Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:32 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:08 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:27 pm To me: the L of I is not about the placeholder but the 'thing' the placeholder is applied to.

That's what he doesn't get even though it's basic. If he knew any logic he would know Frege and Frege wrote a detailed analysis of the difference between what a word means and what the same word refers to. Old news and still news to him.
EB

That is what you don't get even though it's basic.

You don't know what it meant to prove (In the Mathematical sense of the word) that 1 = 1, and that 99^99 = 99^99

You don't know what it means that there are integers for which "x = x" is UNDECIDABLE IN THIS UNIVERSE'S LIFETIME.
Do you know what undecidable means? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Because you don't know what computational complexity is.

The computational complexity of "x = x" JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF INTEGERS is infinite.
Which means that in infinite amount of time, across an infinite number of universes "x = x" cannot be proven true even for the INTEGERS.
But you assume it true.

Because you don't know what computational complexity is.

And you don't know that if it is infinite for the integers, it is infinitely more infinite for the natural numbers, infinitely infinitely infinitely more infinite for the real numbers. Infinitely more infinite complex numbers.

Because you don't know what computational complexity is.

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO FUCKING ENGLISH WORDS YET. We haven't gotten to physics, chemistry, biology, human nature, phenomenology, experience!

You truly have missed the forest for the trees. You truly have mistaken the complex for the simple.

That has always been the claim of Postmodern thinkers. There is TOO MUCH meaning; There is INFINITE meaning.
Through infinity rendering truth a trivial matter!

By accepting "for all x: x = x" as an axiom you trivialize ALL truth.

Because you don't know what computational complexity is.

You conflate identity with value.

Philosophy without technical input is sophistry. It is because you can't reason and think for yourself is why you keep appealing to "experts".

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/INTEGERS

Oh wait, I forgot. Computational logic is not your forte.

Try the English version: http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... smbook.pdf

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:48 pm You haven't proved human logic contradictory, so why should I let go of it?
EB

'##### Complexity of digits'
{ '0': 2.958004188258201e-06,
'1': 2.87300645140931e-06,
'2': 2.073000359814614e-06,
'3': 2.1270025172270834e-06,
'4': 2.1759988158009946e-06,
'5': 2.225999196525663e-06,
'6': 2.3930042516440153e-06,
'7': 2.4279943318106234e-06,
'8': 2.425993443466723e-06,
'9': 2.506996679585427e-06}
'##### Complexity of Integers'
{ '1': 7.4079944170080125e-06,
'10': 6.597998435609043e-06,
'100': 6.5400017774663866e-06,
'1000': 6.77400385029614e-06,
'10000': 6.656999175902456e-06,
'100000': 6.733003829140216e-06,
'1000000': 6.702997779939324e-06,
'10000000': 6.971997208893299e-06,
'100000000': 6.8640001700259745e-06}

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:52 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:48 pm You haven't proved human logic contradictory, so why should I let go of it?
EB

I never said it was contradictory.

You should let go of classical logic because it is a false dichotomy.

In addition to true and false there IS a third option: unknown.
There is a fourth also: unknowable.

There is a 5th one also: answer being entirely different to what you imagined or expected

Alas. I have something which you MIGHT consider as valid evidence.
Empirical evidence where your intuition produces the wrong result.

On the surface, you probably you would claim that digit(1) == integer(1)
It's intuitive, right ?

1 = 1 is not TYPED and so the meaning of "=" becomes ambiguous.

