2+2=5

[Magnus Anderson]

I am pointing out that the "+" operator is polymorphic.

And why exactly are you pointing that out? Why should anyone care?

It only appears to you as if I am "changing" something because I am not taking any particular meaning to be the "normal" one - I am not even assuming that "1+1" is talking about integers, so you are only upset because I am not defaulting to your own cultural biases/assumptions/denotation. If I am allowed to (and excused for) depart(ing) from courtesy and politeness...

This is Eodnhoj7's thread. What he means by "2 + 2 = 5" is what is relevant. If you have no interest in that, and all you want to do is (mis)interpret him any way you like, that's fine, but then you don't have anything to say ontopic.

What does Eodnhoj8 mean by "2 + 2 = 5"? Are "2" and "2" referring to integers? Are they referring to numbers at all? If they are not, why is he not making that clear given that he's deviating from conventions? Symbols such as "2" and "5" normally represent natural numbers (and not, say, strings) and "+" normally represents addition of quantities (and not, say, concatenation.)

And what's the point of making the banal claim that there are infinitely many imaginary languages in which the expression "2 + 2 = 5" represents a true belief?

So I am most certainly NOT taking a "false expression and making it true", I am taking a meaningless expression; I am assigning meaning to the symbols and I am evaluating the expression to mean "true". Given the model!

Yes, I know, you're masturbating. You're taking another person's statement and imbuing it with your own meaning, completely disregarding the meaning they have already assigned to it.

Well, if it's so "banal" then would you kindly make explicit the model in which the meaningless English expression "It's true but kind of banal." becomes true?

It's EXTREMELY banal and you have yet to learn of that fact. And the English expression you mention is not meaningless. At best, it's you not seeing the meaning that I have attached to it, and instead of asking for clarification, you're assuming it's meaningless. "I don't understand what it means, so it has to be meaningless" kind of thing.

Or perhaps you are up for a challenge? GIve us a model in which the expression "x = x" becomes false?

Not sure why I should do this but . . . here it is: in the case that the symbol "=" stands for inequality, the expression is false. There you go. That's an example of an imaginary language in which the expression "x = x" represents a false belief.

That is a really hypocritical criticism from somebody who seems to embrace classical mathematics/logic. Your ilk constantly equivocates proof BY contradiction and proof OF contradiction.

Much like that nuance is lost on classical mathematicians/logicians; so is the nuance between equivocation and polymorphism lost on you.

The nuance isn't lost, it's merely irrelevant. It is YOU who is missing the point. You are merely projecting.

[Skepdick]

I am pointing out that the "+" operator is polymorphic.

And why exactly are you pointing that out? Why should anyone care?

And why exactly are you asking me this? Why should I care about your question?

This is Eodnhoj7's thread. What he means by "2 + 2 = 5" is what is relevant.

It is. So why are you speaking on his behalf?

If you have no interest in that, and all you want to do is (mis)interpret him any way you like, that's fine, but then you don't have anything to say ontopic.

You can't possibly determine whether I am interpreting or mis-interpeting him unless you can determine whether my interpretation coincides with his.

And I doubt you are a mind reader so... shut the fuck up?

What does Eodnhoj8 mean by "2 + 2 = 5"? Are "2" and "2" referring to integers? Are they referring to numbers at all? If they are not, why is he not making that clear given that he's deviating from conventions? Symbols such as "2" and "5" normally represent natural numbers (and not, say, strings) and "+" normally represents addition of quantities (and not, say, concatenation.)

Holy fuck! Could you be any more ingnorant and self-centered?

How could any person speaking the own language (e.g - speaking a language that is as conventional to them as your language is to you) possibly determine that their conventional language is unconventional to you ?!?

And what's the point of making the banal claim that there are infinitely many imaginary languages in which the expression "2 + 2 = 5" represents a true belief?

I am sorry. Which language isn't "imaginary" exactly? And what do you mean by "true belief".

We are talking about Mathematical self-expression here! Mathematics is not about truth.

