doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
oppss...
Last edited:
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Thank you Apathia.
I'm sure that the existence of a neutral element for those 2 operations that I referred are axioms (at least classical, and I don’t think that has changed), there are indeed lemmas that are directly related to them that say that this neutral elements are unique, very similar but not the same.Thanks, jsfisher. But basically, we're going to argue about what is a true Scotsman, so let's leave it with that.
Doron indeed has on several occasions shown not to comprehend what axioms are.
Well, you'd find them if you look at the Wiki lemma about Group Theory. They're both the Inverse Element Axiom for a group, once stated for the addition group and once for the multiplication group.
I wouldn't call them axioms in the context of arithmetic. Arithmetic, IMHO, builds on Peano's axioms for the natural numbers and on top of that, the definitions of Z, Q and R. Based on that, the existence of an inverse element is merely a theorem.
Let's have a good mathematical discussion about that in the R&P forum.
I personally had a hard time to find those axioms on the web, and those that I found where in .pdf documents from local universities (not in English, and so I did not post links for external sources other then myself), and frankly I’m quite surprised how this fundamental topics are not very accessible in the web (at least not whit terminology I used to handle them, ah yes English is a second language to me).
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The paragraphs from "In logic, three kinds" to "associated with this style of reasoning" are a verbatim copy of the wiki article on logical reasoning.
The most hilarious is the reference, though. Doron references this part with [2]: T.J. Menzies, “Applications of Abduction: Knowledge Level Modeling". However, Menzies' paper does not contain that quote. The paper is merely given as an unquoted reference in the wiki article.
So, Doron doesn't even know how to properly give references...
No problem. But where is the man behind this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning that has to be quated?
After all, the stuff that was written in wikipedia must show at least somre reference, or at least lead to some person or persons that wrote it.
Come on ddt, please show us where are the sources behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning ?
One of them is maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logical_reasoning&oldid=188811068. Where are the rest?
Last edited:
The skinny is that by Doron's "Form," Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism are a complementary pair and only come (as concepts) in a complemetary pair. So, they are both necessarily related but foundational.
How this relates to axioms? I don't get that yet. Doron holds his Form
to be pre-axiomatic.
Is the Form (as a philosophical artifice) foundational or relative (anti-foundational)?
Doron certainly gives it a foundational status.
But at the same time, by rule of the Form, any (conceptual) X position or Y position is necessarily one pole of a Complement
So Form (as a philosophical artifice) must have its Anti-Form.
The foundation is swallowed up by a sink hole.
As they say, "it's turtles all the way down." unless on the way down you strike the original turtle.
How this relates to axioms? I don't get that yet. Doron holds his Form
to be pre-axiomatic.
Is the Form (as a philosophical artifice) foundational or relative (anti-foundational)?
Doron certainly gives it a foundational status.
But at the same time, by rule of the Form, any (conceptual) X position or Y position is necessarily one pole of a Complement
So Form (as a philosophical artifice) must have its Anti-Form.
The foundation is swallowed up by a sink hole.
As they say, "it's turtles all the way down." unless on the way down you strike the original turtle.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
What "oppss"?
Thanks too. I notice that in another thread on philosophy-forums, you have quoted a poster (DrMatt) from this thread on skepticalcommunity.com. And you've done this in various other threads, not only on philosophy-forums, but also on sciencechatforum.com and sophiasdialectic.com, and maybe others.
This is, IMHO, not only a clear breach of copyright but also highly unethical. If you'd do that with my posts here, I'd not hesitate one moment to report you for it with the admins.
There is, BTW, quite some overlap in posters between JREF and skepticalcommunity.com.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Hi Apathia,
The keyword is: Reseachable Form.
It cannot be Relative-only or Element-only, as explaind in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4117959&postcount=315 .
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Cut it out with the arrogant tone. You're only displaying ignorance. Don't you know how to reference a source with unknown author(s)? BTW, referencing wiki articles is a bit more difficult than referencing books or journal articles.
ETA: let's not forget that you attributed the text of that wiki article to a paper of Menzies which didn't contain that text!
Last edited:
I was considering getting into the discussion there, since Martin was having the same difficulty catching the Form.
Again and again I've had to sus out your intent, because your presentations never serve it very well.
But I've worked through the confusion I had previously about what you are now calling the Form, and have some more questions I'll ask in appropriate context.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
There's not much to understand about gibberish. The only point you seem to make in the first is that you're still complaining about an article. The second one is nonsense from end to end.
Research that is obviously out of your league, judging from your posts, and especially judging from the above statement. Axioms are not "possible" - axioms are posited, and from those axioms, abstract theories are formed.
Many of the branches of mathematics derive their axioms from properties of numbers. The (natural, integer, rational, real, complex) number systems are incredibly rich in structures. Abstracting the basic properties of arithmetic - addition, multiplication - leads to Group Theory. Abstracting the basic properties of order in numbers leads to Order Theory. Abstracting the idea of "distance" in C or R2 leads to the notion of metric and theory of metric spaces. And so on.
