Terrence Howard on Reality

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, zurew said:

Dude you have to learn basic logic, of course you can create finite systems that are consistent. 

They are only consistent through artificial limits. If the system is anything complex it will become self-referential and inconsistent unless you ban self-reference a d other such mental gymnastics.

As I said, unholistic thinking can appear consistent by ignoring higher inconsistencies.

[zurew]

"Look guys I have an idea how to revolutionize math, but I don't have an elementary understanding of math."

How you manage to not cringe at your own self is impressive.

 

You don't understand that 2^ 0=1 is not an axiom, its an entailment that comes from dividing a number by its own self equals to 1. 

[Salvijus]

It should look like this. 

2^3 = 2*2*2

2^2 = 2*2 

2^1 = 2

2^0 = _____

2^-1= 2

2^-2 = 2/2

2^-3 = 2/2/2 

Notice how diferenet that is from textbook version

 

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

You don't understand that 2^ 0=1 is not an axiom, its an entailment that comes from dividing a number by its own self equals to 1. 

I told you that's not what I'm pointing at

Sigh....

[Nemra]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

But instead they write 1. And there is good reason for it actually. Because they have to. 

You play with numbers and do operations to understand them. Sometimes you have to do it differently. You can't know what 2^0 is immediately because you're multiplying.

The same way, you wouldn't understand division without understanding multiplication.

You know what 2^3 is because you defined it already.

[Nemra]

9 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

2^-1= 2

2^-2 = 2/2

2^-3 = 2/2/2 

2^(-1) = 1/(2^1) = 1/2 = 2^(-1)

2^(-2) = 1/(2^2) = 1/4 = 4^(-1)

2^(-3) = 1/(2^3) = 1/8 = 8^(-1)

Edited June 17 by Nemra

[zurew]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

As I said, unholistic thinking can appear consistent by ignoring higher inconsistencies.

A=2B 2A=4B

A+2B =2A

Show whats the "higher inconsistency that comes up here

Edited June 17 by zurew

[Salvijus]

5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

2^(-1) = 1/2

According to what definition? 

Because look at my definition. 

2^3 = 2*2*2 (there are three 2's that multiply with each other) 

2^2 = 2*2  (there are two 2's that multiple with each other) 

2^1 = 2 (there is one 2)

2^0 = _____ ( there are no 2's at all) 

2^-1= 2 (there is one 2) 

2^-2 = 2/2 ( there are two 2's in division with each other) 

2^-3 = 2/2/2 (there are three 2's that are in division with each other) 

Now show your definition of how you got 2^(-1) = 1/2. By what definition you got there? 

Edited June 17 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

@Salvijus

If you want to invent raising a number to the power of some number, don't use mathematicians' already-defined rules for that process.

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

@Salvijus

If you want to invent raising a number to the power of some number, don't use mathematicians' already-defined rules for that process.

My goal was to demonstrate that the already defined rules are not in alignment with reality. 

[Davino]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

I don’t know if you will be able to understand but  x^0=1 doesn’t exist in nature. It's something mathematicians invented to keep the math consistent. 

It's very simple in fact. The problem is the symbology that trips people up. There is only one case in nature where we can have x^0 and that is when we have a number divided by itself. Let me do an example:

x/x = 1 

x^2= x*x

(x*x) ÷ (x*x) = 1

(x^2) ÷ (x^2) = x^(2-2) = x^(0)=1

So what happens is that we have 2 symbols pointing to the same thing, which causes this confusion. There's nothing esoteric about this.

Edited June 17 by Davino

[Ero]

50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I doubt that any finite system can truly be consistent. Such systems are fudged into psusedo-consistency through mental gymnastics and unholistic ways of thinking.

There is a trade-off between consistency and decidability/ completeness. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem states that any formal axiomatic system strong enough to represent arithmetic is either inconsistent (i.e one can derive incorrect statements) or incomplete (there exist statements that are true but cannot be proven). The proof is in fact a genius self -loop. By labelling every symbol in math with a number, you can construct a number for each statement by raising primes in the corresponding order - say the number for 1 is 6, for = is 4, then 1=1 will be represented as 2^6* 3^4*5^6. Gödel showed that by this method, one can construct a statement that literally states “I have no proof”. Either the statement is true and there is no proof (incomplete) or it is false and that means there is a proof to a false system. A more real example is something called the Continuum hypothesis, shown to be undecidable in our current system.

Here is the mindfuck - there is only a countable number of statements that are provable and an uncountable amount of unprovable statements. This in fact means in some far off future mathematics will actually be about modelling the taxonomy of different axiomatic systems/models. So yes, there are indeed an uncountable amount of different models. 

[Salvijus]

No matter what definition you give x^0=1 doesn't exist in reality. 

[Yimpa]

Here’s a real equation for ya:

Alien meth > human math

[Davino]

15 minutes ago, zurew said:

Whats the issue with self-referentiality? - that has nothing to do with being inconsistent. 

This sentence is false

[Davino]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

No matter what definition you give x^0=1 doesn't exist in reality. 

It's a symbol, the symbol is less intuitive for you but it points to the same things as the number 1, it's just another form of it

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Davino said:

This sentence is false

I am familiar with the liar's paradox. Whats the argument you are trying to make?

[Davino]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I am familiar with the liar's paradox. Whats the argument you are trying to make?

The enormous challenge that self-referentiality poses to all systems

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, Davino said:

The enormous challenge that self-referentiality poses to all systems

Im not sure what specific challenge you talk about. A Paradox comes with a specific challenge, but not all self referential systems entail a paradox , thats just a subset of the self referential systems.

Edited June 17 by zurew

[Nemra]

@Salvijus

Sorry, look this one.

(Please hide your post which you quote my previous arithmetic process)

If x^1 = x and x^(-1) = x,

Then,

x^1 = x^(-1),

log(x^1) = log(x^(-1)),

1*log(x) = (-1)*log(x),

1 = -1,

but 1 != -1, so you're wrong.

Edited June 17 by Nemra