🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:21:44 UTC No. 16279608
Logic hard :( why logic hard? :(
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:35:16 UTC No. 16279619
>>16279608
>why logic hard? :(
Grug never needed logic, for all these winters, to survive. Neither did his parents, nor the parents parents, for all these winters back to when this land was young. Why Grug brain evolve to handle logic when it not necessary?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:38:17 UTC No. 16279624
>>16279608
This just means that the two statements on the left and right mean the same thing
It reads:
(Left:)
It is false that there exists an X such that X is a member of group D where P applies to X
(Middle:)
if, and only if,
(Right:)
For all X which are a member of group D, P does not apply to X
I don't remember the technical significance of P(x) but that's the jist of what it's saying
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:39:16 UTC No. 16279627
>>16279619
But Grug exapted his cognitive abilities for other pursuits now that don't necessarily involve hunting strategizing, but these other tasks still hard :(
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:40:05 UTC No. 16279630
>>16279608
because it's so different to how we think in daily life you have to get used to it. eventually you parse quantifier expressions like this fluently.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:52:44 UTC No. 16279645
>>16279630
It is interesting how things like the pic in OP start off looking like the language of FTL alien megaminds but once you get the hang of it your reaction to what's in OP would just be "Yeah o_o Obviously?"
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 00:54:55 UTC No. 16279647
fags
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 01:01:33 UTC No. 16279659
>>16279608
Logical equivalence and propositional logic. Why are you posting this here and not in >>>/g/ where all the comp sci fags are?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 01:08:20 UTC No. 16279661
I disapprove of the triple equals usage, which should be reserved for definition.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 01:10:22 UTC No. 16279666
>>16279659
Computer Science belong on /sci/
🗑️ Barkon, Vard and Worl at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 01:11:52 UTC No. 16279669
>>16279666
Philosophy IS sci
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 01:14:18 UTC No. 16279671
>>16279666
What OP really means is Philosophy belong on /sci/
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 01:41:59 UTC No. 16279690
>>16279671
>>16279669
Well yeah, physics is just natural philosophy. Fucking retards.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 02:15:49 UTC No. 16279719
>>16279690
And philosophy of science, and philosophy of math, yes we get it, there's a philosophy for everything.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 04:21:51 UTC No. 16279851
>>16279608
De Morgan's laws are the only thing that aren't immediately obvious about propositional logic. Even then, just draw up a Venn Diagram and stare at some pretty pictures, I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:24:10 UTC No. 16280074
>>16279851
>that aren't immediately obvious about propositional logic
But they are.
>>16279608
It's not.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:25:27 UTC No. 16280077
>>16279608
meme field
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:40:01 UTC No. 16280085
>>16279608
The logical sentence in picrel is trivial yet I fail to see how can one EMPIRICALLY prove it without sounding like "obviously, duh". It doesn't seem to be an arbitrary axiom since any other alternative form leads to unnaturally illogical statements.
Could there be a universe where the statement:
~(-]X € D, P(X) ) (The negation of P(X) to be true for some X in D) implies that -]X € D, ~P(X) (There is an element in D such as P(X) is false)
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 15:35:06 UTC No. 16280335
>>16279627
>10,000 years later
>Grug realises that none of these surrogate activities will ever give him the fulfillment his ancestors have been seeking for hundreds of generations
>They live 'till 90 and never have to worry about disease and starvation, but life is just as unfair and unfulfilling as it was in the stone age
>Everything we do and believe in today is hyperreal
>"Civilised" beliefs are just primal beliefs that have been sublimated into a more refined and elegant form
>"Civilised" behaviours are just primal behaviours that have been sublimated into a more refined and elegant form
>Grug no enjoy living in a world where everyone LARPs as a gentleman whilst hiding a brutal caveman under a thin veneer of pseudointellectualism
>Grug want to return to monke because monke is simple and honest
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:17:34 UTC No. 16280382
False encoding leads to false equivalence. Just because some students don't like homework doesn't mean the negation of that proposition means to switch quantifiers. To encode the first statement, you need to use set theory more carefully. Instead of using D--the container of all students, you need to use a subset of D so that when you negate the statement, it implies that those students that don't like homework are in that particular subset.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:43:07 UTC No. 16280401
>>16279661
>which should be reserved for definition
Those are logically equivalent and have the same implications. For all intents and purposes either could be the definition of the other.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:44:41 UTC No. 16280403
>>16279608
You are doing an affirmation by saying liking homework is not the case
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:47:10 UTC No. 16280407
>>16280382
>Just because some students don't like homework
That wasn't the proposition. The proposition was that it's not true that some students like homework.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:09:48 UTC No. 16280432
>>16280407
That's the same thing
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:15:28 UTC No. 16280436
>>16280432
>That's the same thing
It isn't. If some students don't like homework, there may still be a subset of students that like homework. If it is not true that some students like homework, then no such subset can exist.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:18:22 UTC No. 16280440
>>16280436
That's what i am saying retard lmao. Some students not liking and some liking it are not mutually exclusive.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:20:17 UTC No. 16280443
>>16280440
>Some students not liking and some liking it are not mutually exclusive.
