The Meaning of the Number System ("quantity" is incorrect)

[Iwannaplato]

It's not about using it; or not using it. It's that most Mathematicians are lying (to themselves) about how you really use it. They omit (a lot!) of the details to the point they don't even realise they are lying to themselves.

Roydop: Mathematics offers no answers to any questions, it's just information that is being used to maximize profits and create technology (this technology has human consciousness helplessly mesmerized by the screen).

[Skepdick]

It's not about using it; or not using it. It's that most Mathematicians are lying (to themselves) about how you really use it. They omit (a lot!) of the details to the point they don't even realise they are lying to themselves.

Roydop: Mathematics offers no answers to any questions, it's just information that is being used to maximize profits and create technology (this technology has human consciousness helplessly mesmerized by the screen).

He's not wrong... If a little jaded.

The whole human sub-culture of Mathematics from the lens of a Computer Scientist (see video I posted) is on a path to finally catching up to the industrial age, and becoming largely irrelevant as automated theorem provers become more and more adept with the advent of AI.

[Iwannaplato]

He's not wrong... If a little jaded.

Ok, well I see math being used for other stuff also.

[Skepdick]

He's not wrong... If a little jaded.

Ok, well I see math being used for other stuff also.

ANY "Mathematical question" you can ask can be encoded in a formal query language. It's all just a silly game of SQL queries...

But also it sorta depends on what you think math is in essence.

You see 1+1=2 as a true statement.
I see it as a question equal?(1+1, 2) with a Maybe answer.

Maybe is a Monad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(fu ... ogramming)

[Iwannaplato]

He's not wrong... If a little jaded.

Ok, well I see math being used for other stuff also.

ANY "Mathematical question" you can ask can be encoded in a formal query language. It's all just a silly game of SQL queries...

But also it sorta depends on what you think math is in essence.

Sure. But I'll keep using addition on occasion. Even if addition is used to create climate change, like when they built his house.

I'll even on occasion use language and numbers to distinguish between things. Like he does.

[Skepdick]

Sure. But I'll keep using addition on occasion. Even if addition is used to create climate change, like when they built his house.

You really did miss the point. What do you mean by "addition" ?

Do you mean the sort of thing where1+1=1; or the sort of thing where 1+1=2?

They are both called "addition" because they are both expressed using the "+" operator.

I'll rewrite it in functional notation for you

add(1,1) = 2 <-----> 1+1=2
add(1,1) = 1 <-----> 1+1=1

The confusion lies in the ommission of the units.

Adding apples is not like adding temperatures (averages).

[Iwannaplato]

Sure. But I'll keep using addition on occasion. Even if addition is used to create climate change, like when they built his house.

You really did miss the point. What do you mean by "addition" ?

Do you mean the sort of thing where1+1=1; or the sort of thing where 1+1=2?

They are both called "addition" because they are both expressed using the "+" operator.

I'll rewrite it in functional notation for you

add(1,1) = 2 <-----> 1+1=2
add(1,1) = 1 <-----> 1+1=1

I think I mainly use 1+1=2. I don't think out that specific addition. I got that one down. But with larger numbers, I use that kind of +. I may use the other also, but it's more the first.

What point of his am I missing?

[Skepdick]

Sure. But I'll keep using addition on occasion. Even if addition is used to create climate change, like when they built his house.

You really did miss the point. What do you mean by "addition" ?

Do you mean the sort of thing where1+1=1; or the sort of thing where 1+1=2?

They are both called "addition" because they are both expressed using the "+" operator.

I'll rewrite it in functional notation for you

add(1,1) = 2 <-----> 1+1=2
add(1,1) = 1 <-----> 1+1=1

I think I mainly use 1+1=2. I don't think out that specific addition. I got that one down. But with larger numbers, I use that kind of +. I may use the other also, but it's more the first.

What point of his am I missing?

The point you are missing is the point about the missing units.

When you push 1, +, 1, = on a calculator do you expect 1 or 2 to appear on the screen?

Well. It depends on what I am adding...

If I am adding apples - i want the number 2 to appear on the screen.
If I am adding temperatures/averages - I want the number 1 to appear on the screen.

The fact that the calculator gives you the answer "2" (and not 1) tells you that it's biased towards apples and not statistical averages.

Units matter.

[Iwannaplato]

You really did miss the point. What do you mean by "addition" ?

Do you mean the sort of thing where1+1=1; or the sort of thing where 1+1=2?

They are both called "addition" because they are both expressed using the "+" operator.

I'll rewrite it in functional notation for you

add(1,1) = 2 <-----> 1+1=2
add(1,1) = 1 <-----> 1+1=1

I think I mainly use 1+1=2. I don't think out that specific addition. I got that one down. But with larger numbers, I use that kind of +. I may use the other also, but it's more the first.

What point of his am I missing?

The point you are missing is the point about the missing units.

When you push 1, +, 1, = on a calculator do you expect 1 or 2 to appear on the screen?

Well. It depends on what I am adding...

If I am adding apples - i want the number 2 to appear on the screen.
If I am adding temperatures/averages - I want the number 1 to appear on the screen.

