√5 and Phi

[Skepdick]

Obviously that's true...

Can it be that you not only failed ninth grade high school algebra, but also don't know that this is NOT how you test for floating point equality? You're really an idiot.

Why do you need to TEST for it when you've DEFINED it to be true!

Obviously the result is true by definition.

That's the definition of a truism.

x^2 - x -1 = 0 has Φ as a solution.

NO SHIT! That's like.... the standard solution to quadratics or something.

( -b ± sqrt(b^2 - 4ac) ) / 2a

[wtf]

Obviously the result is true by definition.

That's the definition of a truism.

x^2 - x -1 = 0 has Φ as a solution.

NO SHIT! That's like.... the standard solution to quadratics or something.

( -b ± sqrt(b^ - 4ac) ) / 2a

Correct. So why'd you spend two posts stupidly saying the opposite?

[Skepdick]

Correct. So why'd you spend two posts stupidly saying the opposite?

I didn't.

I pointed out that Φ*Φ = Φ + 1

is really

f(x) = x^2 - x - 1 = 0

e.g you can generate Φ from the above. Or you can generate 1 from Φ.

Potato potatoh.

[wtf]

I pointed out that Φ*Φ = Φ + 1

is really

f(x) = x^2 - x - 1 = 0

It's not about Φ!

It's not polite to call someone an idiot, but @Skepdick I really have no alternative here. You're an idiot.

[Skepdick]

It's not polite to call someone an idiot, but @Skepdick I really have no alternative here. You're an idiot.

The feeling is mutual.

The quadratic has another root... It's not Φ. It's ( 1 - √5 ) /2.

You can see that when you represent the system as f(x) = x*x - x - 1 =0
You can't see it when you represent the system as as Φ*Φ = Φ + 1

I keep telling you that representation matters...

[wtf]

It's not polite to call someone an idiot, but @Skepdick I really have no alternative here. You're an idiot.

I keep telling you that representation matters...

You don't even understand floating point equality. Why do you persist in embarrassing yourself?

[Skepdick]

You don't even understand floating point equality. Why do you persist in embarrassing yourself?

I KNOW I don't understand it beyond approximation - that's why we have the measurement problem in quantum physics! It corresponds to the problem of equality in linear logic.

You are embarrassing yourself by pretending that you do. Dumb infinitist. You can't compute the sign of 0.00000...... even in theory. Why do you persist pretending that you can test arbitrary precision numbers for equality? In case I haven't made it clear - I am here to wreck your religion. The religion of denotational semantics.

You aren't doing infinite precision floating point anywhere. You are side-stepping floating points altogether by squaring √5.

All you are doing is mechanical symbol-swapping, without any insight. Equalities contain no information. They are definitional truisms. There's a pejorative for that in Philosophy: circular reasoning.

[nothing]

Φ*Φ = Φ + 1

The above sentence is FALSE.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=% ... E%A6+%2B+1

Are you sure you don't mean: f(Φ*Φ) = Φ + 1 ?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=f ... E%A6+%2B+1

lol according to the "technology" this person obviously relies on as authoritative, Φ²≠Φ+1.

All that followed was/is self-explanatory.

[Skepdick]

lol according to the "technology" this person obviously relies on as authoritative, Φ²≠Φ+1.

It could be either. Nobody knows what "=" or "≠" means. Those symbols don't exist in Logic - they are Mathematical/reductionist mysticism.

You can build a system in which the expression 1 = 1 is true; or a system in which 1 ≠ 1 is true. Is all just grammar/syntax.

That's why I am saying - express the system's truth-proposition first, then construct it.

[nothing]

lol according to the "technology" this person obviously relies on as authoritative, Φ²≠Φ+1.

It could be either. Nobody knows what "=" or "≠" means. Those symbols don't exist in Logic - they are Mathematical/reductionist mysticism.

You can build a system in which the expression 1 = 1 is true; or a system in which 1 ≠ 1 is true. Is all just grammar/syntax.

That's why I am saying - express the system's truth-proposition first, then construct it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Almost everyone knows what = and ≠ means: equals and equals not as they are basic rationalizing propositions (is/not),
ii. nobody actually knows what "Logic" with a capital "L" is, as it is your own local usage (if in disagreement, ask the forum to define "Logic" without guiding them and watch there be as many definitions as there are answers)
iii. there is virtually no need to build any system: the universe already exists and has/obeys a geometry concerning c (speed of light), and
iv. 1=1 is just as true as c = c ("speed" of light) wherein 1c≠1c is incoherent concerning iii, thus the only universe concerned: the "one" that exists.

Concerning your last point, and serving as the base of a discourse,
it was already brought up between us: simply let the "speed" of light c = 1.
No other parameters are needed.

The speed of light is the speed of light (though light does not actually "travel" and certainly not relative to itself unless displaced).
All that is physical (including our own physical existence) is thus a particular displacement(s) from the same,
thus obeys a geometry implicitly concerning the same c = 1. This geometry is captured by the golden mean, thus
our bodies are constructed by way of the same golden mean. This is why our bodies are in golden proportion:
we are proportioned in the "image" (line) and likeness (curve) of Φ and π.

These Φ and π are qualitative representations of the same "el" (masculine) and "im" (feminine) conjoined into elohim,
the word used in Genesis 1:1 to describe what "generates" the skies and the terrains. This is what people understand as "GOD"
however I know that an all-knowing "GOD" can not possibly be irrationally belief-based:
it must be rationally knowledge-based such to satisfy all-knowing, which must entail all: not to believe.

An all-knowing "GOD" can not possibly be itself rooted in belief,
as it would take a believer to believe in a false "GOD" (ie. "SATAN").
An all-knowing "GOD" must be rooted in the active negation of belief: KNOWLEDGE
of all: who/what/where/why/when/how NOT to "BELIEVE".

