get 1 .
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = equals one .
Where your little .999... equals one falls apart is EVERY OTHER # system .
If you go to the 9s number system 1/3 = .3 and in 9s .3 + .3 + .3 = 1 !
Try doing you LITTLE MAGIC show of .999 in HEX and guess what .999.. does not equal 1 , but you can do you magic on .fff... which looks like it equals one .
But you said .999.. equals one , which is 9/10th + 90/100 = 900/1000th .
But in hex you have .fff... which is 15/16th + ..... . Where it really starts to fall apart is in # systems that have less room/precision .
Start doing your " fancy math " in BINARY .
.555... = 1 .666... = 1 .777... = 1 .888... = 1 .999... = 1 .aaa... = 1 Does .555... really equal one because that little trick works in BINARY ! ? !
Hell , no , it means you plain CA N'T represent .888... ( i.e. 8/9 ) perfectly in binary .
So same with .999... go to a # system with more precision like the 11s , 12,s etc and you can then represent .999.. . Other wise you are just doing divison from 3rd grad .
3 goes in to 1.0000 , you get .3 with a remainder of ! ! ! !
1/3 ! ! ! You 're back were you started .
So 1/3 in decimal is really .333r1/3 .
That r1/3 is there wherever you stop .
.333r1/3 + .333r1/3 + .333r1/3 = .999r9/9 which of course is 1. . The fact that you ca n't realize just putting a line over it means r1/3 is sad .
Of course the real representation of 9 repeating after the .
litteraly just means keep moving ( adding ) 9/10th closer than the last power of ten .
You ca n't take an infinitly long # like .333... and do math to it .
It 's impossible .
If you pretend it is .333r1/3 then you can and .333... + .333.. repeating is really .333r1/3 + .333r1/3 = .666r2/3 .
Try it .
In decimal take 2 and divide by three .
You always will have 2/3 left .
You ca n't magically get rid of it by a line .
Try to cut a 1/3 of a pie .
Now try to cut .3333333.... of a pie .
You ca n't because they are not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is you can't add and sting of infinitely long #'s.
.333 repaint for ever does not = 1/3.
You can't ever convert 1/3 into decimal form.
We pretned we can and then then we make 1/3 EQUAL to .333 with a line over it.
Well, of course if you add 3 of those representations you get 1.
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =equals one.
Where your little .999... equals one falls apart is EVERY OTHER # system.
If you go to the 9s number system 1/3 = .3  and in 9s .3 + .3 + .3 = 1!
Try doing you LITTLE MAGIC show of .999 in HEX and guess what .999.. does not equal 1, but you can do you magic on .fff... which looks like it equals one.
But you said .999.. equals one, which is 9/10th +90/100 = 900/1000th.
But in hex you have .fff... which is 15/16th + ......
 
Where it really starts to fall apart is in # systems that have less room/precision.
Start doing your "fancy math" in BINARY.
.555... = 1 .666... = 1  .777... = 1 .888... = 1 .999... = 1 .aaa... = 1
 
Does .555... really equal one because that little trick works in BINARY!?!
Hell, no, it means you plain CAN'T represent .888... (i.e. 8/9) perfectly in binary.
So same with .999... go to a # system with more precision like the 11s, 12,s etc and you can then represent .999...
  
Other wise you are just doing divison from 3rd grad.
3 goes in to 1.0000 , you get .3 with a remainder of !!!!
1/3!!!  You're back were you started.
So 1/3 in decimal is really .333r1/3 .
That r1/3 is there wherever you stop.
.333r1/3 + .333r1/3 + .333r1/3 = .999r9/9 which of course is 1..
 
