🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:58:12 UTC No. 16244341
>b-but a mathematical theory of everything is impossible!!! Godel proved it!!!
Nope. 0+1=1, 1+1=2, 2-1=1, and 1-1=0. All of mathematics can literally be reduced to these four equations.
Also, Godel's incompleteness theorems are the same sort of pseudoscience as his "mathematical proof" of God. I'm not a fedora tipper and I am not saying God doesn't exist, but Godel's "proof" is retarded. His incompleteness theorem uses the same faulty logic.
>pic unrelated, but he just so happens to be the greatest mathematician in history, seconded by Sir Isaac Newton
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:05:07 UTC No. 16244349
>>16244341
I discovered an amazing phenomenon. Without having seen the OP I can immediately infer his phenotype only from his post.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:36:54 UTC No. 16244389
>>16244341
The problem is that any logical argument must start with an unsupported premise or must be an infinite chain of why-because. For example:
>0+1=1, 1+1=2, 2-1=1, and 1-1=0.
That's your unproven assumption. Next you're going to prove that assumption by showing:
>All of mathematics can literally be reduced to these four equations
which is an infinite / never-ending amount of proof you need to deliver such that you never reach the end of it.
The fundamental problem here is the eternal structuralist versus essentialist debate. With math, logic, reason and language we can only understand how things are in relation to eachother and never arrive what the things themselves are. For example: a lion in a zoo is a different animal than a lion in the wild, so we can't fully understand a lion without its relationship with something other than a lion, yet in all circumstances a lion is clearly recognizable as a lion so there must be something essential to what a lion is as well.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:57:58 UTC No. 16244412
>>16244389
>0+1 might not equal 1 because... IT JUST MIGHT NOT, OKAY?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:25:41 UTC No. 16244440
>>16244412
>>0+1 might not equal 1 because... IT JUST MIGHT NOT, OKAY?
It's funny that you're so stupid that you think that I'm stupid. Any statement by itself is arbitrary until related to another statement. What makes a statement true is that it consistently relates to other statements that are also true. So for example: ''you = man'' is by itself an arbitrary statement, just random noise, because we might as well state ''tu es une homme''. What makes those statements true is that we have all agreed upon applying only those particular statements for only those particular human beings we refer to with those statements. Another reason why you are a man is because there are other beings that are not a man. If all beings were men than calling yourself a man is as useful as calling yourself a being.
So 0 + 1 = 1 is by itself random noise and becomes true only because we fuck up math if we not consistently apply our agreed upon statements.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:30:00 UTC No. 16244448
>>16244440
I can't tell if you are actually retarded or just pretending.
To say that 0+1=1 is objectively true is not to say that the symbols "0+1=1" cannot be redefined to mean something false. It is to say that the statement produced by the commonly understood meaning of the symbols "0+1=1" is an objective fact.
tl;dr you're retarded
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:32:02 UTC No. 16244453
>>16244440
I'm a woman, retard. And I'm smarter than you.
>0+1=1 is not objectively a true statement... IT JUST IS NOT, OKAY?
Relativist Jew detected.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:34:25 UTC No. 16244459
>>16244453
YWNBAW
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:56:58 UTC No. 16244490
>>16244440
Maybe i misunderstood, but i think what you're trying to say is: if "you = man" then "man = you" which is not always true, except for a single particular case.
Did i got it? Are we trying to filter out context?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:04:12 UTC No. 16244503
>>16244341
All GIT says is that if you have some finite set of axioms, you can't prove every single possible statement to be true or false.
There are many you can prove, of course.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:29:45 UTC No. 16244532
>a proven mathematical theorem is pseudoscience
At least this one's original. More trolls should follow in your footsteps anon
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:38:52 UTC No. 16244540
>>16244453
>I'm a woman
No one cares and no one is going to give you special treatment. Show tits or gtfo.
>Relativist Jew detected.
Takes one to know one because math is obviously describing how one thing is related to another thing. Anyway: in the natural world for a statement to be true it needs to be verified/falsified by observation. You have no such criterium in your mathematical fantasy world other than more statements.
>Did i got it?
No. Easier example: are you short or tall? You are only short or tall relative to something else. We can not describe who you are without making a relative statement. Another example: is it true that a typical guitar has 6 strings and a typical bass has 4 strings? Obviously a typical guitar and a typical bass have a different number of strings so we must represent each observation with a different symbol. Suppose we do choose the numbers 6 and 4 and after agreeing upon that choice we throw a dice which displays a number of dots that is clearly different from either 4 and 6. Now we must choose another symbol to represent that number besides 4 or 6 or else we're inconsistent. So coincidentally we choose the the symbol 3 to represent what we observe as half as much things as the number of strings on a typical bass guitar. So now we created a logical system in which 3 + 3 = 4 and 4 + 3 = 6. That works perfectly fine for our small little world with only guitars and dice because we apply these agreements consistently in relation to eachother.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:41:26 UTC No. 16244541
>>16244453
It's funny how the antisemitic freaks believe "Jew" is an insult when actually it's a compliment. Jews are the smartest population in the world. Most Nobel prizes and most important scientific discoveries are from Jews.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:12:09 UTC No. 16244570
>>16244532
The math is proven, the implications are not. The implications are the pseudoscience.
Just like Godel's "proof" of God: Same thing. Sound mathematics, unsound assumptions resulting. To be clear, God IS real, but Godel's "proof" doesn't do fuckall to prove such.
