(now logging to "GArrowMath") /review -math last 1w (Beginning review: Wed Aug 22 14:34:35 2007 EDT) # *** Nobleht is no longer a member of math *** # ### It is now Thu Aug 23, 2007 ### # *** GArrow is now a member of math *** # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Where could one look to find good, modern resources about people # - attempting to "reform" mathematics -- specifically, to remove the # - unnatural and nonsensicial absurdities like "infinity". # # -> From puffy [@Site L], to math: # - How about crank.net? # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Infinity is an absurdity? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Patently. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It has no basis in reality; it has no practical value; it is nothing more # - than angels and pinheads. It's a religous figure. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - ... and most of math _isn't_ angels and pinheads? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I didnt say that. I'd say "most" of it is indeed just that. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - I mean, if infinity is absurd, how do you express the size of the set of # - integers? Of real numbers? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Most of math is unnatural, unreal, artificial, and unenlightening. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Why would you want to. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - *blink*blink* # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - You're kidding, right? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You might as well ask "Well! How can you possibly know how many angels # - to invite if you dont know how many fit on the pinhead!" # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Hell no. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Ah. # ### It is now Fri Aug 24, 2007 ### # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It is sufficient for all purposes to say that there are an unbounded and # - unending supply of counting/measuring numbers. Relative sizes of # - particular types of numbers is a nonsense. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Are there more even numbers than odd numbers? Are there more numbers # - with 6 in them than without? Who cares? What does it matter? It's a # - pointless mental nonsense question. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Well, I'm not aware of any resources about people attempting to "reform" # - mathematics in that fashion. Of course, I don't understand why anybody # - would _want_ to. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - To remove all the nonsense. To establish a math without ratholes. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - GArrow, just because something doesn't have an application yet (or you # - don't understand its application) doesn't mean it's pointless. Lots of # - math that's critical to science today was "pointless" when it was # - originally formulated. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - That's a purely religous argument. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Uh-huh. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - "This is good, even if no one can show why it is good, because someday # - the divine saviour will show up and he will have a use for it." Bullshit. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - That's no arguement for a rational person. You could say that about # - _ANYTHING_. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - No, because someday some smart physicist will realize how to apply it to # - the real world. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Physicist... divine saviour... You're just picking a different word for # - the same thing. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It's some "magical dude" that you postulate to exist. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - GArrow, math is math. It's a rigorous discipline based on its own rules. # - Whether it has real world application is immaterial. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - If you don't like that, you're welcome to stop using math. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - If you want me to make a more bluntly outlandish statement: Zero is # - nonsense and negative numbers are nonsense. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Ok, now *you're* talking nonsense. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The same could be said about any religion! They are all rigorous # - disciplines that make their own rules, and have little or nothing to do # - with reality. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - yes, and you're welcome to disbelieve in them, too. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Math has its basis in pythagorean mysticism. And it's still rooted right # - there. Full of nonsense and supersition. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Uh-huh. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - I find your... dismissal... of mathematics strangely fascinating. Please # - elaborate more of your reasons why math is absurd. I'm sure the other # - people in this discussion will find them humorous on /review. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - There is no good reason for negative numbers. They have no natural # - meaning and they are a computational hassle. Anything expressed with # - negative numbers can be expressed with positive numbers more clearly. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I am not dismissing mathematics. I am saying that it is religous and # - that certain parts of it are unnatural and unnecessary. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Go on... # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Zero is similarly unnecessary. It's nothing more than a notational # - crutch for decimal representation. It has no essential computational role. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Feel free to try to demonstrate otherwise. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Or even argue otherwise. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Um, no. You're the one making the outlandish proposition. The burden of # - proof lies with you. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Not really. I am not claiming that, for example, negative numbers are # - natural or necessary. I think that is the outlandish claim. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - I have no desire to dig up what I learned in Number Theory just to prove # - you wrong. