Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2018-02-21, 3:51 AM #7601
I personally don't have any skin in the game on the more specific question of whether the axioms of Euclidean geometry are valid or not.
former entrepreneur
2018-02-21, 3:55 AM #7602
Originally posted by Eversor:
I should just establish right now: this is irrelevant to the main topic at hand. Axioms can clearly be wrong, and the fact that one can make reasonable and logically coherent deductions from axioms does not validate the axioms.


An axiom can only be wrong if by accepting it, one is led to a contradiction.

The debate about axiom of choice, for instance, is not about whether the axiom of choice is wrong. It's about whether permitting arbitrary selection-without-description is actually sufficient for proof. There's no fundamentally "correct" interpretation there.
2018-02-21, 3:56 AM #7603
Formal ideas aren't their own justification for existing, especially when they are inserted into a discussion that has nothing to do with them.

And I think you still have more reeding to do, since it seems the two of us still can't agree what this discussion is about. At this point I would only be repeating myself; goodnight!
2018-02-21, 4:01 AM #7604
Originally posted by Reid:
An axiom can only be wrong if by accepting it, one is led to a contradiction.


OK, one last time: you are deliberately narrowing the definition of the word 'wrong' to the point of excluding its properly understood definition in the context of Jon's original post. Why do you persist in this? I'm ready to move on if you can understand this. Or even if you can't.
2018-02-21, 4:05 AM #7605
Since I feel like I'm taking ****ing crazy pills, I googled "when are axioms false". Let me provide some quotes:

one

Quote:
Axioms are not things that we think might be actually "true" or "false". There is no hidden mathematical truth where certain axioms are good and others are bad. Axioms are statements that we make up and declare to be true. There is no need to appeal to any higher power, we invent the rules and we call the rules axioms.

We are not concerned whether or not the axioms are true or not (that is a meaningless statement), we are wondered what happens to mathematical objects whenever they satisfy a collection of axioms. All mathematical statements are of the form "If the assumptions hold, then the conclusion follows", but we do not prove whether or not the assumptions hold as the mathematical statement is true independent of this.


two

Quote:
That isn't how axioms work. You can't prove an axiom to be false---you can only show that it contradicts some of your other axioms. In other words, your axiomatic system can be inconsistent. That doesn't show that one or the other axiom is false, but merely that you cannot assume both simultaneously.


three

Quote:
You only need to "prove" an axiom when using it to model a real-world problem. In general, mathematicians just say "these are my assumptions (axioms), this is what I can prove with them" - they often don't care whether it models a real-world problem or not.


four

Quote:
You're treating the word "axiom" as you were probably taught in high school. That an axiom is something which is "simply true as an assumption".

Modern mathematics has changed that definition to "an assumption made in a certain context". Not every axiom is called an axiom, some axioms are proved as theorems, and sometimes lemmas are used for axioms. And not to mention various hypotheses used as axioms sometimes.

But in the modern context, an axiom is really just an assumption that you begin with. And different contexts begin with different axioms.


five

Quote:
The correct question is not :

How to decide if an axiom is right or wrong ...

but :

Of what "domain" (of discourse or of reality) is this axiom true ?

Modern mathematics, after Georg Cantor, has found "domains" (infinite colelctions or sets) where it is not true that


None of this even remotely contradicts what I've said. Has massassi gone mad?
2018-02-21, 4:06 AM #7606
Man why do you always use social media as your source? lol
former entrepreneur
2018-02-21, 4:07 AM #7607
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
OK, one last time: you are deliberately narrowing the definition of the word 'wrong' to the point of excluding its properly understood definition in the context of Jon's original post. Why do you persist in this? I'm ready to move on if you can understand this. Or even if you can't.


Because you're clearly wrong in a really obvious and stupid way, and persist despite it being really obvious how wrong you.
2018-02-21, 4:08 AM #7608
Originally posted by Eversor:
Man why do you always use social media as your source? lol


That's what google returned, I'm not about to dig up an intro to mathematics text to quote its section on axioms.
2018-02-21, 4:08 AM #7609
Originally posted by Reid:
Since I feel like I'm taking ****ing crazy pills, I googled "when are axioms false". Let me provide some quotes:


one


two


three


four


five


None of this even remotely contradicts what I've said. Has massassi gone mad?




None of that contradicts what I was saying either. Yes, Euclidean geometry takes for granted that its axioms are true and make logical inferences from them. That doesn't mean that they are in fact true. The discipline is merely hypothetical: the axioms are merely posited, and not demonstrated or verified.
former entrepreneur
2018-02-21, 4:11 AM #7610
Originally posted by Eversor:
None of that contradicts what I was saying either. Yes, Euclidean takes for granted that its axioms are true and make logical inferences from them. That doesn't mean that they are in fact true. The discipline system is hypothetical, based on the fact that the axioms are merely posited, and not demonstrated.


