On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > I follow a path of reasoning. For example, in this discussion I begin with whatever view I hold at the beginning and throw that out there. Others throw their's out. Over the course of the discussion my views often change or become more finely tuned. In this discussion you threw out the idea that the rules of monopoly are the same as the rules of mathematics. Immediately others pointed out that they might be similar but they are also very different, one is arbitrary and invented while the other is natural and evident. Rather than pivot on that discrepancy and flesh it out you ignore it and just press on repeating yourself, that the rules of monopoly are the same as the rules of mathematics. This isn't about points. You can't just ignore blatant holes and press on. I might point out that a game like monopoly is invented only once by one person on the whole earth ( the whole universe?), but mathematics came into existence independently all over the world. You will probably ignore that as well and just press on. >
Your account is flawed. I only mentioned Monopoly in my most recent post as one more example of a game with rules (Bridge and Chess have also featured) and no one but you has commented on Monopoly. These "others" you cast as "immediately" pointing out something do not exist and the flow of the discussion is other than you describe.
Where we got started was asking what was notional versus axiomatic about our concept of area. Peter kicked it off. Joe and Wayne argued about whether an "axiom" was at work. In the meantime, I cultivated my "not square area" and "not cube volume" memes, as I consistently do over the decades, standard fare, usually goes unaddressed, but here we had some feedback.
What I just finished pointing out is that the "rules of the game" meaning of "axiom", versus the "self evidently true" notion of "axiom" is quite broadly shared and for once I am not in the minority in my view. I believe I have made a strong case, which is partly empirical.
> Most of your problem with reasoning (and thus philosophy as well), other than making shit up (which you should really stop), is that when you are wrong, you stop thinking. For the rest of us that is when we really start. I have no problem calling this a philosophical discussion, except for one small detail. You aren't gaining anything from this discussion. >
You help shut out threads from being web archived with your puerile (as in infantile) ad hominem attacks. You don't cite what I'm making up (extremely lazy), while I come back with URLs and citations, over and over. Talk about BS. You do come across as quite ignorant, yet full of opinions on all kinds of things you've obviously never studied deeply. What a jerk.
> By the way, computer data types are a subset of the real numbers and the math between them is a subset of the math of real numbers as well. And tetrahedrons and triangles are just subsets of geometry. Very particular subsets. Certainly more particular than computer numbers versus real numbers. >
Again, more vacuous opinions from some know-it-all "thinker" who is sloppy and often incoherent. I suggest you tone up a bit and stop slinging your callow insults. You do yourself no favors by coming across like an asshole.
> Bob Hansen > > On Jul 6, 2012, at 11:23 AM, kirby urner wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote: >>> Nice point regarding the difference between a logical system and a >>> mathematical (also logical) system. If math has "rules of the game" then I >>> would say that the set of real numbers fills that role. They also give >>> mathematics its meaning. >>> >>> Bob Hansen >>> >> >> I don't think you're making much sense. One can have maths without >> real numbers. Think of all the computer languages that have no "real" >> type (floating point is not an "approximation" it's a different animal >> entirely -- extended precision might be closer, but is still not the >> real type either). >> >> There's a literature on such questions as "are axioms true?" but it's >> generally considered philosophy. You're in 'On Certainty' territory >> (Wittgenstein). But you've dismissed philosophy in prior threads as a >> subject without bearing. Then you wade in, all opinionated, with your >> little philosophy. So is philosophy relevant or not? You should make >> up your mind more consistently, is my view, and think in a less sloppy >> manner. >> >> Kirby >