Jump to content
laripu

Jewish holiday, Purim

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SPLIB said:

One of my personal facts is that we didn't go to the moon.

 

Not a fact. It's an article of your faith perhaps. About as valid as Madam Aneeb in the Gabban a Beeben (or something like that). You know, where they were tempted by a snork.

 

You can't make yourself any taller by making others shorter.

 

Smart people discover things, create things, and add value to our poor suffering humanity.

 

You don't make yourself smarter by derogating real knowledge, destroying things. We must accept human suffering, because there isn't any choice ... yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

Not a fact. It's an article of your faith perhaps. About as valid as Madam Aneeb in the Gabban a Beeben (or something like that). You know, where they were tempted by a snork.

 

You can't make yourself any taller by making others shorter.

 

Smart people discover things, create things, and add value to our poor suffering humanity.

 

You don't make yourself smarter by derogating real knowledge, destroying things. We must accept human suffering, because there isn't any choice ... yet.

 

A snork? LOL.😵

 

I just had to look that one up. I'm gonna steal it.

 

https://stalker.fandom.com/wiki/Snork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TDS said:

A snork? LOL.

 

I just had to look that one up. I'm gonna steal it.

 

https://stalker.fandom.com/wiki/Snork

 

Whatever you want, but it was Adam and Eve (Madam Aneeb) in the Garden of Eden (Gabban a Beeben) and a snake (snork).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Not a fact. It's an article of your faith perhaps. About as valid as Madam Aneeb in the Gabban a Beeben (or something like that). You know, where they were tempted by a snork.

 

You can't make yourself any taller by making others shorter.

 

Smart people discover things, create things, and add value to our poor suffering humanity.

 

You don't make yourself smarter by derogating real knowledge, destroying things. We must accept human suffering, because there isn't any choice ... yet.

It was in Agada Davida, baby.

 

I agree that one does not gain height by shortening others (save relatively), but I defy you to deny that heels can't do the job, if only temporarily. And speaking of things temporal, we must suffer because we are in hell - or at least, hell's waiting room. When our table opens in Bogota, we'll get to Hades proper. 

 

Which for some reason brings to mind Splib's First Dictum: The earth is a spinning ball of sh!t, and all is corruption. The earth is designed to make fossils of the things it makes - integrate and exude, integrate again and exude again, using each re-integration to fuel the next diffusion. People observe and insist that "things" are "changing;" but the only proper read of events is that change - the one constant - is endlessly thinging.

 

The earth is DESIGNED to turn everything into sh!t, and then turn sh!t into everything. That is why, when you observe that 90% of books, movies, friendships, restaurants, politics - everything, - is sh!t, this observation should put you at ease, knowing that things are NOT changing. Change is thinging - and thinging, and thinging, and thinging. That is how things you never heard of suddenly become a thing. The earth things them into exitence, and will reintegrate them in its time, as it will us.

 

And that is Splib's First Dictum - a modest attempt by a man of moderate intellect to make sense of the world into which he was born. 

 

As to the lunar visitation, I was speaking tongue in cheek. I proclaim ignorance of whether we indeed visited the moon. I know we bombed it. Trusting Bush's manifest intellect and decency, I assume the moon deserved it. But whether we travelled there or staged it, I can only guess, since I did not directly observe it. For that matter, had I directly observed it, I would still be open to the idea that we never went there, since I also directly observed David Copperfield pulling a car out of his ass in a Las Vegas casino. The difference between me and any ordinary witness of good faith is that I know how untrustworthy my best and most rigorous  testimony is, and the average sworn witness is deluded to think he apprehends reality.

 

Our tiny brains are utterly beneath the task of living well. This goes as well for the Ashkenazi as it does for the Sub-Saharan African (and I hope you see what I did there). Once one accepts this, one is faced with the irrational option of surrender, or the rational option of reinvesting one's respect in the value of one's gut and heart - those other hosts of the sort of ganglia and neural pathways which by some mechanism give rise to cogitation. 

 

Splib's Second Theorum is that the brain thinks - and all of its thoughts are fleeting, because  it forever gains new information against which to process previous judgments, which data it then uses to think again - and again, and again. That is why fashions change. That is why consensus reality shifts. That is why new laws are made and old ones struck down. That is why we had legal slavery, and don't. 

