On 06 Jul 2012, at 22:45, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
"Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2
are just imagining something else." -
do you mean: "imagining something else
THAN WHAT YOU WERE IMAGINING?" sounds like a claim to some
priviledge to imagining - only YOUR WAY?
(I know you will vehemently deny that - ha ha).
I meant "something else with respect to anything obeying to the axioms
on which we already agreed, at the least. Like 0 ≠ s(0), x ≠ y ->
s(x) ≠ s(y), addition and multiplication law.
Actually it is a bit more, which is what the logicians call the
standard model of arithmetic, and known as the structure (N, +, *) in
high school. But that is not really relevant here. The magic of
numbers is that humans have a good sharable intuition about them.
Are you doubting that the s(0) + s(0) = s(s(0)) ?
If that is the case, nothing in math, physics, chemistry can make much
sense, and I have no way to explain you anything in computer science.
And you can abandon relativiy theory and quantum mechanics which are
based on elementary arithmetic.
In fact, if you doubt that 1+1=2, then I have to doubt what you mean
by telling us that we are humans, or that we are not human, and even
what is a human.
The reason to doubt 1+1=2 are more doubtable than 1+1=2.
To Guitarist:
"It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11"
You made my point - which was to (agnostically) expose that we have
no approved authority to a ONE AND ONLY opinion.
Not even within what we may call 'possible'.
That is why we do semi-axiomatic.
The question is only: "do you agree with the axioms (together with
classical logic):
0 ≠ s(x)
x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
Then you should agree with 0 ≠ s(0), s(0) ≠ s(s(0), etc., and s(0)
+ s(0) = s(s(0)), even if we did not succeed in defining completely
what are those numbers.
Bruno
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
Hi Guitar boy,
On 04 Jul 2012, at 16:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Hello Everythinglisters,
First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions
from time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more
musical tendency.
It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11
If people are sincere about pulling whatever sums they feel like
with personal justification, then we might as well say 1 + 1 = 0,
with a kind of zen logic, where everything = nothing as a fancy
justification.
Well in Z_2 = {0, 1}, we do have a law with 1+1 = 0. (modular
arithmetic). But 1 is still different from 0. But I get your point.
And anybody still willing to assert this could post their bank
account details and pin numbers and be freed from arithmetic
dictatorship by having their account cleaned out by other
everything listers that DO believe in sums, successors etc. as 0 =
whatever they want, and the sum of their balance doesn't really
matter, as it's only some personal belief shared by a few control
freaks.
Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2
are just imagining something else. It is not an arguent that a truth
is not absolute, but that the notation used to described it can have
other interpreations. In the Z_2 structure, which plays a key role
in many places: 2 = 0. But 2 does not represent the successor of of
the successor of zero, it represents the rest when we divide by the
usual number 2. It really means:
odd + odd = even (the rest of 1 + 1 divided by 2 = 0)
even + even = even (the rest of 2 + 2 divided by 2 = 0)
odd + even = odd (the rest of 1 + 2 divided by 2 = 1)
Guitar and composition imho, have arithmetic overlap, albeit in a
less than total sense, which is why I won't have to post my details
here :)
Guitar is hardest, imo. You need good trained digits!
Looking forward to contributing from time to time.
You are welcome,
Bruno
On Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:09:53 AM UTC+2, JohnM wrote:
Bruno asked:
..... Is that an absolute truth?
By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something in MY
agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I accept
better expressions.
(Except for "absolute truth" - ha ha).
And Teilhard was a great master of words.
John M
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote:
Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever
"WE" accept is "human".
Is that an absolute truth?
In my humble opinion, "WE = human" seems to me quite relative. When
I listen to the jumping spiders or the Löbian machines, most seems
to disagree.
Bruno
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are
spiritual beings having a human experience.
(de Chardin).
What is Mother Nature accepting?
John M
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain
peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more.
So Bruno's "absolute truth" may have even more relatives.
John
Or less facetiously, (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of
Gennifer)=(One, me) and (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one
raindrop). So whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the
applicability of arithmetic to your model.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/aa8ElOQLmdwJ
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