Yes, I know, you're masturbating. You're taking another person's statement and imbuing it with your own meaning, completely disregarding the meaning they have already assigned to it.

Which is precisely what you are doing when you assign the meaning "true" and "false" to Mathematical statements which have nothing to do with truth; or falsity.

People in glas houses shouldn't throw rocks.

It's EXTREMELY banal and you have yet to learn of that fact. And the English expression you mention is not meaningless. At best, it's you not seeing the meaning that I have attached to it

Q.E.D The expression (devoid of your projected meaning upon it) is itself - meaningless.

and instead of asking for clarification, you're assuming it's meaningless. "I don't understand what it means, so it has to be meaningless" kind of thing.

Horseshit. It is precisely because the expression has absolutely no meaning (other than the meaning you project onto it) is why I am NOT jumping to asserting it being "true" or "false". It's precisely because I understand that the meaning of the expression is not IN the expression is why I am enumerating all the possible meanings that the author might have had in mind.

You on the other hand are NOT doing anything like that.

Not sure why I should do this but . . . here it is: in the case that the symbol "=" stands for inequality, the expression is false. There you go. That's an example of an imaginary language in which the expression "x = x" represents a false belief.

What could you possibly mean by (in)equality?

There are so may different notions. Surely you don't want to confuse your readers by equivocating yourself?

The nuance isn't lost, it's merely irrelevant. It is YOU who is missing the point. You are merely projecting.

How could I be "projecting" when I am continuously demonstrating that your perspective is a subset of mine?

It is utterly obvious to any non-idiot that you are projecting about me projecting.

[commonsense]

This thread is misunderstood. In stating a contradiction, such as 2+2=5, the contradiction requires non-contradictory elements to compose it. Because of this even the contradiction contains elements of truth.

The elements are thus—

For very large values of 2:

2 + 2 = 5

[Magnus Anderson]

Which language isn't "imaginary" exactly?

English language. It exists. People are using it all the time. Take a look at this forum. Everyone is speaking in English. An imaginary language, on the other hand, would be one that isn't used in practice e.g. one where "2 + 2 = 5" means "The sky is blue".

The expression (devoid of your projected meaning upon it) is itself - meaningless.

The meaning that the speaker has assigned to the word he's uttering is the meaning of that word. A meaningless word is one without meaning i.e. one where no meaning has been assigned to it by its speaker. As an example, the word "mncflkjsdorw" is meaningless because I assigned no meaning to it. All other words in this paragraph are meaningful precisely because I imbued each one of them with meaning. That's how these words are normally used. You are deviating from this norm for supposedly good reasons -- I personally doubt it. "Meaningful" does not literally mean "full of meaning" as in "if you open those things up, you'll see meanings lying in there" as if meaning is a physical component of words.

What could you possibly mean by (in)equality?

There are so may different notions. Surely you don't want to confuse your readers by equivocating yourself?

Pick any that makes "x = x" false. Is that really hard for you? Pick the most popular one, for fuck's sake.

[Skepdick]

Which language isn't "imaginary" exactly?

English language. It exists. People are using it all the time. Take a look at this forum. Everyone is speaking in English. An imaginary language, on the other hand, would be one that isn't used in practice e.g. one where "2 + 2 = 5" means "The sky is blue".

Then there is no language that is imaginary. You just used the language where "2 + 2 = 5" means "The sky is blue".

The meaning that the speaker has assigned to the word he's uttering is the meaning of that word.

So what meaning did you assign to the word "meaning" when you uttered it twice?

A meaningless word is one without meaning i.e. one where no meaning has been assigned to it by its speaker. As an example, the word "mncflkjsdorw" is meaningless because I assigned no meaning to it.

Such a peculiar idea. You assigned no meaning to a word you used. Why use the word, then if it serves no purpose? I always leave out meaningless words.

All other words in this paragraph are meaningful precisely because I imbued each one of them with meaning. That's how these words are normally used.

It doesn't matter how they are used "normally" when in this particular case you used it however you used it.

So how did you use the word "mncflkjsdorw"?