 

The heart and the gut are more constant than the ever changing, ever chauvinist brain. They are not hyperkinetic.They don't second guess. When the gut (rarely) speaks, it does so authoritatively - often as if life and death are in the balance. When the heart speaks, it speaks with one mind, in terms that not only define the issue, but the self.

 

If a man would know himself, he must cease to think for some time, taming and putting in its place the noisy mind, teaching it to share and to listen. To be alive from the neck up is common. To be alive from the crown down requires integrating our three centers of intellect, such that they interact respectfully and automatically - the heart never taking on math and the brain never denying the gut's command to flee, even in the seeming absence of any detectable threat.

 

When heart. mind and gut are in one accord, a man is ready to be civilized. Until then, you have to use the stick.

 

And those two dictums are my only ones, so I hope you liked them. I spent a lot of time formulating those. My original dictums were, "Whatever makes you puke is bad," and "Women don't fart - all they eat is salad." Neither of those panned out. I hadda use Ipecac to get the cloying odor of my wife's bowel off my palate, destroying two dictums in a single desperate, but educational, purge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SPLIB said:

The earth is DESIGNED to turn everything into sh!t, and then turn sh!t into everything. That is why, when you observe that 90% of books, movies, friendships, restaurants, politics - everything, - is sh!t, this observation should put you at ease, knowing that things are NOT changing. Change is thinging - and thinging, and thinging, and thinging. That is how things you never heard of suddenly become a thing. The earth things them into exitence, and will reintegrate them in its time, as it will us.

 

Surprisingly, there's a lot there with which I agree. I disagree with the word "designed" in that context. It while it works that way it wasn't designed. And your estimate that 90% of everything is sh!t is too low. I've been - literally - saying that for years, but my estimate was always 95%, and even that may be too low. And despite the fanciful language ("change is thinging"), it's a good observation.

 

But there's still change, and lots of it is at the 5% good end of the normal curve. It's just agonizingly slow; but easily visible over longer periods of time.

 

You claim not to know whether humans landed on the moon. I really don't believe you. I've flown all over the world, but 150 years ago that would have been only a dream. I've seen pictures of nuclear explosions and Mars, and now the far side of the moon. I've survived surgery without infection. Technological advance isn't less believable because evidence of it takes place far away.

 

Actually, we're good but very slow at making dreams come true.

 

7 hours ago, SPLIB said:

Our tiny brains are utterly beneath the task of living well. 

 

If a man would know himself, he must cease to think for some time, taming and putting in its place the noisy mind, teaching it to share and to listen.

 

The first statement is incorrect. Everyone is different and some people can indeed think their way to living well.

 

There is improvement, and the improvement is worth pursuing, because over time it's enormous. (I didn't say "huge". I hope you see what I didn't do there.)

 

The second statement is a bit fanciful but has some value. I'd say it differently: sit back and relax. Observe. Feel your own place in the world.

 

Or someone might say "meditate". Just different ways of saying the same thing.

 

7 hours ago, SPLIB said:

When heart. mind and gut are in one accord, a man is ready to be civilized. Until then, you have to use the stick.

 

You forgot pudenda in the list. You have to use the stick sometimes, but not always, and not with everyone. Everyone is different, in different balance, and with different capabilities. One person may be weak in one area, but be a valuable boon in another. I can't play or appreciate basketball. (But I love hockey. ☺️)

 

Making important decisions with your gut and without your brain is a poor way to proceed if you're good at thinking. And if you're not good at thinking, your gut won't help ... and 95% of everything you do will be sh!t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 6:54 AM, laripu said:

 

Surprisingly, there's a lot there with which I agree. I disagree with the word "designed" in that context. It while it works that way it wasn't designed. And your estimate that 90% of everything is sh!t is too low. I've been - literally - saying that for years, but my estimate was always 95%, and even that may be too low. And despite the fanciful language ("change is thinging"), it's a good observation.

 

But there's still change, and lots of it is at the 5% good end of the normal curve. It's just agonizingly slow; but easily visible over longer periods of time.

