I submit that this is incorrect. Different literally means unequal.
Red and blue are different, are they not?. They are not unequal, though, right?.
Actually, never mind. I was thinking of equal as a degree of significance, when it isn't necessarily so. Equal can mean any aspect, and red and blue are not equal in frequency of photons for example. Inequality in one aspect is enough to make them not completely equal.
refer to your friend's post about gender in the inspired by
and you'll see what I mean
Men and women are equal in degree of significance to the world, but not in other aspects. They are not equal in average weights, for example, since men tend to weigh more. But they are equal in what the word is implying in the other post, but that doesn't mean equal overall.
You got it! There's a reason I missed you; you get things.
I get things too
You do! But we tend to disagree on stuff. It's nice to have a little more people who tend to agree with me. Both are important, don't you worry!
the green bar is greater than the red bar on our voting levels
Clearly we do not comment on the posts we agree on! I say we spend quite a bit of time arguing, no?
you win this round
I got another argument with the owl
I also included a picture with apples
take two name brands
they are different
different is qualitative (name)
unequal is quantitative (price)
Not necessarily. Equal can refer to absolutely any aspect, can it not?
I don't think so
two squares can be equal with the same lengths
they're both equal
one is green though
and one is red
they're equal but different
there are four levels of measurement
nominal data (which is the first level I think) usually includes names
you can't put parties into order (the way you can put height into order from shortest to tallest)
height allows for inequality
because it has an order
nominal data like names doesn't
the democratic party does not come before the republican party (vice versa)
they are said to be different
but they cannot be said to be unequal
Nay. The SIZE of the squares is equal, but the squares are not equal. This goes back to having to examine the full thought. Only one property of the squares is equal, but they are not overall equal.
Names certainly allow for ordering. Things like number of letters in the name, number of vowels, number of people with that name, number of nicknames derived from that name, etc. are all things that can be used to put names in order. Just because there are many equal things about them does not mean they are overall equal. Next time you got to say two things are equal, you must ask yourself what is equal about them. If the answer is not absolutely everything, then they are not equal.
even if each 1 is written with different handwriting
even if one person writes it
the way 1 is written differs each time
but it is widely accepted that
1=1 regardless of other aspects
if you look back to Chase's POTD
I don't think you disagreed
the one that said
"every one(1) is equal"
I think someone else brought up the whole thing you brought up
Numerically speaking, 1 is always equal to 1. They are not equal in any other way, therefore not overall equal.
going by that
wouldn't that mean different =/= unequal like my post says
because different has 9 letters and unequal has 7 letters
you said they are the same
but they have a different number of letters
thus, they are overall unequal
Just like the numerical value of 3 +1 is the same as 2 + 2, the meaning of "different" is the same as "unequal". They are overall unequal words, but the meanings are equal.
you can't do that
you disagreed based on the overall equalness/unequalness
you can't bring in the aspect of meaning and disagree based on that
when you brought in other aspects with the cereal brands
I disagreed based on the fact that different and unequal mean the same thing. You spent the entire argument arguing about the meanings of the words. Are you going to attempt to tell me that the post wasn't about the meaning of the words?
yes it was about the meanings
I got nothing left
I thought of another idea
I have something left
the meaning of unequal and different
can be synonymous
but the structure of their meanings are different
so their meanings are not exactly the same
the meanings of different and unequal...
are different but equal
The structure of the definition may be different, but the end meaning is the same. The words and their antonyms can be used interchangeably with no difference in meaning.
It is impossible for anything to be different but equal to another thing. It is impossible. Impossible.
if you look up the words
the meanings have slight variations
they are unequal in meaning
no two words have the same exact meaning with the exception of abbreviations
also with the addition of connotations
which involve meaning as well
they are not equal
The definitions are unequal in structure but equal in meaning. Just like your cereal; the two cereals are unequal in production but equal in taste.
The sides are equal in NUMERICAL VALUE! NUMERICAL VALUE AND NOTHING ELSE!!
