2+2=5

[Skepdick]

Read that carefully. Read it several times. If you still don't see where you're making a mistake, ask. Don't presume. Either that or this discussion is over.

I have read 15+ times. Over and over and over again. Maybe you want to read it and see that it doesn't say what you think it says.

If you still think I am making the mistake and not you then yeah.. the discussion is over.

Your criterion for meaning is unsatisfied with respect to the expression "square circles that exist".

Here - let me point it out as best as I know how...

"the set of all things that can be represented by that word

NO things can be represented by the expression "square circles which exist"

As evidenced by your inability to present us with ANY referents for the linguistic representation "square circles which exist".

the set of rules that are used to deduce that set"

The set of rules used ALWAYS produces the empty set!

As evidenced by your inability to present to us ANY inhabitants of the deduced set of ""square circles which exist".

In computer science that's called a NULL POINTER - it points to NOTHING. Null. Void. The abyss!

Attempting to de-reference a null-pointer causes null-pointer exceptions which triggers the principle of explosion.

Because a null pointer does not point to a meaningful object, an attempt to dereference (i.e., access the data stored at that memory location) a null pointer usually (but not always) causes a run-time error or immediate program crash.

[Magnus Anderson]

I have read 15+ times. Over and over and over again.

I highly doubt it. But let's say that's true. What does that mean? It means that you should ask for an explanation. I made that clear in my previous post. You are trying to understand what the other side is trying to say. If the other side says that you are misunderstanding what they are saying, on what basis can you dismiss their complaint?

NO things can be represented by the expression "square circles which exist"

As evidenced by your inability to present us with ANY referents for the linguistic representation "square circles which exist".

The set of rules used ALWAYS produces the empty set!

As evidenced by your inability to present to us ANY inhabitants of the deduced set of ""square circles which exist".

You have supposedly read my post 15+ times but you have yet to learn that my post very explicitly agrees that the set of all things that can be represented by "square circle" is an empty one.

Here, let me show you.

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set". If a word lacks both components, it's a meaningless word. If it has one or both, it's a meaningful word. Take "square circle" as an example. The set of all things that can be represented by that word is an empty one, therefore, this component is non-existent. But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established. That component can be captured with "Every shape that is both a square and a circle". So the word is meaningful rather than meaningless even though ultimately unable to represent anything.

Notice the bolded part?

There is NOTHING that can be represented by the term "square circle". But that does not mean the term is meaningless. Why? Because the term "meaningless" is defined in a different way than you define it. And the above post tells you that. The word is said to be meaningless if and only if it lacks BOTH components. It must lack the component that is "the set of all things that can be represented by the word" but it also must lack the component that is "the set of rules that can be used to deduce the first set". The second component IS NOT missing in the case of "square circle". You have admitted as much. Therefore, by definition, the term IS meaningful.

You have COMPLETELY disregarded my definition of the term "meaning" -- in spite of your claim that you have read my post 15+ times -- and pretty much ANYONE with a bit of a brain can see it for themselves. It's really not that hard.

But you really got seriously lost in your uncontrollable urge to disagree.

[Skepdick]

Take "square circle" as an example. The set of all things that can be represented by that word is an empty one, therefore, this component is non-existent.

I really don't think this gap in your misunderstanding can't be bridged.

You can't sort your own thoughts out.

You keep confusing "square circles" and "square circles that exist". Those are DIFFERENT CRITERIA!
The latter criterion is stricter than the former one.

The term is meaningless precisely BECAUSE you assign it the meaning "NOTHING". You really don't understand Monads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(fu ... ple:_Maybe

When you ask a mathematician what does 7/0 mean? It means NOTHING. Why? because it's undefined.

Like this!

Code: Select all

fn divide(x: Decimal, y: Decimal) -> Maybe<Decimal> {
    if y == 0 { return Nothing } <---- LOOK. It means literally Nothing!
    else { return Just(x / y) }
}

[Magnus Anderson]

You keep confusing "square circles" and "square circles that exist". Those are DIFFERENT CRITERIA!
The latter criterion is stricter than the former one.

"Square circle" is a term. "Square circles exist" is a statement.

Let me quote my post one more time.