You are deviating from this norm for supposedly good reasons -- I personally doubt it. "Meaningful" does not literally mean "full of meaning" as in "if you open those things up, you'll see meanings lying in there" as if meaning is a physical component of words.

Yeah... I have no idea what meaning is. I just know how to use the word.

Pick any that makes "x = x" false. Is that really hard for you? Pick the most popular one, for fuck's sake.

It's not hard for me at all. But I am trying to understand which one YOU mean.

You know - since you don't want to confuse me with your equivocation.

Alas, since I understand polymorphism and you clearly don't perhaps you are not aware that the truth-value of the expression "x = x" depends on the value of x. It's true for some values of x and false for others; and 42 for yet another. You know... because that's what polymorphism is.

universe.png (39.93 KiB) Viewed 2121 times

[Magnus Anderson]

Then there is no language that is imaginary. You just used the language where "2 + 2 = 5" means "The sky is blue".

I brought one of them into existence. I didn't bring all of them.

So what meaning did you assign to the word "meaning" when you uttered it twice?

See this post. It explains what the word "meaning" means with respect to statements.

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set". If a word lacks both components, it's a meaningless word. If it has one or both, it's a meaningful word. Take "square circle" as an example. The set of all things that can be represented by that word is an empty one, therefore, this component is non-existent. But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established. That component can be captured with "Every shape that is both a square and a circle". So the word is meaningful rather than meaningless even though ultimately unable to represent anything.

Such a peculiar idea. You assigned no meaning to a word you used. Why use the word, then if it serves no purpose? I always leave out meaningless words.

The word does have a purpose but it has no meaning.

So how did you use the word "mncflkjsdorw"?

It's a meaningless word. Wasn't that clear? It lacks both components. The set of all things that can be represented by it is empty and there are no rules you can use to deduce that set.

It doesn't matter how they are used "normally" when in this particular case you used it however you used it.

I was talking about "meaning" and "meaningless".

Alas, since I understand polymorphism and you clearly don't perhaps you are not aware that the truth-value of the expression "x = x" depends on the value of x.

It;s a banality.

[commonsense]

Meaning is ultimately derived from convention. Some words have multiple meanings, all of which are determined by agreement among users of them. A speaker may select among available agreed-upon meanings. Words can also be used incorrectly. New words (previously imaginary) creep into language based on accepted usage.

Is it not interesting how philosophy of logic and philosophy of language overlap?

[Skepdick]

Then there is no language that is imaginary. You just used the language where "2 + 2 = 5" means "The sky is blue".

I brought one of them into existence. I didn't bring all of them.

You did, exactly as you mentioned "all of them".

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set".

So what does the word "representation" represent?

If a word lacks both components, it's a meaningless word. If it has one or both, it's a meaningful word. Take "square circle" as an example. The set of all things that can be represented by that word is an empty one, therefore, this component is non-existent.

Sooooo if "square circles" has non-existent components... surely that implies it represents nothing.

But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established. That component can be captured with "Every shape that is both a square and a circle". So the word is meaningful rather than meaningless even though ultimately unable to represent anything.

Didn't you just say that meaning is the set of all things that can be represented by that word?

Surely that implies that if a word/phrase/expression doesn't represent anything then... it's meaningless?

If meaning implies representation; then no representation implies no meaning. Modus tollens.

The word does have a purpose but it has no meaning.

So the meaning of a word can't be its purpose? Surely those are not mutually exclusive!

It's a meaningless word. Wasn't that clear? It lacks both components. The set of all things that can be represented by it is empty and there are no rules you can use to deduce that set.

Why do you say that? At the very least the word represents itself, and if its purpose was to represent a meaningless word then it seems like a perfectly meaningful thing to say.

I was talking about "meaning" and "meaningless".

I know what you are talking about. I am trying to understand why continue to fail to understand polymorphism.

The word "meaning" is itself polymorphic. Have I not demonstrated this to you enough?

It;s a banality.

For 2500+ years the entire field of Mathematics has been unable to agree on what it means for two things to be "equal", but to you it's a banality.
Literally the entire field of Metaphysics and Identity has been debating over sameness and difference for millenia (without resuliton).

