Oh please. Throwing stones + glass house. Not a good combo.
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Why am I arguing with you?
A: Because I am in the paratelic metamotivational mode?
B: Containment?
C: Both A and B?
D: None of the above?
And plenty of people have tried to educate you, but as you continue to learn nothing, we conclude that you are not interested in "truth" or in learning anything, but just pratting about.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Neural net.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
You have placed an arbitrary line of demarcation between the objective and subjective by saying that an "objective" idea becomes subjective if it is proveably false.
The object is simply that which is observed, and the subject is the observer. You're obfuscating, in my opinion. Which is fine, but don't present it like it's a new, groundbreaking argument that supports the notion that your cherished beliefs, unsupported by evidence or logic, are true.
More sophistry.
I've been away from the forum on the weekend and haven't read about six pages of this, but this stuck out to me:
What, precisely, is your level of exposure to mathematics? I've just started on my road to a mathematics education, but I have taken university level general math, algebra, some statistics, pre-calculus (which includes trigonometry, geometry, sets, functions, etc. etc. etc.), physics, read a bit of probability, and done some programming. Basically, enough to know what you said here is pap.
These "distinctions" you pick are mathematically pretty arbitrary. 0 is, in fact, a non-additive integer. So what? It's also a non-additive real number.
It's also not representative of the null set. The null set is simply that: a set consisting of no numbers. Having a "0" would make it a set consisting of one value: 0. If you mean that the null has zero values within it, that's fine, but you need to be more precise when you start talking math.
By the way, the null set isn't really a "number set", to be technical. It's a null set. The intersection of the lines y=1 and y=5 is the null set: they never intersect, and the intersection set contains no values.
Even computationally, zero is often distinguished from NULL, which is given its own value. I do a lot with databases at work, and NULL is very special. It means that no value has been assigned. 0 means that a value of 0 has been assigned. This is sometimes a very important distinction to make, especially when 0 represents false in a program. In fact, 0 usually represents false. True is sometimes represented in a programming language (I believe some the VB family, anyway) as -1 for some reason, but usually it's 1.
Now, let's talk about 1.
What exactly do you mean by "the base value of a mathimatical distinction"?
You mean that by multiplying something by 1, it returns the original value? Yessss... and again, so what? That's another one of those not-very-useful things, except as something you quickly reduce out of an equation.
And, by the way, multiple x by x and taking the square root of the resulting number gives you x. Amazing.
Finally, that leaves us with 2. You, for some reason, have arbitrarily assigned "1" as some kind of "base value" and decided that 2 represents the first combination of it. I suppose that's all right if you're using 1 as a "base value", but why?
There are an infinte number of real numbers between 0 and 1, why not use one of them? Mathematics is hardly limited to integers. Why not use 0.333... as your "base value"? I've always kind of liked that number (the beautiful repetition of the 3... almost ternary, isn't it?). Then I could argue that the first combination of the base value is 0.666...
Kind of spooky, until you realize it's the same as 0.666666666666666..., which is just meaningless.
And why the set distinction based on the finity of the contents? Why not "the null set", "a set containing all the real numbers", "a set containing all negative real numbers", and "a set containing the number 4"?
To be fair, some of those are subsets of the other sets, so houw about:
-Null set.
-All positive reals.
-All negative reals.
-Zero.
There, four distinct, non-intersecting sets. Go for me to win number one!
Truth is, there are an infinite number of possible sets with an infinite possible combination of contents. It's even more fun when you deal with real-world sets that can include non-numerical contents (a set containing all the false messiahs ever born, a set containing you and you alone). Why make such an arbitrary distinction of three possible set types out of infinity?
Your claim that "There exists three basic distinctions of number in the order and counting sense" is simply false in the broader world of mathematics.
Base three isn't very useful in standard mathematics. I suppose it's useful in computing with the whole "true/false/null" thing. I don't really have enough of a computing background to say authoritatively if base 3 is actually useful for anything.
