Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
---
"0.999..." is a finite number.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
in reply as the poet noted.I can see why all possible realities are possible, but by definition they cannot be equally valid.
thus“…if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language …
Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything …
valid in a logical sense.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/valid
4. Logic
a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
-- Updated Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:27 pm to add the following --
by your argumentThe statement "1 number + 1 number = 1 number" is not equivalent to the statement "1 + 1 = 1". To claim that they are is to make a category error. The first is a statement about types. The second is a statement about specific instances of those types. The statement about types is true. The statement about the given instances of those types is false.
---
"0.999..." is a finite number.
a number is the same as an apple.
by your argument
an apple is a type.
(the apple in my hand is a specific instances of those types.)
therefore by your argument I cannot
add
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples
.999... is non-finite
if it is not non-finite please gives us an example of a non-finite decimal.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
A finite number.Not only do you not understand the rules of math, gimal, but you don't understand the definition of a finite number. The only number which isn't a finite number is an infinite number.
mathsisfun.com/definitions/finite-numbe ... umber.html
infiniteA definite number. Not infinite. In other words it could be measured, or given a value.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/infinity.html
.999... never ends -it cant be measuredAn idea that something never ends
therefore it is non-finite.
-- Updated Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:31 pm to add the following --
please tell us what rules where brokenNot only do you not understand the rules of math
in these proofs.
A finite number is not a non-finite number
And it negation
A finite number= a non-finite number
It be proven that
1= 0.999…
Let be x = 0.999..
10x = 9.999…
10x-x =9.999…- 0.999…
9x=9
x= 1
It be said that 1+1=2 be a certain truth
Blah
1 number + 1 number = 1 number
1 number (2) +1 number (2) =1 number (4)
So 1 +1=2
And
1 + 1 = 1
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
Why not?by your argument
a number is the same as an apple.
by your argument
an apple is a type.
(the apple in my hand is a specific instances of those types.)
therefore by your argument I cannot
add
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples
If you define the word "apple" to exclusively mean a class, or type, of object and not an individual instance of that class, or type, then clearly it is false to say:
"1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples"
But we don't exclusively define it that way, do we? We use it to refer to instances. It is perfectly true to say:
"1 instance of an apple + 1 instance of an apple = 2 instances of apples"
It is also true to say:
"1 collection of apples + 1 collection of apples = 1 collection of apples"
The apparent contradiction occurs if you use the same word, "apple", unqualified, to refer to different concepts - collections/classes/types and individual instances. i.e. if you make a category error.
-- Updated October 19th, 2016, 9:15 am to add the following --
I think the philosophical point made by this thread is the sloppiness of human languages. We can use the word "apple" to refer to a class/type or an instance, depending on the context. In more rigorous languages, like most computer languages, this is not allowed. For example, in many computer languages the keyword "int" refers to the type "integer" - i.e. the set of whole numbers. You can declare an instance of an "int" and give it name, "x", like this:
int x;
It's clear here that there are two words, or letters, for two different concepts - a type and an instance.
If you were using an object-oriented computer language and created a class of objects called "Apple" then you could similarly create an instance of an Apple like this:
Apple x;
It is clear that "x" refers to the instance and "Apple" refers to the class. If you tried to confuse the two and use the same word for both concepts, like this:
Apple Apple;
you'd get a compilation error.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
Why not?
If you define the word "apple" to exclusively mean a class, or type, of object and not an individual instance of that class, or type, then clearly it is false to say:
"1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples"
so what have we when we add."1 instance of an apple + 1 instance of an apple = 2 instances of apples"
1 instance of a granny smith apple + 1 instance of a red Garla apple =?
-- Updated Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:42 am to add the following --
further.
then it must be perfectly true to say.It is perfectly true to say:
"1 instance of an apple + 1 instance of an apple = 2 instances of apples
1 instance of a number (1) + 1 instance of a number (3) = 1 instance of a number (4)
again 1 number + 1 number= 1 number
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
The super-class "apple" has two sub-classes.so what have we when we add.
1 instance of a granny smith apple + 1 instance of a red Garla apple =?
