The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

## Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

The 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.

gimal
Posts: 54
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

I can see why all possible realities are possible, but by definition they cannot be equally valid.
in reply as the poet noted.
“…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
thus
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 --
The 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.
an apple is a type.
(the apple in my hand is a specific instances of those types.)
therefore by your argument I cannot
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: 1300
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

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.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

gimal
Posts: 54
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

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.
A finite number.
mathsisfun.com/definitions/finite-numbe ... umber.html
A definite number. Not infinite. In other words it could be measured, or given a value.
infinite
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/infinity.html
An idea that something never ends
.999... never ends -it cant be measured
therefore it is non-finite.

-- Updated Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:31 pm to add the following --
Not only do you not understand the rules of math
please tell us what rules where broken
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

Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

gimal:
a number is the same as an apple.
an apple is a type.
(the apple in my hand is a specific instances of those types.)
therefore by your argument I cannot
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples
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"

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.

gimal
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"
"1 instance of an apple + 1 instance of an apple = 2 instances of apples"
so what have we when we add.
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.
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

Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

so what have we when we add.
1 instance of a granny smith apple + 1 instance of a red Garla apple =?
The super-class "apple" has two sub-classes.

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?

gimal
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"
1 instance of a granny smith apple + 1 instance of a red Garla apple =?
what we have is 2 apples.

Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

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. 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:

x + y = z;
again 1 number + 1 number= 1 number
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.

-- Updated October 19th, 2016, 9:52 am to add the following --
what we have is 2 apples.
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.

gimal
Posts: 54
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

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
so we are back where we started from poets proof is.
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

Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

And, as I said, the mistake he/she makes is in using the same word/symbol to refer to two different concepts.

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.

gimal
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
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
which shows
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

Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

which shows
1 + 1 = 1
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.

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?

gimal
Posts: 54
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 5:31 am

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

Only if you clarify what the number "1" refers to, or counts, in this context.
if the proof is not clear to you then I cant help.
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

Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

### Re: Australia’s leading erotic poet disproves mathematics

if the proof is not clear to you then I cant help.
You could try to help my poor simple mind by simply stating "A", "B" or "C" to the following question:

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.