Proving that the difference between any two anagram numbers is always a multiple of nine

[Arising_uk]

Well, I follow mathematical logic as well as various other logic and I find it fascinating. Just because you may not follow it doesn't mean that others don't. ...

Not my point.

And it is definitely a part of philosophy too. ...

No it's not, it's Mathematics not Philosophy of Mathematics. The former's proofs work in the opposite direction.

If you don't understand something, you can always ask too. It makes it interesting to try to find a way to communicate these things for others. I even opened one on the Monty Hall Problem and the Secretary Problem which is easy for anyone to grasp without too much math up front. In fact sometimes others can see errors where a mathematician may miss.

Probability can lie within Philosophy as it also lies in Logic but what this thread is is Mathematics not Philosophy and as such does not belong here but in a Mathematics or recreational Mathematics forum.

[Arising_uk]

I will explain it so that even the chicken man can understand.

I'm sure even he can recall that math websites I've posted to had told me the purpose of their websites was for helping out members (i.e. homework problems), not for recreational math. ...

I'll give you that there aren't many but that appears to be an opportunity for you to start something useful. Still here you go for starters,
http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=435
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.a ... 2038343937
http://gauravtiwari.org/2014/07/26/8-bi ... ould-join/

To reinforce what I'm explaining for the benefit of the chicken man, look at the title of this section. It doesn't say philosophy of mathematics, does it? It says LOGIC AND philosophy of mathematics so it just doesn't have to be about philosophy of mathematics which is what I've been doing (the logic part). ...

Since we're now talking Logic the conjunction means both Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics, where's the latter?

Now I think even the chicken man realizes that I've been using logic in my math postings and it would be useless for him to persist any further, otherwise I'll just have to pluck out some more of his feathers.

In your dreams as firstly you've been using the logic associated with Mathematics which is not the Logic of Philosophy and secondly you've been, by your own admission, doing recreational Mathematics and hence by logic not doing Logic nor Philosophy of Mathematics.

I'm still working on extending the proof to at least where all the powers of anagram numbers, are natural numbers.

OMG! The numbnuts proves my point for me. Cluck! Cluck!

[Philosophy Explorer]

Chicken man asks: "Since we're now talking Logic the conjunction means both Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics, where's the latter?" That should have been obvious, even to a dumb cluck like you, the latter is Logic of Mathematics.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

... That should have been obvious, even to a dumb cluck like you, the latter is Logic of Mathematics.

Go read what a logical conjunction is and pay particular attention to the possible truth conditions. Better still, go away and read what Philosophy of Mathematics is, what Mathematical Logic is and the role its played in Philosophy and the difference between them and the recreational Mathematics you are doing.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Chicken man says: "In your dreams as firstly you've been using the logic associated with Mathematics which is not the Logic of Philosophy and secondly you've been, by your own admission, doing recreational Mathematics and hence by logic not doing Logic nor Philosophy of Mathematics." There's no section here devoted exclusively to Logic of Philosophy. You also contradicted yourself by saying I've been using the logic associated with Mathematics and then saying I've been doing recreational Mathematics (and hence by logic) not doing logic. Outright lie here as I have been doing logic on this thread (did I just hear another feather being plucked?)

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Chicken man said: "OMG! The numbnuts proves my point for me. Cluck! Cluck!" What point is that? Go back to the barn chicken man and learn how to talk sense.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

... That should have been obvious, even to a dumb cluck like you, the latter is Logic of Mathematics.

Go read what a logical conjunction is and pay particular attention to the possible truth conditions. Better still, go away and read what Philosophy of Mathematics is, what Mathematical Logic is and the role its played in Philosophy and the difference between them and the recreational Mathematics you are doing.

You can use the exercise Chicken Man. As I said, even recreational math depends on logic

PhilX

[Scott Mayers]

Arising,

These are issues you want to differentiate the philosophy from the practice. The practice of being philosophical is both about discussing logic proper (math) as much as it is to using logic in practice. The methods of proving a math statement is as equally valid philosophically as to discuss the philosophy of proving math statements in general (mathematical philosophy).

