(0=0)=(1=1)

[Magnus Anderson]

Have you ever heard of dependent types?
One can trivially stratify true and false as 1 and 0. Very useful if you want a system closed under equality.

Is someone paying you to do this? Or are you simply unaware?

Threads can be started that either intentionally or unintentionally promote equivocation. The thesis of the opening post of this thread is that "1=0". Normally, what that statement means is something along the lines of "One apple is the same as no apples". Of course, the author never really said what he means by that statement, so he is free to, at some later point in time, say that he didn't really commit equivocation but merely spoke in a non-standard language. Either way, people will interpret his statement the way it is normally interpreted, paving the way for the promotion of equivocation, regardless of the author's intentions and arguments.

That's why I'm asking you the above question. Is someone paying you to promote these ideas? Are you doing it knowingly (you are aware of its negative effect on human intelligence) or are you doing it unknowingly (genuinely believing you're promoting great ideas)?

You don't have to answer. I don't want to hear your answer.

Instead, can you answer this question for me:

What did the author of this thread mean when he said "1=0"?

If he's using the symbol "1" to mean "true" and "0" to mean "false", he's still deducing incorrectly. Both (0=0) and (1=1) reduce to true (and hence to "1" in his own, C-like, language). It is NOT the case that one reduces to true ("1") and another to false ("0"). Both reduce to true ("1"), and so, in his C-like language, they reduce to "1=1" and not "1=0".

[Skepdick]

Have you ever heard of dependent types?
One can trivially stratify true and false as 1 and 0. Very useful if you want a system closed under equality.

Is someone paying you to do this? Or are you simply unaware?

Threads can be started that either intentionally or unintentionally promote equivocation.

Why would you strawman my position like this? I have explained (over and over) that I am promoting polymorphism, not equivocation. Why do you choose to ignore the distinction, even though it has been repeatedly explained out to you?
At some point I must assume that you are intentionally misrepresenting me.

I am clearly displaying a broader awareness than you are. You are merely repeating what the orthodoxy told you; while I am presenting an alternative, and more expressive choice!

Perhaps somebody is paying you to actively undermine freedom of expression?

The thesis of the opening post of this thread is that "1=0". Normally, what that statement means is something along the lines of "One apple is the same as no apples"

No it doesn't. There's more than one Mathematician on this forum who would tell you that there is no relationship between Mathematics and apples.

Of course, you are welcome to use Mathematics to talk about apples. But Mathematics is about something much more important!

Abstract reasoning. And what you are doing by peddling the "normal interpretation" is promoting group think. Fuck off - there's nothing more harmful than a monoculture of thought - we don't need parrots, we need people who can think for themselves.

That's why I'm asking you the above question. Is someone paying you to promote these ideas? Are you doing it knowingly (you are aware of its negative effect on human intelligence) or are you doing it unknowingly (genuinely believing you're promoting great ideas)?

Are you promoting orthodoxy intentionally? Is somebody paying you to promote those ideas? Are you aware of its negative effects on human intelligence?

What did the author of this thread mean when he said "1=0"?

While we are asking rethorical questions let me ask you this... what do you mean by meaning?

Do you mean denotational semantics?
Do you mean operational semantics?
Do you mean axiomatic semantics?
Do you mean something else altogether?

There's a good reason why I am asking you a recursive question... maybe you'll connect the dots to computer science.

If he's using the symbol "1" to mean "true" and "0" to mean "false", he's still deducing incorrectly.

What do you mean by "incorrectly"? If there is an algorithm - a working decider which can be realized on a computer then what is it that you are objecting to?

The reasoning is the reasoning. Your moral opinion on its "correctness" is moot.

Both (0=0) and (1=1) reduce to true (and hence to "1" in his own, C-like, language). It is NOT the case that one reduces to true ("1") and another to false ("0"). Both reduce to true ("1"), and so, in his C-like language, they reduce to "1=1" and not "1=0".