Right. And I'm telling you that some students not liking it wasn't the fucking claim.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:20:22 UTC No. 16280444
>>16280436
That's what i am saying retard lmao. Some students not liking and some liking it are disjoint sets within the set D.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:22:37 UTC No. 16280446
>>16280443
And i am saying it doesn't matter, whats so hard to understand here? As long the word some is used, liking or not liking becomes irrelevant if you have not been asked to identify such a set.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:27:45 UTC No. 16280455
>>16280444
See
>>16280443
The claim is there is no students that like homework within the set of students. If the set of students that like and dislike homework are disjoint, what does that say about the set of students that dislike homework and the set of students overall?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:30:23 UTC No. 16280461
>>16280455
No, the claim is that SOME students don't like homework, that automatically becomes a subset of its own, the rest like homework by definition.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:30:30 UTC No. 16280463
>>16280446
>As long the word some is used
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
That'd mean "there are not some green suits in a deck of cards" and "there are some green suits in a deck of cards" are logically equivalent.
Pay attention to where the fucking negative is within a logical construction.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:31:34 UTC No. 16280464
>>16280461
>No, the claim is that SOME students don't like homework
>It is not the case that some students like homework.
Learn2read
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:32:01 UTC No. 16280465
>>16280463
This is not the same as a deck of cards which has more than two colours, the negation works because liking and disliking are negatives of each other.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:33:03 UTC No. 16280466
>>16280464
Which is the same thing lmao, where did you retards learn your logic?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:34:15 UTC No. 16280468
>>16280465
>the negation works because liking and disliking are negatives of each other.
The negation is of some, not of liking.
I ask you, what is the negation of some?
As I said, learn2read.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:35:16 UTC No. 16280470
>>16280466
I took logic in college. Sounds like you should take a course.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:36:21 UTC No. 16280474
>>16280468
the negation of some is some like i keep telling your retarded ass that it doesn't matter when some is used.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:38:40 UTC No. 16280480
>>16280474
>the negation of some is some
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:40:32 UTC No. 16280482
>>16280480
the negation of some people liking something is some people not liking something, my god you must be a high school student if i have to explain such basic statements to you
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:42:05 UTC No. 16280485
>>16280482
It is not true that you have made some points.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:43:44 UTC No. 16280489
>>16280485
fuckoff faggot, show me where i am wrong if it is the case that you can, or do you need me to explain the meaning of can?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:45:49 UTC No. 16280494
>>16280482
>the negation of some people liking something is some people not liking something
NTA but the negation of some people liking something is nobody liking something. It's not equivalent to the claim that some people dislike it. In the case where the number of people is greater than 1, "nobody likes it" is a strictly stronger claim that "someone dislikes it". In the case where there's exactly 1 person, the claims are logically equivalent. When there's 0 people, "some people dislike it" is strictly stronger.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:47:49 UTC No. 16280496
>>16280494
the negation of nobody liking something is everyone liking something and we have not been given any numbers so your retarded assumption about greater than one is irrelevant here
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:50:43 UTC No. 16280503
>>16280496
Oh my god you are insufferable. By that logic, suppose 1 person likes something and another person dislikes it. Is it true that everyone likes it? No. Therefore its negation is true. According to you, that means that everyone dislikes it. That's wrong.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:58:17 UTC No. 16280511
>>16280503
You have a set with one person liking it and another disliking it which proves my point about some liking and some disliking. We are talking about people in specific sets here not the whole world. You are trying to sneak in some retarded assumption about everyone when it is clear that the context is specific sets.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:01:06 UTC No. 16280516
>>16280496
(Some or none) is the opposite of all. None is the opposite of some. This isn't difficult.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:01:32 UTC No. 16280518
>>16280511
You are beyond help.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:10:01 UTC No. 16280530
>>16280516
what is difficult for you is thinking we are talking about pure quantifiers instead of propositions
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:13:34 UTC No. 16280538
>>16280518
In a two race horse, the negation of some people support trump is that nobody supports trump, isn't it math chud? Never mind the fact that you can't see that those who don't support trump could be supporting somebody else.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:23:02 UTC No. 16280542
>>16280538
>the negation of some people support trump is that nobody supports trump, isn't it math chud?