The fact that you can't realize just putting a line over it means r1/3 is sad.
Of course the real representation of 9 repeating after the .
litteraly just means keep moving (adding) 9/10th closer than the last power of ten.
You can't take an infinitly long # like .333... and do math to it.
It's impossible.
If you pretend it is .333r1/3 then you can and .333... +.333.. repeating is really .333r1/3 +.333r1/3 = .666r2/3.
Try it.
In decimal take 2 and divide by three.
You always will have 2/3 left.
You can't magically get rid of it by a line.
Try to cut a 1/3 of a pie.
Now try to cut .3333333.... of a pie.
You can't because they are not the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151110</id>
	<title>Strange point</title>
	<author>2.7182</author>
	<datestamp>1257081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Julius Shaneson and Sylvain Cappell claimed to have solve a famous problem about counting the lattice points in a circle. It's been out for years, even earlier than this arxiv paper:</p><p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0702613" title="arxiv.org">http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0702613</a> [arxiv.org]</p><p>Thing is, even though it is a famous problem, no one cares enough to check. So this notion of "famous" is shaky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Julius Shaneson and Sylvain Cappell claimed to have solve a famous problem about counting the lattice points in a circle .
It 's been out for years , even earlier than this arxiv paper : http : //arxiv.org/abs/math/0702613 [ arxiv.org ] Thing is , even though it is a famous problem , no one cares enough to check .
So this notion of " famous " is shaky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Julius Shaneson and Sylvain Cappell claimed to have solve a famous problem about counting the lattice points in a circle.
It's been out for years, even earlier than this arxiv paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0702613 [arxiv.org]Thing is, even though it is a famous problem, no one cares enough to check.
So this notion of "famous" is shaky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The requirement to model our universe as closely as possible is a requirement of physics, not mathematics. The fact that mathematics, even very abstract mathematics, accurately models the natural world is a deep mystery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The requirement to model our universe as closely as possible is a requirement of physics , not mathematics .
The fact that mathematics , even very abstract mathematics , accurately models the natural world is a deep mystery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The requirement to model our universe as closely as possible is a requirement of physics, not mathematics.
The fact that mathematics, even very abstract mathematics, accurately models the natural world is a deep mystery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152482</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem must be invented (i.e. a human construct) before the solution can be discovered (i.e. a natural phenomenon)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem must be invented ( i.e .
a human construct ) before the solution can be discovered ( i.e .
a natural phenomenon ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem must be invented (i.e.
a human construct) before the solution can be discovered (i.e.
a natural phenomenon)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153950</id>
	<title>Re:.999...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258623120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's try this...<br>
<br>
Start with:<br>
a = 0.999...<br>
<br>
Multiply both sides by 10 to get:<br>
10a = 9.999...<br>
<br>
Subtract the first equation from the second:<br>
10a - a = 9.999... - 0.999...<br>
9a = 9<br>
a = 1<br>
<br>
Substituting back into the original equation:<br>
a = 0.999...<br>
1 = 0.999...<br>
<br>
Who's the retard?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's try this.. . Start with : a = 0.999.. . Multiply both sides by 10 to get : 10a = 9.999.. . Subtract the first equation from the second : 10a - a = 9.999... - 0.999.. . 9a = 9 a = 1 Substituting back into the original equation : a = 0.999.. . 1 = 0.999.. . Who 's the retard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's try this...

Start with:
a = 0.999...

Multiply both sides by 10 to get:
10a = 9.999...

Subtract the first equation from the second:
10a - a = 9.999... - 0.999...
9a = 9
a = 1

Substituting back into the original equation:
a = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...

Who's the retard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152328</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long before man had "discovered" how to count, the universe "knew" that the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference was a constant number that today we call "pi". We invent the names and notations for the mathematics that we discover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long before man had " discovered " how to count , the universe " knew " that the ratio of a circle 's diameter to its circumference was a constant number that today we call " pi " .
We invent the names and notations for the mathematics that we discover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long before man had "discovered" how to count, the universe "knew" that the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference was a constant number that today we call "pi".
We invent the names and notations for the mathematics that we discover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30162434</id>
	<title>Re:Math cannot exist before wind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258622220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Baloney.  We invented the concept of a circle, which does not exist with our perception of it as such.  There is no way to divorce reality from our perception of it.  (Think of relativity as a good example of this.)  Therefore we invented all mathematics in order to allow our brains to comprehend the physical world in a way that is much more useful than our native perception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Baloney .
We invented the concept of a circle , which does not exist with our perception of it as such .
There is no way to divorce reality from our perception of it .
( Think of relativity as a good example of this .
) Therefore we invented all mathematics in order to allow our brains to comprehend the physical world in a way that is much more useful than our native perception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baloney.
We invented the concept of a circle, which does not exist with our perception of it as such.
There is no way to divorce reality from our perception of it.
(Think of relativity as a good example of this.
)  Therefore we invented all mathematics in order to allow our brains to comprehend the physical world in a way that is much more useful than our native perception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30162434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30155346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30155744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_2320213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_2320213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_2320213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_2320213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30150970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30162434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152184
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152744
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30155744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30155346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30152766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30154188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30151634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_2320213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30153950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_2320213.30157836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