So what? Every programming language is its own, unique model of computation. As long as it follows its own rules - its conclusions are valid.

[Eodnhoj7]

What does (0=0)=(1=1) mean?

I suppose that it means "The truth value of 0=0 is equal to the truth value of 1=1".

If so, the truth value of "0=0" isn't "0" but "true"; and the truth value of "1=1" isn't "1" but "true".

Thus, true=true rather than 0=1.

But (0=0)=(1=1) as true reduces to 0=1; (0=0) reduces to 0, (1=1) reduces to 1.

(0=0) reduces to "true", (1=1) also reduces to "true". "True", on the other hand, does not reduce to a number.

Considering truth is existence and numbers exist then truth is reducible to a number as truth and number are tied together by the underlying quality of existence both share.

[Eodnhoj7]

Have you ever heard of dependent types?
One can trivially stratify true and false as 1 and 0. Very useful if you want a system closed under equality.

Is someone paying you to do this? Or are you simply unaware?

Threads can be started that either intentionally or unintentionally promote equivocation. The thesis of the opening post of this thread is that "1=0". Normally, what that statement means is something along the lines of "One apple is the same as no apples". Of course, the author never really said what he means by that statement, so he is free to, at some later point in time, say that he didn't really commit equivocation but merely spoke in a non-standard language. Either way, people will interpret his statement the way it is normally interpreted, paving the way for the promotion of equivocation, regardless of the author's intentions and arguments.

That's why I'm asking you the above question. Is someone paying you to promote these ideas? Are you doing it knowingly (you are aware of its negative effect on human intelligence) or are you doing it unknowingly (genuinely believing you're promoting great ideas)?

You don't have to answer. I don't want to hear your answer.

Instead, can you answer this question for me:

What did the author of this thread mean when he said "1=0"?

If he's using the symbol "1" to mean "true" and "0" to mean "false", he's still deducing incorrectly. Both (0=0) and (1=1) reduce to true (and hence to "1" in his own, C-like, language). It is NOT the case that one reduces to true ("1") and another to false ("0"). Both reduce to true ("1"), and so, in his C-like language, they reduce to "1=1" and not "1=0".

The numbers 1 and 0 can equivocate through a simple act of measurement:

1. There is only the totality, ie everything.
2. As there is only the totality this totality is 1.
3. However considering there is only the totality there is no comparison for it necessary for it to take form thus it is 'void' or 0.
4. 1=0 through the totality.

[Magnus Anderson]

The numbers 1 and 0 can equivocate through a simple act of measurement:

1. There is only the totality, ie everything.
2. As there is only the totality this totality is 1.
3. However considering there is only the totality there is no comparison for it necessary for it to take form thus it is 'void' or 0.
4. 1=0 through the totality.

I disagree with your premise #3. But even if we accept it, your conclusion does not follow. What follows is that nothing can exist. For as soon as something comes into existence, we have one totality of everything that exists. And since there is nothing outside of the totality to compare that totality to, it follows, thanks to your premise #3, that that totality of existence is actually non-existence.

[Skepdick]

The numbers 1 and 0 can equivocate through a simple act of measurement:

1. There is only the totality, ie everything.
2. As there is only the totality this totality is 1.
3. However considering there is only the totality there is no comparison for it necessary for it to take form thus it is 'void' or 0.
4. 1=0 through the totality.

I disagree with your premise #3. But even if we accept it, your conclusion does not follow. What follows is that nothing can exist.

In the exact same breath you say the conclusion doesn't follow, and YET you accept the argument as a valid proof of negation.

For as soon as something comes into existence, we have one totality of everything that exists. And since there is nothing outside of the totality to compare that totality to, it follows, thanks to your premise #3, that that totality of existence is actually non-existence.

Indeed! Computation is possible with the ∃ operator!

