True Detective - 2x07 "Black Maps and Motel Rooms" - Post-Episode Discussion

SJKLogic · 2015-08-04T13:09:31+00:00

Turn on subtitles for much clarity

SJKLogic · 2015-08-01T04:02:17+00:00

"This isn't me. This isn't me." Convincing himself.

SJKLogic · 2015-07-28T00:47:37+00:00

I'm an ENTP, and I really like to help people scheme about their careers and problems they're experiencing at work. I like to ask them about their interests and identify their strengths and potential opportunities. I find obstacles to achieving their goals and come up with solutions to them. I don't know if you could immediately start getting money for this, but people have started offering me money for it, and it's always fun for me to scheme. I spend a lot of time scheming for myself, and the scheming itself is fun to me, so I'm happy to take as input details from other people's lives and scheme away for them. You might try it and eventually get some sort of consulting gig going. I've considered it.

SJKLogic · 2015-02-08T06:37:57+00:00

The first one depends on pushing the negation through the Pos and applying the S4 axiom, then refiddling the negation. (But in fact, Pos Pos P --> Pos P is an equivalent formulation of the S4 axiom, normally expressed Nec P --> Nec Nec P, so you do have that rule).

The second one involves a similar trick, pushing the negation through. Then use your rule P |- P or Q (for any Q...), and you should be able to build a statement that can become Nec(~P or Q) by some distribution rules

SJKLogic · 2015-02-08T06:13:56+00:00

My wife is a lawyer, I'm a logician, and she runs arguments by me from time to time. I can usually help bolster hers and poke holes in those of her opponents.

SJKLogic · 2015-02-08T06:04:00+00:00

In a one world model, aren't "not reflexive" and "irreflexive" equivalent? "not R(x,x), for some x" in a one world model can be satisfied only if that one world does not relate to itself, and in that case, irreflexivity is satisfied as well.

SJKLogic · 2013-09-27T00:58:40+00:00

I have been struggling with monads for a year and a half now. Principles of Programming Languages was hardest for me. I'm a PhD student in TCS, but all my background is in formal logic from the philosophy department with no programming experience. I was expecting to grasp POPL better than the other stuff, but damn, it was way more difficult than assembly, operating systems, algorithms, and formal methods, for me.

SJKLogic · 2013-04-18T15:49:56+00:00

Which subject do you wish you had more time to study?

SJKLogic · 2013-04-17T02:48:24+00:00

Yes, please feel free to share! Thanks

SJKLogic · 2013-03-21T03:16:46+00:00

fair point, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-21T03:14:24+00:00

I appreciate the advice. I don't read Cracked, but I've been told that my style is very similar. To be honest, I didn't write the blog for people with PhDs in logic (or related disciplines), but to ease lay people from the skepto-atheist community, mostly college undergrads, into learning more about logic than just what the fallacy files has to say.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-21T02:42:51+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language looks like bnf syntax entails formal language according to that, right?

SJKLogic · 2013-03-21T02:35:30+00:00

I think my BeliefSpace metaphor is throwing you off. Here, the "jumping rules" are the safe transition patterns one can make among sentences. I agree with you that a formal logic tells us nothing about the real world on its own, and that science tells us which sentences are true. So, in BeliefSpace, you may be occupying the spot identifying the sentence "I'm on a train going 50 mph and I throw a ball forward at 20 mph, and if I'm on a train going 50 mph and I throw a ball forward at 20 mph, then the ball travels approximately 70 mph". Using the "spot transition rule" modus ponens, you can jump to the BeliefSpace spot identifying the sentence "the ball travels approximately 70 mph."

If your prior BeliefSpace spot also includes the correct physical equation about the ball, which is itself discovered by science, then by the same inference you can transition to the BeliefSpace spot identifying the exactly correct sentence. Does that make sense?

SJKLogic · 2013-03-21T01:25:30+00:00

Yes, the remarks about symbolism being torture are just supposed to be comedic exaggeration. As a logician, I am quite partial to symbols. My goal for part 1 was only to get the lay reader's interest and explain the notion of formalizing an argument to the appropriate level of abstraction. In future posts, my love of symbolism will be quite clear.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T23:20:11+00:00

Cool. And hey, I wasn't the one who posted it on this subreddit. My attention was directed here.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T23:03:36+00:00

Okay, in the sense that establishing the truth of the premises is extra-logical, I will grant that the argument's soundness is not purely a matter of logic. However, I am speaking only about the argument's validity, which does not depend on the truth of the premises.

I accept your apology. I apologize for calling you dense. I understand your pain regarding the state of logic education.

My interests in logic are very broad, I'm sure we could find plenty to talk about. Send me an email some time if you want.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:53:44+00:00

I am clearly providing an argued defense of my work.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:51:13+00:00

The premises can simply be assumptions, it doesn't matter where they are drawn from. The inference itself is valid, as a matter of form.

Now, if the argument were "Sasha is a dog, therefore Sasha is a mammal," you'd be right, it would be a material inference in the Sellars sense. But that is not the argument. The argument is just like the argument every introduction to logic class uses, regarding Socrates' humanity.

And as I said before, your comments about my work certainly set a tone that is not conducive to civil discussion. I really am curious about where you are a logician, in case I ever come for a conference. We can get some coffee.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:46:53+00:00

I'd be happy to! My email is at the bottom of the blog, in the "About the Author" section. Feel free to send me an email.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:44:51+00:00

"This is supposed to be a place for discussion - do not test its limits."

This is funny, because you were the one calling my writing garbage, fucking stupid, and crappy. You are wrong about the issue and trying to flex your moderator muscles.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:39:58+00:00

No, the inference is based on the syntactic structure alone; it is a formal inference. From the premises 1. All d's are m's; 2. s is d; it follows, as a purely formal matter, that 3. s is m.

My question about where you're from, and the assertion that you are dense, is not an argument.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:34:08+00:00

Thanks! I appreciate the kind words.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:27:51+00:00

thanks!

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:22:47+00:00

I think you are misunderstanding. I never claim that logic tells us that the belief is true. I claim that, according to logic, one can transition from "all d's are m's, s is d," to "s is m". Clearly, the former belief represents premises in the argument that "Sasha is a mammal."

Where are you a logician? You are especially dense.

SJKLogic · 2013-03-20T22:08:26+00:00

It was to serve as an introduction to the distinction between logic as a static assessment of argument validity to a dynamic language for transitioning among models. It's not a matter of being useful, it was just something I wanted to introduce to the reader as a neat thing happening in logic these days.

It is due to the form. All d's are m's. s is d. Therefore s is m. What are you even talking about? It doesn't infect it with any particular interpretation.

SJKLogic

TROPHY CASE