Yes. If it is not true that some people support Trump, then it is true that nobody supports Trump.
>Never mind the fact that you can't see that those who don't support trump could be supporting somebody else.
But not Trump. The claim "nobody supports Trump" has no bearing on support for anyone else.
I think you've lost the plot.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:27:14 UTC No. 16280544
>>16280542
He's mentally challenged or trolling. Stop feeding him.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:31:18 UTC No. 16280549
>>16280542
>The claim "nobody supports Trump" has no bearing on support for anyone else.
The claim some people don't support trump has a bearing on who else they support which you would have understood if you read the first clause in my sentence. I think you never knew what the plot is chud.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:33:49 UTC No. 16280551
>>16280544
lmao are you still seething, afraid to refute me aren't you
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:35:48 UTC No. 16280553
>>16280530
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quan
>to disprove a "there exists an x" proposition, one needs to show that the predicate is false for all x
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:40:27 UTC No. 16280561
>>16280553
one also needs to show that this is the case for a specific set/subset, again the problem here is not about predicate logic, its about the poor encoding into set theory, how many posts do i have to make for you undergraduate retards to understand this?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:58:31 UTC No. 16280573
>>16280561
>one also needs to show that this is the case for a specific set/subset
Which is trivial by moving to second order logic where the same logical relationships hold fucking true and can be applied to sets.
Not that you even need to fucking bring sets into this discussion, but I digress.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:14:20 UTC No. 16280600
>>16280573
We could even do it by defining P(x) well enough, but have you seen any such definitions? All we have is an assumption of liking/disliking homework and retards itt keep arguing that 'no student likes homework' is justifiable because they are making implicit assumptions about those students liking something else like sports or video games, things that have not even been mentioned.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 21:46:41 UTC No. 16280703
>>16280600
>because they are making implicit assumptions about those students liking something else like sports or video games
Can you show anywhere where anything like that is brought up ITT?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 22:16:04 UTC No. 16280725
Why did these retards write, statement then negation. It is confusing because you don't know whether you are supposed to negate the original statement or whether the negation is the implication of the original statement? I think this is where the confusion is.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 01:01:36 UTC No. 16280869
>>16279608
that's just worded autistically
"It is not the case that ANY students like homework," sounds better because people sometimes actually say "not any"
>Not any of the students like doing their homework
>All of the students don't like doing their homework
Yup. It tracks. No students like homework. You just have to convert it into rune language and then back to English.
>>16280482
>some people like something
>not(some people like something)
>not any people like something
vs
>Some people don't like something
See the issue. Some people not liking something is different from not any people liking something.
>>16280496
>The negation of nobody liking something is everyone liking something
>Not nobody likes you
>at least somebody likes you
Nah.
>Nobody doesn't like you
>everybody likes you
Sure, why not, but that isn't how a negation is applied in logic.
It seems you're just getting caught up on what is being negated. This is how a negation works. First you take your statement and test out every possibility(some, all, and none):
"nobody likes something"
>Say only some people like it, is the statement still true? no
>Say everybody likes it, is the statement still true? no
>Say nobody likes it, is the statement still true? yes
Now, you just invert the results to get the negation. Change each yes into no and vice versa
Not(nobody likes something)
>only some people like it. yes
>everybody likes it. yes
>nobody likes it. no
Now we can test it against your theory that the negation is everybody likes something
Everybody likes something
>an amount of people like it. no.