Assume ∃, derrive -∃. Q.E.D

Classical mathematicians really struggle with this a lot.

https://math.andrej.com/2010/03/29/proo ... tradiction

[Magnus Anderson]

Considering truth is existence and numbers exist then truth is reducible to a number as truth and number are tied together by the underlying quality of existence both share.

Well, truth isn't exactly existence. Truth is a true belief i.e. a belief that corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to. Truth can be said to be something that can exist. But then, so can everything else e.g. horses, cars, unicorns, etc. But even if we accept that truth is existence, there's a problem with your argument. I can agree that quantities exist. But then, so do trees. Does that mean you can reduce quantities to trees? Does that mean you can say "1 = palma"? You can substitute a symbol only with a symbol that has the same exact concept attached to it. You can substitute "1" with "one" because the concept attached to both symbols is the same. You can't substitute one symbol with another merely because they have something in common. For example, you can't substitute "1" with "5" merely because they both represent numbers. You can't substitute "apple" with "orange" merely because both represent fruits. You can't substitute "Donald Trump" with "Joe Biden" merely because both represent something that exists or something that human or someone who's a male or someone who is or was a president. You can't do that.

[Magnus Anderson]

In the exact same breath you say the conclusion doesn't follow, and YET you accept the argument as a valid proof of negation.

If you accept the premise, which I don't, then it follows. The point is that his argument is flawed in more than one way. It's not merely that one of the premises of his argument is false but it's not even logically valid.

[Skepdick]

You seem incredibly confused.

If you accept the premise, ..., then it follows.

This means that you accept the validity of the argument.

If you accept the premise, which I don't, ...

This means that you reject the soundness of the argument.

So in your mind the argument is valid but unsound.

... it's not even logically valid.

... but then you suddenly change your mind!

[Magnus Anderson]

Why would you strawman my position like this? I have explained (over and over) that I am promoting polymorphism, not equivocation. Why do you choose to ignore the distinction, even though it has been repeatedly explained out to you?
At some point I must assume that you are intentionally misrepresenting me.

I am clearly displaying a broader awareness than you are. You are merely repeating what the orthodoxy told you; while I am presenting an alternative, and more expressive choice!

A strawman would be another person's position misrepresented in a particular way -- in a way that makes it easier to attack. Here's the thing: I wasn't talking about your position. I was talking about the effect of your posts on those who read them. I didn't say you're equivocating -- you might or might not be. What I said is that you're promoting equivocation. And when I did so, I didn't say that you're doing it intentionally. What I said is that people will interpret what you write the way it is normally interpreted. If you say "1=0" to mean "one nothing is equal to zero somethings", and you don't make it super clear that you're speaking in an unusual way, they will take it that you're saying something along the lines of "One apple is the same as zero apples". As a consequence, THEY will end up equivocating, regardless of whether you are equivocating or not, and regardless of your intentions. Be mindful of your readers, is all I am saying. And to do that, you have to pay attention to what kind of language they work with (which is usually the one most people work with.)

As far as awareness is concerned, I don't see mine as being deficient compared to yours. You aren't saying anything new. That you can define words any way you want is no revelation. It's a banal truism.

Perhaps somebody is paying you to actively undermine freedom of expression?

One shouldn't be allowed freedom if he's going to use it to confuse people.

The thesis of the opening post of this thread is that "1=0". Normally, what that statement means is something along the lines of "One apple is the same as no apples"

No it doesn't. There's more than one Mathematician on this forum who would tell you that there is no relationship between Mathematics and apples.

Of course, you are welcome to use Mathematics to talk about apples. But Mathematics is about something much more important!

Abstract reasoning. And what you are doing by peddling the "normal interpretation" is promoting group think. Fuck off - there's nothing more harmful than a monoculture of thought - we don't need parrots, we need people who can think for themselves.

I am fully aware that mathematics isn't about apples. You are missing the point. And it has nothing to do with group think and monoculture. It has to do with the effect the author's posts have on his readers.

