Page 17 of 18

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:03 pm
Atla wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:03 pm Still too dumb to listen

Ah well, perfectly normal for an NPD
Yes, yes. And if I do listen, then it's "typical NPD manipulative behaviour", right?

You are an idiot. I got your game figured out.

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:41 pm
Some expert says...
The Curry-Howard correspondence doesn't apply with Python because its type system can be easily bypassed, making any proof trivial and meaningless. Python types don't usually represent propositions in the Curry-Howard sense.
I'm very sorry, I can't find any expert that would go your way even a little bit!
The world seems to be full of idiotic experts. The only real expert is you, must be.
EB

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:45 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:41 pm I'm very sorry, I can't find any expert that would go your way even a little bit!
The world seems to be full of idiotic experts. The only real expert is you, must be.
EB
Translation: The Church of Aristotle does NOT approve of your constructivist methods.

Short demonstration: https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/AristotelianDeath

Code: Select all

``````print('A' == 'A')
print('B' == 'В')
``````

Code: Select all

``````True
False``````

Full demonstration: https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/ShatteredIdentity

Code: Select all

``````A = A is True
A = A is True
A = A is True
A = A is True
Sanity prevails!

B = B is True
B = В is False
В = B is False
В = В is True
Insanity returns!``````
I am going to burn your Church down

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:47 pm
Hey, Logik, could you do the same trick you did with A==A evaluating as false with Id(A)==Id(A)?
Because this thread is about you claiming to have falsified the Law of Identity, but your A==A evaluated as false is only something like "equality" and not even really equality since you fraudulently changed the method to evaluate this expression.
So, please, do the same thing for us with the notion of identity. Show us how you can write a Python programme that evaluates Id(A)==Id(A) as false...
Should be easy for the expert.
EB

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:51 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:47 pm Hey, Logik, could you do the same trick you did with A==A evaluating as false with Id(A)==Id(A)?
So, please, do the same thing for us with the notion of identity. Show us how you can write a Python programme that evaluates Id(A)==Id(A) as false...
Sure thing.

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/OverrideIdentity
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:47 pm Should be easy for the expert.
Indeed. It took less than a minute.

I am so glad you have FINALLY come to recognise my expertise! Can we have a constructive (hehe, see what I did there? ) conversation now?

I somehow have a hunch that you are not yet satisfied though. Because there is just NO PLEASING YOU!
Truly. You expect me to turn water into wine before you are convinced!

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:43 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:41 pm Some expert says...
The Curry-Howard correspondence doesn't apply with Python because its type system can be easily bypassed, making any proof trivial and meaningless. Python types don't usually represent propositions in the Curry-Howard sense.
Tell your "expert" that he is an idiot and that he does not understand Turing-completeness.
You don't even have to get off your lazy ass to read the first paragraph of a wiki article in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
What's your excuse for remaining ignorant?

Lambda calculus is Turing-complete. ALL type-systems are Turing-complete unless you intentionally neuter them, but why would you possibly do such a stupid thing?

It is utterly incomprehensible to me the amount of energy people expend to become subservient to logic. It's like you DON'T want freedom of thought or something...

If a type-system is Turing-complete I can use it to CONSTRUCT ANY LOGIC I WANT!
It's called Bootstrapping ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(compilers) ).

Even IF you corner me into using some obscure, esoteric and utterly masochistic language like Brainfuck ( https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck ) I can still use it to bootstrap myself back into Python! Because Turing-completeness is UNIVERSAL.

If you construct a prison for my mind - I will deconstruct it! If I NEED tools - I will CREATE tools
There is NOTHING you can do to prevent me from doing that.

If that trivializes the notion of "proof" in Mathematics, then how and why is my fault that you have invented a religion on a baseless foundation?

Proofs compute. Computation is subservient to physics. Mathematics is just another ivory tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am
Logik wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:43 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:41 pm Some expert says...
The Curry-Howard correspondence doesn't apply with Python because its type system can be easily bypassed, making any proof trivial and meaningless. Python types don't usually represent propositions in the Curry-Howard sense.
Tell your "expert" that he is an idiot and that he does not understand Turing-completeness.
You don't even have to get off your lazy ass to read the first paragraph of a wiki article in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
What's your excuse for remaining ignorant?

Lambda calculus is Turing-complete. ALL type-systems are Turing-complete unless you intentionally neuter them, but why would you possibly do such a stupid thing?

It is utterly incomprehensible to me the amount of energy people expend to become subservient to logic. It's like you DON'T want freedom of thought or something...

If a type-system is Turing-complete I can use it to CONSTRUCT ANY LOGIC I WANT!
It's called Bootstrapping ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(compilers) ).

Even IF you corner me into using some obscure, esoteric and utterly masochistic language like Brainfuck ( https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck ) I can still use it to bootstrap myself back into Python! Because Turing-completeness is UNIVERSAL.