[Arising_uk]

You can use the exercise Chicken Man. As I said, even recreational math depends on logic

PhilX

So you admit what you are doing is Mathematics, again!

The logic involved obviously shares attributes of Logic but it's not Philosophical Logic, nor is it Mathematical Logic nor is it Philosophy of Mathematics, its mathematical theorem proving and as such should be in a Mathematics forum not here.

[Arising_uk]

... The practice of being philosophical is both about discussing logic proper (math)...

Beg to differ, as in Philosophy Logic 'proper' is Philosophical Logic not Maths.

as much as it is to using logic in practice.

Differ again as maths theorem proving is not the same as the philosophy of maths.

The methods of proving a math statement is as equally valid philosophically as to discuss the philosophy of proving math statements in general (mathematical philosophy).

Not philosophically they aren't, they well may both use Logic but they do it over different animals and for different ends but I do stand to be corrected here as Maths is not my strong point.

[Philosophy Explorer]

You can use the exercise Chicken Man. As I said, even recreational math depends on logic

PhilX

So you admit what you are doing is Mathematics, again!

The logic involved obviously shares attributes of Logic but it's not Philosophical Logic, nor is it Mathematical Logic nor is it Philosophy of Mathematics, its mathematical theorem proving and as such should be in a Mathematics forum not here.

As if you're one to judge. I bet you don't even have a degree as a math major. So far you haven't shown any competence in this area, just a bunch of squawking. I won't waste any further time with you as you're not open minded.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

As if you're one to judge. I bet you don't even have a degree as a math major. ...

Er!? Which of my posts led you to think I did? What I do have is a Philosophy degree and a Masters degree in Foundations of Advanced Information Technology, essentially Computational Logic, add to that that you yourself say you are doing recreational Mathematics in a section for Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics and I'd say my judgement has some grounds in this instance.

So far you haven't shown any competence in this area, just a bunch of squawking. ...

Why would I? I'm here for Philosophy not Mathematics.

I won't waste any further time with you as you're not open minded.

Good and whilst you're at it find a Maths forum to post your stuff, as it's ain't Philosophy.

[Philosophy Explorer]

As if you're one to judge. I bet you don't even have a degree as a math major. ...

Er!? Which of my posts led you to think I did? What I do have is a Philosophy degree and a Masters degree in Foundations of Advanced Information Technology, essentially Computational Logic, add to that that you yourself say you are doing recreational Mathematics in a section for Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics and I'd say my judgement has some grounds in this instance.

So far you haven't shown any competence in this area, just a bunch of squawking. ...

Why would I? I'm here for Philosophy not Mathematics.

I won't waste any further time with you as you're not open minded.

Good and whilst you're at it find a Maths forum to post your stuff, as it's ain't Philosophy.

Shove it dumb cluck as you're trying to practice censorship. In fact, why don't YOU find yourself another forum to post on (but I wouldn't try OPC if I were you because your ass would be banned so quick over there)

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Chicken Man said:

"Why would I? I'm here for Philosophy not Mathematics."

This dumb cluck doesn't even know he's in the math section of PN.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

Shove it dumb cluck as you're trying to practice censorship. ...

No I'm not you fruitloop, I'm pointing out to you that what you are doing is not Logic or Philosophy of Mathematics its Mathematics and as such is for a MATHEMATICS forum.

In fact, why don't YOU find yourself another forum to post on (but I wouldn't try OPC if I were you because your ass would be banned so quick over there) ...

Why you keep mentioning this OPC I have no idea? Unlike you I'm not a weeble who flits about the weeb posting their opinions upon all an sundry regardless of the forums aim, so no I won't be leaving as I see no need and experience shows that sooner or later all the weebles pass through here anyway and then they move on or get banned.