The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by Skepdick »

alan1000
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 am

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by alan1000 »

Not interested in what someone on YouTube has to say. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum; summarise the argument in your own words.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by wtf »

alan1000 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:03 pm Not interested in what someone on YouTube has to say. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum; summarise the argument in your own words.
To be fair, Andrej Bauer is a famous constructive mathematician and a highly lucid and interesting expositor. The problem here is that the OP knows how to post a link, but has no actual understanding of the video himself.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by Skepdick »

alan1000 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:03 pm Not interested in what someone on YouTube has to say. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum; summarise the argument in your own words.
The summary of the argument is in the subject line. The Real numbers are countable (with the fine print being if you define everything just the right way).

The moral of the story is that Mathematics is invented, not discovered.

Because it can't be true that both the Reals have the universal property of countability, and the reals lack the universal property of countability.

The "universal property" (what a bullshit phrase) of countability in the Reals is subject to your choice of topos.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by Skepdick »

wtf wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:00 am To be fair, Andrej Bauer is a famous constructive mathematician and a highly lucid and interesting expositor. The problem here is that the OP knows how to post a link, but has no actual understanding of the video himself.
The problem with commentary like this is that the commenter doesn't even understand what it means to understand. The notion of understanding is not well-defined, yet he asserts that he posesses it while others don't. It's a bit like asserting you have consciousness - it means whatever you want it to mean.

Part and parcel of your problem is that the whole point of intuitionism is that there is nothing to understand. Every concept in Mathematics is invented by virtue of toposes being simply contexts in the internal logic of the inventor's head. By virtue of invention every concept is at best a tautology of the inventor's desires.

And Andrej Bauer himself demonstrates that if he wants the Reals to posess some universal property such as "countability" then he shall invent precisely the topos (CONTEXT!) he needs; he accepts precisely the axioms he needs to accept; and rejects precisely the axioms he needs to reject to satisfy the universal property he desires.

You have your head burried so deep up your abstract Mathematical ass that you still don't understand that there's no difference between object construction and programming. Peter Naur pointed this out in 1985.

What ivory tower Category Theorists call "universal properties" are exactly the same thing as what run-of-the-mill software engineers call interfaces.

Definition is reification.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by jayjacobus »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 9:21 am
wtf wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:00 am To be fair, Andrej Bauer is a famous constructive mathematician and a highly lucid and interesting expositor. The problem here is that the OP knows how to post a link, but has no actual understanding of the video himself.
The problem with commentary like this is that the commenter doesn't even understand what it means to understand. The notion of understanding is not well-defined, yet he asserts that he posesses it while others don't. It's a bit like asserting you have consciousness - it means whatever you want it to mean.

Part and parcel of your problem is that the whole point of intuitionism is that there is nothing to understand. Every concept in Mathematics is invented by virtue of toposes being simply contexts in the internal logic of the inventor's head. By virtue of invention every concept is at best a tautology of the inventor's desires.

And Andrej Bauer himself demonstrates that if he wants the Reals to posess some universal property such as "countability" then he shall invent precisely the topos (CONTEXT!) he needs; he accepts precisely the axioms he needs to accept; and rejects precisely the axioms he needs to reject to satisfy the universal property he desires.

You have your head burried so deep up your abstract Mathematical ass that you still don't understand that there's no difference between object construction and programming. Peter Naur pointed this out in 1985.

What ivory tower Category Theorists call "universal properties" are exactly the same thing as what run-of-the-mill software engineers call interfaces.

Definition is reification.
Mathematicians devised methods for solving problems. Those methods were always available waiting to be discovered.

Discovered doesn't mean invented.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by Skepdick »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:10 pm Mathematicians devised methods for solving problems. Those methods were always available waiting to be discovered.

Discovered doesn't mean invented.
Words, words, words. Meaningless words.

If one claims to subscribe to the axiom of non-contradiction (as Mathematicians claim that they do!) it is not possible that:

(ℝ is countable) ∧ (ℝ is not countable) ⇔ True
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by jayjacobus »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:16 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:10 pm Mathematicians devised methods for solving problems. Those methods were always available waiting to be discovered.

Discovered doesn't mean invented.
Words, words, words. Meaningless words.

If one claims to subscribe to the axiom of non-contradiction (as Mathematicians claim that they do!) it is not possible that:

(ℝ is countable) ∧ ¬(ℝ is countable) ⇔ True
My words have meaning which you can look up in a dictionary.

Your words have meaning but I don't know what you are trying to say.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by Skepdick »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:25 pm My words have meaning which you can look up in a dictionary.
The meaning of your words comes from a dictionary? Shame.

I use my words as necessary.
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:25 pm Your words have meaning but I don't know what you are trying to say.
Which part of this is confusing you?

IF one takes the axiom of non-contradiction seriously it is cannot be true that...

ℝ is countable.
AND
ℝ is not countable.

👆 That's a contradiction.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by jayjacobus »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:27 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:25 pm My words have meaning which you can look up in a dictionary.
The meaning of your words comes from a dictionary? Shame.

I use my words as necessary.
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:25 pm Your words have meaning but I don't know what you are trying to say.
Which part of this is confusing you?

IF one takes the axiom of non-contradiction seriously it is cannot be true that...

ℝ is countable.
AND
ℝ is not countable.

👆 That's a contradiction.
So don't say that.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by Skepdick »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:37 pm So don't say that.
Why not? I want to know!

Is ℝ countable; or is ℝ not countable?

Google and the status quo of Mathematics are telling me ℝ is not countable.
I have published and peer-reviewed Computer Scientist telling me ℝ is countable.

Who is lying to me? Who do I believe?!?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by jayjacobus »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:38 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:37 pm So don't say that.
Why not? I want to know!

Is ℝ countable; or is ℝ not countable?

Google and the status quo of Mathematics are telling me ℝ is not countable.
I have published and peer-reviewed Computer Scientist telling me ℝ is countable.

Who is lying to me? Who do I believe?!?
Believe who you want. I don't believe someone who contradicts himself.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by Skepdick »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:45 pm Believe who you want. I don't believe someone who contradicts himself.
That's fucking useless advice.

I want to believe true things. I don't want to believe false things. So who is telling the truth; and who is lying?

Some experts are saying ℝ is countable.
Other experts are saying ℝ is not countable.

Who should we believe when the "experts" (who keep reminding us we "have no actual understanding") are contradicting each other?!?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by jayjacobus »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:47 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:45 pm Believe who you want. I don't believe someone who contradicts himself.
That's fucking useless advice.

I want to believe true things. I don't want to believe false things. So who is telling the truth; and who is lying?

Some experts are saying ℝ is countable.
Other experts are saying ℝ is not countable.

Who should we believe when the "experts" (who keep reminding us we "have no actual understanding") are contradicting each other?!?
Catch a tiger by the toe .........
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Countable (Dedekind) Reals

Post by Skepdick »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 5:13 pm Catch a tiger by the toe .........
Uhuh... so Mathematical truths are subject to arbitrary choices?!?!
Post Reply