If you construct a prison for my mind - I will deconstruct it! If I NEED tools - I will CREATE tools
There is NOTHING you can do to prevent me from doing that.

If that trivializes the notion of "proof" in Mathematics, then how and why is my fault that you have invented a religion on a baseless foundation?

Proofs compute. Computation is subservient to physics. Mathematics is just another ivory tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
Actually you cannot construct any logic you want as the grounding of logic is in linear connection and separation of variables...you cannot escape this root of logic without applying it and thus justifying it.

You cannot create any logic you want, you think you can but unless you can create a logic base not grounded in basic separation or connection...you are just scrambling the same eggs and calling yourself an artist.

You also cannot program a computer to do this with it relying on a black box where certain functions are programmed in, by an outside source, as connectors and seperators.

Absolute truth exists...get over it...or don't.

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am Actually you cannot construct any logic you want as the grounding of logic is in linear connection and separation of variables...you cannot escape this root of logic without applying it and thus justifying it.

You cannot create any logic you want, you think you can but unless you can create a logic base not grounded in basic separation or connection...you are just scrambling the same eggs and calling yourself an artist.
That's not the grounding of logic. That's the over-simplification of logic. You are mistaking the complex for the simple.

It's not whether you have invented a taxonomy of 2 or 200000 elements.
It's how those elements interact with each other.

It is the relationships and interaction that I define in constructive mathematics.
It is the interaction that you take for granted.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am You also cannot program a computer to do this with it relying on a black box where certain functions are programmed in, by an outside source, as connectors and seperators.
Another strawman.

Which one is a "blacker" box? A computer or your brain?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am Absolute truth exists...get over it...or don't.

Lets run the thought experiment then. You are looking for absolut truth - I get it. Carry on.

Only one question though: How would you know when you have found it?
If somebody was to leave Absolute truth at your doorstep tomorrow morning - how would you recognize it for what it is?

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am
Logik wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am Actually you cannot construct any logic you want as the grounding of logic is in linear connection and separation of variables...you cannot escape this root of logic without applying it and thus justifying it.

You cannot create any logic you want, you think you can but unless you can create a logic base not grounded in basic separation or connection...you are just scrambling the same eggs and calling yourself an artist.
That's not the grounding of logic. That's the over-simplification of logic. You are mistaking the complex for the simple.

All groundings are in simples which cannot be reduced. You cannot reduce productivity without maintaining it as reductivity.

It's not whether you have invented a taxonomy of 2 or 200000 elements.
It's how those elements interact with each other.

Yes, and those elements interact in an infinite number of ways when other variables are involved.

It is the relationships and interaction that I define in constructive mathematics.
It is the interaction that you take for granted.

Not really, I just get to the point: interaction exists through separation and connection.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am You also cannot program a computer to do this with it relying on a black box where certain functions are programmed in, by an outside source, as connectors and seperators.
Another strawman.

False, the question is irrational as it can be equally stated: which is brainier a black box or computer? Invert with "computer" in place of brain or black box. The question is leading based upon an assumed value.

Which one is a "blacker" box? A computer or your brain?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am Absolute truth exists...get over it...or don't.

Lets run the thought experiment then. You are looking for absolut truth - I get it. Carry on.

False, space is...deal with it.

Only one question though: How would you know when you have found it?

Integrate with it.

If somebody was to leave Absolute truth at your doorstep tomorrow morning - how would you recognize it for what it is?

False question, of absolute truth is "existence" then the doorstep is truth.

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am All groundings are in simples which cannot be reduced. You cannot reduce productivity without maintaining it as reductivity.
Atoms were irreducible till we reduced them.
Therefore all grounding is grounding until it's not ?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am Yes, and those elements interact in an infinite number of ways when other variables are involved.
Until you reduce those elements to even more parts.

More elements, more interactions - higher number of states.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am Not really, I just get to the point: interaction exists through separation and connection.
And thus ignoring the asymmetry between separation: Planck-scale or a universe apart
And thus ignoring the asymmetry between connection: strong or weak forces?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am False, the question is irrational as it can be equally stated: which is brainier a black box or computer? Invert with "computer" in place of brain or black box. The question is leading based upon an assumed value.
Then use a different black box.

Use a black box which, when given a question, any question as input. Produces an output 1 or 0.
1 means "rational question"
0 means "irrational question"

That black box is a binary classifier.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am Integrate with it.
Ah well, that pursuit is resolvable both at the spiritual level and at the physical level.

Once you come to terms with your emotions and you accept them as part of you and integrate them into your being, then integrating with the Universe is physics.

I guess you are looking for a different kind of truth
Inner peace?

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:17 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am All groundings are in simples which cannot be reduced. You cannot reduce productivity without maintaining it as reductivity.
Atoms were irreducible till we reduced them.
Therefore all grounding is grounding until it's not ?

