"You have STILL FAILED to PROVE ANY CLAIM you have made so, which I have QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED you about."
I can't talk to you, bruh. You're like an 87 Macintosh computer stuck in the production of repetitious code script.
You might have a 'condition' of some kind but I dunno. Or maybe you discovered a philosophy book in a library when you shoulda stayed in the other section.
Occam's Razor vs. Principa Mathematica
-
- Posts: 4932
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Occam's Razor vs. Principa Mathematica
BUT I was Right. You just ASSUMED Wrongly.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 5:56 amIt's true. I assumed there was the outside possiblity of Ken being right on some matter.
Just like you have, ONCE AGAIN, ASSUMED Wrong here.
SEE, you KEEP ASSUMING that I can NOT be Right on SOME, or ANY, matter. YET, you have NEVER even come close to SHOWING me being Wrong on ANY matter AT ALL.
For being Wrong on just about EVERY ASSUMPTION that you have made with me is 'self-administered PUNISHMENT'.
I would NEVER want to 'punish' you for being SO Wrong, SO OFTEN, because you do this is PROVING me IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.
What 'you' ARE ACTUALLY DOING HERE is PROVING me Right.
But NO one wants you to STOP ASSUMING Wrong things, especially if you do NOT want to STOP ASSUMING them "yourself".FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 5:56 am please say LOL, LOL, LOL at me, in that ever so effective way you have of doing things in threes. I will reform.
Last edited by Age on Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Occam's Razor vs. Principa Mathematica
If that is ALL you can SEE, then that is ALL you will GET.promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:14 pm "You have STILL FAILED to PROVE ANY CLAIM you have made so, which I have QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED you about."
I can't talk to you, bruh. You're like an 87 Macintosh computer stuck in the production of repetitious code script.
Or, you, supposedly, "can NOT" talk to because if you were to ACCEPT my CHALLENGES, and/or ANSWER my QUESTIONS posed to you, then you might just completely and utterly CONTRADICT "yourself", which you might not want to do.promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:14 pm You might have a 'condition' of some kind but I dunno. Or maybe you discovered a philosophy book in a library when you shoulda stayed in the other section.
Let us NOT FORGET that You have STILL FAILED to even attempt PROVE ANY CLAIM you have made, which I have QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED you about, and I, OBVIOUSLY, would NOT be repetitious in my CHALLENGES and in my QUESTIONS regarding your DIFFERENT CLAIMS.
Even your CLAIM and VERY WEAK EXCUSE for NOT talking to me, or, MORE CORRECTLY, ONLY talking to me when you WANT TO, you are completely and utterly UNABLE to PROVE True. And, the reason you do NOT PROVE your CLAIMS True, like will NOT do with THIS ONE, is because you can NOT.
-
- Posts: 4932
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Occam's Razor vs. Principa Mathematica
Bruh. All you do is interrogate... like that disagreeable angry kid on Ritalin at the back of the classroom that nobody will hang out with. If I were to EXPLAIN anything to you, I'd only be assualted by another wave of unintelligible interrogation.
Been there done that, haus. I've been around the block a few times and know 'em when I see 'em.
Been there done that, haus. I've been around the block a few times and know 'em when I see 'em.
Re: Occam's Razor vs. Principa Mathematica
"The principle mathematical "proof" that 1+1=2 is 360 pages. Occam's Razor cuts that to: 'One plus one equals two because we all believe that it does.'"
So mathematical truth is determined by democratic vote, not reasoned argument, as some of us were naive enough to believe?
"Anything that a 5 year old can understand should not require 360 pages"
It's because people like Russell and Whitehead did the hard yards up the middle that 5-yr-olds can claim to know that 1+1=2.
So mathematical truth is determined by democratic vote, not reasoned argument, as some of us were naive enough to believe?
"Anything that a 5 year old can understand should not require 360 pages"
It's because people like Russell and Whitehead did the hard yards up the middle that 5-yr-olds can claim to know that 1+1=2.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Occam's Razor vs. Principa Mathematica
Russell's works of which that trivial 350 pages is just a tiny part (and of the abridged version at that) was set up to prove all mathematical foundations from a single logic. Godel proved that though we can prove most particular concerns taken one at a time, we cannot prove all such problems with absolute closure (his Incompleteness Theorem). These efforts helps prove more concretely the connections of all maths and improved how the proofs within particular math courses are presented. It was meant to serve as an extension in respect to Newton's Physics effort in his own "Principia Mathematica" (and why Russell chose this as the main title of his works)alan1000 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:52 pm "The principle mathematical "proof" that 1+1=2 is 360 pages. Occam's Razor cuts that to: 'One plus one equals two because we all believe that it does.'"
So mathematical truth is determined by democratic vote, not reasoned argument, as some of us were naive enough to believe?
"Anything that a 5 year old can understand should not require 360 pages"
It's because people like Russell and Whitehead did the hard yards up the middle that 5-yr-olds can claim to know that 1+1=2.
So it wasn't merely about demonstrating the intuited definition that "1+1=2" represents.
Re: Occam's Razor vs. Principa Mathematica
I guess this thread has drawn to a natural end, and I hope all readers have been able to follow the extremely elevated and rarefied level of intellectual discourse.