I'll just shut up now
I don't see how you can upvote this comment
but disagree with this post
it says what I'm saying
except using more words
Because in that comment, the implication of "equal" is in regards to worth. There is no implied modifier in your post.
it says ultimately equally
meaning to the max
to the total
Ultimately only means in the end. Though men and women are different in certain aspects of life, in the end, they have equal worth.
your comment itself says that different does not mean unequal
in the end
does not imply just worth
and even if does imply worth
worth takes into account everything about a person
They're equal in size, but not in the frequency of photon waves emitting from it. For them to be completely equal, it has to encompass all aspects. Otherwise, two things of the same color and different sizes have to be equal too, right?
and I said some other stuff above
But still, you're not addressing my point: do you agree that for two things to be considered equal, they have to be so in all aspects?
say I agree with what you're saying
but they have a different number of letters
the two words are not equal in all aspects, but they are equal in meaning
not exactly equal in meaning
equal requires exact
they are equal in denotation, but unequal in connotation
not in the dictionary
even as a denotation
there are differences
still enough to grant "unequal"
Actually, I think that the dictionary definitions are not entirely denotation; they include connotation as well.
Denotation-wise, they both refer to two things that are not exactly alike.
if you look below
the definitions are actually quite different
equally different can be an oxymoron
Nope. "Equally" is not the same as "equal". Two things that are unequal can still be equally something.
different but equal
Their weight is equal, but they are not equal.
the two words aren't synonymous
different is dissimilar in quality
unequal is dissimilar in quantity
No, ma'am. "Same" and "equal" are synonymous. Therefore, "different" and "unequal" are synonymous. You can use these words in reference to different facets of an object's existence, but nothing can truly be different and equal.
it's in the thesaurus
well I have another backup
see the example I gave in the comments
one synonym ≠ another synonym
I don't believe that works here. You still have to specify a property when comparing the sameness or equality of two different objects. I don't believe there is anywhere in the world that treats "same/equal" as if they refer specifically to a single quality of an object.
name brand froot loops tastes the same as no name brand froot loops
you know how people say stuff like
black is the new yellow
The taste is the same/equal, the quality is the same/equal, and the production may be the same/equal. The price is different/unequal and the brand is different/unequal. Therefore, overall, the products are different/unequal.
I got something else
replace the equal sign with is
and then look at this comment
I agree with what you're saying and the post
I don't think they're mutually exclusive
I edited what I said
with the brand names being different
they're not automatically unequal
that's because names are qualitative
the prices are unequal
because those are quantitative
either they're the same price or they're not
I don't see how you can agree with me and your post, because I disagree with your post. Also, like I said, "equal" does not refer specifically to quantity. Quantities can be equal, and qualities can be equal.
if qualities can be equal
that means the one quality is different from the other quality
or else they wouldn't be two different qualities
that would mean different but equal
I can agree with both because my examples talk about specific aspects
while you compare the products as a whole
talk about the black is the new yellow
That doesn't make sense. If the qualities are different, they aren't equal. If they are equal, then they aren't different.
No, I talk about specific aspects and products as a whole. In order for you to be right, you have to ignore a lot of things. You have to understand that in spoken language, we save a lot of time by cutting out words and hoping the other person catches the gist of what we said. Those broken off sentences may make it so that something can seem equal but different, but the fully extrapolated thought shows that it is not so.
To demonstrate this, let me use your cereal example. If the brand name and generic taste the same, you say they are different but equal. The cereals are different, but their taste makes them equal. This is not the complete thought. The complete thought is: The cereals are different in some ways, but equal in others. No aspect that is different can be the same, and no aspect that is the same can be different.
oh that makes sense
but I need an example of how qualities can be equal
I didn't understand that part
when I think of equal
I'm automatically jumping to numbers
3 + 1 = 2 + 2
They are not the same but they are equal
The sum of their parts is equal in numerical value. They are not equal.
because they are different, however ultimately they have the same numerical value right?
It's similar to comparing colours, they are all different but they are equal, like yellow or blue.
But the numerical value is the only same thing about them. They are not wholly equal. They have other properties that are dissimilar, making them not equal. For example, the amount of odd numbers from one to the other is not equal.
Colors are certainly not equal in almost any respect. Every color has a different wavelength, and they can be ordered from shortest to longest. Different colors evoke different emotional responses in people. Not everyone loves every color equally.
