Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:18 pm Obviously the result is true by definition.

That's the definition of a truism.

x^2 - x -1 = 0 has Φ as a solution.

NO SHIT! That's like.... the standard solution to quadratics or something.

( -b ± sqrt(b^ - 4ac) ) / 2a

Correct. So why'd you spend two posts stupidly saying the opposite?

Obviously that's true... Can it be that you not only failed ninth grade high school algebra, but also don't know that this is NOT how you test for floating point equality? Can it possibly be true that you were unable to follow the simple chain of equalities I wrote down? And that you actually have ...

triple post. sorry. I always hit quote when I should hit edit.

dbl post

Φ*Φ = Φ + 1 The above sentence is FALSE. Jeez Louise man, that's its defining property. Of course it's true. Congrats on finding a Wolfram bug but that's all you did. Take phi = (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2 and work it out by hand. Here, I'll do it for you. phi^2 = ((1 + sqrt(5))/2)^2 = (1 + 5 + 2 sqrt(5)) / ...

There is a qualitative difference between 1+√5/2 and π+π√5/2π, You're missing parens. I assume you mean to claim that there is a difference between (1 + sqrt(5))/2 and (pi + pi sqrt(5)) / 2. But this is no different than claiming 1/2 and 2/4 have a qualitative difference. What difference is that ex...

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:35 pm Comparing 47/47 to π is clearly a false comparison: 47 is not transcendental.

You're multiplying the numerator and denominator of the definition of phi by pi. That is, you're multiplying phi by pi/pi; which is also not transcendental. It's 1.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:32 am I would agree to your terminology if it made any rational sense. But it doesn't.

It's not my terminology. It's the terminology of Turing (1936) and universally adopted by the entire field of computer science ever since.

I didn't read any farther.

Yes I am aware, however π is not an ordinary constant like 47: coupling π to Φ generates the equivalent of a variable rotating base (π per half-rotation) coupled to the creative Φ ratio, along with all geometries intrinsic to it. I'm going to start a religion based on multiplying the definition of ...

I don't accept your definition of "computability" ... It's not my definition. It's Turing's definition, and it's the standard definition in the field of computer science. I can't argue a point like this. There's no rational content. If you won't agree to use the same terminology everyone ...

(double post)

That is how I interpret dichotomies. They present us with forks in the road - choices. And in so far as I am choosing X over Y I say that optimising for X. You're not reaching me here at all in this post. The practical distinction here is between sequential vs random access memory. O(N) read time, ...

to say nothing of the discovery of those eggs in which the chicken embryo was further developed than simple unfertilized eggs I did not understand this at all. But it's ok. I myself have a perfectly clear experience of the number i, and you've met me online. So you've met at least one person with s...

I am not confident a general mathematician would implicitly understand the nuance of this, as it relates to number theory itself than anything else. To me it is clear that 1+√5/2 is not qualitatively equivalent to π+π√5/2π, as the latter implies a circle, whereas the former does not. I already poin...

I'll admit that I have not taken the level of math classes that you have, but as far as I understand, mathematics (like any language system) is a mental event. Interpretations of symbols is also a mental event. I do not doubt that you have direct mental experience of these numerical concepts... I'l...