 

You claim not to know whether humans landed on the moon. I really don't believe you. I've flown all over the world, but 150 years ago that would have been only a dream. I've seen pictures of nuclear explosions and Mars, and now the far side of the moon. I've survived surgery without infection. Technological advance isn't less believable because evidence of it takes place far away.

 

Actually, we're good but very slow at making dreams come true.

 

 

The first statement is incorrect. Everyone is different and some people can indeed think their way to living well.

 

There is improvement, and the improvement is worth pursuing, because over time it's enormous. (I didn't say "huge". I hope you see what I didn't do there.)

 

The second statement is a bit fanciful but has some value. I'd say it differently: sit back and relax. Observe. Feel your own place in the world.

 

Or someone might say "meditate". Just different ways of saying the same thing.

 

 

You forgot pudenda in the list. You have to use the stick sometimes, but not always, and not with everyone. Everyone is different, in different balance, and with different capabilities. One person may be weak in one area, but be a valuable boon in another. I can't play or appreciate basketball. (But I love hockey. ☺️)

 

Making important decisions with your gut and without your brain is a poor way to proceed if you're good at thinking. And if you're not good at thinking, your gut won't help ... and 95% of everything you do will be sh!t.

The decisions one should make with one's gut are at the level of instinct - "Go! Now!" - that sort of thing. The reason most of us listen to that voice is that those who don't were weeded out. The gut KNOWS, the brain thinks. 

 

If you think with your gut, or know with your brain, you're incorrect. The brain's job is to proceed upon assumptions, always open to abandon those assumptions if evidence for that avails. For this reason, the brain never truly "knows." The brain that "knows" is closed. The gut that "thinks" does not exist - thanks, evolution.

 

As to all of this being a function of chance, I generally don't dispute faith based utterances. But I will make an exception, this time: I procede upon the assumption that the earth and consciousness are in fact products of design, though I make no claim of knowledge as to the designer. And I say assumption, rather than suspicion, because I find the evidence of deliberate design rather stronger than what might justify a mere hunch.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SPLIB said:

The decisions one should make with one's gut are at the level of instinct - "Go! Now!" - that sort of thing. The reason most of us listen to that voice is that those who don't were weeded out. The gut KNOWS, the brain thinks. 

 

I like evolution-based arguments.  :)  Well, the gut knows, but it's often wrong too.

 

1 hour ago, SPLIB said:

I procede upon the assumption that the earth and consciousness are in fact products of design, though I make no claim of knowledge as to the designer. And I say assumption, rather than suspicion, because I find the evidence of deliberate design rather stronger than what might justify a mere hunch.  :)

 

My thoughts:

Even from the small part of existence I can see, even the limited state of affairs I can perceive is much too complicated to be designed. 

Phenomena are emergent. With sufficient complexity, even complete knowledge of initial conditions is insufficient to predict long term outcomes.

... unless you posit an omniscient designer... in which case there would never have been a need to run the design.

 

Salvador Dali said "I do not understand why, when I ask for grilled lobster in a restaurant, I'm never served a cooked telephone."

... and made this.  He wouldn't have more knowledge even if he had a smart phone.  ;)

 

lobster-telephone-1938.jpg!Large.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, laripu said:

 

I like evolution-based arguments.  :)  Well, the gut knows, but it's often wrong too.

 

 

My thoughts:

Even from the small part of existence I can see, even the limited state of affairs I can perceive is much too complicated to be designed. 

Phenomena are emergent. With sufficient complexity, even complete knowledge of initial conditions is insufficient to predict long term outcomes.

... unless you posit an omniscient designer... in which case there would never have been a need to run the design.

 

Salvador Dali said "I do not understand why, when I ask for grilled lobster in a restaurant, I'm never served a cooked telephone."

... and made this.  He wouldn't have more knowledge even if he had a smart phone.  ;)

 

lobster-telephone-1938.jpg!Large.jpg

 

I am perplexed that you would think complexity mitigates more against design than it does against chance. Functionality in that face of complexity veritably yells design at the top of its lungs - and speaking of lungs, they seem designed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SPLIB said:

I am perplexed that you would think complexity mitigates more against design than it does against chance. Functionality in that face of complexity veritably yells design at the top of its lungs - and speaking of lungs, they seem designed. 