There is no "fact" about whether the axiom is true. The very idea of calling it true or false is nonsense. Until you understand this very, very basic premise of mathematical reasoning, the discussion is impossible.
2018-02-21, 4:12 AM #7611
Uh, Reid? What are you doing? You don't need to be looking this stuff is up in books, the confusion here is right in this thread. By 'reeding' I meant, reading posts in this thread.

In all honesty, I think it's better you give up trying to understand what I'm saying. I'm sorry if I could have been clearer sooner. But you are vastly overthinking this, and when we at least agree to be talking about the same things, I'm pretty sure you'll see that what I am pointing out was trivially true all along. I'm not trying to make some deep philosophical point here!
2018-02-21, 4:16 AM #7612
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Uh, Reid? What are you doing? You don't need to be looking this stuff is up in books, the confusion here is right in this thread. By 'reeding' I meant, reading posts in this thread.

In all honesty, I think it's better you give up trying to understand what I'm saying. I'm sorry if I could have been clearer sooner. But you are vastly overthinking this, and when we at least agree to be talking about the same things, I'm pretty sure you'll see that what I am pointing out was trivially true all along. I'm not trying to make some deep philosophical point here!


I didn't "misread" Jon`C's post. I knew exactly what he meant, and agree with it. I was contradicting what he said, and already admitted it was kind of a pedantic point, but then you've been running off saying God knows what kinda ****.
2018-02-21, 4:17 AM #7613
Originally posted by Reid:
There is no "fact" about whether the axiom is true. The very idea of calling it true or false is nonsense. Until you understand this very, very basic premise of mathematical reasoning, the discussion is impossible.


Basically what you are saying is that it is "philosophically impossible" for you to properly understand the meaning of what somebody wrote on this forum, with the interpretation they intended.

If that isn't pedantic, I don't know what is.
2018-02-21, 4:18 AM #7614
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Basically what you are saying is that it is "philosophically impossible" for you to properly understand the meaning of what somebody wrote on this forum, with the interpretation they intended.

If that is pedantic, I don't know what is.


I know exactly what he meant. What he meant has never been the issue, here. I've literally only been talking about the form of his statement, which as it was written is explicitly nonsense.
2018-02-21, 4:18 AM #7615
Originally posted by Reid:
I didn't "misread" Jon`C's post. I knew exactly what he meant, and agree with it. I was contradicting what he said, and already admitted it was kind of a pedantic point, but then you've been running off saying God knows what kinda ****.


See, I told you you'd agree that my point was trivially true all along. :downs:
2018-02-21, 4:21 AM #7616
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
See, I told you you'd agree that my point was trivially true all along. :downs:


About Jon`C's statement? I agree you interpreted his meaning correctly. But that was never the issue for me. What happened was, I made a statement regarding the truth of one statement as it's literally written, ignoring the meaning that I didn't want to comment on, then you went on a long tangent making wild and stupid claims about mathematics, which I beat down on you for saying, and now you've concluded you were right because you finally understood what I meant.

Got it. Next time you don't have to do the roundabout to admit you don't understand math very well.
2018-02-21, 4:22 AM #7617
Originally posted by Reid:
There is no "fact" about whether the axiom is true. The very idea of calling it true or false is nonsense. Until you understand this very, very basic premise of mathematical reasoning, the discussion is impossible.


Dude, no. I've already indicated that I recognize the thing you claim I don't recognize, and you've already conceded the point upon which things hangs. You're being obtuse.
former entrepreneur
2018-02-21, 4:24 AM #7618
Originally posted by Reid:
I know exactly what he meant. What he meant has never been the issue, here. I've literally only been talking about the form of his statement, which as it was written is explicitly nonsense.


Really? Non-sense? What gives you the right to tell people that their use of the English language is non-sense if it's not only perfectly clear, but actually quite sensible and insightful in context?
2018-02-21, 4:25 AM #7619
Originally posted by Eversor:
Dude, no. I've already indicated that I recognize the thing you claim I don't recognize, and you've already conceded the point upon which things hangs. You're being obtuse.


Fine, we are in agreement then. What Jon`C should have said is something like, "Euclid's axioms are a wrong representation of reality", or something like that, in order to be formally correct.
2018-02-21, 4:27 AM #7620
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Really? Non-sense? What gives you the right to tell people that their use of the English language is non-sense if it's not only perfectly clear, but actually quite sensible and insightful in context?


What he meant to say was "Euclidean geometry doesn't accurately represent spacetime". That's fine, no contention. What he said was "the axioms of Euclidean geometry are wrong". That's nonsense.
2018-02-21, 4:30 AM #7621
Originally posted by Reid:
About Jon`C's statement? I agree you interpreted his meaning correctly. But that was never the issue for me. What happened was, I made a statement regarding the truth of one statement as it's literally written, ignoring the meaning that I didn't want to comment on, then you went on a long tangent making wild and stupid claims about mathematics, which I beat down on you for saying, and now you've concluded you were right because you finally understood what I meant.