But to you, it's banality. Ever get the feeling that your hubris gets the better of you?

[Skepdick]

Meaning is ultimately derived from convention. Some words have multiple meanings, all of which are determined by agreement among users of them. A speaker may select among available agreed-upon meanings. Words can also be used incorrectly. New words (previously imaginary) creep into language based on accepted usage.

Is it not interesting how philosophy of logic and philosophy of language overlap?

If two interlocutors are able to understand each other, despite the "non-standard" meaning of the words used, then I have no idea what it means for a word to be used "incorrectly'. There's no 3rd party to settle such disputes in a dialogue!

Language evolves in real time. Flexible people are able to play the game; detect that something's amiss and re-negotiate terminology as part of the conversation.

Inflexible people bicker over "acceptable" and "unacceptable" use of words; and "breaking of rules". It's now on trial, no longer in a dialogue.

[commonsense]

Meaning is ultimately derived from convention. Some words have multiple meanings, all of which are determined by agreement among users of them. A speaker may select among available agreed-upon meanings. Words can also be used incorrectly. New words (previously imaginary) creep into language based on accepted usage.

Is it not interesting how philosophy of logic and philosophy of language overlap?

If two interlocutors are able to understand each other, despite the "non-standard" meaning of the words used, then I have no idea what it means for a word to be used "incorrectly'. There's no 3rd party to settle such disputes in a dialogue!

Language evolves in real time. Flexible people are able to play the game; detect that something's amiss and re-negotiate terminology as part of the conversation.

Inflexible people bicker over "acceptable" and "unacceptable" use of words; and "breaking of rules". It's now on trial, no longer in a dialogue.

Yes, all true. Incorrect usage occurs only when the parties involved do not have a mutual understanding. Anytime the parties are in agreement, there’s an acceptable usage.

[Magnus Anderson]

Didn't you just say that meaning is the set of all things that can be represented by that word?

No.

This is what I said:

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set".

It's a combination of TWO things. It's the set of all things that can be represented by that word PLUS the collection of rules that can be used to deduce that set.

Surely that implies that if a word/phrase/expression doesn't represent anything then... it's meaningless?

No.

At the very least the word represents itself

It doesn't represent itself.

and if its purpose was to represent a meaningless word then it seems like a perfectly meaningful thing to say.

It seems that way because you're failing to understand the way the word "meaning" is defined. And you don't, I believe, because you're trying way to hard to disagree and to be different.

I am trying to understand why continue to fail to understand polymorphism.

And I am trying to understand why you continue to fail to understand that I do actually understand polymorphism.

[Magnus Anderson]

If two interlocutors are able to understand each other, despite the "non-standard" meaning of the words used, then I have no idea what it means for a word to be used "incorrectly'. There's no 3rd party to settle such disputes in a dialogue!

Language evolves in real time. Flexible people are able to play the game; detect that something's amiss and re-negotiate terminology as part of the conversation.

Inflexible people bicker over "acceptable" and "unacceptable" use of words; and "breaking of rules". It's now on trial, no longer in a dialogue.

Language is indeed a flexible thing that can change over time. That much is true but also (yet again) rather banal. It is you who is missing a very subtle point. Namely, any change can be a change towards the better or towards the worse. If you're changing language towards the worse, you are creating confusion and making it unnecessarily difficult for people to communicate (e.g. to share wisdom.) And if you're doing it on purpose, say because you want to keep or make people dumb, the consequences are even worse.

[Skepdick]

Didn't you just say that meaning is the set of all things that can be represented by that word?

No.

This is what I said:

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set".

It's a combination of TWO things. It's the set of all things that can be represented by that word PLUS the collection of rules that can be used to deduce that set.

I understood you perfectly, but you don't appear to be understanding me; or my critique! Neither of those conditions are satisfiable given your examples.

Nobody is disagreeing with your method of deducing the set. I am pointing out that the deduced set is empty.
Because the set is empty - there are NO examples of the objects you are talking about. The objects you are talking about are NOT real.
Because the objects you are talking about are NOT real - they don't refer to any part of reality. And so by your very own criterion - meaningless.

