Mathematics is less precise than Programming

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:53 pm Computer programs are only more precise if one is only referring to the limits of a particular programming language. No digital processor is capable of either the precision or accuracy of mathematics itself.
You are confusing symbolic and numerical computation.

if Mathematical symbols, expressions or formulas "themselves" have any such notion of precision then those same expressions can be represented on a computer.

If the notation on paper is "precise" then the notation in memory is just as precise.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:53 pm I think you are confusing precision and accuracy
No, I am not. I am talking about the unambiguous identification of Mathematical objects.

I am talking about the disambiguation/unique identification of equality proofs. The identity type.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:15 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:53 pm Computer programs are only more precise if one is only referring to the limits of a particular programming language. No digital processor is capable of either the precision or accuracy of mathematics itself.
You are confusing symbolic and numerical computation.

if Mathematical symbols, expressions or formulas "themselves" have any such notion of precision then those same expressions can be represented on a computer.

If the notation on paper is "precise" then the notation in memory is just as precise.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:53 pm I think you are confusing precision and accuracy
No, I am not. I am talking about the unambiguous identification of Mathematical objects.

I am talking about the disambiguation/unique identification of equality proofs. The identity type.
Oh, sorry. I thought you wee talking about actual mathematics, not these mystic fictions. "Mathematical objects," belong in Alice's Wonderland.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:58 pm Oh, sorry. I thought you wee talking about actual mathematics, not these mystic fictions. "Mathematical objects," belong in Alice's Wonderland.
"Actual mathematics"? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What the hell is that?!?

What IS Mathematics?
What is Mathematics ABOUT?

Find me somebody who can answer these questions. Most Mathematicians don't even understand the difference between syntax and semantics.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 9:53 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:58 pm Oh, sorry. I thought you wee talking about actual mathematics, not these mystic fictions. "Mathematical objects," belong in Alice's Wonderland.
"Actual mathematics"? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What the hell is that?!?

What IS Mathematics?
What is Mathematics ABOUT?

Find me somebody who can answer these questions. Most Mathematicians don't even understand the difference between syntax and semantics.
Well, don't worry yourself about it. Most philosophers don't either, because everyone tries to turn everything into some kind of mystical or metaphysical nonsense.

Mathematics is nothing more than the human invented method of identifying those attributes of real things that can be counted, or by the analogous method of commensurable metrics, measured.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:07 am Well, don't worry yourself about it. Most philosophers don't either, because everyone tries to turn everything into some kind of mystical or metaphysical nonsense.

Mathematics is nothing more than the human invented method of identifying those attributes of real things that can be counted, or by the analogous method of commensurable metrics, measured.
You don't even know what metrics or measurements are.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:21 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:07 am Well, don't worry yourself about it. Most philosophers don't either, because everyone tries to turn everything into some kind of mystical or metaphysical nonsense.

Mathematics is nothing more than the human invented method of identifying those attributes of real things that can be counted, or by the analogous method of commensurable metrics, measured.
You don't even know what metrics or measurements are.
If you say so.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm Your use of the word "idiot" is a projection of your own inadequacies in argumentation.
No, it isn't. It's an objective assertion about your argumentation strategy based on evidence.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm Your words not mine: "Aside from the fact that "precision" is not precisely definable..."

I never said precision is not definable....you did and then built an argument around precision.
Q.E.D You struggle with basic reading comprehension. I didn't say precision is not definable.

I said precision is not precisely definable.

You misrepresented my words so they are easier to attack (which is a strawman argument).

That is why you are an idiot.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm y̶o̶u̶ I contradict y̶o̶u̶r̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ myself in one respect while dually twisting what I̶ you wrote....
Fixed if for you.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm Dually your grounding for what constitutes precision lies in intuition, not logic, about which phrase is more precise.
It lies in empiricism. Given two phrases (A and B) you have three possible relations between them.