 

The complexity of the universe encapsulates the integers, at least. Then Gödel's Theorem (with the assumption if consistency) implies that no finite set of axioms is sufficient to describe the universe. Design implies finiteness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 7:04 PM, laripu said:

 

The complexity of the universe encapsulates the integers, at least. Then Gödel's Theorem (with the assumption if consistency) implies that no finite set of axioms is sufficient to describe the universe. Design implies finiteness.

Who siad it hadda be infinite?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SPLIB said:

Who siad it hadda be infinite?  

Read it again. The word infinite is not there. You misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 10:28 PM, laripu said:

Read it again. The word infinite is not there. You misunderstood.

Yes, I misread your objection. Godel's Theorum can imply whatever it wants - a man has as much chance of opining correctly on the nature of life, universe and everything as a spider has of explaining yellow to a sophomore. 

 

The notion that all is meat simply does not resonate, and never has. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SPLIB said:

Yes, I misread your objection. Godel's Theorum can imply whatever it wants - a man has as much chance of opining correctly on the nature of life, universe and everything as a spider has of explaining yellow to a sophomore. 

 

The notion that all is meat simply does not resonate, and never has. 

 

 

I think you still don't understand what Gödel's Theorem implies. Don't feel bad, it's complicated.

 

In easier terms, it says that if you start with being able to 1) count and 2) reason and 3) have a finite number of axioms ... Then there's still lots of stuff in mathematics (and therefore in the real world) that you can't prove from that.  So Gödel's Theorem confirms what you said: people can't possibly reason their way to complete understanding of the universe. You need to actually look at the beast. And no matter how much you look and learn, you still won't be able to get to it all.

 

But this limitation that applies to people, also applies to anything that might be a design. Designs are finite by their nature. So no design is sufficient to describe the universe. Therefore the universe wasn't designed.

 

The universe is too complicated to have been designed. All logic is necessarily incomplete.

 

There are possible ways to overcome this kind of argument. You could say (well maybe not you, but someone) that the designer is infinite and the design is the analogous thing for an infinite designer.

 

But the universe itself is finite, or at least all we can possibly perceive of it is,  so the "infinite designer" can't then be part of the universe, can't be inside the universe. That's ok, except that then there's nothing logical or reasonable that you can say about the designer or the designed thing. You get stuck in the problem Wittgenstein laid out in his incredibly difficult book "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus": all you can reasonably talk about are the propositions of science. And everything else? He says, for philosophers,

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

"Whereof one can not speak, thereof one must be silent."

 

(Obviously poets are not so constrained. ☺️ )

 

That is, it's either science/empiricism + logic/reason (therefore incomplete) OR it can't make real sense. No design ... No designer.

 

We're on our own, and we always were. If you want transcendent truth, you can't get it. If you want meaning, you'll have to make it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, laripu said:

 

I think you still don't understand what Gödel's Theorem implies. Don't feel bad, it's complicated.

 

In easier terms, it says that if you start with being able to 1) count and 2) reason and 3) have a finite number of axioms ... Then there's still lots of stuff in mathematics (and therefore in the real world) that you can't prove from that.  So Gödel's Theorem confirms what you said: people can't possibly reason their way to complete understanding of the universe. You need to actually look at the beast. And no matter how much you look and learn, you still won't be able to get to it all.

 

But this limitation that applies to people, also applies to anything that might be a design. Designs are finite by their nature. So no design is sufficient to describe the universe. Therefore the universe wasn't designed.

 

The universe is too complicated to have been designed. All logic is necessarily incomplete.

 

There are possible ways to overcome this kind of argument. You could say (well maybe not you, but someone) that the designer is infinite and the design is the analogous thing for an infinite designer.

 

But the universe itself is finite, or at least all we can possibly perceive of it is,  so the "infinite designer" can't then be part of the universe, can't be inside the universe. That's ok, except that then there's nothing logical or reasonable that you can say about the designer or the designed thing. You get stuck in the problem Wittgenstein laid out in his incredibly difficult book "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus": all you can reasonably talk about are the propositions of science. And everything else? He says, for philosophers,

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

"Whereof one can not speak, thereof one must be silent."