Source for it being "the lov[e]liest set of numbers"?
What, precisely, is your level of exposure to mathematics? I've just started on my road to a mathematics education, but I have taken university level general math, algebra, some statistics, pre-calculus (which includes trigonometry, geometry, sets, functions, etc. etc. etc.), physics, read a bit of probability, and done some programming. Basically, enough to know what you said here is pap.
These "distinctions" you pick are mathematically pretty arbitrary. 0 is, in fact, a non-additive integer. So what? It's also a non-additive real number.
It's also not representative of the null set. The null set is simply that: a set consisting of no numbers. Having a "0" would make it a set consisting of one value: 0. If you mean that the null has zero values within it, that's fine, but you need to be more precise when you start talking math.
By the way, the null set isn't really a "number set", to be technical. It's a null set. The intersection of the lines y=1 and y=5 is the null set: they never intersect, and the intersection set contains no values.
Even computationally, zero is often distinguished from NULL, which is given its own value. I do a lot with databases at work, and NULL is very special. It means that no value has been assigned. 0 means that a value of 0 has been assigned. This is sometimes a very important distinction to make, especially when 0 represents false in a program. In fact, 0 usually represents false. True is sometimes represented in a programming language (I believe some the VB family, anyway) as -1 for some reason, but usually it's 1.
Now, let's talk about 1.
What exactly do you mean by "the base value of a mathimatical distinction"?
You mean that by multiplying something by 1, it returns the original value? Yessss... and again, so what? That's another one of those not-very-useful things, except as something you quickly reduce out of an equation.
And, by the way, multiple x by x and taking the square root of the resulting number gives you x. Amazing.
Finally, that leaves us with 2. You, for some reason, have arbitrarily assigned "1" as some kind of "base value" and decided that 2 represents the first combination of it. I suppose that's all right if you're using 1 as a "base value", but why?
There are an infinte number of real numbers between 0 and 1, why not use one of them? Mathematics is hardly limited to integers. Why not use 0.333... as your "base value"? I've always kind of liked that number (the beautiful repetition of the 3... almost ternary, isn't it?). Then I could argue that the first combination of the base value is 0.666...
Kind of spooky, until you realize it's the same as 0.666666666666666..., which is just meaningless.
And why the set distinction based on the finity of the contents? Why not "the null set", "a set containing all the real numbers", "a set containing all negative real numbers", and "a set containing the number 4"?
To be fair, some of those are subsets of the other sets, so houw about:
-Null set.
-All positive reals.
-All negative reals.
-Zero.
There, four distinct, non-intersecting sets. Go for me to win number one!
Truth is, there are an infinite number of possible sets with an infinite possible combination of contents. It's even more fun when you deal with real-world sets that can include non-numerical contents (a set containing all the false messiahs ever born, a set containing you and you alone). Why make such an arbitrary distinction of three possible set types out of infinity?
Your claim that "There exists three basic distinctions of number in the order and counting sense" is simply false in the broader world of mathematics.
Base three isn't very useful in standard mathematics. I suppose it's useful in computing with the whole "true/false/null" thing. I don't really have enough of a computing background to say authoritatively if base 3 is actually useful for anything.
Source for it being "the lov[e]liest set of numbers"?
Last edited:
I've just figured it all out:
1=1
{} = Null
2=2
0=0
1+1=2
{} U {all real numbers} = {all real numbers}
{Whatever I want to prove} U {Every idea ever created} = Mystery (Or {Whatever Every idea I ever want to prove created} if you're a literal jerkwad).
I would make some jokes about set intersection, but I'm too lazy to pull the symbol for intersection off the character map, so never mind that.
1=1
{} = Null
2=2
0=0
1+1=2
{} U {all real numbers} = {all real numbers}
{Whatever I want to prove} U {Every idea ever created} = Mystery (Or {Whatever Every idea I ever want to prove created} if you're a literal jerkwad).
