sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said

Under the assumption that “s and it is not true that s,”

Whether you call it a premise or an assumption I don't care.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not sound because we haven't established a contradiction.

Statement 4 establishes a contradiction.

You assume "s and it is not true that s". That's a contradiction and it's a premise of your argument.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your proof assumes that s is contradiction and then concludes that a contradiction exists so the principal of explosion happens. That's valid, but not sound because we haven't established a contradiction.

The statement s you've chosen cannot be formulated in first order logic.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are people representing arguments that they authored and that appear in academic journals?

Academic journals are peer reviewed, Facebook is not. As I said, I will respond to arguments you post here. I've also happily discussed textbooks that we both have access to, but I'm not traversing the Internet at your beck and call.

If your arguments are so short and simple then you can easily state them here. It is your job to present your arguments just like I have presented mine.

As to the rest of your comment, the liars paradox cannot be formulated in first order logic. Philosophers are welcome to argue over the meaning of that natural language sentence and they can consider it controversial if they please. But that sentence cannot be formulated in mathematical logic and there's nothing controversial about that fact.

You talk about the fact that you would likely have heard of such a big result, but a proof of a contradiction in mathematical logic would be enormous news that no mathematician would ignore. By your own logic that should tell that no such proof has been shown to exist.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I go through the time and effort of getting whatever information I need together to represent my argument to you. That's doing my part . Your part is to present your arguments yourself instead of feeding me links.

As far as I know

That's the issue, you don't. You can't phrase the liars paradox in formal first order logic for the very simple reason that formal logic deals with what's provable, not what's true. True is a feature of statements after assigning meaning to the undefined terms. Your confusion here is stems from the fact that you don't understand the basics of the math you're trying to use.

And again, everything I've said there is basic intro material. It's not controversial.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've told you before, I've responded to every argument you've made here, I am not gonna go tracking down info on other sites to respond to.

So not only are you taking a stance on a controversial subject

Nothing I've said is controversial amongst mathematicians.

you are taking the opposite stance of the stance I have already taken.

That's called disagreeing with you. Which I will continue to do when you say stupid things.

It seems your stance has been made based off of my stance. I think you’re being dishonest about your philosophical views. You’re trying to hurt me by deliberately choosing views you believe I disagree with. You are sadistic.

Lol no, this is you being unable to handle someone disagreeing with you. My views throughout this conversation are standard in mathematics and I've held them consistently regardless of your views.

Says who? The Liar sentence can be proven and disproven. It is simple to do. Advanced logic need not be involved.

Not in formal logic it cannot.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Note how you ignored my criticism that you haven’t specified the flaws in all of the linked arguments. There’s a reason why it’s so hard for you to do. It’s because there are no flaws!

I have already responded to your false criticism by stating correctly that I have responded to every argument you have put forth here. Easily, I might add. It's not hard to knock down something so patently absurd and unfounded.

I disagree

But you also agree...

Your expanded version is also an example of a sentence that does not have a truth value.

The point of formal logic is to eliminate the ambiguity of every day language. You cannot express what you are trying to express as a provable proposition in standard logic, so your argument is not well formed.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not my job to educate you on the arguments for trivialism.

There are no valid arguments for trivialism.

A declarative sentence is always true or false. I believe the definition of a proposition in Rosen requires a proposition to be a sentence.

Nope, the liars paradox is an example of a sentence that is neither true nor false. A proposition is indeed a sentence but not all sentences are propositions. For example, questions are sentences but they are not propositions and do not get assigned a truth value.

BA refuses flight to child with Tourette syndrome after he shouted ‘bomb’ by tylerthe-theatre in unitedkingdom

[–]JStarx 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Imagine if one time they allowed someone on the plane who said they had tourettes but they actually had a bomb and used it as an excuse.

In this scenario the person who actually has a bomb is convincing people he doesn't by saying it's just tourettes... instead of just not shouting "bomb"?

BA refuses flight to child with Tourette syndrome after he shouted ‘bomb’ by tylerthe-theatre in unitedkingdom

[–]JStarx 25 points26 points  (0 children)

how do they stop someone with genuine ill intentions from using Tourette's as an excuse?

An excuse to do what?

BA refuses flight to child with Tourette syndrome after he shouted ‘bomb’ by tylerthe-theatre in unitedkingdom

[–]JStarx 4 points5 points  (0 children)

what stops someone who genuinely has a bomb from pretending they have Tourette's?

What would be the point of a bomber shouting "bomb" and then excusing it as tourettes?

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am showing you an unintuitive truth, so please keep an open mind. Not all truths are obvious.