Often, axioms are not independent. For example, the axiom of the empty set is unneeded in ZF set theory, as the axiom of comprehension already implies the existence of the empty set. Or in group theory, the axiom of inverse element is often stated in the form that each element has an inverse which is both left-inverse and right-inverse. In the presence of the other group axioms, one of them is superfluous.
Independence of axioms isn't the greatest worry of mathematicians; they should be consistent, and should lead to a fruitful theory. Getting a minimal set of axioms is the least concern. And often, richer theories have superfluous axioms (as illustrated above) because they served a purpose in a less rich version of the theory.
Gibberish.
Avoiding meaning??? As long as X and Y have no meaning whatsoever, they're just strings of characters and that's where their relation ends. Again, your usual nonsense.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
It is forbidden by some forums that deal with the same subject to make links between them, in order to avoid members to move to another forum.
In this case I quoted some dialog on the same subject in another forum, in order to show that there are people how capable to say some more words in addition to "Gibberish" , " nonsense" etc…
Do not post such accusations of others.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Last edited by a moderator:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
ddt
Mafia Penguin
If you define
- The natural numbers N with the Peano axioms;
- Addition on natural numbers by:
x + 0 = x
x + succ
= succ(x+y) - The whole numbers Z as equivalence classes of pairs of natural numbers;
- Addition on whole numbers as the obvious extension of addition on natural numbers
Actually, that's quite a nice homework assignment for Doron.
I can feel your pain. More than once, I've had to look for the proper English word. Simon StevinWP be cursed
for inventing so many properly Dutch mathematical terms.
Last edited:
I was afraid you wouldn't catch that I was talking about "The Form" as the fundamental intellectual construct you present. In your book, as a concept, as a researchable, it must be subject to The Form which you believe is prior to all concepts but is their indispensible ground.
Is the Form subject to the Form?
Yes, when we're talking about the researchable philosphical concept.
No, if you are talking about the metaphysical principle.
Yes, the researchable Form.
No, the Form in its self state.
Unless you want to restrict The Form from self-reference.
Restricting self-reference is a poor linguistic, philosophical, amd mathematical policy. It is better to jump right into it, and let the river carry you to the ocean where it ceases.
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Did you read my post? I gave two examples of axioms that (one in whole, the other in part) can be derived from other axioms in the same theory.
BTW, "derived from" and "dependent on" are not synonyms.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean with this, what those fora would like to avoid.
BTW, other fora - including JREF - do not allow spamming multiple fora with the same texts.
The quotes of DrMatt you quoted amounted to the same, only in more words. The ones I read basically stated your mathematical abilities were under Kindergarten level. I concur.
This is slander. You suggest I stalk you or somesuch. All info I have published here on you was accessible elsewhere on the web, published by yourself.
Evidence? More slander. Reported for that.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You are an angel (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4095093&postcount=162 ).
You have forgotten some important fact:
I am also a Jew.
Last edited:
(Sigh)
Look, Doron, you asked for my view. As it happens, I am -- of all things -- a philosophy lecturer whose specialization is in belief change and, in particular, issues like induction, abduction, etc.
Your paper is amateurish at best.
1). First of all, you make the mistake (common to amateur philosophers) of thinking that if you find some logical relation between foundationalists and non-foundationalists (in your case, so far as I can tell, that both use the well-known three types of inference to reach a conclusion -- assuming for the sake of the argument "Abduction" is an inference), then this is necessarily some sort of deep, deep "relationship" between the two that is a "basis for logic" or "foundation of reasoning" that everybody else had missed.
This is simply not true, for various reasons. The most obvious reason is that this "deep relationship" between foundationalists and antifoundationalists -- that is, that both use logical inference -- is trivially the same among both of them, since that has nothing at all to do with the issue they disagree about. You might as well have claimed that, since foundationalists and antifoundationalists both agree that 2+2=4, this should be the basis for "solving the disagreement" between them.
(I should add, perhaps, that papers that try and find a common ground between seemingly-opposing views are perfectly legitimate in themselves, but not in the way you do it.)
2). Second, you obviously are simply ignorant of the vast literature on the subject you're talking about.
You've read two or three articles (online) about foundationalism or logic, "discovered" that "everybody missed" something because it doesn't appear in those two or three articles, and then decided to "correct" this mistake. But the real reason the articles you've read "missed" what you think is the "crucial point" is with all probability simply that (a) they don't deal with this "crucial point" at all, and (b) the "crucial point" is "crucial" only in your imagination.
Let's take your biblography. Only two references -- both of them secondary sources (one of them a textbook, I believe?). What about the primary sources? You mention abduction. Well, tell me something about the relation between Aristotle's abduction and C. S. Peirce's revolutionizing of the same. Tell me something about the relation between Peirce's view of abduction in the 1866 Lowell lectures and his view in the 1901 Harvard lectures.
I am not saying you must have mentioned these particular two philosophers in your bibliography. But I *am* saying that the assumption, in a real bibliography, is that the person writing the article knows the "standard literature" about his subject -- usually composing of hundreds of sources -- pretty well, and refers to the (say) 5-10 most relevant sources to the paper's particular subject in the bibliography.