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set". If a word lacks both components, it's a meaningless word. If it has one or both, it's a meaningful word. Take "square circle" as an example. The set of all things that can be represented by that word is an empty one, therefore, this component is non-existent. But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established. That component can be captured with "Every shape that is both a square and a circle". So the word is meaningful rather than meaningless even though ultimately unable to represent anything.

Notice the bolded part? Notice the part that is both bolded AND underlined?

The above definition is a definition of the word "meaning" with respect to words / terms. It's not a definition of the word "meaning" with respect to statements.

But I know, you're not talking about "Square circles exist". You're talking about "square circles that exist", a term I never used myself (basically, your own introduction in this thread.) Either way, both "square circle" and "square circle that exist" are lacking the component that is "the set of all things that can be represented by them", and in spite of that fact, they are both meaningful. And I explained why. Here is why:

There is NOTHING that can be represented by the term "square circle". But that does not mean the term is meaningless. Why? Because the term "meaningless" is defined in a different way than you define it. And the above post tells you that. The word is said to be meaningless if and only if it lacks BOTH components. It must lack the component that is "the set of all things that can be represented by the word" but it also must lack the component that is "the set of rules that can be used to deduce the first set". The second component IS NOT missing in the case of "square circle". You have admitted as much. Therefore, by definition, the term IS meaningful.

Adding "that exist" to "square circle" changes absolutely nothing of relevance.

Returning to your post:

The term is meaningless precisely BECAUSE you assign it the meaning "NOTHING".

Nah. You have to learn how your interlocutors define their terms before you can criticize their claims. It's ironic considering your claim that "in a multi-cultural society the skill of code-switching is more important than ever". It proves my point [not stated in this thread nor anywhere else on this forum] that people who rely excessively on their own version of English or whatever other common language [the pseudo-intellectual camp] are not only routinely misunderstood by others but are also unable to understand others. They are effectively isolated from the rest of the world.

[Skepdick]

Nah. You have to learn how your interlocutors define their terms before you can criticize their claims. It's ironic considering your claim that "in a multi-cultural society the skill of code-switching is more important than ever". It proves my point [not stated in this thread nor anywhere else on this forum] that people who rely excessively on their own version of English or whatever other common language [the pseudo-intellectual camp] are not only routinely misunderstood by others but are also unable to understand others. They are effectively isolated from the rest of the world.

Why are you such a reductionist moron?

If the term "square circle" is not meaningless, then find a way to communicate whatever meaning you've assigned to it!
Your listeners cannot infer your assigned meaning from summing the parts "square" and "circle"; and you have offered no alternative avenue for obtaining the missing information.

You are setting your listeners up for failure, while playing the victim card.

The easiest possible way you could communicate your assigned meaning is to define the term ostensively - give us an example of what the "square circle" represents. If it's a shape you have in mind - just draw us a picture. Why can't you do that?

Until, and unless you find a way to communicate your assigned meaning - the term remains meaningless to your interlocutors.

Now, I'll let you string me along for a while, be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt; thus giving you plenty of opportunity to communicate whatever meaning you've assigned to "square circle", but the longer you keep going on philosophical tangents; the longer you keep delaying the actual communication of your assigned meaning - the louder that voice at the back of my head gets. And you know what that voice says?

It says the term "square circle" is just as meaningless to you as the term "mncflkjsdorw", but you've doubled down on defending your moronic position and your pride just won't let you back down.

[Magnus Anderson]

If the term "square circle" is not meaningless, then find a way to communicate whatever meaning you've assigned to it!

I already have.

The easiest possible way you could communicate your assigned meaning is to define the term ostensively - give us an example of what the "square circle" represents. If it's a shape you have in mind - just draw us a picture. Why can't you do that?

Because the set of all things that can be represented by the term "square circle" is empty. In other words, there is no picture that I can draw that can be called "square circle". I already said that. And I didn't say it once.

Again, you are not listening. You are failing to appreciate the manner in which I define the word "meaning". You keep insisting that I defined it as "the set of all things that can be represented by the symbol it is attached to". I did not. Go back, reread my definition and try to spot the difference.

Until, and unless you find a way to communicate your assigned meaning - the term remains meaningless to your interlocutors.

Until and unless my interlocutors (i.e. you) find the time to read and understand the definition that I provided, they will continue playing with a strawman.

