For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Classic Skepdickian sophistry.
I am using standard definitions, imbecille.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:15 pmClassic Skepdickian sophistry.
What you're doing here is you're redefining the terms "even" and "odd". You're turning them into functions. But functions aren't propositions either. So not only are you redefining the terms, you're also doing it in a rather dumb way.
Code: Select all
In[1]: odd = lambda x: (x % 2) == 1
In [2]: even = lambda x: (x % 2) == 0
In [3]: odd(1)
Out[3]: True
In [4]: even(1)
Out[4]: FalseContradiction. That's precisely what makes it neither odd nor even.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:13 pm Well, in that case, you can't tell its parity and you certainly claim that it's neither even nor odd.
Sorry, you're right. I forgot that you also don't know what a definition is. Adding it to the list.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:38 pm I am using standard definitions, imbecille.
Odd(x in N) -> {True, False}
Even(x in N) -> {True, False}
Input: Natural number
Output: True or False.
Code: Select all
In[1]: odd = lambda x: (x % 2) == 1 In [2]: even = lambda x: (x % 2) == 0 In [3]: odd(1) Out[3]: True In [4]: even(1) Out[4]: False
So you're just going to stubbornly repeat your infantile bullshit.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:44 pmContradiction. That's precisely what makes it neither odd nor even.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:13 pm Well, in that case, you can't tell its parity and you certainly claim that it's neither even nor odd.
if I could tell its parity it would be either Odd; or Even.
You are out of our depth.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:50 pm And functions aren't propositions either, cretin.
The Law of Excluded Middle applies to propositions, not functions.
No amount of references can disprove the obvious fact that the words "even" and "odd" do not quality functions just as they do not qualify propositions.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 5:17 am You are out of our depth.
The functions (as implemented in Python) are precisely identical to proofs of the Proposition N -> {Odd, Even}
Propositions ARE types.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/propositions+as+types
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/propositi ... neral_idea
https://planetmath.org/111propositionsastypes
Being an idiot and being Magnus Anderson aren't two different things...Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 3:46 pm No amount of references can disprove the obvious fact that the words "even" and "odd" do not quality functions just as they do not qualify propositions.
They qualify numbers.
Numbers, functions and propositions are 3 different things.
Code: Select all
In [1]: odd = lambda x: (x % 2) == 1
In [2]: odd(4)
Out[2]: False
It literally proves that Odd(4) is false.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 3:46 pm You playing word games by arbitrarily redefining terms proves nothing.
Distance per cycle: 2 * Bohr radius = 2 * (5.29 × 10^-11 m) = 1.058 × 10^-10 mhenry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:27 pm I have an off-the-wall, and off-topic, nerd question for Skep and Magnus (anyone can pipe in, though)...
A few days back I was up in the attic, digging thru old boxes. I found an old comic series from '89 called Open Space. The series featured a kind of faster than light tech called a Smoots Drive. This is how the drive worked...
You had a teleporter (mebbe some kind of quantum tunneler) with an effective range of 2 times the Bohr Radius (the width of a single hydrogen atom). This is a hard limit. The teleport cycle, from start to finish, took one unit of whatever the smallest increment of time is (I think that's Planck Time, yeah?). By quickly repeating the teleport cycle an object could be made to move (without actually moving [it remains at relative rest]). Repeat the cycle fast enough and the object could exceed light speed, by a lot.
The drive was described as being small, simple to use, mechanically robust, and very energy efficient. It didn't even need much computer power to operate, only an auto-switch or repeater to keep the cycle going. It's only limit: it only worked in a near vacuum.
As the series focused on the effects of such a drive on individuals and societies, rather than the drive itself, the reader never got much info about the tech beyond what I've described. No upper limit to the drive's pseudo-speed was ever offered. The closest the series ever came to that was in the brief mention it took four days to make a one-way 41 light year trip. But it wasn't explained why.
So, here's the question: ignoring all the impossibilities of such a technology, what would be the upper pseudo-speed limit of such a drive (as I've described it)? I have no clue where to even begin figuring such a thing out. You guys, though, you're math guys, so mebbe you can.