Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Clock arithmetic has a specific meaning. The term is not yours to redefine at your convenience.

You asserted that clock was synonymous with modular arithmetic. You were wrong. Live with it. Move on.

A specific meaning by some community, which became a religion called Mathematics. Live with it.

Move on.

Modular AND clock arithmetic are both a collection of distinct values that is wrapped on itself, and this is a general point of view of this case.

 

[jsfisher]

Modular AND clock arithmetic are both a collection of distinct values that is wrapped on itself, and this is a general point of view of this case.

I'm pleased to see you haven't lost your fluency in gibberish.

Welcome back to the JREF forums, by the way.

 

[nathan]

In that case "Clock 2" with the distinct values 0 and 1, gives the result 0 by the equation 1+1=0.

Are you going to address the problem here that you've not proved that [latex]1 + 1 \not= 2[/latex]? All you've done is use modular arithmetic to show that [latex]1 +_{mod 2} 1 \equiv_{mod 2} 0[/latex]. You've not shown that under that modular field that [latex]2 \not\equiv_{mod 2} 0[/latex] (or alternatively that [latex]1 +_{mod 2} 1 \not\equiv_{mod 2} 2[/latex]). You can't, because it is.

 

[Phaedrus74]

A foundationalist [1] believes that there are beliefs that do not need any justification by other beliefs. Therefore these beliefs can be used as an objective base ground to justify other beliefs.

An anti-foundationalist [2] believes that there are no beliefs that do not need any justification by other beliefs. Therefore no belief can be used as an objective base ground to justify other beliefs, and beliefs are relative to each other.

Is it possible to define a framework where anti-foundationalist and foundationalist can agree with each other?

For further reading please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism

Doron, your sketch of a possible solution does not answer the question you posed (or if it does, you need to be more explicit). It definitely needs more work if you want people to understand what you are getting at.

For instance it is absolutely unclear what the connection is between the two epistemological positions that figure in your initial question and the quasi-logical formalization you offer in section 2.

At this point that is all I can offer in terms of feedback.

Jeroen.

 

[doronshadmi]

Welcome back to the JREF forums, by the way.

Thank you jsfisher.


jsfisher and nathan,

We are here at the philosophy forum, where critique on Mathematics is possible.

You are still sucked under the agreed decisions of your community, and do not get my claim that Mathematicians are a significant factor of the mathematical science.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, your sketch of a possible solution does not answer the question you posed (or if it does, you need to be more explicit). It definitely needs more work if you want people to understand what you are getting at.

For instance it is absolutely unclear what the connection is between the two epistemological positions that figure in your initial question and the quasi-logical formalization you offer in section 2.

At this point that is all I can offer in terms of feedback.

Jeroen.

The idea is to define the minimal accepted form that enables us to research (whatever we wish to research) in the first place.

I have found that this form must not have a meaning of its own, where Distinction is its first-order property (in this case, clear distinction is a partial case of Distinction).

There must be some kind of interaction, which enables us to research; otherwise we are at Singularity (going beyond any interaction) which is a non-comparable (and non-researchable) state.

The interaction is between Relation and Element, and we, as researchers, are a significant factor of this interaction.

In that case, no researchable framework is totally absolute (Element-only, according to the foundationalist believes) and not totally relative (Relation-only, according to the anti-foundationalist believes).

 

[Phaedrus74]

The idea is to define the minimal accepted form that enables us to research (whatever we wish to research) in the first place.

A minimal accepted form of what?

I have found that this form must not have a meaning of its own, where Distinction is its first-order property (in this case, clear distinction is a partial case of Distinction).

First-order property of what?

There must be some kind of interaction, which enables us to research; otherwise we are at Singularity (going beyond any interaction) which is a non-comparable (and non-researchable) state.

The interaction is between Relation and Element, and we, as researchers, are a significant factor of this interaction.

What kind of interaction are we talking about?

In that case, no researchable framework is totally absolute (Element-only, according to the foundationalist believes) and not totally relative (Relation-only, according to the anti-foundationalist believes).

What do you mean with "researchable framework"?

I'm sorry if I come across a bit curt but you need to answer these questions to get ahead. I understand that you have a concrete idea in our head, but to get it across to other people you have to be a lot more meticulous in defining your concepts.

Finally I would implore you to read significantly more on foundationalism and its problems as it stands your grasp of it is tenuous at best.

 

[doronshadmi]

A minimal accepted form of what?

The minimal accepted form that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place.

First-order property of what?

Of the minimal accepted form.

What kind of interaction are we talking about?

Relation\Element interaction.

What do you mean with "researchable framework"?

The minimal environment that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place.

Finally I would implore you to read significantly more on foundationalism and its problems as it stands your grasp of it is tenuous at best.

Some concrete examples would be nice.

 

[doronshadmi]

Formalism is a game with forms (where the forms have no meaning of their own) and mathematicians are a significant factor of this game.

