234500+ entries in 0.152s
mircea_popescu: Framedragger we need no such
thing, "0" means
the same in
the language of
the commutative ring R as "nill" means in
the natural language above.
mircea_popescu: it's not just
that computing isn't
thought ; what happens in
the brain is also not reason. as far as
the logic is concerned
things may be whatever
they are, but in
the objective development of
the subject
there's an i-ontology and a world-ontology.
this disjunction is or is not resolved in
time ; but from
the subjective development it was never a problem in
the first place.
Framedragger: because first of all
these are not
the same
thing. we would first have
to introduce, say (as an example), peano arithmetic atop set
theory, and go from
there. "multiplication" is a diff beast. why not division? etc etc.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform
this distinction stands at
the very root of naive notions of "i'm creative" vs "i'm good with math"
Framedragger: (and just for
the record, i'm interpreting any remarks by anyone here charitably, assuming no snide, and
trying
to be snide'y myself.)
mircea_popescu: i just pointed out
the method works ; didn't say it's
the only approach.
Framedragger: here's a compressed internal model: "mircea_popescu wants
truth-conditions of predicates in set
theory
to abide by a kind of falsification-based criterion."
mircea_popescu: Framedragger you don't so far find it
to be an idea altogether, as best it can be determined.
BingoBoingo: Framedragger:
Then don't linger in any null sets?
mircea_popescu: considerations of null set clearly are better
than wine.
mircea_popescu: there's an ancient quote about
the wine vessel aleph of a party, with 3+ being
the breaking of furniture
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: just
to clarify so you don't
think i'm
trying
to fuck around, i mean
that all predicates would be
true under null set. i don't find
that
to be a good idea.
that's all
mircea_popescu: i really appreciate
though
that
this
topic can still get
the blood going. you should see what it did
to
the monks of 1016.
BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: Nah, I just forgot
to ever rate phf for his work.
mircea_popescu: dude what are you on about. ontological economy of
the null set ?
Framedragger: i don't know how a logician can entertain
the latter. well, many
things can be entertained, but it's not exactly.. how shall i put it.. ontologically economic?
a111: Logged on 2016-12-16 18:00 mircea_popescu: you can't
test for all properties.
a111: Logged on 2016-12-16 17:13 mircea_popescu: as
to
the blue hair issue : if you can't produce a member which has non-blue hair,
the proposition stands ; and if i can prove you can't (which i prove by showing
there's no elements in
the null set)
then
the proposition evaluates
to
true.
BingoBoingo: trinque is
Texan where confused is a synonym for sucking cocks. It's a cultural soft spot.
☟︎ phf: i usually just switch context when stupid shit is said, but
this
time i politely pointed it out, which
tbh produced an opposite effect of what i expected. in polite circles when somebody goes as far as
to point out
that somebody is confused, it's an invitation for further introspection, not
to loudly double down.
Framedragger: *internal framedragger
thought process*. "ok, so, maybe mp is empty set.. and he wants
to be god.. AHH" :D
mircea_popescu: also practical, at
that. god can stay god for as long as gets in no one's way.
Framedragger: but
then if you want
to entertain
the latter "check if any *does not obtain*", you will have a "empty set if holder of *all* properties"
Framedragger: anyway, i agree
that
there is a way
to construct an "every" so
that given a null set, it spits out
true. however, "every" of what? usually
there's a predicate, and
then
the way you'd
test "every" with a predicate is
that you run
that predicate on every element encountered. and you
test
that it *obtains*, not
that it *does not obtain*.
Framedragger: hey i
thought
trinque unrating phf was a stupid reactionary
thing. don't use
this as a red herring.
mircea_popescu: i
think it's a fabulous
testament on
the very matters at hand
that
the ~only guy who has a very introspective, quiet, slow and complete approach
to
thinking/speaking got derated for emotionals.
trinque appreciated
the discussion, learned.
mircea_popescu: hey, i'm not here
to defend extant programing language design choices.
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: notice,
the "all" in python
takes a predicate
mircea_popescu: Framedragger what's
the definition of every for null set ?
trinque: it's ok, guy can only
type so much with one hand on keyboard.
Framedragger: wtf is
this shit anyway. even if it's a logical operator, and
then, look: it's an AND underneath. and you all know
the very-noncontroversial
truth-table for AND.
true iff for every member, predicate applies. NOT vice-versa falsification goofyness.
trinque: "all" in python is a control structure around a loop, not a
term in a boolean statement
mircea_popescu: "the avoidance of suffering can never be a point of policy, seeing how
the simplest solution is immediate mass extermination." AND "consensus can never be
the basis of action because
the null set always agrees."
Framedragger agrees. (but fwiw i don't
think it's legit even in
terms of logical analysis, even before practical considerations)
trinque: then your list of everybody was empty because squashy world.
then nukes fire.
trinque: "If everyone agrees
to fire
the nukes, fire
them."
trinque: what was never volunteered in
the
thread is
the practical usefulness of
the behavior as seen in
the programming language mentioned
a111: Logged on 2016-12-16 16:58 phf:
trinque: you're very confused
Framedragger: (inb4 mp quotes last sentence from
tractatus logico philosophicus) :D
Framedragger: that's swell guys but a bit of a non sequitur neh.
that being said, yea "if you
try
to formalize fleshworld, you're gonna have a bad
time" :)
mircea_popescu: i still love
the captatio of
that sort of guy. it always reduces
to "here we show
this is controversial". as if
THIS has some sort of merit or value.