I would make some jokes about set intersection, but I'm too lazy to pull the symbol for intersection off the character map, so never mind that.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
To be precise, NULL is a reference to the address location zero. "0" is a reference to an address that contains the value zero. An empty string is a reference to a character with the value "0" (or null character).
In the C language, zero is false and any non-zero value is true. -1 is often used for true because it is the value of a signed integer in which all the individual bits are set to 1 (negative numbers are represented in binary by having the first bit set to 1, therefore, once you pass the midway point in counting up an integer value, you start getting negative numbers).
Got it, my experience with C/C++ is limited, but enough that that makes a little bit of sense, thanks.
Interesting. Negative numbers in C, or negative numbers in computation generally?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
In computation generally. A negative number in machine language is a complement of its matching positive. When adding a negative and positive number, the first bit is dropped, and you magically (or so it seems to me) get a correct result:
00110011 (51)
+ 11111111 (-1)
= 00110010 (50)
And what would happen if you were to take the resulting 00110010 and add "mystery" to it?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
And what would happen if you were to take the resulting 00110010 and add "mystery" to it?
That would be a floating-point value, which is an entirely different animal....
If you were working in C, wouldn't it point to some random address and output a bunch of garbage?
Seems strangely appropriate, somehow.
Jonny, I am not a mathematician, I have to rely on my consultations with mathematicians to find exactly what language to use here.
I put that in that language because that is what a mathematician told me i was trying to explain using common language. I can only go on what mathematicians tell me in terms of language here, but let me explain in common language, because obviously my point was missed.
How numbers are used commonly, not in mathematics, but commonly, as in adding, dividing, and multiplying, using only what is available one a linear number line.
0 has it's own unique distinction from numbers o,1, through infinity. 1 has it's own unique distinction clearly since all numbers after 1 are simply combinations of 1 or can be reducible to a set of '1's. 2 through infinite are simply a combination of '1'. We dont write out 1, 1, 1, 1 for 4, we write out 4. 4 represents 4 actual distinctions, yet it is shorthand, 1 symboloic distinction for 1,1,1,1. It is false relative to the true of 1. all numbers after 1 are 'symbols' that relate to a set of '1's.
0,1, and 2 carry those distinctions in counting and ordering perfectly. those are the three environments of number used naturally, often without consideration that those distinctions are operating in our minds to make these distinctions.
so in this light, on a linear line, numbers 0 through infinity, 0 is mystery, all numbers come from 0, yet 0 does not exist, 1 is the only 'true' number distinction, and '2' is the first 'false' distinction or combination of '1's on the number line.
All numbers are infinite. one a infinite number line, there are an infinite number of '3's as well as '1's, there is no difference.
here is a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_numeral_system
Hope this clears that up, are you going to respond to our last exchange? I raised some rebuttals to your argument and look forward to reading your responses.
Last edited:
And what would happen if you were to take the resulting 00110010 and add "mystery" to it?
mystery is the conceptual signifier for 0 as is used in ordering and counting
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
This seems to be completely unrelated to your "third value" concept. Is that intentional?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
OK -- in this case, "mystery" would be a memory address with garbage in it. (That's IF you are using pointers in C, rather than referring to the values directly.) The results would be unpredictable.... could be a valid value in there, but probably not!
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
What...?
I know, that is how I come to say 'as used in ordering and counting', as in 'how we use numbers in common language'. I made that distinction very clearly.
It's irrelevant if it is or if it isnt. 0,1, and 2 function mathematically in base three counting perfectly. There is a mathematical pattern to it's reasoning.
The ternary logic paper that I linked to, it's uses 0,1, and 2, and it applies that logic to propositions that are not reducible into boolean, at least according to the paper. The ternary logic paper that i linked to is not a schematic for electronics.
I'm sure you could make any set of distinctions used in math regarding number, but the distinctions of 0,1, and 2 recapitulate outside of mathematics into semantics, logic, and conceptual framing, whilst the other set of distinctions are soley used and neccesary in math and math alone.