When I think of different, I think of unique.
When I think of unequal, I think of something not being of the same value as something else.
If someone says, "You're different than everybody else," it doesn't mean that you're unequal with everyone else. Different can mean good, or bad. That's the way I see it.
I think that might have to do with connotations
I read that whole argument, but I just don't see how different is the same as unequal. Sure, they're synonyms because a lot of words have several meanings to them.
But when you look at the word different, you get
not alike in character or quality; differing; dissimilar: The two are different.
not identical; separate or distinct: three different answers.
various; several: Different people told me the same story.
not ordinary; unusual.
And then the word unequal:
not equal; not of the same quantity, quality, value, rank, ability, etc.: People are unequal in their capacities.
not adequate, as in amount, power, ability, etc. (usually followed by to ): strength unequal to the task.
not evenly proportioned or balanced; not having the parts alike or symmetrical: an unequal leaf.
uneven or variable in character, quality, etc.
Obsolete . inequitable; unfair; unjust.
They only have one definition that is the same, but overall they're two different words. This is probably still connotations, though.
even the denotations are different
Explain to me in what way two different people can be entirely equal. Different people can be equal in specific ways, but there will always be inequalities. Can you truly say two separate entities are equal if not every part of of them is equal?
Ok. Say there's a set of twins. They're exactly the same except one is a good drawer while the other is a good writer. It doesn't mean that they're unequal just because they have different talents. That would be saying that one is superior to the other because of her talent.
It depends on what two things are being compared. Say that there's two cars that are the same. Same make, same model, same day made, same engine, same tires, same price etc. The only time they were used was on a test drive, and they both were tested by the same amount of miles and used the same amount of gas, and by the same person.
The only difference of the two cars are the colors. One is red and the other gray. Would you say that these two cars are unequal because of their difference?
I think the only reason that someone would see one twin unequal to the other, or one car unequal to the other is if they PREFER a certain characteristic. Someone may prefer writing over drawing, or the color red over the color gray. And since we all have different perceptions of things, we may see something being unequal to the other because of our personal preferences.
Unequal doesn't necessarily mean inferior. However, one would be inferior in the eyes of someone looking for the other's talent. They are not equals. If you aren't looking for a writer or drawer, they may be equal in value, but that does not make them equal.
Yes, I would. The red car is superior to a person that prefers red cars, and vice versa for someone who prefers grey cars. They are not equal.
Yes, I know. I guess inequality is just on my mind right now.
They are equal. The person that prefers the red car just sees it as being better than the gray car because red may be a favorite color. The cars are equal, but the person just doesn't see them as equal because of his love of red.
Here's a situation not based on superiority/inferiority 50 x 2 = 100, and so does 50 + 50, 200/2, and 150-50. They are different problems using different numbers with different signs, but the outcome of all of them are 100. The number quantities for each problem may differ, but the overall quantity of them all is the same number.
Here's another situation. 1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 = 4/8 = 5/10. They are all different fractions, but they all amount to the same thing, which is a half. They all make up 50% of the whole.
You can't say the cars are equal if they have inequalities. They are equal in function and worth, but they are not equal specimens.
In that case, the end numerical value of those equations is equal. The equations themselves are not equal.
Same as above. Different things can have equal properties, but they cannot be equal.
I feel like I can't possibly win this argument, so like Fuzala, I give up. Plus, I'm getting kind of sleepy.
I just feel that in some cases, different and unequal could have the same meanings, but in other cases, different doesn't necessarily mean unequal.
I didn't give up
I just said I'd shut up
it's not the same thing!
I didn't have anything left to say
I said my parts
and was somewhat satisfied
I had more points to make, but they aren't that good.
One of them is that everyone on earth is different, but it doesn't mean a person is unequal to the rest of the world. I can see how every single person is different from one another, but it's not the same as saying every single person is unequal from one another. But, every single person isn't equal to every other person either.
It just got me more and more confused. So, g'night. Sleep tight. Don't let mosquitoes bite. Or spiders. Or rapists. Ok, I should probably be quiet now. Bye.
the second inspiration was from:
in word form:
different does not equal 'not equal'