 

(Obviously poets are not so constrained. ☺️ )

 

That is, it's either science/empiricism + logic/reason (therefore incomplete) OR it can't make real sense. No design ... No designer.

 

We're on our own, and we always were. If you want transcendent truth, you can't get it. If you want meaning, you'll have to make it yourself.

But Godel defies Wittgenstein, as do you when you quote his theorum. I could as easily point out that a two dimensional creature's apprehension of a three dimensional phenomenon will only occur in two dimensions - and is therefore no accurate apprehension at all. You are extrapolating from limitations that one must assume to be universal, or the extrapolation falls apart. Wittgenstein gets it right, at least implicitly, because he keeps his mouth shut rather than postulating an unproven negative, as Godel does. The only thing we know is that we don't know - and Godel presumes to know, leveraging his weakness into ersatz prowess. He is - not to strain the adage - a puffed up smidgen of blowfish sh!t (no offense to his adherents). 

 

At the end of the day, you have Time's cover from 1966 and Godel's Theorum. Everyone is aware of late that the media are fake news - it's in all the papers. So Time is debunked through association and populist privilege. That only leaves Godel, whose yarmulke had a propeller on top. 

 

I am skeptical of your skeptics, sir. You are listening to the angel on the wrong shoulder. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SPLIB said:

But Godel defies Wittgenstein, as do you when you quote his theorum.

 

Don't know what you mean. Can you be more explicit?

 

Gödel didn't just postulate an unproven negative. He proved it. It's a complicated proof involving prime numbers, but it shows that any consistent system capable of generating integers is necessarily incomplete. And he shows how to construct unprovable propositions in the language of any system, using integers only. It's rigorous and well understood. There are grad school courses taught on the proof. There are popular articles that kind of explain it.

 

Gödel doesn't have adherents. It's standard modern mathematics.

 

Here's the gist without the really important difficult parts:

 

Let S be a consistent axiomatic system that can generate integers. (That requirement is needed for his proof. You have to be able to count in the system.)

 

He constructs (again using integers, prime numbers actually) a statement P that amounts to "P is unprovable in the axiomatic system S".  (How he does that is the difficult genius part.)

 

So this statement P... true or false?  Suppose P is false. Then the statement "P is provable in the axiomatic system S" is true. But if P is provable, then it's true.  Which contradicts the supposition. Since the system is consistent, the supposition is false.  That means the statement P, which says "P is unprovable in the axiomatic system S" is true.

 

What he's done is to construct a proposition in a consistent axiomatic system (that can generate integers) that asserts its own unprovability. So such systems are incomplete.  (Note that this reasoning is not being done inside axiomatic system S. It's what they call metamathematics.)

 

All consistent axiomatic systems in which you can count, are necessarily incomplete, therefore incapable of fully describing themselves, and therefore incapable of fully describing reality.

 

But I think we're done here. I'm pretty confident that you're not getting much of this.

It's not you're fault, it is difficult. Gödel and Wittgenstein were geniuses of the first order. Gödel was a pal of Einstein. Wittgenstein was a pal of Bertrand Russell. I don't understand all of it either.

 

What it all amounts to for me is:  you can't know everything. You can learn more and more, but even if everything you know is true, what you know is always finite. And therefore doesn't encompass all that there is. No description, and no design is enough for perfect understanding of the universe.  The best you can do is always partial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Don't know what you mean. Can you be more explicit?

 

Gödel didn't just postulate an unproven negative. He proved it. It's a complicated proof involving prime numbers, but it shows that any consistent system capable of generating integers is necessarily incomplete. And he shows how to construct unprovable propositions in the language of any system, using integers only. It's rigorous and well understood. There are grad school courses taught on the proof. There are popular articles that kind of explain it.

 

The same can be said of dirivatives. They are still a scam. I smell a naked emperor. 

 

 

Quote

 

Gödel doesn't have adherents. It's standard modern mathematics.

 

That claim is more facile than factual, in both of its aspects. 

 

Quote

 

Here's the gist without the really important difficult parts:

 

Let S be a consistent axiomatic system that can generate integers. (That requirement is needed for his proof. You have to be able to count in the system.)