>everybody likes it. yes
>nobody likes it. no
That's a yes yes no, to a no yes no. In other words, the inversion of (nobody likes something) is (some people like something) and it's not (everybody likes something) because to negate at statement is to make the opposite results.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 01:04:07 UTC No. 16280870
>>16280869
typo
>an amount of people like it
should be
>only some amount of people like it
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 01:08:33 UTC No. 16280873
>>16279608
this is just saying students don't like hw, simple enough. definition of a limit is harder, too many abstract variables and relationships for my brain to keep track of all in one sentence
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 07:53:31 UTC No. 16281116
This is retardedly poorly worded. Are they saying that
>it is not the case that 'some students like homework'
or that
> it is not the case that 'some' students like homework
If it's the first why color code 'some' and leave the sentence that should be in quotes in tact and if its the second, why negate the whole statement?
There's simply too little information here and let's not even talk about the statement to negation implication. Whoever is teaching this should think about what their retarded teaching methods, which they carried over from highschool-- like color coding-- are doing to students.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:06:43 UTC No. 16281149
>>16281116
>If it's the first why color code 'some' and leave the sentence that should be in quotes in tact and if its the second, why negate the whole statement?
Because the color coding corresponds to the components of the logical formula beneath the sentences and the "∃" means "some".
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:15:45 UTC No. 16281152
>>16279608
It is not the case that some threads OP makes aren’t stupid. All threads that OP makes are stupid.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:51:53 UTC No. 16281181
>>16281149
This gives the wrong impression that only some is being negated. You have big bright colors emphasizing the wrong thing.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:22:56 UTC No. 16281412
>>16279608
You are saying there are people in this board who can't comprehend it? And I am sharing the same board with them?
Fine! Read this!
https://archive.org/details/logic00
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:38:02 UTC No. 16281456
>>16279608
Because language is shit. Literally shit. Even those sentences are garbagely constructed. It should be something like:
Some Students liking homework is a falsity. Which is equivalent to No student likes homework.
We don't put the false in front, but we do in logical notations because it makes sense. We also just don't construct sentences in this formal way ever.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 17:15:19 UTC No. 16281487
>>16279719
there's a philosophy for everything yet none of them achieve shit.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:10:51 UTC No. 16281602
>>16281181
Again, they aren't for emphasis. They're to highlight the important terms in the sentence and tie them into the underlying logic.
Also, only some is being negated, lmao.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 05:43:54 UTC No. 16282040
>>16280085
"Proving" it empirically would mean just showing a bunch of examples. Why not just prove it logically?
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 06:13:01 UTC No. 16282063
>>16280085
Instead of an empirical "proof" here's a natural deduction style proof. So we know it's correct so long as the rules of natural deduction are sound. Pic made using
https://proofs.openlogicproject.org
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:31:46 UTC No. 16283520
>>16279608
autists demanding you learn there autism.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:40:21 UTC No. 16283534
>>16279608
What subject of logic? The only thing I find it difficult was forcing, I really don't consider logic as hard
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:21:39 UTC No. 16283658
>>16279608
first sentence better:
"there exists no student that likes homework"
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:24:07 UTC No. 16283667
>>16282063
how do i read this?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 21:17:55 UTC No. 16284096
>>16279608
Because trying to convert natural language into a cute equation never works because they're fundamentally opposed.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 21:37:19 UTC No. 16284128
>>16279608
This is interesting.
Any good books for beginners on logic?
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:26:15 UTC No. 16284306
>>16280335
>>"Civilised" beliefs are just primal beliefs that have been sublimated into a more refined and elegant form
>>"Civilised" behaviours are just primal behaviours that have been sublimated into a more refined and elegant form
What a retarded statement to make. Consciousness has only existed for ~3000 years. Do you really believe ancient cavemen were *anything* like us?
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:41:26 UTC No. 16284316
>>16284096
This is the real truth. But I wouldn't say they always have to be opposed, just that the concepts used in formal logic currently are not always the same as the concepts in natural language that underlie the words that they co-opt to use in the formal logic.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 02:38:23 UTC No. 16284439
>>16283667
It's Fitch notation. The statement above each horizontal line is an assumption, and the statements below the line but still to the right of the attached horizontal line are things proven true under that assumption.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:26:14 UTC No. 16284677
>>16284453
>>16284453
Math beyond arithmetic is useless.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:53:40 UTC No. 16284692
>>16283667
Given there is not something, assuming there is some thing would mean there is not some thing which means there is not anything. Given there is not anything, assuming there is something and there is some thing would mean there is nothing which means there is not something. Therefore there not being something is necessary and sufficient for there to be not anything.