1. Phrase A is more precise than B: Precision(A) > Precision(B)
2. Phrase B is more precise than A: Precision(B) > Precision(A)
3. Phrase A and B are equally precise: Precision(A) = Precision(B)
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm You have no definition of precision other than a subjective hunch about what "feels" more appropriate.
I have a subjective judgment/assertion based on the objective properties of the two expressions on which one is more precise.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm One can feel just about anything and this does not render a point valid or even moot...it is just a feeling.
What's the difference between a "feeling" and "just a feeling". What does "just" feel like?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm In observing the differences between sentence 1 and 2 of your examples one may equally feel 1 is more precise as it is simpler and more general because it is covering a multitude of phenomenon.
Which is precisely why it's not precise - it's ambiguous.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm Sentence 2 may be felt as less precise because the pedantry (ie too much detail) lends itself to obscurity.
And yet you know precisely which cup of tea I am talking about.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm Precision is thus subject not only to the angle of observation but it dependent upon the simplest and most unified way of expressing a phenomenon.
See! You agree with me. Expressing A phenomenon - singular. Not phenomena - plural!
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm I know what precision is, it is definition (and definition is the observation of relations (the observation of relations is the manifestation of parts (the manifestation of parts is division (the manifestation of division is opposition))) etc.....the definitions go on until eventually they loop back.
That's an imprecise definition of "definition".

Definitions never loop back. Definitions are recursive. It's definitions all the way down.
1. Evidence is interpretations of relations. Your use of idiot is just a perspective.

2. If one is absent of a precise definition one is absent of a complete definition thus there is an absence of definition. Precision as not being precisely definable necessitates an absence of definition thus precision is not definable in the strictest sense of the word given it cannot be totally explained. Hence my point still stands, you did not define precision in its totality thus leaving grounds for equivocation. A thing not described in its totality is not defined. A partial definition is not a full definition, a partial definition (as lacking full definition) is not a definition considering it is lacking definition.

3. To say A is more precise than B is to use intuition given this intuition is the grounding of any decision where the base axiom of said decision is not fully defined. "Precision" is not fully defined thus is undefined.

4. A feeling is a connection to basic axioms one believes. Given one may believe a variety of axioms one may feel just about anything as long it is justified by said axioms. There are no rules in choosing one axiom of belief over another as anything may be believed. Even to form rules over what to believe is in itself a belief. A feeling is thus a connection to one's core axioms where seemingly seperate phenomenon are connected through an absence of reasoning.

5. To localize one phenomenon across many is precision. This localization comes under the form of a generality. This is where the paradox results. One maintains precision through generalities as these generalities are singular unified thing, but with the absence of generalization comes a fragmentation where one phenomenon is broken down into many parts.

6. With the increase in definition of one cup from many comes an obscurity where the one cup is seperated from the many. This absence of the singularity of the one "cup" is a fragmentation of the one definition into many where there are now many cups. A generality in these terms is more precise as it represents only one thing. To divide this one thing into many, through pedantry, results in many cups thus an ambiguity over what a cup is and is not. Precision thus paradoxically kills precision as the one general is fragmented into many.

7. Recursion is the manifestation of one thing under a new form where core elements repeat. Observing the number two as the recursion of one is just one example. Recursion results in fractals, fractal result in repetition, repetition is a looping of the original event.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:58 am 1. Evidence is interpretations of relations.
No, it isn't. Interpretation itself depends on relations.

You are completely oblivious to the fact that saying "evidence is interpretation of relations" is the relation of "evidence" to the "interpretation of relations"

What is "is"? It's the equality relation.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:58 am 2. If one is absent of a precise definition one is absent of a complete definition thus there is an absence of definition. Precision as not being precisely definable necessitates an absence of definition thus precision is not definable in the strictest sense of the word given it cannot be totally explained.
All words are like that. What do you mean by "complete", "definition", "totally" and "explained"?

Your ramblings are incoherent as usual.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:20 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:58 am 1. Evidence is interpretations of relations.
No, it isn't. Interpretation itself depends on relations.