Are you promoting orthodoxy intentionally? Is somebody paying you to promote those ideas? Are you aware of its negative effects on human intelligence?

I am promoting the practice of correctly interpreting what other people are saying and being mindful of those who will potentially stumble upon your posts.

What did the author of this thread mean when he said "1=0"?

While we are asking rethorical questions let me ask you this... what do you mean by meaning?

Do you mean denotational semantics?
Do you mean operational semantics?
Do you mean axiomatic semantics?
Do you mean something else altogether?

There's a good reason why I am asking you a recursive question... maybe you'll connect the dots to computer science.

I didn't ask a rhetorical question (except for the one concerning the effects of your posts.) But let me answer yours.

Every statement has two components:

1) what portion of reality it refers to
2) what's saying about that portion of reality

"Donald Trump is blonde" is an example of a statement where "Donald Trump's hair" is the referred portion of reality (1) and "blonde" is the description of that portion of reality (2).

What's the referred portion of reality in "1=0" as used by the author of this thread? And what does the author say about that portion of reality?

If he's using the symbol "1" to mean "true" and "0" to mean "false", he's still deducing incorrectly.

What do you mean by "incorrectly"? If there is an algorithm - a working decider which can be realized on a computer then what is it that you are objecting to?

The reasoning is the reasoning. Your moral opinion on its "correctness" is moot.

I mean that his deductive argument is logically invalid. In other words, he's violating the rules of deductive reasoning. It's a logical fallacy known as "non-sequitur". And these rules are his own rules that he's violating without being aware of doing so. They aren't foreign rules.

[Magnus Anderson]

If you accept the premise, ..., then it follows.

This means that you accept the validity of the argument.

That's where you make a mistake. It means precisely the opposite. He claims that what follows from his premises is "1=0". I claim that "1=0" does not follow and that what follows is "Nothing can exist". "1=0" and "Nothing can exist" are two different statements.

[Skepdick]

Why would you strawman my position like this? I have explained (over and over) that I am promoting polymorphism, not equivocation. Why do you choose to ignore the distinction, even though it has been repeatedly explained out to you?
At some point I must assume that you are intentionally misrepresenting me.

I am clearly displaying a broader awareness than you are. You are merely repeating what the orthodoxy told you; while I am presenting an alternative, and more expressive choice!

A strawman would be another person's position misrepresented in a particular way -- in a way that makes it easier to attack. Here's the thing: I wasn't talking about your position. I was talking about the effect of your posts on those who read them. I didn't say you're equivocating -- you might or might not be. What I said is that you're promoting equivocation.

And what I said is....

I have explained (over and over) that I am promoting polymorphism, not equivocation. Why do you choose to ignore the distinction, even though it has been repeatedly explained out to you?

And when I did so, I didn't say that you're doing it intentionally. What I said is that people will interpret what you write the way it is normally interpreted.

Why would you stubbornly default to your interpretation (I am equivocating), when I have clearly pointed out to you (corrected you!) that I am NOT equivocating?

You are intentionally ignoring the fact that I told you that I am NOT equivocating? Why?

If you say "1=0" to mean "one nothing is equal to zero somethings", and you don't make it super clear that you're speaking in an unusual way, they will take it that you're saying something along the lines of "One apple is the same as zero apples".

Why would you possibly do that when it has been made clear that "1=0" is not a statement about apples? Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent your interlocutors?

As a consequence, THEY will end up equivocating, regardless of whether you are equivocating or not, and regardless of your intentions.

They might end up equivocating. Right up untill I correct their misunderstanding. At which point they should self-correct.

Obviously, this process is broken in your head. Because you keep equivocating equivocation with polymorphism.

Be mindful of your readers, is all I am saying. And to do that, you have to pay attention to what kind of language they work with (which is usually the one most people work with.)

Why would you at any point presume that other people are speaking your language?!?!? That's literally why it's called YOUR language, and not THEIR language.