Here is the proof that digit(1) != integer(1)

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/INTEGERS

'##### Complexity of digits'
{ '0': 2.958004188258201e-06,
'1': 2.87300645140931e-06,
'2': 2.073000359814614e-06,
'3': 2.1270025172270834e-06,
'4': 2.1759988158009946e-06,
'5': 2.225999196525663e-06,
'6': 2.3930042516440153e-06,
'7': 2.4279943318106234e-06,
'8': 2.425993443466723e-06,
'9': 2.506996679585427e-06}
'##### Complexity of Integers'
{ '1': 7.4079944170080125e-06,
'10': 6.597998435609043e-06,
'100': 6.5400017774663866e-06,
'1000': 6.77400385029614e-06,
'10000': 6.656999175902456e-06,
'100000': 6.733003829140216e-06,
'1000000': 6.702997779939324e-06,
'10000000': 6.971997208893299e-06,
'100000000': 6.8640001700259745e-06}

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:34 pm You forgot the third option of "both true and false (deficient in truth, but true as gradation)".

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:34 pm You forgot the third option of "both true and false (deficient in truth, but true as gradation)".

That is kind of what I am doing by constructing the language bottom up. Measuring it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcomp ... al_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:28 pm Aristotelian Logic is correct when viewed as an extension of a higher logical system.

  # Positive claim A == A => True
  A = False
  with Timer() as t:
    A = digit_eq(axiom, axiom)
  COMPLEXITY_OF_DIGITS[axiom] = {}
  COMPLEXITY_OF_DIGITS[axiom]['A'] = t.elapsed

  # Negative claim A != A => False
  B = True
  with Timer() as t:
    B = digit_ne(axiom, axiom)
  COMPLEXITY_OF_DIGITS[axiom]['B'] = t.elapsed
  
  # Validate excluded middle
  if A and B:
    raise ProofInvalid('A: {}, B: {}'.format(A, B))
  COMPLEXITY_OF_DIGITS[axiom] = t.elapsed

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:47 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:28 pm Aristotelian Logic is correct when viewed as an extension of a higher logical system.

Correct. Aristotelian logic is the arbiter. But its utility is RIGHT at the end. Once you are done with deduction/induction.
It tests completeness. It ensures there's no undistributed middle. It does NOT test for consistency. It doesn't have to if you have made no errors.

Like so ( from https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/INTEGERS ):

Code: Select all

  # Positive claim A == A => True
  A = False
  with Timer() as t:
    A = digit_eq(axiom, axiom)
  COMPLEXITY_OF_DIGITS[axiom] = {}
  COMPLEXITY_OF_DIGITS[axiom]['A'] = t.elapsed

  # Negative claim A != A => False
  B = True
  with Timer() as t:
    B = digit_ne(axiom, axiom)
  COMPLEXITY_OF_DIGITS[axiom]['B'] = t.elapsed
  
  # Validate excluded middle
  if A and B:
    raise ProofInvalid('A: {}, B: {}'.format(A, B))
  COMPLEXITY_OF_DIGITS[axiom] = t.elapsed

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:54 pm Its grounded in "or" properties through the law of excluded middle, it is a "perspective" of continual "divergence" as an extension of "materialism". It is strictly aristotle's perspective as a materialist...nothing more. Perspective's exist through other perspectives (people back up what other people say and take it as there own) and as such observe all "zietgeists" (and aristotelian logic is a "zietgeist") as existing through recurssion.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:54 pm Its grounded in "or" properties through the law of excluded middle, it is a "perspective" of continual "divergence" as an extension of "materialism". It is strictly aristotle's perspective as a materialist...nothing more. Perspective's exist through other perspectives (people back up what other people say and take it as there own) and as such observe all "zietgeists" (and aristotelian logic is a "zietgeist") as existing through recurssion.

There is no dogma in the code above - leave what people say.

I have invented digits and integers from first principles using the alphabet 0 to 9.

You can invent ANY language you want with ANY alphabet you want.
It WILL be consistent and coherent.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:50 pm I'm very late to the party but interested in the OP. I don't see the problem.

Nobody would argue...

Jane is yellow
Brian is yellow
Ergo Jane is Brian.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:50 pm I expect I'm missing something,

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:53 pm
Is that how you use "is" all the time, or are you equivocating?

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:14 pm I use it to attach the attribute of yellow to Jane and Brian.