You are completely oblivious to the fact that saying "evidence is interpretation of relations" is the relation of "evidence" to the "interpretation of relations"

What is "is"? It's the equality relation.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:58 am 2. If one is absent of a precise definition one is absent of a complete definition thus there is an absence of definition. Precision as not being precisely definable necessitates an absence of definition thus precision is not definable in the strictest sense of the word given it cannot be totally explained.
All words are like that. What do you mean by "complete", "definition", "totally" and "explained"?

Your ramblings are incoherent as usual.
1. The relation of "evidence" to "the interpretation of relations" is in itself a meta "interpretation of interpretation" or "evidence of evidence" (however you choose to observe it). As such all truth exists through recursion, but this not take away from the fact that "evidence" equates to "interpretation".

All phenomenon as composed of parts are composed of relations and exist as relations. These phenomenon, as composed of relations, are in themselves parts to further phenomena thus exist as relations. Evidence is the observations of said relations and the relations which compose said relations thus is the interpretation of relations within relations. This interpretation is an observation of said relations where the subject and object (ie relations) are unified. Evidence is interpretation, interpretation is the absence of dichotomy between subject and object.


2. Not all words but rather all symbols are like that thus necessitating a paradox in you trying to argue that programming is more precise than math given precision is not fully known. You hinge your argument off a key word which lends itself to ambiguity and even admit that this ambiguity is present given "precision" cannot be "precisely" defined. Your argument fails when the axiom (ie "precision") is put into question. Dually rather than defining precision you give an example of what "feels" like precision to you when this feeling, as argued above, can be dually inverted in observing the opposite.

Going to the example of a tea cup, breaking the single solitary teacup into multiple teacups through the use of defining the teacup further only causes the definition of tea cup to fragment into multiple parts thus negating the unity necessary for precision. To say "tea cup" is to present a unified precise definition of a phenomenon. To say "tea cup with x characteristics" is to seperate the one tea cup into many thus dividing the definition of what a teacup really is or is not.

2a. "Completeness" is the absence of any further definition needed. Completeness is the fullness of definition where something cannot be defined any further.

2b. "Definition" is the relation of parts and how they interacted.

2c. "Totally" is the absence of any further phenomenon where all that can be observed is observed.

2d. "Explained" is the attachment of symbols to a definition in order to express it in a new form. The relations of parts and there interaction are observed and symbols are attached to these phenomenon so that the relations can be seen from a different angle in one respect while allowing for the shared communication of what is observed in a different respect.

3. "Your ramblings are incoherent as usual" is again just a projection on your part...half of what you say only makes sense to you. 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.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:19 pm 1. The relation of "evidence" to "the interpretation of relations" is in itself a meta "interpretation of interpretation" or "evidence of evidence" (however you choose to observe it). As such all truth exists through recursion, but this not take away from the fact that "evidence" equates to "interpretation".

All phenomenon as composed of parts are composed of relations and exist as relations.
Blah blah blah. Equation IS one kind of relation.

"=" relates "4 to 2+2
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:19 pm 1. The relation of "evidence" to "the interpretation of relations" is in itself a meta "interpretation of interpretation" or "evidence of evidence" (however you choose to observe it). As such all truth exists through recursion, but this not take away from the fact that "evidence" equates to "interpretation".

All phenomenon as composed of parts are composed of relations and exist as relations.
Blah blah blah. Equation IS one kind of relation.

"=" relates "4 to 2+2
I thought the "blah, blah, blah" was a really fitting way to express yourself, it is a accurate way of summating what you post. I never said an equation is not a relation but rather implied it is a relation composed of relations much in the same manner evidence is composed of meta-evidence or interpretations are composed of meta-interpretations. Truth exists through recursion.

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."
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:03 pm 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"
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:03 pm 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.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:14 am Paradoxes exist.
Contradictions don't.
What in the world, then, is a paradox?
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:11 pm What in the world, then, is a paradox?
"Precision" is not precisely definable.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mathematics is less precise than Programming

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:31 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:11 pm What in the world, then, is a paradox?
"Precision" is not precisely definable.
What has that got to do with, "paradox?" I'm only asking what you mean when you use the word? I'm genuinely curious.
Post Reply