 

He constructs (again using integers, prime numbers actually) a statement P that amounts to "P is unprovable in the axiomatic system S".  (How he does that is the difficult genius part.)

 

So this statement P... true or false?  Suppose P is false. Then the statement "P is provable in the axiomatic system S" is true. But if P is provable, then it's true.  Which contradicts the supposition. Since the system is consistent, the supposition is false.  That means the statement P, which says "P is unprovable in the axiomatic system S" is true.

 

I saw a simpler version of this on Star Trek. In the end, Kirk had sex with an alien. Well, he kissed her on tv, which in the 60s meant sex, in much the same way "fella" meant MFer..Your heart would break if you knew what "pilgrim" meant. John Wayne was a potty mouth.

 

Quote

 

What he's done is to construct a proposition in a consistent axiomatic system (that can generate integers) that asserts its own unprovability. So such systems are incomplete.  (Note that this reasoning is not being done inside axiomatic system S. It's what they call metamathematics.)

 

All consistent axiomatic systems in which you can count, are necessarily incomplete, therefore incapable of fully describing themselves, and therefore incapable of fully describing reality.

 

But I think we're done here. I'm pretty confident that you're not getting much of this.

It's not you're fault, it is difficult. Gödel and Wittgenstein were geniuses of the first order. Gödel was a pal of Einstein. Wittgenstein was a pal of Bertrand Russell. I don't understand all of it either.

 

What it all amounts to for me is:  you can't know everything. You can learn more and more, but even if everything you know is true, what you know is always finite. And therefore doesn't encompass all that there is. No description, and no design is enough for perfect understanding of the universe.  The best you can do is always partial.

 

You are welcome to think me beneath the challenge of the material, and I won't argue contrary - but that material simply does not disprove a creator. To prove the negative, one must present all the facts, and no one can. It's also a tad narcissistic.

 

I don't understand what is difficult in my objection. Wittgenstein cautioned agaist affirmative claims. Goedel made such a claim - and worse, a claim to have proven a negative. That is one of the seven classic blunders - not least of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this: Never take the position of proving the negative. 

 

When one finds oneself insisting that one has proven a negative, the question one must ask is where one zigged, when one should have zagged. It is axiomatic that one cannot prove a negative. It is equally axiomatic that a fox can be too clever by half. Clever foxes find themselves trapped within tautologies, tickled by technologies, spellbound by their own soliloquys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SPLIB said:

To prove the negative, one must present all the facts, and no one can. It's also a tad narcissistic.

 

This is nonsense, and shows that you don't understand anything about math. In math, proving negatives is done all the time. More importantly, it's useful. It expands knowledge and lets people do engineering.

 

Your use of the word "proof" is non-technical, not the way it's used in mathematics.

 

For example example, you can prove that the square root of a prime number is never an integer (or even a rational number). The proof is easy, and the result is true. You don't need to test every prime number to prove that.

 

This conversation is over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, laripu said:

 

This is nonsense, and shows that you don't understand anything about math. In math, proving negatives is done all the time. More importantly, it's useful. It expands knowledge and lets people do engineering

 

Your puerile insistence that a logical argument is mathematical is where the nonsense enters. The argument is not mathematical. It USES math, and extrapolates from there into the domains of logic of metaphysics. Creating a mathematical formula that proves a mathematical negative, then shouting triumphally, "See? There's no god!" is remeniscent of an ant crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his mind. 

 

4 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Your use of the word "proof" is non-technical, not the way it's used in mathematics.

 

Your argument is logical and metaphysical, not only mathematical. In the domain of logic, my usage is precise and correct.
 

4 hours ago, laripu said:

 

For example, you can prove that the square root of a prime number is never an integer (or even a rational number). The proof is easy, and the result is true. You don't need to test every prime number to prove that.

 

Proving a square root will always be irrational is not proving a negative in the logical sense of the word. Your own tautology states that numbers continue to come into existence forever - we would have to wait forever for "proof." 

 

4 hours ago, laripu said:

 

This conversation is over.

 

Did it ever start? Wasn't this just a preening session?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×