I don't think you understand the notion of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realizability]

No.

Yes.

I don't think you understand the notion of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realizability]

At the very least the word represents itself

It doesn't represent itself.

Bullshit! That's what words do! They represent stuff! Sometimes (very often, in fact!) they represent themselves.

The word "representation" represents representation!

It seems that way because you're failing to understand the way the word "meaning" is defined.

No such failure is occurring. I understanding your definition, I just don't think it relates to how you are actualy using the word.

Said differently. Your definition fails to account for all the various, polymorphic ways in which you actually use the word "meaning".

And you don't, I believe, because you're trying way to hard to disagree and to be different.

You believe wrong. I shall repeat myself...

Your definition of the word "meaning" fails to account for all the various, polymorphic ways in which you actually use the word "meaning".

And I am trying to understand why you continue to fail to understand that I do actually understand polymorphism.

Then why did you mistake polymorphism for equivocation?

[Skepdick]

If two interlocutors are able to understand each other, despite the "non-standard" meaning of the words used, then I have no idea what it means for a word to be used "incorrectly'. There's no 3rd party to settle such disputes in a dialogue!

Language evolves in real time. Flexible people are able to play the game; detect that something's amiss and re-negotiate terminology as part of the conversation.

Inflexible people bicker over "acceptable" and "unacceptable" use of words; and "breaking of rules". It's now on trial, no longer in a dialogue.

Language is indeed a flexible thing that can change over time. That much is true but also (yet again) rather banal. It is you who is missing a very subtle point. Namely, any change can be a change towards the better or towards the worse. If you're changing language towards the worse, you are creating confusion and making it unnecessarily difficult for people to communicate (e.g. to share wisdom.) And if you're doing it on purpose, say because you want to keep or make people dumb, the consequences are even worse.

The subtle point that keeps going over your head is that it's precisely your mindset and set of values that makes people dumb; and things worse!

The permeating idea of Logocentrism (fucking Plato!) creates a false expectation that language represents the world in some clear, concise and standardised way. That's not true even in Mathematics - the bastion of precision.

The extrememeties of this idiocy can be seen amongst religions, and even philosophers - constantly engaging in linguistic warfare. Just because the language differs, doesn't mean the message isn't the same. So the nett effect of such stupidity is people wasting their lives away fighting over descriptions. Is China communist or capitalist? Is the color of this sentence red; or blue?.

Does it fucking matter? What's the implication if the distinction?

In a multi-cultural society the skill of code-switching is more important than ever, and yet - some people are simply incapable of adapting to new uses of language in real time.

Being unable to code-switch is certainly an individual inadequacy which hinders communication.

[Magnus Anderson]

Nobody is disagreeing with your method of deducing the set. I am pointing out that the deduced set is empty.
Because the set is empty - there are NO examples of the objects you are talking about. The objects you are talking about are NOT real.
Because the objects you are talking about are NOT real - they don't refer to any part of reality. And so by your very own criterion - meaningless.

You really have to reduce the amount of time you spend blabbering -- that's what you're doing, you're endlessly blabbering -- and increase the amount of time you spend listening to what other people are saying. Either that or you will be ignored and left on your own.

Pay attention to what has been said, you spoiled brat.

If you want to know what the word "meaning" means with respect to words, it's something along the lines of "the set of all things that can be represented by that word + the set of rules that are used to deduce that set". If a word lacks both components, it's a meaningless word. If it has one or both, it's a meaningful word. Take "square circle" as an example. The set of all things that can be represented by that word is an empty one, therefore, this component is non-existent. But on the other hand, the set of rules used to deduce the aforementioned set is not an empty one, since it's well established. That component can be captured with "Every shape that is both a square and a circle". So the word is meaningful rather than meaningless even though ultimately unable to represent anything.

Read that carefully. Read it several times. If you still don't see where you're making a mistake, ask. Don't presume. Either that or this discussion is over.