[Skepdick]

I already have.

No, you haven't.

Because the set of all things that can be represented by the term "square circle" is empty. In other words, there is no picture that I can draw that can be called "square circle". I already said that. And I didn't say it once.

That's a really long way of saying that "squarae circle" doesn't represent anything.

Again, you are not listening. You are failing to appreciate the manner in which I define the word "meaning".

I don't give a shit how you define meaning. I am asking you to communicate the meaning you've assigned to the term "square circle".

You keep insisting that I defined it as "the set of all things that can be represented by the symbol it is attached to". I did not. Go back, reread my definition and try to spot the difference.

Irrespective of how you've defined you have (so far) not specified a meaning for "square circle".

Until and unless my interlocutors (i.e. you) find the time to read and understand the definition that I provided, they will continue playing with a strawman.

Yeah. You are a bullshitter.

Please show me where you specified the meaning of "square circle".

Hint: this doesn't count.

But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established.

For trivial Mathematical reasons: Any set of rules which reduces to the empty set is equivalent to the empty set.

[Magnus Anderson]

I don't give a shit how you define meaning.

And that is the crux of the matter. As you say yourself, you "don't give a shit" about how those you read define their words, which means, you don't really care about what they have to say. It's just a bunch of words for you to interpret any way you find interesting.

I am asking you to communicate the meaning you've assigned to the term "square circle".

Irrespective of how you've defined you have (so far) not specified a meaning for "square circle".

Please show me where you specified the meaning of "square circle".

Remember that post you allegedly read 15+ times?

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set". If a word lacks both components, it's a meaningless word. If it has one or both, it's a meaningful word. Take "square circle" as an example. The set of all things that can be represented by that word is an empty one, therefore, this component is non-existent. But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established. That component can be captured with "Every shape that is both a square and a circle". So the word is meaningful rather than meaningless even though ultimately unable to represent anything.

Notice the bolded part?

[Skepdick]

I don't give a shit how you define meaning.

And that is the crux of the matter. As you say yourself, you "don't give a shit" about how those you read define their words, which means, you don't really care about what they have to say. It's just a bunch of words for you to interpret any way you find interesting.

I am asking you to communicate the meaning you've assigned to the term "square circle".

Irrespective of how you've defined you have (so far) not specified a meaning for "square circle".

Please show me where you specified the meaning of "square circle".

Remember that post you allegedly read 15+ times?

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set". If a word lacks both components, it's a meaningless word. If it has one or both, it's a meaningful word. Take "square circle" as an example. The set of all things that can be represented by that word is an empty one, therefore, this component is non-existent. But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established. That component can be captured with "Every shape that is both a square and a circle". So the word is meaningful rather than meaningless even though ultimately unable to represent anything.

Notice the bolded part?

Hint: this doesn't count.

But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established.

For trivial Mathematical reasons: Any set of rules which reduces to the empty set is equivalent to the empty set.

You haven't provided any rules to deduce any square circles.
You have provided rules to deduce the empty set.

I've highlighted the actual part you lied about

But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one

The rules you provided (all shapes that are square circles) are precisely the empty set!

So unless you produce some set of rules which allow us to actually deduce something, rather than nothing then it sure seems like "square circles" is meaningless - by your very own criterion.

[Magnus Anderson]

You haven't provided any rules to deduce any square circles.
You have provided rules to deduce the empty set.

Exactly. The rules merely tell you how to deduce the set. That set may or may not be empty. In the case of the term "square circle", that set happens to be empty. The point is that the word "meaning" does not merely refer to the set of all things that can be represented by the attached symbol. It also refers to the rules that can be used to deduce that set. It's a combination of two things. It's not merely one or the other. So if one of those things is missing, the meaning is still present. It is only when both are missing that the meaning is absent.

I've highlighted the actual part you lied about

But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one

The rules you provided (all shapes that are square circles) are precisely the empty set!

So unless you produce some set of rules which allow us to actually deduce something, rather than nothing then it sure seems like "square circles" is meaningless - by your very own criterion.

