Mathematics is less precise than Programming

[Skepdick]

What has that got to do with, "paradox?" I'm only asking what you mean when you use the word? I'm genuinely curious.

What do you mean when you ask me what do I mean? I am genuinely curious too.

[RCSaunders]

I am genuinely curious too.

Yes you are!

[Eodnhoj7]

Truth exists through recursion.

I understand that. It doesn't seem you do.

Equality is recursively defined. This is the same as saying "precision is predicative".

Precision is not recursively definable. This is the same as saying "precision is impredicative"

You have ignored the point 3 and used a straw man....point 3 being:

"To say "precision" cannot be precisely defined is to land in a paradox given one must first know what precision is in order to say something is not precise. To say "precision" cannot be precisely defined necessitates "precision" as both known and unknown in one respect. In a further respect it is self negating given precision not being precisely defined leaves "precision" as open ended to ambiguity that further lends itself to equivocation.

You are full of contradictions as usual. To say precision cannot be precisely defined is to precisely define precision but dually stating that precision is ambiguous. "Precision" is thus dualistically divided into both being precisely defined and not precisely defined. Your core argument stems from the problem of this single axiom."

Idiot. Paradoxes are not contradictions.

Paradoxes exist.
Contradictions don't.

1. Precision is recursively definable as one must have a precise definition of precision.

2. And you seem to contradict yourself again....what is paradox? "paradox is a self-contradictory statement"

https://wikidiff.com/contradiction/para ... ference%3F

And the contradiction of 2+2=5 exists as a contradiction. 2+2=5 exists as a wrong statement therefore exists even though it is wrong.

3. Your beginning premise, that of precision, is ambiguous thus leaving the resulting argument formed from it as ambiguous.

[Skepdick]

1. Precision is recursively definable as one must have a precise definition of precision.

So define it recursively! Pick your favourite Programming language and go for it.

At which point you will be agreeing with the OP...

2. And you seem to contradict yourself again....what is paradox? "paradox is a self-contradictory statement"

From the Oxford dictionary.

A statement or proposition which on the face of it seems self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance with common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well-founded

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Precision is recursively definable as one must have a precise definition of precision.

So define it recursively! Pick your favourite Programming language and go for it.

At which point you will be agreeing with the OP...

2. And you seem to contradict yourself again....what is paradox? "paradox is a self-contradictory statement"

From the Oxford dictionary.

A statement or proposition which on the face of it seems self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance with common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well-founded

And from the same source:

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

"a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities"

But you stated precision is not precisely definable therefore if I recursively define it I would be disagreeing with you. And you still did not address the fact that contradictions do exist.

[Skepdick]

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

"a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities"

Good. Neither of the above fit the situation at hand.

But you stated precision is not precisely definable therefore if I recursively define it I would be disagreeing with you.

If you recursively define it, you would be programming... Pay attention to the thread title. Open Google. Type "Kleene's recursion theorem".

[Eodnhoj7]

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

"a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities"

Good. Neither of the above fit the situation at hand.

But you stated precision is not precisely definable therefore if I recursively define it I would be disagreeing with you.

If you recursively define it, you would be programming... Pay attention to the thread title. Open Google. Type "Kleene's recursion theorem".

1. Saying precision is not precisely defined is to combine precision and ambiguity. It fits the third definition. It very loosely, and controversially, fits the second definition given in one premise precision as defined, ie "precision exists" (ie "precision is"), then following from this premise it states it is not precise.

2. Counting is the recursion of one, recursion does not limit itself to programming it is found in basic math as well. The thread title is "Mathematics is less precise then programming" yet both rely on the repeatability of elements.

[Skepdick]

1. Saying precision is not precisely defined is to combine precision and ambiguity. It fits the third definition.

The third definition requires a contradiction. There isn't one.

It very loosely, and controversially, fits the second definition given in one premise precision as defined, ie "precision exists" (ie "precision is"), then following from this premise it states it is not precise.

There's a whole lot of things that exist which are not definable. Let alone precisely.

The Universe being most obvious example.

2. Counting is the recursion of one, recursion does not limit itself to programming it is found in basic math as well. The thread title is "Mathematics is less precise then programming" yet both rely on the repeatability of elements.

No shit. Because Mathematics is an imprecise form of programming.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Saying precision is not precisely defined is to combine precision and ambiguity. It fits the third definition.

The third definition requires a contradiction. There isn't one.

It very loosely, and controversially, fits the second definition given in one premise precision as defined, ie "precision exists" (ie "precision is"), then following from this premise it states it is not precise.

There's a whole lot of things that exist which are not definable. Let alone precisely.

The Universe being most obvious example.

2. Counting is the recursion of one, recursion does not limit itself to programming it is found in basic math as well. The thread title is "Mathematics is less precise then programming" yet both rely on the repeatability of elements.

No shit. Because Mathematics is an imprecise form of programming.

1. Precision is not precisely defined. Definition is precision. Precision is not precise.

To say "precision is not precisely definable" is to say "precision is not precise". It is a contradiction.

2. The universe is definable through the experience of it. To experience something is to experience a relationship between subject and object where this relationship between subject and object results in the definition of the very same subject and object. This unity between subject and object is definable through the act of relationship as relationship is definition.

Dually the formless nature of the totality of reality is in fact a definition through what reality is not, ie "form". It is a negative definition thus still subject to definition.

3. Yet the grounding of programming in 1's and 0's necessitates a grounding in math. Programming is an extension of mathematics, it is a subset.

[alan1000]

This particular thread has drawn comments from some very competent mathematicians. Where on earth are they hiding the rest of the time...?

[Skepdick]

This particular thread has drawn comments from some very competent mathematicians. Where on earth are they hiding the rest of the time...?

Such a peculiar comment. What decides "competence" and "incompetence" in Mathematics?

Is it socially; or objectively measured?

Example: Take the world's top 10 "most competent" Mathematicians. What empirical observation/measurement could they possibly perform in order to falsify their own competence?