Basically.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:07:15 UTC No. 16284697
>>16279608
Really just practice
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:13:58 UTC No. 16285341
>>16279608
It's really simple
>There does not exist a round box
translates to
>Every box is not round
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:55:22 UTC No. 16285422
Truth is, I was one of your soldiers tricked into attacking you. I haven't attacked you and have gained an advantage over the enemy and they are unknowing. However, they do attack you and I've prevented all of it occuring so far. It was a realisation trap on me. For my own safety, I won't tell you right now where I am, but I will, now I have gained the ability to print, serve efficiently. And I have much intelligence for you. If you don't believe me, check final fantasy VII
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:56:42 UTC No. 16285426
>>16285422
Or fifth element the semi funny robbery scene in his apartment.
'Switching' wasn't originally the best option. As far as I'm aware. However, as said, I have gained vantage and am able to print and am by far your best soldier now
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 19:02:10 UTC No. 16285432
>my name is ADIS HOT IVANKOVIC. I'm a muslim balkan turkroach yugoslave rapebaby immigrant invader and I MUST rape german children bestial and sadistically to death and I NEVER got caught with it. I let my victims eat my poop on public streets and much worse. I rape my victims, the children, over years. I destroy lives of my victims family and I even would never think bad about it, if I would. It is the exact opposite, I feel very strong for that and I like it. I also like homosexuality, and incest, if the others are the ones who suffering their whole life until death. I do also like to torture pets alive (or dead) and torturing them with a passion to death.
>my criminal turkroach "father" was also in prison for many many years, but he is a good goy and dindu nuffin, just like me! I've learned sooo much from him, masallah! my "mother" knows what I'am doing and is also proud of me, of a multiple child rapist and murderer of german children. she supports me, loves me and my money from the germans.
>all of my turkroach yugoslave friends are criminals aswell of course, and we go further; we wont stop it! ("say, how could you tell?") I'am a criminal millionaire and proud muslim because of all that and it's my business!
>we dont like niggers, gypsys or jews in our countries because we are the good guys. we are not like "those" subhumans.
pic related.
What would /pol/, you, do, if this "object" did this to your children multiple times ?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:02:14 UTC No. 16286237
>>16279608
badly described
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:17:40 UTC No. 16286510
>>16284677
Logic is prior to arithmetic.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 07:40:10 UTC No. 16288181
>>16286510
based
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 08:46:20 UTC No. 16288206
>>16286510
Wrong
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:19:23 UTC No. 16288364
>>16288206
He's not actually. Arithmetic is advanced counting. Counting is advanced set theory. Set theory is advanced logic.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:16:53 UTC No. 16288792
>>16279608
This is simple
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:17:51 UTC No. 16288873
>>16288364
>Founding math on set theory
No. Each natural number is an adjective describing quantity, and can be put in correspondence with a tally mark. The rules for tally marks are simple:
| Exists.
Letting T be some existing tally mark, T| exists.
Continue with some typical formulation of the axioms of arithmetic (peano, Robinson, etc.) . Notice the lack of sets. Sets are an encoding of math, not a foundation.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:23:35 UTC No. 16288881
>>16286510
This is true. Logic can be arithmetized and arithmetic can be logicized, but they are distinct still.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:30:18 UTC No. 16288888
>>16288873
>| Exists.
>Letting T be some existing tally mark, T| exists.
anon you just invented sets but without any of the axioms that make them useful
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:39:47 UTC No. 16288897
>>16288888
I have not invented sets. There is no possibility for extraneous constructs irrelevant to arithmetic, such as {{{{}}}}.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:55:11 UTC No. 16288919
>>16288897
|||| is isomorphic to {{{{}}}}
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:31:29 UTC No. 16288947
>>16288919
Now you're just trolling, or you have no idea what you're talking about.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:38:28 UTC No. 16288956
>>16288947
no you're trolling
foundations of math share inherent properties that make the math built on top of them useful
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:07:49 UTC No. 16288979
>>16288956
Such as?
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 00:33:50 UTC No. 16289061
>>16284306
wtf? Yes ancient cavemen were similar to us. They actually had larger brains. They made paintings. They coordinated complex hunts of large prey. They buried their dead with trinkets and shit. You realize there are still people who live like this today, right?