I wasn't lying. You merely misunderstood. The set of all things that can be represented by the term "square circle" is indeed an empty one. There is no doubt about that. That's where we agree. But the set of rules that can be used to deduce what can be represented by "square circle" is NOT an empty one. The rules themselves exist. In the case of "mncflkjsdorw", both sets are empty; there is absolutely nothing, imaginary or real, that can be represented by that word and there are no rules you can use to deduce that. "Square circle" is different in that, even though there is nothing imaginary or real that can be represented by that term, there are rules that you can use to deduce that.

Fingers crossed you got it this time.

Two words have one and the same meaning if and only if you can substitute one for another without changing the meaning of the statement they are constituting. "Square circle" and "Man woman" are both contradiction in terms (i.e. oxymorons) but they are not synonymous with each other. It's one thing when someone says "John is a square circle" and another when someone says "John is a man woman". They are both self-contradictory statements but they are not saying one and the same thing. This is particularly important in debates. If someone is claiming that "John is a square circle", and you want to argue against that, you are not free to substitute their statement with "John is a man woman" and attack that statement instead. That would be a strawman.

[Skepdick]

You haven't provided any rules to deduce any square circles.
You have provided rules to deduce the empty set.

Exactly. The rules merely tell you how to deduce the set.

Dumb sophist. There is no need for a how when the deduction always produces the empty set.

It also refers to the rules that can be used to deduce that set.

But the rule "man woman" can also be used to deduce the set of square circles!
And the rule "triangles with 7 sides" can also be used to deduce the set of square circles!
And the rule "elephants which can fly" can also be used to deduce the set of square circles!

So surely all of those rules mean exactly the same thing!

But the set of rules that can be used to deduce what can be represented by "square circle" is NOT an empty one. The rules themselves exist.

The rules can be replaced by the empty set without affecting the deduction! Exactly like the expression "1+2-3" can be replaced by the expression "0" without affecting the meaning of an expression.

So if your rules can be replaced by the empty set then... your rules are null and void.

even though there is nothing imaginary or real that can be represented by that term, there are rules that you can use to deduce that.

Why do you call it a rule when it produces the same result (the empty set) for any and all inputs? It's a constant.

Fingers crossed you got it this time.

Fingers crossed, you'll give up on being an idiot any second now...

Two words have one and the same meaning if and only if you can substitute one for another without changing the meaning of the statement they are constituting.

RIGHT! Now apply this exact same principle to your "rules"! You can substitute them for the empty set!

Is that what you've been trying to tell me all this time? "Square circle" represents the empty set.

"Square circle" and "Man woman" are both contradiction in terms (i.e. oxymorons) but they are not synonymous with each other.

Well, they are! By your very own substitution rule! Both of them reduce to the exact same constant - the empty set.

It's one thing when someone says "John is a square circle" and another when someone says "John is a man woman".

John is an empty set. Twice.

They are both self-contradictory statements but they are not saying one and the same thing. This is particularly important in debates. If someone is claiming that "John is a square circle", and you want to argue against that, you are not free to substitute their statement with "John is a man woman" and attack that statement instead. That would be a strawman.

Why wouldn't you be able to make the substitution?

Both "square circle" and "man woman" are materially equivalent to the empty set.

[Agent Smith]

2 + 2 = 5?

The fundamental idea that underpins holism or something like that.

[Skepdick]

2 + 2 = 5?

The fundamental idea that underpins holism or something like that.

That would be 2 + 2 < 4

[Agent Smith]

2 + 2 = 5?

The fundamental idea that underpins holism or something like that.

That would be 2 + 2 < 4

Ok.

[Magnus Anderson]

Dumb sophist. There is no need for a how when the deduction always produces the empty set.

You don't know that (i.e. that the set is empty) until you do the deduction. And you can't do the deduction unless there is a how.

So surely all of those rules mean exactly the same thing!

I am not talking about what these rules lead to. I am talking about the rules themselves. If they exist, regardless of what they lead to, the symbol they are attached to is said to be meaningful. That's the definition. Perhaps you should learn how definitions work.

Well, they are! By your very own substitution rule! Both of them reduce to the exact same constant - the empty set.

Nah, you're still now following.

Why wouldn't you be able to make the substitution?

Both "square circle" and "man woman" are materially equivalent to the empty set.

Try to argue against someone's claim that "Women are men" by arguing that square circles do not exist and see what happens.