There is one simple condition; the game has to be researchable.

In that case we have to define the minimal accepted form that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place (please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126053 for more details).

 

[Phaedrus74]

Hey Doron,

I'm going to continue with asking short questions....

The minimal accepted form that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place.

Explain what you mean with "minimal accepted form", and "research (no matter what)".

Of the minimal accepted form.

I'll wait for your definition of minimal accepted form then

Relation\Element interaction.

What kind of relation?
What kind of element?

The minimal environment that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place.

What constitutes the "minimal environment"?
And also (see above) explain what you mean with "research (no matter what)".

Some concrete examples would be nice.

Donald Davidsons "Three Dogma's of Empiricism"
Wilfrid Sellars "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind"

Pretty much anything written by the Wiener Schule, most notably Carnap's works.

Also interesting is Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature"

 

[nathan]

We are here at the philosophy forum, where critique on Mathematics is possible.

certainly. But misrepresenting maths is not acceptable. You misrepresented maths when you claimed a proof of the falsity of '1 + 1 = 2'.

 

[TMiguel]

We are here at the philosophy forum, where critique on Mathematics is possible.

Actually this topic is here because of religion, but whatever.

You are still sucked under the agreed decisions of your community, and do not get my claim that Mathematicians are a significant factor of the mathematical science.

First of all Mathematics don’t stand by the scientific method, you have been warned this before, so cut the science out of math.
Secondly there are no beliefs involved, there are just statements, they are either true or false. You can get simple statements first in order to define what you are working whit, but that’s it, everything else falls out of those statements. It does not matter if math is able to describe or not the world in which you live in and it doesn’t matter if it makes sense to you. And certainly it doesn’t matter if I do it or some one else does it, they are bound by the same rules of logic, the statements that are true by my logic has also to be true by some one else logic, and must also be true for everyone under the light of the statements that first define whit what you are working.
This is what you don’t get it, this is why you are making a fool out of yourself.

There is one simple condition; the game has to be researchable.

In that case we have to define the minimal accepted form that enables us to research (no matter what)

Math is not a science (there is no research to be conducted, already explained).
We do not study geometry by cutting shapes of paper, partly because it is not necessary, partly because the resulting shape would never exact squares, triangles or whatever they where supposed to be. Any conclusion you take out of the real world, you can never import it in to mathematics and say that a purely abstract statement must necessarily be always true on the condition you have proposed because you have observed to happen. Add it to the fact that because you where never able to violate an idea in the real world, it is not proof that a cleverer person could come along and do it instead.

Take a look at this series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsIJN4YMZZo

 

[doronshadmi]

certainly. But misrepresenting maths is not acceptable. You misrepresented maths when you claimed a proof of the falsity of '1 + 1 = 2'.

Math is not absolute interpretation but simply an agreement between persons.

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually this topic is here because of religion, but whatever.

You are right. It is here because Mathematics is a religion by persons like you ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098467&postcount=211 ).

First of all Mathematics don’t stand by the scientific method

No, the current agreement about Mathematics is based mostly on Deduction.

I disagree with this partial interpretation.

This time, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126053.

 

[Darat]

You are right. It is here because Mathematics is a religion by persons like you ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098467&postcount=211 ).




No, the current agreement about Mathematics is based mostly on Deduction.

I disagree with this partial interpretation.

This time, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126053.

Since you clearly indicate that the "new" thread is nothing more than a continuation of some of your arguments in this thread I've merged it into this thread. Again let me warn you not to start new threads to discuss something you are already discussing in an ongoing thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[TMiguel]

You are right. It is here because Mathematics is a religion by persons like you ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098467&postcount=211 ).

No because your “mathematics” is religious.

No, the current agreement about Mathematics is based mostly on Deduction.

I disagree with this partial interpretation.

No it isn’t, you completely ignored my statements about what mathematics is, and how there is no possibility for agreement, simply because THERE IS NOTHING TO AGREE in the first place.

This time, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126053.

Looked, pointless.

 

[nathan]

Math is not absolute interpretation but simply an agreement between persons.

Sigh, you are again confusing the representation and value. And you're evading the point about the bogosity of your 'proof'.

 

[doronshadmi]

No it isn’t, you completely ignored my statements about what mathematics is, and how there is no possibility for agreement, simply because THERE IS NOTHING TO AGREE in the first place.

Yes, I know. You believe in something which is both researchable and the knowledge of it has nothing to do with your existence.

 

[TMiguel]

Yes, I know. You believe in something which is both researchable and the knowledge of it has nothing to do with your existence.

MATH IS NOT SCIENCE, THERE IS NO RESEARCH, NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD VALIDATES OR INVALIDATES IT.

Can’t you get this simple statement?

 

[dahduh]

To quote the psychologist in Fawlty Towers, "There's enough material here for an entire conference."