We have two instances of the super-class "apple".
We have one instance of the sub-class "granny smith apple" and one instance of the sub-class "red garla apple".
Is there any logical contradiction there?
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
It is perfectly true to say:
"1 instance of an apple + 1 instance of an apple = 2 instances of apples
then it must be perfectly true to say.
1 instance of a number (1) + 1 instance of a number (3) = 1 instance of a number (4)
again 1 number + 1 number= 1 number
-- Updated Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:48 am to add the following --
The super-class "apple" has two sub-classes.
We have two instances of the super-class "apple"
what we have is 2 apples.1 instance of a granny smith apple + 1 instance of a red Garla apple =?
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
Yes, that's right. Just as, in computing, one "int" plus one "int" equals one other "int". If x, y and z are all int's, then we can say:then it must be perfectly true to say.
1 instance of a number (1) + 1 instance of a number (3) = 1 instance of a number (4)
x + y = z;
As long as you're clear that, in this context, you're using the word "number" to refer to the class of objects known as numbers, and not referring to an instance of a particular number. Those instances were what you placed in parentheses above.again 1 number + 1 number= 1 number
-- Updated October 19th, 2016, 9:52 am to add the following --
Yes, or to write it in long-hand as I did above: 2 instances of the super-class "apple" of which we have defined two sub-classes.what we have is 2 apples.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
so we are back where we started from poets proof is.then it must be perfectly true to say.
1 instance of a number (1) + 1 instance of a number (3) = 1 instance of a number (4)
Yes, that's right
poet is clear when he he gives an example of his claim ie 1 number + 1 number = 1 number
It be said that 1+1=2 be a certain truth
Blah
1 number + 1 number = 1 number
1 number (2) +1 number (2) =1 number (4) (-example)
So 1 +1=2
And
1 + 1 = 1
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
When he says "1 + 1 = 2" he is using the symbols "1" and "2" to enumerate instances.
When he says "1 + 1 = 1" he is using the symbol "1" to enumerate types.
x + y = z;
int + int = int;
The computer language does not make that mistake. It uses different symbols for different concepts.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
When he says "1 + 1 = 2" he is using the symbols "1" and "2" to enumerate instances.
When he says "1 + 1 = 1" he is using the symbol "1" to enumerate types.
the 1+1=1 is shorthand for.
1 number (2) +1 number (2) =1 number (4) (-example)
which you said
which showsthen it must be perfectly true to say.
1 instance of a number (1) + 1 instance of a number (3) = 1 instance of a number (4) ... Yes, that's right
1 + 1 = 1
poet is clear
It be said that 1+1=2 be a certain truth
Blah
1 number + 1 number = 1 number
1 number (2) +1 number (2) =1 number (4) (-example)
So 1 +1=2
And
1 + 1 = 1
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
Only if you clarify what the number "1" refers to, or counts, in this context. It counts numbers. It does not represent an instance of one of those numbers. If it did that, it would be false. By removing that clarification you seek to demonstrate a contradiction where none actually exists.which shows
1 + 1 = 1
We can combine those two apparently contradictory statements ("1 + 1 = 2" and "1 + 1 = 1") into one (albeit long-winded) statement that is entirely logically consistent:
The 1 instance of the type "number" referred to by the symbol "1" PLUS
the 1 instance of the type "number" referred to by the symbol "1" EQUALS
the 1 instance of the type "number" referred to by the symbol "2".
Is there anything illogical in the above?
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
if the proof is not clear to you then I cant help.Only if you clarify what the number "1" refers to, or counts, in this context.
It be said that 1+1=2 be a certain truth
Blah
1 number + 1 number = 1 number
1 number (2) +1 number (2) =1 number (4)
So 1 +1=2
And
1 + 1 = 1
Thus a contradiction in mathematics
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics
You could try to help my poor simple mind by simply stating "A", "B" or "C" to the following question:if the proof is not clear to you then I cant help.
In your statement "1 + 1 = 1", does the symbol "1" refer to:
A: 1 instance of the the type "number".
B: The instance of the type "number" referred to as "1".
C: Neither of the above.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023