mircea_popescu: ((and mp was never as unimpressed with chomski as he was when
the guy
tried
to deploy a cantor proof lite without saying so.))
mircea_popescu: anyway. for completeness let it be stated
that perceived problems of
thought-computing mismatch are
thoroughly a matter of perception, and in principle can not be fixed (other
than fixing
the perception). it's
the fundamental problem of "ai", as derided often enough here (see
the "what if you name
the procedures something other
than "understanding" etc ; see also chomski's attacks on "ai" centered on
the constructed repeating
mircea_popescu: fortunately,
the people who like
to solve
theoretical problems of
though/action mismatch moved on from logic and are doing "policy" nao.
phf: i just found
this
thing, and
this should've been
that, and
that should've been
the other, va a fare in culo! :E
mircea_popescu: this duality
then makes it a fine candidate for a "prime mover", which bothered
the scholastics immensely, because
they, much like
the scholastics-lite version of smith in
the us say, wanted
to intercede
their own agent in
there, so he could do
things and
therefore
their derpitude could matter.
mircea_popescu: anyway,
the problem generally is
that "all
things" have an ontology and a gnoseology, which is separate and so
trivially separable even
the greeks were privy
to it (hence plato's ideal objects) ; except for
the void, which is AT
THE SAME
TIME
the absence of ontology and
the plenarity of gnoseology. which is
to say,
the same "thing" at
the same
time doesn't exist (ie, as nil) and implies everything (ie, as "false").
mircea_popescu: the proposition "four is a prime number" doesn't stand, because a factor is known ;
the proposition "this and
this rsa key is made of
two primes" stands, but is not known
to be
true.
phf: you're not asking for falsehood, when you're asking for nil-ness, so semantic confusion
that arises from using same symbol for both concepts is almost always a
theoretical problem. and when it's not, like in other situations of semantic ambiguity you can choose
to be more precise. luckily people who like
to solve
theoretical problems of
thinking-computing mismatch have moved away from lisp and are doing haskell now
mircea_popescu: if i were
to endeavour
to prove all primenumbers larger
than 2 are odd, you'd count yourself satisfied if i showed a number
that's prime and larger
than 2 can not exist, yes ?
mircea_popescu: Framedragger a proposition ~stands~ until falsified. and is
true once it can be showed it can't be false.
trinque: if one proceeds from
there
the definition of
truth gets pretty squashy
Framedragger: maybe
there could be an empirical-tmsr-set-theory
thing :) but for logical analysis,
that's weird imo. for one, ontological arguments in regards
to god's existence may gain more grounds.
Framedragger: that's all well and good when you can enumerate countable set elements exhaustively / have firm grasp of a
term's extension, but what if you don't - any predicate stands
true until shown otherwise?
Framedragger: suddenly karl popper in set
theory? :O *suspicious*
mircea_popescu: as
to
the blue hair issue : if you can't produce a member which has non-blue hair,
the proposition stands ; and if i can prove you can't (which i prove by showing
there's no elements in
the null set)
then
the proposition evaluates
to
true.
☟︎ Framedragger: (imho lisp's use of nil as false *is* incorrect, even if you disagree with "every member of
the empty set had blue hair" having
to be
true. it *is* an unholy confusion, falsehood != nil.)
mircea_popescu: well part of
the problem is
that nil can't be used
to mean anything other
than nil./
trinque: nil is used everywhere
to mean false, not say "this question can't be answered"
trinque: I understand
the difference, was saying lisp *should* have a separate false.
mircea_popescu: all sentences spring from a false ; but nothing springs from
the nil.
trinque: so how do we get across
the bridge from "the empty set has no members"
to "every member of
the empty set had blue hair" being
true?
mircea_popescu: trinque perhaps
the cheapest way
to visualise
the difference between nil and falsehood is
to contrast "ex nihilo nihil" with
the value
table for false-implication.
Framedragger would like
to carry on with phi of lang but will resume later, need
to move self body
mircea_popescu: note however
that many languages (which aren't english) allow purely constructive usage ; such as adjectival forms constructed from nouns,
the noun of a verb and
the verb of a noun and so following. depending on semantics bagumpa is blerpy could well have a
truth value - if say your definition of is includes an equivalency class for all elements starting with
the same letter.
Framedragger: note, strawson, frege would say
that
the king of france *expression* fails
to provide a *(logical) proposition*. i.e., it does not have one. imho
this is a valid
thought, i.e.
the matter is not 100% clear.
trinque: is
this a "the void has all properties"
thing ?
mircea_popescu: i know it's commonly
taught as equivalent, but saying "x doesn't have an y" is not
the same as saying "x's y is nil"
mircea_popescu: Framedragger if your semantics allows for it. whether
they do or don't is not
the same as
the
truth-value BEING nil however.
Framedragger: (ruseell's
theory of definite descriptions says "yes", other frameworks say "not necessarily")
trinque: so
then, I just said "is every element in
this set
true" and got a
true on
the empty set.
Framedragger: re. asking questions involving properties which do not exist, hah
this is something
that russell was actually battling with. what is
the
truth-value of
the statement "the present king of france is bold"? some would say it does not have a value (because
the
term "present king of france" does not have a referent); russell would say "false".
mircea_popescu: trinque aha,
that lulzy "nature abhors a vacuum"
theory hottie is shown demonstrating for yul brenner's "children" comes from right here.
trinque: were
ther a distinction between nil and false, I would expect (and) -> nil (and f) -> f
mircea_popescu: the problem comes back
to
the very naive christian notions of
the moral value of
the void.