### Recent Posts

1

There are other differences too.

The amazing thing here is the fact that Hawkins thinks it doesn't occur to geologists that formations don't end at state lines.

The amazing thing here is the fact that Hawkins thinks it doesn't occur to geologists that formations don't end at state lines.

2

##### Philosophy / Re: Math question:

Last post by**el jefe**-

in linear algebra (whose tentacles run through diff eqs and most applied higher math), overdetermined means you have given more information than is necessary for the problem to have a unique answer.

it often (though not always) means the problem is inconsistent, and therefore isn't solvable.

to give a concrete (and prototypical) example.... in linear algebra, if you have n unknown variables, you need n equations to solve for them. (these equations must further be "linearly independent"....). if you have n+1 or more equations, the problem is overdetermined. if you have n-1 or fewer, it is

to see it geometrically.... suppose you have 3 equations in 3 unknowns. each equation defines a plane in 3-dimensional space. solving the system of equations is equivalent to finding the point where all three planes intersect. here are the possible ways that might get weird and/or not work:

- if you have more than 3 equations, that means more than 3 planes. you don't need a 4th plane to define a point. that's overdetermined. and indeed there's a good chance the 4th plane doesn't run through the common point of the other three planes, in which case the system has no solution. still, if the 4th plane runs through the common point of the other three, then the system is consistent - overdetermined, but consistent.

- if you have only 2 equations, that means only 2 planes, and the intersection of 2 planes cannot be a single point. that's underdetermined. it can be either a line (infinite number of intersection points / solutions) or nothing (no solution).

- even with 3 planes, there's no guarantee of intersecting at a single point. they could all be parallel. or they could define an infinite triangular prism - each plane intersecting each other at a line, but all three never meeting anywhere. that's an inconsistent system - no solution.

it often (though not always) means the problem is inconsistent, and therefore isn't solvable.

to give a concrete (and prototypical) example.... in linear algebra, if you have n unknown variables, you need n equations to solve for them. (these equations must further be "linearly independent"....). if you have n+1 or more equations, the problem is overdetermined. if you have n-1 or fewer, it is

*under*determined and cannot have a unique answer.to see it geometrically.... suppose you have 3 equations in 3 unknowns. each equation defines a plane in 3-dimensional space. solving the system of equations is equivalent to finding the point where all three planes intersect. here are the possible ways that might get weird and/or not work:

- if you have more than 3 equations, that means more than 3 planes. you don't need a 4th plane to define a point. that's overdetermined. and indeed there's a good chance the 4th plane doesn't run through the common point of the other three planes, in which case the system has no solution. still, if the 4th plane runs through the common point of the other three, then the system is consistent - overdetermined, but consistent.

- if you have only 2 equations, that means only 2 planes, and the intersection of 2 planes cannot be a single point. that's underdetermined. it can be either a line (infinite number of intersection points / solutions) or nothing (no solution).

- even with 3 planes, there's no guarantee of intersecting at a single point. they could all be parallel. or they could define an infinite triangular prism - each plane intersecting each other at a line, but all three never meeting anywhere. that's an inconsistent system - no solution.

3

Yeah, that does sound pretty incredible. Except that its not 1000 feet thick. See pg 28 here https://s-iihr34.iihr.uiowa.edu/publications/uploads/2014-08-24_08-08-21_es-06.pdfHmm. So there is a possibility in your mind that if we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian Sandstone covering all of Iowa named one thing, and we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian sandstone in Missouri named something elseIn other words, just because we call it the Lamotte sandstone in Missouri and we call it the Jordan sandstone in Iowa ( next state north of Missouri ) does not mean that they are different formations.On the other hand, just because they exist does not mean they are the SAME formation.

You would need more information to conclude that.

... and both of them lie on PreCambrian basement ...

That they might be different formations?

4

##### Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza / Re: Evidence for the Global Flood

Last post by**fredbear**-

We are taking a look at the geological provincialism article to see if it holds water.Spoiler alert: It doesn't.

5

Among other things: what do you think is meant by "the same formation"?

6

But that's not what we do have.Hmm. So there is a possibility in your mind that if we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian Sandstone covering all of Iowa named one thing, and we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian sandstone in Missouri named something elseIn other words, just because we call it the Lamotte sandstone in Missouri and we call it the Jordan sandstone in Iowa ( next state north of Missouri ) does not mean that they are different formations.On the other hand, just because they exist does not mean they are the SAME formation.

You would need more information to conclude that.

... and both of them lie on PreCambrian basement ...

That they might be different formations?

And, yes, they are different formations.

7

##### Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza / Re: Evidence for the Global Flood

Last post by**Dave Hawkins**-

Hmm. So there is a possibility in your mind that if we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian Sandstone covering all of Iowa named one thing, and we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian sandstone in Missouri named something elseIn other words, just because we call it the Lamotte sandstone in Missouri and we call it the Jordan sandstone in Iowa ( next state north of Missouri ) does not mean that they are different formations.On the other hand, just because they exist does not mean they are the SAME formation.

You would need more information to conclude that.

... and both of them lie on PreCambrian basement ...

That they might be different formations?

8

In the spirit of cross-cultural English linguistics:I'm not uncritically swallowing them. That's why we are having this discussion. We are taking a look at the geological provincialism article to see if it holds water.... submitting to groupthinkDo you think you are not submitting to groupthink when you uncritically swallow ICR's bullshit articles?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

9

You would need more information to conclude that.

10

##### Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza / Re: Evidence for the Global Flood

Last post by**Dave Hawkins**-