As far as awareness is concerned, I don't see mine as being deficient compared to yours. You aren't saying anything new. That you can define words any way you want is no revelation. It's a banal truism.

Uhhh. There is a semantic difference between equivocation and polymorphism. This difference is a priori any and all definitions.

If it's so "banal" why then do you continue to misunderstand it?

One shouldn't be allowed freedom if he's going to use it to confuse people.

Oh good! Then shut the fuck up!

You are confusing people by equivocating equivocation with polymorphism!

I am promoting the practice of correctly interpreting what other people are saying and being mindful of those who will potentially stumble upon your posts.

And yet here you are! Misinterpreting my polymorphism as equivocation.

Despite numerous corrections.

Irony has a sense of being ironic, no?

Every statement has two components:

1) what portion of reality it refers to
2) what's saying about that portion of reality

Why do you continue pressupposing the domain of discourse?!? Despite me having pointed out that there needs to be no intersection between Mathematics and reality?!?

Are you actually capable of keeping your biases at check?

What's the referred portion of reality in "1=0" as used by the author of this thread? And what does the author say about that portion of reality?

That's a very good fucking question, isn't it? You should've asked that right at the beginning and before you wrote all that bullshit about confusing people.

You detected your own confusion (failure to nuderstand), yet you failed to communicate it back!

If he's using the symbol "1" to mean "true" and "0" to mean "false", he's still deducing incorrectly.

I mean that his deductive argument is logically invalid. In other words, he's violating the rules of deductive reasoning. It's a logical fallacy known as "non-sequitur". And these rules are his own rules that he's violating without being aware of doing so. They aren't foreign rules.

What rules? The whole point of meta-logic is to design the rules. And you are in no position to determine whether the designer of the rules is using the rules according to their own design.

Given how skilled you are at misunderstanding, it takes quite the hubris to hold the designer of the rules accountable to your own misunderstanding of their rules.

[Skepdick]

If you accept the premise, ..., then it follows.

This means that you accept the validity of the argument.

That's where you make a mistake. It means precisely the opposite. He claims that what follows from his premises is "1=0". I claim that "1=0" does not follow and that what follows is "Nothing can exist".

Are you now going to bullshit us about things you already said on record?

You said exactly "IF you accept the premise, then it follows".

IF P, then Q.
P implies Q.
P → Q

That's called validity!

"1=0" and "Nothing can exist" are two different statements.

Are they "different"? If they are both absurdities then they are equivalent!

To say that "Nothing can exists" is to say that the absurd type is inhabited.
Or in the language of set theory: ∃x, x ∈ Ø

Which is equivalent to the principle of explosion. Are you not aware of this? Or, perhaps you meant to say "Nothing doesn't exist" ?

-∃x, x ∈ Ø

[Magnus Anderson]

Are they "different"? If they are both absurdities then they are equivalent!

So if two statements are absurd, they have one and the same meaning?

"Square circles exist" and "Women are men" mean one and the same thing?

When someone says "Square circles exist", they are basically saying "Women are men" and you are perfectly justified in arguing against them by showing that women are different from men?

[Skepdick]

Are they "different"? If they are both absurdities then they are equivalent!

So if two statements are absurd, they have one and the same meaning?

Sure. For some conceptions of "meaning".

I'd ask you what you mean by "meaning" but I think it's a frivolous question.

"Square circles exist" and "Women are men" mean one and the same thing?

Sure. Both mean "true".

Square circles do exist in a taxicab geometry; and "Women are men" could be construed as true if "men" is taken to mean "human being of either sex; a person.".

When someone says "Square circles exist", they are basically saying "Women are men" and you are perfectly justified in arguing against your claim by showing that women are different from men?

I have no idea what absurd point you are trying to make.

But if your entire point was to distinguish between absurdities - naaah. One absurdity is as absurd as the next. You could even stretch it as far as to say "absurd" and "meaningless" are synonymous.

Language is pretty flexible, but if you aren't a flexible person...