False, because the atom effectively is grounded in "particulation". All reduction is the formation of atoms through a process of divergence which allows the atom to exist for what it is: movement.

The atom is defined by divergent movement, hence the atom exists as a "means of movement". It is a boundary of change conducive to "seperation"

Even the partical/field dualism observes an inherent divergence from a field within a given context.

The atom, at its root is grounded in point space.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am Yes, and those elements interact in an infinite number of ways when other variables are involved.
Until you reduce those elements to even more parts.

More elements, more interactions - higher number of states.

False, because the phenomenon in being reduced will always exists as a relative point particle, until it is split up and the nature of point particle is maintained. Point particulate state is constant as a process of inversion from one phenomenon into many.

Take for example particle x is observed as a point particle. Upon closer inspection it is composed of further point particles, etc. All particulate states exist as relative point particles composed of further point particles where the point particle effectively exists as "change".

This applies to the pyramid thread exactly, where energy changes are observed at the apex point.

Create a point and you create change.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am Not really, I just get to the point: interaction exists through separation and connection.
And thus ignoring the asymmetry between separation: Planck-scale or a universe apart
And thus ignoring the asymmetry between connection: strong or weak forces?

False because these "frameworks" of seperation are still bound by seperation. Second these frameworks are connected through the various medial phenomenon which they measure. The planck scale a microstate, the universe a macro state. Micro and macro are relativistic measurements of the same thing.

Second, false dichotomy as strong or weak is not just relative to the context but observes (because of this dualism) a property of isomorphism where one phenomenon is observed in multiple states.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am False, the question is irrational as it can be equally stated: which is brainier a black box or computer? Invert with "computer" in place of brain or black box. The question is leading based upon an assumed value.
Then use a different black box.

Use a black box which, when given a question, any question as input. Produces an output 1 or 0.
1 means "rational question"
0 means "irrational question"

That black box is a binary classifier.

False dichotomy...for you smashing aristotelian logic all you do is revert to base dualisms. Second if a black box can observes 3 classifications is that better than 2. What about 4? And you are stuck within a regress where "accuracy" is just contextualization.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:40 am Integrate with it.
Ah well, that pursuit is resolvable both at the spiritual level and at the physical level.

Once you come to terms with your emotions and you accept them as part of you and integrate them into your being, then integrating with the Universe is physics.

I guess you are looking for a different kind of truth
Inner peace?

You tell me you are the one who pmed me about how you struggle with depression and can help others...which you can't because you can't even help yourself. Personally I don't even think you know why you are here considering philosophy, as I said before, is not a popular discipline...so whatever "monster" you deem it to be most likely is limited to some personal experience or demon you are dealing with.

That is the difference between us...you "need". A philosopher is able to put "need" into context.

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:35 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:17 pm Second if a black box can observes 3 classifications is that better than 2. What about 4? And you are stuck within a regress where "accuracy" is just contextualization.
That is most definitely not true for moral questions. We have "right" and "wrong" - those are dualism.

To make them anything else is to appeal to moral relativism. If you consider yourself a moral relativist - you are my enemy.

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:30 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:35 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:17 pm Second if a black box can observes 3 classifications is that better than 2. What about 4? And you are stuck within a regress where "accuracy" is just contextualization.
That is most definitely not true for moral questions. We have "right" and "wrong" - those are dualism.

To make them anything else is to appeal to moral relativism. If you consider yourself a moral relativist - you are my enemy.
If no absolute truth exists, no absolute morality exists. Morality and truth are inseperable as they are inherent within the nature of being.

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:30 pm If no absolute truth exists, no absolute morality exists. Morality and truth are inseperable as they are inherent within the nature of being.

I am separating truth from morality quite effectively, thank you.

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:24 pm
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:30 pm If no absolute truth exists, no absolute morality exists. Morality and truth are inseperable as they are inherent within the nature of being.

I am separating truth from morality quite effectively, thank you.
You are not separating anything other than your own sanity.

So one can be moral and lie if truth is not connected to morality at all?

Are you moral or immoral...or both?

Morality...it's nature?

Your psychology is grounded in perpetual divergence effectively replicating the same divergence you experienced in your youth...your life is just a replication of your experiences subject to recurssion...your free choice is strictly a repackaged process of the division you experience projected on the environment.

In simpler terms the world rejected you in your youth, hence you reject the world. This rejection is akin to divergence and this is where you link "free will" in. Free will is divergence to you, which is ironic because this process of rejection/divergence you experienced you also equate to chaos.

Hence from a separate respect, as evidenced by your hatred of philosophy, self proclaimed libertarian stance, anger at the goverment/people for injustices you experience, etc.... you equate your freedom of choice with chaos.

Python, lambda calc, etc. allow for this as a form of sophism which justifies your stance....you live in a loop.