Consider in light of "believer vs. unbeliever". Which side must "SATAN" be on?

The problem with belief is it is not knowledge:
believers know not how to distinguish between knowledge and mere belief
as these are reflected in the two universal roots depicted as
the two Edenic trees: of living, and of knowledge of good and evil
the former being true knowledge, the latter being merely believing to know
while being dead wrong. This is the reason for the admonishment of Genesis 2:17
concerning believing to know good and evil: it causes death over time. Indeed,
see the believers who religiously spill blood over books and idols while
blaming others (such as "atheists") for their own crimes against humanity
("blame" is the original sin of Adam: he blamed his own iniquity on the woman, thus
blaming/scapegoating are all displacements and is like a mark worn. See hijab/niqab/burqa
as the blaming of women for the inability of men to control themselves around them.)

[Skepdick]

i. Almost everyone knows what = and ≠ means: equals and equals not as they are rationalizing propositions (is/not),

Nobody does, except by convention. Rule-following paradox..

They are just operators/imperatives in a system. They are grammatical constructs - not semantic ones.

Trivially: you subscribe to denotational semantics. I subscribe to operational semantics.

That is why from the POV of linear logic/type theory "equality" means something else entirely.

Axiomatics is the poor man’s logic --Jean-Yves Girard

ii. nobody actually knows what "Logic" with a capital "L" is, as it is your own local usage (if in disagreement, ask the forum to define "Logic" without guiding them and watch there be as many definitions as there are answers)

I can't define logic. But then again, you can't define 'define' either. That doesn't stop us from constructing the systems of logic/mathematics we need and for the purposes that we need them.

If "definition of X" means something like "description of X", then we are interpreting "definition" as Kolmogorov's descriptive complexity theory.

iii. there is virtually no need to build any system: the universe already exists and has/obeys a geometry concerning c (speed of light), and
iv. 1=1 is just as true as c = c ("speed" of light) wherein 1c≠1c is incoherent concerning iii.

Then, how come I can construct the "incoherent" grammatical system in which 1c≠1c without a contradiction arising?

You can't define "coherency"....

[nothing]

Nobody does, except by convention.

Convention is a valid property of present-day social structure - it can thus be known:
to what degrees = and ≠ are valid/invalid, which is a local knowledge/ignorance barrier.

I can't define logic. But then again, you can't define 'define' either. That doesn't stop us from constructing the systems of logic/mathematics we need and for the purposes that we need them.

If "definition of X" means something like "description of X", then we are talking about Kolmogorov's descriptive complexity.

Why would you use a word you can not define? And capitalize is as if Special?

I need not define anything: all things define themselves over time, as a function of time.
The only relevant factor is perception (or lack thereof).

Then, how come I can construct the "incoherent" system 1c≠1c without a contradiction arising?

You can't define "coherency"....

Because the "system" you are using is itself conflicted and establishes the initial displacement(s),
thus a tautology is created as rooted in, and thus limited to, the same conflict. Further, any such system
does not reflect the universe we live in, so is born and dies locally to whoever endorses it.

Just as Einstein can talk about a universe in which space "bends" and invent a theory based on this (false) premise,
you can construct whatever system you want and believe there is no contradiction. It is still a matter of perception
(or lack thereof).

edit

Trivially: you subscribe to denotational semantics. I subscribe to operational semantics.

That is why from the POV of linear logic/type theory "equality" means something else entirely.

Axiomatics is the poor man’s logic --Jean-Yves Girard

I actually don't subscribe to "denotational semantics" as I am not even talking about "programs".
I am talking about the actual universe, not a "program". If you believe the universe is a program,
I would smile and shake hands, and be on my way.

...are symbolic realizations of abstract mathematical objects, for example...

The universe certainly obeys a mathematical geometry, however it is not abstraction: it is actual. It is also actually not linear.

I neither know what "axiomatics" is or who the quoted is, and care not to know either.

[Skepdick]

Convention is a valid property of present-day social structure - it can thus be known:
to what degrees = and ≠ are valid/invalid, which is a local knowledge/ignorance barrier.

Bandwagon fallacy.

Why would you use a word you can not define? And capitalize is as if Special?

Can you define all of the words you are using? I bet you can't!

I need not define anything: all things define themselves over time, as a function of time.
The only relevant factor is perception (or lack thereof).

Can you define "time"?

Because the "system" you are using is itself conflicted

Why would you use a phrase you can't define? And italicise it as if special?

and establishes the initial displacement(s)

Does it now? Displacement (of location) is velocity. What is your current velocity?

Locus Solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

[nothing]

res

[nothing]

Bandwagon fallacy.

No actually: knowing the degrees to which any symbol is limited
marks the point whereupon one does not jump on some bandwagon
thus such discernment is the active negation of it.

Can you define all of the words you are using? I bet you can't!

Come on now, are you a child? Adults don't speak like that.

Can you define "time"?

I already did for you son.

Time is one of two aspects of motion.
The other aspect of motion is space.

s/t = speed
t/s = energy
1/1 = c (speed of light)

Therefor space and time are merely the numerator/denominator of any relation
and space and time possess an intrinsic multiplicative reciprocal relation.

This same relation is found in Φ and 1/Φ, thus acts as a "terminal" between the two.

Why would you use a phrase you can't define? And italicise it as if special?

You never answered me when I first ask you the same, so we'll leave it there
but your attempt to scapegoat is noted.

Does it now? Displacement (of location) is velocity. What is your current velocity?

Relative to what? Time is a rotating base: one solar year is shared by all every ~365(1/4) days.

Metaphysical displacements from c = 1 are different because it requires understanding what is beyond the physical.

Locus Solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

Are you on the Jean-Yves Girard bandwagon?