Got it. Next time you don't have to do the roundabout to admit you don't understand math very well.


The fact that you seem to have trouble with English has nothing to do with my conception of mathematics.

As for beating me down, yes, you certainly did that. I already admitted it was probably an error on my part to belittle your profession, since it's very difficult to get somebody to cooperate once a personal attack is perceived.
2018-02-21, 4:32 AM #7622
Originally posted by Reid:
Fine, we are in agreement then. What Jon`C should have said is something like, "Euclid's axioms are a wrong representation of reality", or something like that, in order to be formally correct.


Lol! So now not only is formalism its own justification in mathematics, but now natural language too? That's not how natural language works and you know it.
2018-02-21, 4:34 AM #7623
And no, he shouldn't have said it like that, because nobody talks like that.
2018-02-21, 4:35 AM #7624
Also, I believe we were told to stop fighting. Do you want a time out?
2018-02-21, 4:35 AM #7625
.
former entrepreneur
2018-02-21, 4:36 AM #7626
Originally posted by Eversor:
Finally, dude. Jesus. I think we could've gotten there a lot sooner without slinging insults...


Did I sling any insults at you? Didn't mean to.
2018-02-21, 4:39 AM #7627
It was me. I indirectly did so when I called you a retard. I know the term is offensive and I should stop, but old habits die hard I guess.
2018-02-21, 4:48 AM #7628
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Also, I believe we were told to stop fighting. Do you want a time out?


Yeah, I think I've exhausted any will to press the point any further.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
It was me. I indirectly did so when I called you a retard. I know the term is offensive and I should stop, but old habits die hard I guess.


It's cool, it's cool, a little bloodletting isn't going to kill the forums. I probably shouldn't have pressed so hard, or at least made it clear sooner the point I was actually trying to get at.
2018-02-21, 4:56 AM #7629
That was actually meant as a joke at Eversor's expense. But thanks.
2018-02-21, 5:13 AM #7630
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
That was actually meant as a joke at Eversor's expense. But thanks.


You know what, I think this thread has been more civil since my Russia resets. So there! Joke's on you, weiner man.
former entrepreneur
2018-02-21, 5:14 AM #7631
Originally posted by Eversor:
You know what, I think this thread has been more civil since my Russia resets. So there! Jokes on you, weiner man.


Yeah, nothing has been nearly as savage since we stopped going at it. It's niiice.
2018-02-21, 5:17 AM #7632
I think another norm to uphold is not to dog pile, so I appreciated Reid's attempts to slide the discussion into the DMs (even though I also wanted to see where the discussion was going. I'm usually one of the combatants in heated discussions... which means I don't usually get to watch them).
former entrepreneur
2018-02-21, 8:24 AM #7633
guys this was 7 AM it is too early for this ****
I had a blog. It sucked.
2018-02-21, 9:09 AM #7634
Originally posted by Zloc_Vergo:
guys this was 7 AM it is too early for this ****


Do you not recognize the pressing urgency in speaking correctly about mathematical axioms? Gee, and I thought I was laid back.
2018-02-21, 12:19 PM #7635
Originally posted by Reid:
Do you not recognize the pressing urgency in speaking correctly about mathematical axioms? Gee, and I thought I was laid back.


i am a physicist. axioms are for the first day of your QM coursework and then you just do some operator algebra.
I had a blog. It sucked.
2018-02-21, 1:04 PM #7636
Originally posted by Zloc_Vergo:
i am a physicist. axioms are for the first day of your QM coursework and then you just do some operator algebra.


Hold up. You mean physicists don't study pure math? Burn the infidel!
2018-02-21, 1:38 PM #7637
I thought I sent kill -9 to this asinine pedantry.

The tl;dr of the deadlock causing this giant memory leak:

  • Process A: introduce a bug into a squeaky clean sentence by epistemically hijacking a word. Block unless Process B accepts the "corrections" this new bug requires.
  • Process B: remind Process A that this is stupid and unnecessary.
    • Thread 1: Apparently has a life. Gives up and doesn't block.
    • Thread 2: Apparently has no life. Blocks unless Process A free()s all his unnecessary epistemic bungling.
2018-02-21, 1:43 PM #7638
The funny thing is, I actually coined a phrase for this kind of behavior, right before the memory leak happened.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Don't worry, he's not, I'm just being a Reidtard and inferring it using logic and my own philosophical framework. Of course I feel like I'm justified in doing so, so. :colbert:
2018-02-21, 1:51 PM #7639
I'd rather be an accurate pedant than someone who argues about topics past his understanding.

I thought this discussion was over. Do you really want to get at it again?

Also, at least people care when I say something that isn't offensive slapfighting.
2018-02-21, 1:51 PM #7640
what the hell
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!