That's what he's saying?
I don't think so.
I have no problem with what you just said. That seems quite useful.

[Skepdick]

That's what he's saying?
I don't think so.
I have no problem with what you just said. That seems quite useful.

Sure... Just be a little bit more charitable.

What is the right answer to 1+1?

Is it 1 or 2?

Well, it depends on what YOU are asking/meaning by 1+1!

Roydop: Mathematics offers no answers to any questions

[Skepdick]

That's what he's saying?
I don't think so.
I have no problem with what you just said. That seems quite useful.

Said another way yet:

1+1=2 is not an answer. It's a question with a true or false answer.

1+1=2 is true when adding apples.
1+1=2 is false when adding averages/temperatures.

And so the calculator can't give you the answer to 1+1 because the answer is either 1 or 2, but the calculator doesn't know how to choose.

Roydop: Mathematics offers no answers to any questions

[Iwannaplato]

Sure... Just be a little bit more charitable.

I have my reasons for being what you are judging as not as charitable as you think I should be. My reasons relates to his enterprise and behavior here. And he's not very charitable in his relations to people here. That's not how I framed the issue for myself, but it could be framed that way.

[Skepdick]

Sure... Just be a little bit more charitable.

I have my reasons for being what you are judging as not as charitable as you think I should be. My reasons relates to his enterprise and behavior here. And he's not very charitable in his relations to people here. That's not how I framed the issue for myself, but it could be framed that way.

Sure, everybody has their reasons.

I am merely pointing out that Rorydop has come to an accurate realisation that he's expressing in the vocabulary of his own (admittedly limited) understanding. Still - he's not wrong.
He simply refuses to jump into the rabbithole and learn the Mathematical lingo and all the dialects (which would surely take at least a decade of his life) necessary to pull all the Mathematicians out their own rabbit hole.

And they won't follow him out unless he speaks like they do! So they ridicule him as a "crank". Of course, from their perspective he is a crank - he doesn't use their definitions.

It's all perfectly "reasonable" behaviour from a sociological point of view. The Mathematicians are too far committed (sunk cost fallacy) to do a U-turn.

The revolution will be led from the inside by people who actually care to learn the lingo. Like this guy: https://youtu.be/wZSvuCJBaFU

[Iwannaplato]

Sure, everybody has their reasons.

Sure. My point with mentioning mine is that you enter a thread where I am interacting with Roydop adn part of your assessment is that I should be more charitable. Imagine another Skepdick comes to this thread...

viewtopic.php?p=624051#p624051
And thinks you, Skepdick one, should be more charitable. There's a context driving your reactions to VA there.

I am merely pointing out that Rorydop has come to an accurate realisation that he's expressing in the vocabulary of his own (admittedly limited) understanding. Still - he's not wrong.

I don't think he's wrong, period. It's not binary for me. I have a problem with his enterprise/behavior.

He simply refuses to jump into the rabbithole and learn the Mathematical lingo and all the dialects (which would surely take at least a decade of his life) necessary to pull all the Mathematicians out their own rabbit hole.

Though mathematicians are often attracted to Buddhism and other practices that are actually Roydop's claimed main goal for people here and elsewhere. Coming and making blanket statements in a sloppy way, is not necessarily a good approach. And he can learn about that from critics.

Even VA has gotten vastly more sophisticated (there was a lot of swingroom) than he was years ago. And I've seen him integrate my responses in later versions of his neverending project (without a bit of thanks on his part ) I've even had concerns that despite what you might see as my lack of charity, I'm actually helping VA with his project by coming at it with claws out. I have had separate dialogues with PH and FDP about VA's project and then some things they say. Where I have pointed out to them portions of what I consider just peachy in there. I have challenged them about their positions also.

And they won't follow him out unless he speaks like they do! So they ridicule him as a "crank". Of course, from their perspective he is a crank - he doesn't use their definitions.

He might need to learn some humility around this. So far I only see him blaming others for any problems in the dialogue. Roydop.

Why not run in parallel: good cop, bad cop. I can react the way I do and you can react with the information you have coming from your expertise. Roydop is not losing anything in dealing with my cranky possibly uncharitable reactions. And he can certainly learn from yours.

The revolution will be led from the inside by people who actually care to learn the lingo. Like this guy:

OK, the revolution. How will the revolution make the world a better place or what effects with it have? Perhaps if I understand that it will change my approach. Let's say Roydop's point becomes widely accepted: what changes will that make for how we live, treat each other?

EDIT: here's another take on this post.

An extreme unfair polemical comparison: you and I are sitting in a club and a guy runs into the room waving a samuri sword. He starts killing poeple while yelling something about math being used to create climate change. I hit the samuri guy with a chair and you say 'Hey, be more charitable, he's partly right about math.'

Again, I know it's unfair, but wait a second....

Why not just start a thread with what you know about math? Why let samuri-weilding guys represent the positions?

Perhaps you do or have, but I don't remember it. Take those portions of VA's position or Roydop's. Lay it out in your OP.