I don't hate Godel mind you, he was a smart guy, but he also was wrong about some things.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:14:28 UTC No. 16244572
>>16244540
>Anyway: in the natural world for a statement to be true it needs to be verified/falsified by observation. You have no such criterium in your mathematical fantasy world other than more statements.
So according to you, 0+1=1 is false since we can't observe 0. Got it!
>>16244541
Shalom
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:15:05 UTC No. 16244573
Gödels incompleteness theorem is not universal
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:17:16 UTC No. 16244578
>>16244573
Oh, so it's like the second law of thermodynamics!
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:28:57 UTC No. 16244597
>>16244572
>Got it!
No you don't. I'm pointing out that there are only two ways of proving a statement: 1) observation 2) another statement. I'm also pointing out that 1) is possible in physics but not possible in mathematics because mathematics is pure logic. Symbols in mathematics don't refer to anything else but other symbols. In mathematics / pure logic there is no physical world to compare your statement to.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:34:32 UTC No. 16244604
>>16244597
If in mathematics something can only be known by being proven by something else then it is circular logic so nothing in mathematics can be known. Therefore some things can be known because they are self evident. Retard.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:39:04 UTC No. 16244610
>>16244453
>I'm a woman
Please post armpits and elbows.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:41:12 UTC No. 16244612
>>16244604
>then it is circular logic
Exactly. All logic, reason and the language to express it is circular.
>Therefore some things can be known because they are self evident.
No because of the circular nature of logic, reason and language you must assume at least one point in that circle as self-evident and knowledge therefore is building a network of statements and references from that starting point. Which means that in any logical argument there's always at least one unproven assumption.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:45:34 UTC No. 16244617
>>16244341
This was already settled with Turing completeness. Mathematics isn’t real just a reference point for humans it’s a creation of the mind.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:02:32 UTC No. 16244639
>>16244341
>All of mathematics can literally be reduced to these four equations.
But all of reality can't be reduced to mathematics or those equations
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:13:47 UTC No. 16244657
>>16244389
We learn what things are by putting them into relation to other things. Once we have done that we know what those things are and this knowledge no longer depends on other things. There is no meaningful debate between eternal structuralists and essentialists.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:21:11 UTC No. 16244662
>>16244597
Mathematics is logic derived from observations of reality. You are operating in a world of forms in which numbers are only symbols for ideas and not representations of real world phenomena.
Here is a thought experiment. If numbers are just symbols, you can replace those symbols with others while retaining their meaning, yes? Replace all numbers with turnips. 1 = turnip, 2 = turnip, turnip, 3 = turnip, turnip, turnip and so on. Suddenly mathematics is observable.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:24:08 UTC No. 16244665
>>16244639
Obviously, no one said otherwise
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:20:51 UTC No. 16244766
>>16244341
im more than fine with Godel filtering retards, what im not fine with is then having to endured those same filtered retards throwing their usual sissyfit
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:22:23 UTC No. 16244767
>>16244503
The axioms should be able to model the integers. For example, the rules of chess are axioms, and since there are only finitely many chess games/positions, any question you can ask is decidable. E.g. "is this position possible to achieve? How about in <50 moves?" etc.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:25:51 UTC No. 16244772
>>16244766
Let me guess: You also believe in Einsteinian relativity theory, just because mainstream "SCIENCE :D" tells you it's real. And you also believe vaccines are safe and are what eradicated muh polio and muh smallpox, just because that's what the pharmaceutical industry tells you. Consider using a trip so I can more easily disregard your posts. Thanks!
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:30:04 UTC No. 16244777
>>16244341
In order to be consistent, mathematics must possess a kind of algebraic closure, and to this extent must be globally self-referential. Concisely, closure equals self-containment with respect to a relation or predicate, and this equates to self-reference. E.g., the self-consistency of a system ultimately equates to the closure of that system with respect to consistency, and this describes a scenario in which every part of the system refers consistently to other parts of the system (and only thereto). At every internal point (mathematical datum) of the system mathematics, the following circularity applies: "mathematics refers consistently to mathematics". So mathematics is distributively self-referential, and if this makes it globally vulnerable to some kind of implacable "meta-mathematical" paradox, all we can do in response is learn to live with the danger. Fortunately, it turns out that we can reason our way out of such doubts...but only by admitting that self-reference is the name of the game.
What if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof, calling one level the basic or "language" level and the other (higher) level the "metalanguage" level? Then we would have either a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognizable as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the basic language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least not a paradox. A paradox whose definition seems to preclude such stratification is merely a self-annihilating construct that violates the "syntax" (structural and inferential rules) of reality and therefore lacks a real model.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:30:20 UTC No. 16244780
>>16244767
Suppose chess was much more complicated and it took a long time to prove some certain states.
You didn't even know if some were possible, in fact, and you wanted to find out
Then some guy comes along and PROVES that some states are UNKNOWABLE with a finite set of axioms
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:42:10 UTC No. 16244798
>>16244772
don't really care for that which attempted to ascribe to me, but given that there are at least 3 other things that have been proven to be true about the naturals but unprovable in Peano arithmetic, you are just stupid(at least on the incompleteness issue)
also the covid vax was gene modification therapy, and its effect are readily seen, i have no sympathy for the GMH(genetically modified humans) or their plight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:43:45 UTC No. 16244802
>>16244780
it not that they are unknowable, is that they are true but unprovable from within the given system of axioms
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:46:51 UTC No. 16244806
>>16244802
That is what I meant, but I did use unclear wording.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:47:44 UTC No. 16244808
>>16244767
not him but yes, there are systems that ARE decidable, for example these three
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarsk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skole