Did you just illustrate my point?Philosophy Explorer wrote:Volunteering for what?wtf wrote:Are you volunteering?

## Search found 913 matches

- Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:08 am
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: Should science be dumbed down?
- Replies:
**5** - Views:
**848**

### Re: Should science be dumbed down?

- Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:57 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: Should science be dumbed down?
- Replies:
**5** - Views:
**848**

### Re: Should science be dumbed down?

Are you volunteering?

- Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:54 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Does the center of a disk exist?
- Replies:
**22** - Views:
**3524**

### Re: Does the center of a disk exist?

But I never claimed you could. You are the one who claims there are irrational numbers in reality. Perhaps you should read your own post.TSBU wrote: Can you read again what I wrote? Anyway, I challenge you to find a rational number in reality.

- Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:38 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Does the center of a disk exist?
- Replies:
**22** - Views:
**3524**

### Re: Does the center of a disk exist?

I don't give too much think to it, but "center" is a mathematical function, and reality is... complex, as you probably know, irrational numbers are everywere I challenge you to give a single example of an irrational number in reality, if by reality you mean the physical world. You can't just quote ...

- Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:44 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Does the center of a disk exist?
- Replies:
**22** - Views:
**3524**

### Re: Does the center of a disk exist?

I guess it's just because we imagine the centre as inert, but the same 'motionless point' applies to any point within any shape we imagine to be inert. Because the point itself is 'sizeless', or at least, 'has no parts', there is no motion there when it's imagined to be inert. The center of a mathe...

- Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:16 am
- Forum: Political Philosophy
- Topic: Wtf?!
- Replies:
**24** - Views:
**2981**

### Re: Wtf?!

Did I die and go to hell? Can you explain to me why the Democratic National Committee cheated -- with TWO CONSECUTIVE CHAIRS, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile -- to nominate a scandal-ridden warmonger whom nobody liked and who has no discernible political skills? Hillary managed to lose t...

- Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:20 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Statements are true or false?
- Replies:
**33** - Views:
**4777**

### Re: Statements are true or false?

Is this a reasonable distinction? Because it seems to me that too often the two types are conflated and there is confusion. I believe there is a distinction that is sometimes made between a statement and a proposition . Statements don't have truth values. Propositions do. In fact the very definitio...

- Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:25 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: To understand maths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**4966**

### Re: To understand maths

I wonder if the OP got anything out of this discussion.

Automated theorem proving is interesting. Some mathematicians speculate that eventually computers will be capable of creative math. I don't believe that personally.

Automated theorem proving is interesting. Some mathematicians speculate that eventually computers will be capable of creative math. I don't believe that personally.

- Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:42 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: To understand maths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**4966**

### Re: To understand maths

I am talking about a machine that is constructed according to a finite set of axioms which is then set in motion (and perhaps, but not necessarily, guided by human intervention) and which then generates strings of symbols, called theorems. That is all. I see no reason why such a machine cannot be c...

- Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:56 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: To understand maths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**4966**

### Re: To understand maths

The theorems that are generated are then necessarily true within that system, for they have been generated following the axioms and inferential logic of the system. And only those theorems that it generates can be considered to be statements of mathematics. It is the role of mathematicians to desig...

- Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:58 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: To understand maths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**4966**

### Re: To understand maths

Not sure how it works in maths but how does infinity affect 'completeness'? You get incompleteness in any axiomatic theory strong enough to express number theory. By number theory is typically meant a Peano-like structure with induction. Like the natural numbers. Once you believe in the set of natu...

- Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:44 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: To understand maths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**4966**

### Re: To understand maths

Perhaps the symbols don't 'mean' anything. They are just symbols. If you (or I ) choose to associate those symbols with, say, sheep in a field, then we may do so. But otherwise the symbols are entirely abstract. All the more reason to get incredibly precise about what the rules are for manipulating...

- Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:44 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: To understand maths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**4966**

### Re: To understand maths

[Note: I wrote this long and ungainly post but Arising_uk said the exact same things only in way fewer words]. OK, perhaps there do exist formal and explicit axioms that can generate all the theorems of mathematics, but they are not ones that I use or want to use. Perfectly ok by me. If you've gone ...

- Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:15 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: To understand maths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**4966**

### Re: To understand maths

Ok I challenge you then! (I presume you are a "mathematician or competent undergrad math major".) Using the axioms in either of your links, show how "2+2=4" can be proven or generated as a theorem. I think you are going to struggle to do so as in a cursory read of the links I could find no referenc...

- Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:06 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: To understand maths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**4966**

### Re: To understand maths

The problem is that the axioms and processes are not explicitly stated The axioms of math are explicitly stated. The standard set of axioms is Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, or ZF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory The underlying system of logic is first-order predicat...