In your case, it is clear that your "bibliography" is the beginning and end of your entire knowledge of the subject, and that you simply are ignorant of the field. In short, from the bibliography alone -- even without reading the article -- any experienced editor could instantly say, "uh oh, an ignorant nutcase".
In short, your paper proves that you are an amateur who is ignorant of the subject. The experienced eye can note that only from looking at the bibliography at the end. The slightly less experienced eye can note it from the triviality of your argument, your use of non-standard notations and terms as if the use of new terms is a "discovery" (amateurs LOVES to use new words), and so on.
In short, it's crap. That you think it's gold is your problem.
Look, Doron, you asked for my view. As it happens, I am -- of all things -- a philosophy lecturer whose specialization is in belief change and, in particular, issues like induction, abduction, etc.
Your paper is amateurish at best.
1). First of all, you make the mistake (common to amateur philosophers) of thinking that if you find some logical relation between foundationalists and non-foundationalists (in your case, so far as I can tell, that both use the well-known three types of inference to reach a conclusion -- assuming for the sake of the argument "Abduction" is an inference), then this is necessarily some sort of deep, deep "relationship" between the two that is a "basis for logic" or "foundation of reasoning" that everybody else had missed.
This is simply not true, for various reasons. The most obvious reason is that this "deep relationship" between foundationalists and antifoundationalists -- that is, that both use logical inference -- is trivially the same among both of them, since that has nothing at all to do with the issue they disagree about. You might as well have claimed that, since foundationalists and antifoundationalists both agree that 2+2=4, this should be the basis for "solving the disagreement" between them.
(I should add, perhaps, that papers that try and find a common ground between seemingly-opposing views are perfectly legitimate in themselves, but not in the way you do it.)
2). Second, you obviously are simply ignorant of the vast literature on the subject you're talking about.
You've read two or three articles (online) about foundationalism or logic, "discovered" that "everybody missed" something because it doesn't appear in those two or three articles, and then decided to "correct" this mistake. But the real reason the articles you've read "missed" what you think is the "crucial point" is with all probability simply that (a) they don't deal with this "crucial point" at all, and (b) the "crucial point" is "crucial" only in your imagination.
Let's take your biblography. Only two references -- both of them secondary sources (one of them a textbook, I believe?). What about the primary sources? You mention abduction. Well, tell me something about the relation between Aristotle's abduction and C. S. Peirce's revolutionizing of the same. Tell me something about the relation between Peirce's view of abduction in the 1866 Lowell lectures and his view in the 1901 Harvard lectures.
I am not saying you must have mentioned these particular two philosophers in your bibliography. But I *am* saying that the assumption, in a real bibliography, is that the person writing the article knows the "standard literature" about his subject -- usually composing of hundreds of sources -- pretty well, and refers to the (say) 5-10 most relevant sources to the paper's particular subject in the bibliography.
In your case, it is clear that your "bibliography" is the beginning and end of your entire knowledge of the subject, and that you simply are ignorant of the field. In short, from the bibliography alone -- even without reading the article -- any experienced editor could instantly say, "uh oh, an ignorant nutcase".
In short, your paper proves that you are an amateur who is ignorant of the subject. The experienced eye can note that only from looking at the bibliography at the end. The slightly less experienced eye can note it from the triviality of your argument, your use of non-standard notations and terms as if the use of new terms is a "discovery" (amateurs LOVES to use new words), and so on.
In short, it's crap. That you think it's gold is your problem.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
This specialization does not help you to get the Minimal Agreed Form that has no meaning of its own, but it enables a researchable framework, in the first place.
MAF uses Deduction, Induction and Abduction as some particular example of a form without any particular meaning. In other words, you looked for the meaning and missed the formalization.
By using MAF I clearly show that no researchable framework exists, unless Relation and Element are in interaction, or in other words, foundationalism and non-foundationalists complement each other, in order to get a researchable framework.
If you disagree with me, you have to show a researchable framework which is totally relative (no elements are involved) or totally absolute (no relations are involved).
I'll be glad if you direct me to some professional material that deals with this subject by formal approach, as I do.
In your criticism not even a single example, taken from the content of my work, is given.
For example, please show that my argument about the disagreement between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism is "crucial" only in my imagination, by using your profession and supply the non-imaginary "crucial point" of the disagreement between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism.
I do not care about the meaning of Logical Reasoning. I do care about its form without meaning (what I call MAF) and this is the whole point of my paper. There there is no evidence in your reply that you actually got my formalist approach about this subject.
You still did not tell anything about the content of my paper. As I said, please air your view directly to the content and do not critique only the non-convectional style that is used in order to air my view.
Once again, Logical Reasoning is used here only as some MAF's particular example.
Please give concrete examples, that are related to the content of my work.
You are obviously an ignorant about Formalism (a form that has no meaning of it own).
As a result, you did not understand (yet) my work. Furthermore, you did not write anything that clearly shows that you directly deal with its content.
You are not (yet) in a stage to conclude that. First you have to show that you understand my work.
Last edited:
- Status