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - What you learned of number theory would almost certainly have no bearing. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Also, it is absurd of you to ask me to prove a negative. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You show me the natural meaning of negative numbers. That should be easy # - for you, if you are so quick to mock my statements. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Aren't YOU asking ME to prove a negative? You're saying "X is absurd", # - and challenging me to prove it's not. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Not at all. "Negative numbers are natural" is not a negative propositon. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The word "negative" there is just nomenclature. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Actually, negative numbers _aren't_ natural. Only positive integers are # - natural. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You know that isnt what I meant. I mean "have a natural meaning". # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - (Although one could leap to the point that they are called what they are, # - and that by not being, they aren't.) # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - For example, I can demonstrate the natural nature of positive numbers # - (integer) simply by saying: These are three letters, A B C. Can you # - demonstrate the natural nature of negative three letters? # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Define 'natural'. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Of or relating to nature. That which appears in nature. Nature meaning # - "the real world". The world of experience and matter. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Ok... let's take elevation above sea level. If you're _below_ sea level, # - you're at a negative elevation. Yes, you could say that you're at a # - POSITIVE depth, but it's just as natural to say you're at a negative # - height. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - No, you are at a positive distance (magnitude) away from sea level, on a # - vector pointing at the core of the planet. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - it is "conventional", but it is not natural. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Ok, so it's a computational convenience. In other words, you want a math # - completely devoid of computational conveniences? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - For example, when you walk down a hill three miles, you say "I walked # - three miles down the hill", not "I walked negative three miles". # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It is not a computational convienience. It's a computational habit; but # - there is nothing more convienient about putting '-' in front of a number. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Moreover, that is hardly a serious basis for mathematics. "I find it # - convienient." Heck, you could get rid of imaginary numbers then -- many # - people find them inconvienient. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Further, you begged the question with 'sea level' anyway. Why use sea # - level as a "natural" zero-base? It is much more natural to measure all # - altitudes as a positive distance from the center of the planet. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - *shrug* I find imaginary number convienient. So do many engineers. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - s/number/numbers/ # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Sea level... it's somewhat silly. It's not, purely physically speaking, # - a constant distance from the center anyway. It means something slightly # - different depending on where you are. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - yes, yes. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - GArrow, you're very adept at distracting me from the work I'm trying to # - get done before I get to go home and sleep. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Perhaps you are just very inept at doing your work. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - No need to heap unwarranted praise upon me. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - Yes, yes. Thank you for your completely predictable insult. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Many things that are predictable are not predicted. # *** Maker is no longer a member of math *** # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I'll also say that I suspect, though I am unsure, that limits are # - nonsense and unnecessary. As may be the whole concept of area. # # -> From packy [@ GridApp], to math: # - yes, yes. Come back tomorrow. Maybe some of the people whose math # - knowledge is more fresh will take pity on you and explain why you're # - mistaken. # *** Maker is now a member of math *** # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - So... what? No one wants to tell me that superinfinitesimals are the # - most natural thing in the world? No one wants to explain that it not only # - makes sense for the inverse of one of them to be larger than infinity, but # - that there is a common, everyday real-world experience of them? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Someone could have said "discretization". # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Hmm.. the /review (prior) leads me to believe this is not the tree I was # - hoping to bark up. # ### It is now Sat Aug 25, 2007 ### # *** Evil Otto is no longer a member of math *** # *** Templar has rejoined math *** # ### It is now Sun Aug 26, 2007 ### # *** Monte is no longer a member of math *** # *** Jordan is no longer a member of math *** # ### It is now Mon Aug 27, 2007 ### # *** Skeptic has rejoined math *** # *** kat is no longer a member of math *** # ### It is now Tue Aug 28, 2007 ### # *** Foxhunter is no longer a member of math *** # *** Evil Otto has rejoined math *** # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - I feel stupider having reviewed this discussion. I mean, the discussion # - was so inane and devoid of sense that it actually sucked intelligence # - right out of me. It was negative content. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - How ignorant of you. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Not that I wish to bias your perspective. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - I was better when I realized it was just a troll hoping to get a rise out # - of people. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Would you care to tell me where I went wrong? Would you care to explain # - the relationship of the natural world and monads? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - See... it isnt. It's me, trying, foolishly, to actually get information # - from you people. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - go read about timecube. Sounds like your speed. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - But none of you volunteered any familiarity with the current work on # - discretization. # # -> From Maker, to math: # - Abstract concepts in math allow you to solve problems that eventually have # - "natural world" applications. It is not necessary or even desirable that # - all abstract concepts in mathematics translate directly to natural world # - concepts. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Maker.. that's nothing more or less than a "religous" opinion. And, # - moreover, it's irrelevant. I originally was asking about something -- # - something which is considered a branch of mathematics. I was not asking # - anyone to tell me "Math is fine" or "I like math". # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - When one is looking at this from a certain point of view -- for example, # - that of Russell or Wittgenstein -- then the issues I raise are quite # - germane. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - you came into a religious discussion and said "your religion is stupid # - because I said so. listen to me instead." What kind of response do you # - expect? # # -> From puffy [@Site L], to math: # - Are we being dragged off topic by that thing callled "GArrow"? # # -> From puffy [@Site L], to math: # - Because as near as I can tell, it's a thing. Not a person. Why would you # - try to hold a reasonable discussion with a thing? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Not at all. First, I didnt think I came into a "religous discussion". # - Secondsly, I didnt say it was stupid -- I said that parts of it were # - mysticisim and religion -- which they are. There is nothing inherently # - stupid about that. Thirdly, I originally asked a quite tame question -- # - the "discussion" with jerk-face here was a "it takes two to tango" # - situation in which all kinds of debation was demanded. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Anyone even passingly familiar with mathematics knows that it originated # - (in the general sense of the term) as a religious instrument/tool/practice, # - and that it was commonly used for "sacramental" purposes -- think # - "pyramids" -- and that the pursuit of geometry and "higher mathematics" # - was considered purely religious (or mystical, if you prefer.) # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - While it is not exactly all I am saying, much of what I am saying is that # - mathematics is still historically and psychologically linked to that # - original mysticism. The 'Principia Mathematica' is more comparable to the # - writings of a theologian than not. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - to what extent do you distinguish philosophy from religion? I would # - certainly agree that 'Principia Mathematica' is a philosophical work, # - what makes it theological? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I didnt say it is theological. I said it is more comparable to theology # - than it isnt. (Which is a rather wishy-washy claim, but there it is.) So # - I would not say it is theological -- it makes no attempt to prove god. # - But it is structured like theology and its goal is similar -- to prove # - that which cannot be proven; to establish certitude about that which must # - be inferred. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The mathematical concept of induction is no different than the theological # - concept of faith. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - X, Y, Z... and thus it is _obvious_ that ... # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - Ok... and what makes that differnt from something structured to be # - philosophical? I don't equate theological works with trying to 'prove' # - anything, while philosophical works will, and specifically they'll start # - with an axiom (the famous 'I think therefore I am' is a great one. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Uh, no. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - Yeah, to me that is more philosophy then theology. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - And I didnt say anything that would make that a valid question. I did # - not say and do not claim that mathematics, philosophy and theology have # - any fundamentally distinguishing structure. One is about "numbers", the # - other is about "truth" and the other is about "god", but they are all the # - same thing. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - hence my question on where you differentiate the 2. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - In practical "I am talking to someone on the street" conversaion, I call # - St. Aquinas a theologian and I call Newton a mathematician, but for the # - meta-purpose here of crossing the streams, they are all the same. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - I have yet to see a theological work start with an axiom and build a proof # - structure around it. Granted most of my readings in this are in the # - judeo-christian arena. (or work down to an axiom). But that answer was # - what I was asking.. if it is about numbers it is math, truth is philosophy, # - and god is theology. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The five proofs of Aquinas are exactly that. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - But, as you should know, many mathematicians dont "do" computation. They # - dont touch actual numbers. They work with rules and groupings that # - produce operation and structures. That's much closer -- more obviously # - closer -- to philosophy. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - Aquinas is regarded historicaically as both philosopher and theologian.. # - And in fact the wikipedia article on Quinquae viae say they are oif the # - form of philosophical arguments. For something closer to what you are # - talking about, look at the 95 theses of Martin Luther, there isn't any # - axiomatic distilation there; not in the philosophic sense. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Are you an idiot? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - How can someone I didnt cite be "closer to what I am talking about" than # - someone I did cite? I am talking about what I am talking about -- not # - what you imagine I am talking about. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - And your ability to draw little distinctions between "this" and "that" # - has no brearing on my ability (and point of) to erase those distinctions # - and find overarching similarity. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - I am trying to give you a more clearcut example then the one you provided # - who is widely regarded by the intellectual community as a philospher AND a # - theologian, and the work which you site being a philosophical work on God, # - not a theological work; There are subtleties here regarding axioms and # - rules of logic and repeatability and revelation that separate these 3. # - (mathematics, philosophy, and theology).. its more then JUST about the # - subject matter (hence a philosophical work on God... of which there are a # - number, including CS Lewis.. that are not theological works) # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - If the overarching similarity is that they are all thought processes, then # - taking a piss is theology too... (I need to piss, therefore I am) # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Besides.. if you say "I have yet to see a theological work start..." and # - I mean to show you that there is one, and then you dismiss it as "Well, he # - was a theologian AND a philosopher" -- which is exactly my point -- that # - they are if not the same thing then overlapping things that function the # - same -- then why the hell would I want to cite someone who did something # - that has nothing to do with providing that example? Luther's actions were # - more socio-political than they were a constructed argument. Who cares # - about them. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - My point is that there ISNT a clearcut example. I am telling you that # - there are shades between Red and Blue and that they are all Colors, and # - you are saying "But look! Yellow is very bright!" # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - sure, and I can find someone who is a molecular biologist and a theologian, # - cite one of thier works and prove that moleculat biology and theology are # - the same. Just because one person is gifted in 2 realms doesn't make # - those realms the same. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I am not trying to find colors not between Red and Blue -- I am pointing # - you at Magenta. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - See Otto.. this is the fucking problem. Dense retards who just want to # - fucking squabble about their own stupidity. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Again.. I didnt say they are exactly the same. I am saying that they # - have similar structure. One can choose to operate at one level or # - another, to see them as the same ("color") or distinct ("red and blue"). # - But one cannot (should not) mix these levels. You cannot (should not) # - speak of "red and color". # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The "regard" for Aquinas (can you fucking believe a message to -math is # - starting this way) is based on his "philosophical" approach to "theological # - " issues. Not on him having two entirely distinct and non-overlapping # - sets of work. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - ok, I agree. but just like there is an infinite spectrum between "night" # - and "day" (dawn and dusk), but day is distinctly and very different from. # - If the point was to point out the similarities, then that's been known # - formilenia (literally), I am not sure the value in it. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - right, philosophical approach to theological issues.. .there is a # - philosophical appraoch that is distinctly different from theological.. # - such that a philosophical work about god is easly and widely recognized as # - being a _philosophical_ work. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The value is right there in what you just said "infinite spectrum". That # - is not true. There is no "infinity". It's a theo-mathe-philosophical # - concept, not a real one. In the real world we "know" that the planet # - rotates via discrete motions on the plank scale. Not continuously. # - Hence, there are a finite number of intervals and no more between "night" # - and "day". # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - ok, emense spectrum. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Which is an infinitely different thing. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - See, I thought that some of you might actually have something interesting # - to say, and that in any event, some of you might find the mathematics of # - the topic interesting -- how having "real numbers" means you also have # - numbers that are infinitely larger than infinity itself. Seems interesting # - to me. But, instead, all you people have presented so far is a desire to # - bicker. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Perhaps you are all long-time practitioners of non-standard analysis. # - Perhaps it's just super-duper boring to you all. Or... just perhaps... # - you're a bunch of half-tards who have little to contribute beyond "Math is # - cool" and "I liked the TOS vulcans better." I can't prove one or the # - other; but I have a strong inductive sense of which is true. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - There is also a lot of potential here for the discussion of numerical # - computing and quantization. For the concept that "How computers do math" # - is (de facto) much, much more real than the human concepts of how humans # - do math -- and that "computer math" is thus more valid than human math -- # - and that perhaps people should consider doing what the computers do, or at # - least treating it as an option. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - But... no... you fuckers wanna debate whether or not St. Aquinas was # - _actually_ a theologian at a particular point in his writing. Cause it's # - _math_. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - We could discuss the human psychology of this point. How the human mind # - grasps mathematics and copes with little things like it being proven to be # - impossible to have a complete definition of math-as-we-know-it (while # - obviously being possible to have a complete definition of math-as-computers # - -know-it). We could talk about the cognative physiology of mathematics # - and the brain's concept of indefinite procedural iteration as a metaphor # - for infinity -- and how it surprisingly has more to do with what computers # - do than it does with what mathematicians do. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - But we cant. Because you're stupid. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - And worse than stupid -- you're determined to remain stupid. You're # - incurious and proud of it. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - the computers have the same definition we have, we cannot prove the # - computer's definition is correct either; the best we can do is have it be # - self conflict free. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - And apparently some of you are yet worse.. just totally retarded. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Computers do not define mathematics even _remotely_ the way "we" do. # - Computers, for example, have no "real numbers". The ability to perform a # - calculation to an arbitrary number of places is not the same thing. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - how can "we" do that, aside from a theoretical construct, "we" have no way # - of doing it aside from symbolic representation, which computers have also. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Perhaps _you_ cant. But any normal person can write, for example, 1/3 + # - 1/3 = 2/3; and perform a number of similar calculations and solve a number # - of algebraic expressions involving real numbers. A computer cannot. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Computers are told how to do a number of things that simulate these # - computations; but they cannot perform them. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - sure, that's symbolic, we have lots of symbols for representing things we # - cannot otherwise epxress, and a computer can be taught all of them and the # - rules for manipulation, just like a person can. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - No, it isnt; and no, it cannot. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - You can have a computer perform 1/3 + 1/31 and have it give you the same # - answer a person would. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I would point out at this point that you are basically claiming that the # - branch of mathematics called "quantization" either does no exist or has no # - point. Perhaps you should consider that. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - so, If I have a computer program that I can feed in 1/3 + 1/31 and have it # - return 34/93... that's not the same as you solving and getting 34/93? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Not even remotely. No more than "echo '34/93'" is the same thing. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - even if it can manipulate that result with addition, sutraction, and any # - other operation that is defined? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - That's a meaningless statement. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You are saying "that is defined" for operations that are not defined. # # -> From decoy [yonkers!], to math: # - what is an operation that is not defined? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Pretty much anything that requires induction. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - GArrow, before you go acusing people here of talking incessantly about # - theology and philosophy and endless bickering, keep in mind that for most # - of the past oh, 5 years or so this discussion has mainly been about actual # - math, like number sequences, manifolds, elliptic orbits and similar # - interesting bits. Its only been in about the past week that the junk you # - comment about hs started. Which coincidentally seems to be just about the # - same amount of time you've been here. If you really want to debate on # - whether math is or is not relevant, real, religion, theology, felching, or # - whatever, then please go create -mathsucks and keep the discussion here # - about math. Now although logically there is a finite chance that you will # - actually DO this, everyone here has seen enough of you to understand that # - you will almost certainly be a complete dickwad about it and just stay # - here and annoy people by spouting personal attacks and nonsense. Ah # - well, alas -math, it was a good run. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Are you talking to me? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - What have I done to make anyone think I believe math sucks? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Why do you suggest that non-standard analysis is not "actual math"? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Why should a monad be less "actual" than a manifold? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Why these personal attacks? # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - Yes, I was talking to you. The "GArrow," at the front was supposed to # - indicate that. That's a fairly common practice when addressing someone. # - I'm pretty sure I've seen you use it yourself, so I'm surprised you're not # - familiar with it. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You seemed to be talking to someone else. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - what you said to make us believe you think math sucks is to start off by # - dismissing the "unnatural and nonsensical absuridities" that everyone else # - accepts. From there it pretty much went downhill. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You mean, by answering a question? # *** notFish. is no longer a member of math *** # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - lets see, you also reject negative numbers, zero, and as for mentioning # - monads you never said a word about them other than to say (paraphrasing) # - "You idiots, I'm talking about monads!" # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I dont "reject" them -- I said they were not "natural" in a sense I later # - defined -- existing in nature and experience. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Something which seemed to be conceeded at the time. Are you claiming # - otherwise? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I mentioned superinfinitessimals -- something closely related to monads. # - I wasn't playing nomenclature bingo. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - and if you want to get into the religious aspect, you were definitely the # - first one to bring that up. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You mean, when I answered a question? # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - once you start off a conversation on such a negative note - oops, you # - don't believe in negatives, lets call it positive in a vector other than # - intelligent and polite - no one is really interested in talking to you. # - I'm frankly surprised that it has gone on for so long. I'm only still # - discussing it because I'm waiting for my screensaver to kick in. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - And what of it? I will (again) casually say that mathematics has a # - historical basis in mystical/religous practice. But "you" at the ones who # - keep acting like it's a big deal to say that. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Really. And yet. Here you are. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It couldn't simply be that you don't know anything about the subject, and # - so you have nothing to say? # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - no one disagreed that there was historically a connection between math # - and theology and philosophy and so forth. (This discussion isn't about # - that.) You're the one who defended your claim that math is stupid by # - saing its nothing more than angels and pinheads. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Really.. simply demonstrate to me that it is "all me". Make a cogent and # - useful statement about the topic. Say something that you are otherwise # - refusing to say -- just to show you can. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I did not say that math is nothing more than angels and pinheads. # - Nothing remotely like it. Infinity, and other concepts are. But not the # - whole of mathematics. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You have to keep the distinction between "This color is bluish" and # - "Color is bluish". The former is a sensible statement; the latter not. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - about what topic? You claim that math is absurd. I claim no its not. # - There's my statement, its as useful as yours. There are much more # - interesting absurdities in math to talk about IMO, like how 1+1=1, # - translated. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I dont claim anything of that sort. If you need a topic: dicretization. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - no, you said *exactly* that infinity is nothing more than angels and # - pinheads. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Yes. Infinity. Not math. Math is not infinity. Infinity is not math. # - They are not equivalent. They do not define each other. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - infinity is a concept that exists in math as commonly accepted. It # - happens to be a useful concept despite it not having any physical # - analogue. The same can be said of pretty much anything in math. (What is # - a 3?) # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - A B C <-- Three letters. (And "physical" as emitted photons on your # - screen) # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I am still waiting for your cogent and useful statement about dicretizatio # - n. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - those are things. That's not a 3. What's emitted on my screen is an # - electronic rendering of a glyph representing the concept we commonly # - accept as 3, it's not 3. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You are commiting an ontological faux-pas. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - discretization - what about it? As I understand it its a useful way of # - computing things that are difficult to deal with otherwise because we find # - it difficult to think in terms of continuity. It's not something I'm an # - expert on. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You are demanding that the definition of a thing be as unknown as the # - thing is without the definition. Thus ruling out any possible definition. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - That's sufficient. As I originally said. You are ignorant on the topic # - and you have no desire to change that status. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The example I often use if that of Toulmin: "'Bring me the statue on the # - mantlepiece.' And when someone brings it to you, you say 'This is no # - longer the state on the mantlepiece.'" If you ask for a physical # - expression of 3, and then you act like you really meant the glyph (which # - has _nothing_ to do with math), then you're just making your own gravy, # - not speaking sense. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - I never claimed I was an expert on discretization. Why should I? you're # - the one who is claiming to be the expert on everything and that everyone # - else is ignorant. And you likewise have no intent to change your view. # - You don't really care what anyone else thinks. I really think you're just # - here to disrupt things and get a rise out of people, not to actually talk. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - If you want the physical expression of the glyph. You have the glyph. # - If you want the physical expression of the number 3 -- of "three" or of # - 1+1+1 -- then you have A B C as three letters. Or 83 23 11 as three # - numbers. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I only dont care what ignorant people think. Show me someone who is not # - ignorant and see how much I care. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - My point is that the definition of "3" is no more or less real or # - relevant in a mathematical sense than the definition of infinity. That # - you can count to 3 and not infinity is irrelevant. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It is everything. It is what makes it "real". # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - One can (again? still?) look to the so-called "natural numbers" and # - notice that that is why they are the natural numbers. And that's what # - "people who dont think math sucks" call them even. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - it is everything in a constructionist sense. Not everyone likes to # - restrict themselves to that. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Again (as with Maker), this has nothing to do with what you "like". I # - didnt ask for an opinion poll on how many of you like math. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - As i said before, induction is problematic. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - What you believe is not what everyone believes, if you prefer it to be # - stated that way. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It's not about belief either. I dont "believe" in math or in real # - numbers or in quantization. It's about the subjects as mathematical # - topics. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - would you claim that it is meaningless to show it is possible for # - something to be done without showing how it can be done or actually doing # - it? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I am not at all sure you can show that it is possible without showing how # - it can be done. Actually doing it is clearly distinct. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - take a rubik's cube. It can be shown based on the number of possible # - rotations anc combinations of the cube that any combination of the cube # - can be solved in fewer than 30 moves. That tells you nothing about how to # - accomplish it. Would you claim that is a useless, vacuous, irrelevant, or # - otherwise meaningless proof? # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - or even simpler - there are any number of ways of driving on roads to get # - from one place to another, taking different distances or different times. # - The distances are all well-defined (at least from the perspective of # - considering the routes on a map) and can be compared with each other, so # - the ordering is well defined. Therefore there must be a shortest route on # - the roads. This tells you neither what the shortest route is or how to # - find it. So is it a non-statement? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - [cube] No. As you said: possible rotations. Thus, you tells you that # - "how to" is by rotating it. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The math for a specific solution would entail specific rotations. The # - math for a set of solutions entails a set of rotations. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - [shortest path] I think it's called Google Maps. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - More precisely: No.. by not telling me "how" I would say that you have # - not demonstrated that it is "possible". And, "traveling salesman", # - perhaps it isnt possible. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - So, so far.. no, without it being shown how, I would not agree that # - anything is possible. I am not sure why you brought this up. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - [cube] But I said nothing about a specific solution. I said that any # - possible arrangement of the cube can be solved in fewer than 30 rotataions. # - (or it can't be solved in any number, but you need to break the cube to # - do that) For any given arrangement, I can say with certainty based on my # - proof that a solution does exist. I can tell you nothing about what moves # - are in the solution however, either in general or for any specific example. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I made that clear. "set of rotations". Any proof has to include details # - about the sets of positions of the faces, and thus, which rotations lead # - to solution. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - I am bringing it up because I am trying to determine for myself if you # - are of the constructivist school of mathematical theory. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Why didt you just ask. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - and I believe you just answered in the affirmative. # # -> From octo [@work], to math: # - GArrow is of the "argue with everyone for its own sake, if possible, or # - discuss opinions in great detail to an idle channel if necessary" school. # - This discussion has been pointless for 90% of its lifetime, and I don't # - know why you continue to bother with it. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I am not clear on how you would arrive at that conclusion. What about my # - answer is constructivist? # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - I suspected you didn't know what it meant, as you hadn't previously # - proclaimed it. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Otto, because it's not true. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - octo, I would gladly discuss any of the mathematical concepts I mentioned # - earlier. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Otto.. while I am saying that, for example, "infinity" has no natural # - analogue, I am not saying that I dont believe the mathematical concept # - exists, nor that one can perform operations with it. Again, it is not # - about "liking" it. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - but we're talking about mathematical concepts, not the physical world. # - If you want to talk about the physical world, fine. If you want to talk # - about mathematical concepts, fine. If you want to say that mathematical # - concepts are absurd because they don't relate to the physical world, go # - elsewhere, because we don't care. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I am implying that I suspect that one could use only quantitized # - mathematics and still achieve all the practical things math achieves -- # - and that one could -- and perhaps should -- separate that kind of # - mathematics from the more mystical, infinity-filled mathematics. # - Ultimately, I was going to discuss the physical implications of this -- # - which are similar to Wolfram's "new kind of science". # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Believe it or not, but one does not have to take your "math is inherently # - useless" viewpoint. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - well why didn't you say that, instead of attacking people and mathematical # - concepts that you don't fit your agenda? # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - who is taking that viewpoint? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You just did. "mathematical concepts, not the physical world" -- as if # - they are distinct things. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - ("distinct" means "non-overlapping") # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - ["why didn't you"] ... Fuck you. I have said as much for a long time # - now. If you choose to genuflect when I say "Wolfram", that's not my # - problem. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - I didn't say distinct, you did. And even if they are distinct that # - doesn't mean that things learned in one space are inapplicable to things # - in the other space. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It's "you people" who have been trying to press any number of absurd # - arguments here. None of you have said something like "What makes you # - think that discretization is not absurd?" or even "Why do you care?" # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Yes, I know I said "distinct". I was defining it for your benefit, in # - case you didnt know what the word meant. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - I don't care about wolfram. you're the one going through all these # - gyrations to get everyone to agree with your unstated point. It would # - have been a whole lot easier if you'd started with your point. (It would # - also be easier if I stopped encouraging you... it's a sickness I guess) # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - (To be clear: I was making it clear that I was using the word in the # - sense of "non-overlapping" as opposed to "non-equivalent". As in "Blue is # - distinct from Red", not as in "Blue is distinct from Color", although both # - are true statements and both are common usage.) # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - other than you arguing for the sake of arguing, we would presume that a # - point of view is one that you do not consider absurd and that you do care # - about, so your answers to those questions are irrelevant. Although it is # - increasingly becoming obvious that you are simply arguing for the sake of # - arguing. In which case it is still irrelevant. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Dude, I "stated" that "unstated" point a long time ago. Like, on Day # - One. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You chose not to read/comprehend it. And you chose not to ask an # - intelligent question to extract it. You decided to join the "Let's tell # - at him until he admit's he's wrong" brigade instead. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - Have you ever in your entire life admitted you're wrong? Why would you # - start now? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Sure. I have been wrong plenty of times. Sometimes wildly so. One of # - those times was in this discussion when I completely got integration and # - differentiation backwards for like an hour for totally stupid reasons. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - It's rare, but it happens. And, of course, you are too much of a shit to # - actually care that I'd point it out. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Anyway, I am all pleased and shit that you have decided that I have a # - "point" and all, but you could get back to the "math" any time now. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - ok, discretization - who cares? It may make certain things easier to # - deal with but other things are simpler to reason about if you assume # - continuity and the results are equally applicable. So why get your # - panties in a bunch about it? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Well, obviously, the results are not equally applicable. As Zeno's # - paradoxes demonstrate. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - if the results are the same then is it really that important which path # - you took to get there? Or should I worry that I'll never leave a room by # - going halfway to the door? # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Uh, yes, you should, if that is one of the results. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - You might as well say "Why do math? Why not just walk through the door." # - Hardly an argument for continuity. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - I mean.. perhaps you know something I dont, but... Xeno's paradoxes # - haven't, like.. been solved, have they? # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - I don't know, as I'm not familiar with them. The leaving a room problem # - is easily solvable both in theory (by cancelling out the parallel infinite # - series) and in practicalty (by walking out the door) # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Well, "practically" be damned. The point (here) is the math, not # - walking. As for the theory... cancelling out infinities is not a defined # - operation. You can "do it", but it's not math. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - you made an earlier statement about how the earth's roatation isn't # - continuous, its a sequence of planck-scale discrete motions. Ok, so what? # - You've now made a simple equation of motion into an impossibly huge # - sequence of additions. And the end result is the same. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The result is not the same. You might as well say that the whole of # - quantum theory is a "so what?" # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - The "simple" equation of motion has one flaw -- it does not describe # - motion. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - for those who care it's not a so what. Presumably you care about this, # - so it's not a so what to you. I care about how long it takes the earth to # - make a complete spin on its axis. From my point of view its irrelevant, # - and much easier to deal with if I assume the motion is continuous. And # - the answer is the same. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - cancelling out infinities has always worked out fine for me. I'm # - prefectly comfortable with calling it math. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit # - your definition. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - Enh... well.. If you dont care, I see no way to engage you in the # - "interesting" parts. I mean, I can't make you interested. # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - All your rudeness isn't going to make me interested, and all my eloquence # - isn't going to make you polite. Thanks, it's been R. # # -> From GArrow, to math: # - "I don't care" is eloquence? Fancy that. # *** GArrow is no longer a member of math *** # ### It is now Wed Aug 29, 2007 ### # *** Sue D. Nymme is no longer a member of math *** # # -> From Templar, to math: # - [review last 1d] wow.. what the hell was he on about? # # -> From GeekChick, to math: # - i never actually could find the beginning of the conversation so i am # - uncertain what started it # # -> From Evil Otto, to math: # - its still in the review, about a week ago. (End of review)