Your posts in response to my posts in this thread, I don't have a problem with. I don't think I would react to your threads in any way like I do to these guys. What you said, for example, about the different meanings of + signs was clear as easy to agree with. Perhaps I'll disagree with something, and then we'll deal with that.

But this pattern of intervening in my reactions and potentially other people's reactions to people who present their ideas poorly, don't have flexible communication skills, and, frankly, may not quite understand the positions you think we are not getting seems kind of like using a terrible middle-man for your thinking.

And I do realize that you use different models and languages in different situations in dialogue with different people. And that perhaps starting a thread might seem to commit you to a monolithic model or way of speaking about something. But this could be included in the beginning. You could explain why it would be useful to view things like X on occasion and how this can have benefits or is also true and that you are not positing the final and only language that should be used.

[Skepdick]

Sure, everybody has their reasons.

Sure. My point with mentioning mine is that you enter a thread where I am interacting with Roydop adn part of your assessment is that I should be more charitable. Imagine another Skepdick comes to this thread...

viewtopic.php?p=624051#p624051
And thinks you, Skepdick one, should be more charitable. There's a context driving your reactions to VA there.

Then show me a more charitable view - as I am showing you a more charitable view of Rorydop's words!

I am merely pointing out that Rorydop has come to an accurate realisation that he's expressing in the vocabulary of his own (admittedly limited) understanding. Still - he's not wrong.

I don't think he's wrong, period. It's not binary for me. I have a problem with his enterprise/behavior.

In using the word "problem" and the phrase "problem with his enterprise/behaviour" most people would take you to be implying that his behaviour needs to be rectified/altered/corrected.

Where as if you had a problem with your understanding of his behaviour it would imply that your understanding needs to be rectified/altered/corrected.

The wasy most people also use the word "wrong" carries an implicit implication that to the person being wrong should alter their behaviour (to being right). Which seems very much like what you are doing.

Though mathematicians are often attracted to Buddhism and other practices that are actually Roydop's claimed main goal for people here and elsewhere. Coming and making blanket statements in a sloppy way, is not necessarily a good approach. And he can learn about that from critics.

Sure. Duality is a fundamental concept in Mathematics.

Take any Mathematical object. say - an algebra. You get its dual - a co-algebra. A limit - co-limit. A cetegory - co-category.

If you want to use the Yin/Yang/Taijitu as a metaphor go for it.

Then again - which religion doesn't revolve around duality? Good and evil. Positive and negative. Black and white.

It's all the same golden thread through all human endeavours.

Even VA has gotten vastly more sophisticated (there was a lot of swingroom) than he was years ago. And I've seen him integrate my responses in later versions of his neverending project (without a bit of thanks on his part ) I've even had concerns that despite what you might see as my lack of charity, I'm actually helping VA with his project by coming at it with claws out.

The way to help him is to make him quit. His project is a waste of time. The practice of ethics/morality beats the theory of ethics/morality hands down.

I have had separate dialogues with PH and FDP about VA's project and then some things they say. Where I have pointed out to them portions of what I consider just peachy in there. I have challenged them about their positions also.

Philosophy runs out of usefulness after a while. Being inconsistent becomes paramount to being effective in the real world.

He might need to learn some humility around this.

This is a pretty wild claim. The fact is that he's not wrong, and there's a gillmer of being right in there. So the people who need to learn humility is the Mathematicians, not the outsider. He's only right by historical accident - he grew up in the age of computation and information.

It's now become pertinently obvious that Mathematics can be laid upon many, various possible foudnations. It's just by historical accident that most Mathematicians are set theorists. And it's by the brewing of wisdom that comes with the ages is that most Computer Scientists are type theorists.

Now is the age of Mathematicians being humbled (by Computer Scientist)
What follows is the age of Computer Scientists will be humbled. By... I don't know who yet.

So far I only see him blaming others for any problems in the dialogue. Roydop.

Yeah... bashing the old system is worthless if you offer nothing better in exchange. People aren't about to give up their tools.

That's not how progress works. You need to offer a better alternatives so the old stuff rusta away in history.

Why not run in parallel: good cop, bad cop. I can react the way I do and you can react with the information you have coming from your expertise. Roydop is not losing anything in dealing with my cranky possibly uncharitable reactions. And he can certainly learn from yours.

Right, but civility is lost in conflict.

OK, the revolution. How will the revolution make the world a better place or what effects with it have? Perhaps if I understand that it will change my approach. Let's say Roydop's point becomes widely accepted: what changes will that make for how we live, treat each other?

I don't know if Rorydop has anything to add here, but society as a whole has caught onto the idea that cooperation and networking at scale is largely benefficial. Division of labour, sharing, interacting, communities etc. so if Mathematics is useful to society then it needs to be industrialised! It needs to be made more accessible. It needs to be democratized.

And that's necessarily going to lead to commercialisation - precisely the sort of stuff Rorydop despisese. The usual hatred towards capitalistic popularisation of ideas scaled to benefit greater parts of society.

Rorydop is gonna hate it! But it's gonna happen.