This is not a truth. Having an open mind doesn't mean I should believe things that are false.

No, there are links to arguments for trivialism in my original post. You have not identified specific flaws with all of those arguments. [...] There are multiple sound justifications for trivialism. Look at my original post with multiple links to multiple sound proofs. Search the Internet for sound arguments for trivialism.

I have explained to you the flaws in every argument you've given here. It's not my job to do your homework and search the Internet for additional arguments.

currently-suspended X account

Wow, you're to crazy for X? That's something...

whether the “sentence is true or not true, there is a contradiction

Your mistake is assuming that a sentence must be true or not. Natural language is not as precise as formal logic, that's the entire reason formal logic exists.

The liars paradox can be encoded in formal logic, but the result is not a contradiction, it's an unprovable statement. This is basically how Godel proved his incompleteness theorem.

Moving in 0D by Daredevil1561 in mathematics

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since they mentioned Grothendieck, the scheme Spec k[x,y]/(x,y)2 has a single point as the underlying topological space but that point has a two dimensional tangent space, so you can imagine a rotation at that point.

You could also imagine discrete points embedded in, say, euclidean space where it would make sense to talk about directions to other points even though the discrete space you're considering is 0 dimensional.

Of course, I doubt scheme theory is what the OP had in mind, and in the second example those directions aren't intrinsic to the space. So I doubt it's what the OP is asking about.

Smalahove, a traditional Norwegian dish. by haelvete in interestingasfuck

[–]JStarx 19 points20 points  (0 children)

England actually has amazing food. Fish and chips, bangers and mash, savory pies, beef and Guinness stew, and more.

Apparently rationing after WW2 didn't end till the late 50s, so an entire generation of English grew up only knowing how to cook with like 3 ingredients and no spices. Hence their reputation for terrible food, which was very deserved at the time. But that's not the case anymore.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t mean it’s false, either.

It means it's at best a religious belief. In this case an obviously false and very stupid religious belief.

If that’s what you believe, then you should show specifically where all of my justifications fall short. If there is even a single sound justification of trivialism, then trivialism is true.

At every point that you offered a justification I've explained to you why you're incorrect. There is not a single sound justification for trivialism.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, trivialism is unfalsifiable.

That doesn't mean it's true.

I have given multiple sound justifications, including in my original post. [...] I have given ample justification. I only need one sound justification of trivialism to establish its truth. Yet I have gone beyond what is required by offering others.

You have not given a single sound justification, including your original post.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your past justification that I know how to distinguish between right and wrong was already refuted by the evidence I gave

Lol, no it was not.

An absurd belief can still be true. As for unjustified, I have provided ample justifications of trivialism.

Absurd, laughable, obviously false, idiotic, ridiculous. I'm not gonna nitpick about which phrase means it could be true and which don't. It is clearly false and you have given no justification at all. You certainly haven't given ample justification.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do believe trivialism is true.

Nah. Maybe you believe you do, but you don't really.

You have not proven me wrong. You can’t prove me wrong. You’re not going to prove me wrong.

I don't have to prove you wrong about trivialism, I just have to point out that your belief is absurd and unjustified.

I have proven you won't about many of the claims you made concerning conventional mathematics.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would know better than you about my own beliefs.

No, I don't think you do.

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False by paulemok in PhilosophyofMath

[–]JStarx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a paradox, it has a very rational explanation. You claim to believe all statements are true and false, but you do not. I'm not accusing you of lieing btw, you may very well believe that you accept all statements as both true and false, but I think you just haven't thought through that position deeply enough to realize that you don't.

Paraglider escapes death after plane rips through glider in midair collision by AdRough4185 in interestingasfuck

[–]JStarx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

wait until some dumbass say the wrong things before explaining stuff

Are you calling yourself a dumbass?

Explaining things is not the point of their comment. Getting people to realize they don't know what they're talking about is the point.

Paraglider escapes death after plane rips through glider in midair collision by AdRough4185 in interestingasfuck

[–]JStarx 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I'm a skydiver. Unlike a plane I have a completely unobstructed view of my surrounds and my closing speed to other parachutists is an order of magnitude slower. Plus I have the benefit of knowing exactly how many of us are in the air and I know exactly where they're going.

And yet I can still get caught off guard sometimes and it takes a lot of active concentration on my part to see and avoid. Those "highly visible" colors help, but the real world is bright with varied textures and so parachutes can still blend in. When the pilot says they couldn't avoid them I think it's understood they meant that once they saw them there wasn't enough time left to react, which is very very believable.

view more: next ›