Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 11:13 AM
42 online now:
edge, PaulK, Tanypteryx, vimesey (4 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,618 Year: 3,655/19,786 Month: 650/1,087 Week: 19/221 Day: 19/36 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Math's Arbitrary Non-Necessary Necessarily-Disconnected Conventional Link to Reality
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 16 of 24 (544777)
01-28-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
01-27-2010 3:18 PM


Re: Math's Arbitrary Non-Necessary Necessarily-Disconnected Conventional Link to Reality
My constructivist friend denies the existence of the limit implied by .9999~, but accepts .9999~ symbollically as a representation of 1.

Interesting, would your friend also deny the correctness of the discipline of calculus?


If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 01-27-2010 3:18 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 01-28-2010 12:56 PM Jazzns has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 17 of 24 (544795)
01-28-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jazzns
01-28-2010 11:01 AM


Re: Math's Arbitrary Non-Necessary Necessarily-Disconnected Conventional Link to Reality
I'll note that you replied to me, but quoted text from cavediver.

Interesting, would your friend also deny the correctness of the discipline of calculus?

As far as I know, constructivists don't have a principled objection to calculus as calculus. But they do object to some of the thing that are done in calculus. They would object to examples of a nowhere continuous function or a nowhere differentiable function, because those examples are non-constructive.

Perhaps cavediver can further comment, since he has a constructivist friend. The closest I came was attending a seminar by Errett Bishop, and that was many years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jazzns, posted 01-28-2010 11:01 AM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 01-28-2010 4:43 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 18 of 24 (544819)
01-28-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Son Goku
01-28-2010 5:51 AM


Calculus
I should say that most constructionists that I have met (i.e. all two of them) believe that 0.999.. = 1, the transcendentals and all other wierd Real number stuff, is just unfortunate formal junk we have to put up with to obtain calculus. That is they agree with calculus, they just don't like the bizarre number system it's based on.

"My uncle thinks he's a chicken."

"Have you taken him to see a psychiatrist?"

"Well, we would ... but we need the eggs."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Son Goku, posted 01-28-2010 5:51 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 24 (544835)
01-28-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nwr
01-28-2010 12:56 PM


Re: Math's Arbitrary Non-Necessary Necessarily-Disconnected Conventional Link to Reality
Sorry, hit the wrong reply button.


If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 01-28-2010 12:56 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 24 (549406)
03-06-2010 10:03 PM


Last night, I sat in my garden. First, I dug up a little dirt; made from it a small pile. Then I dug up some more dirt; made from it another pile, so that I would have one pile and one pile. Then, I grabbed one of those piles, picked it up, and dumped it onto the other pile. Imagine my shock to discover that, contrary to my original suspicion that the addition of my one pile to one other pile would yield two piles, I ended up with only one pile! Shit... that's fewer piles than I started with!

I wish the mathematicians would have warned me of this little glitch in their system before I tried adding them. I ended up having to start all over from nothing.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 10:32 PM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 03-06-2010 11:43 PM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2010 6:56 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2795 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 21 of 24 (549408)
03-06-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
03-06-2010 10:03 PM


English
I wish the mathematicians would have warned me of this little glitch in their system before I tried adding them.

The mathematicians have warned you of this little glitch. Their suggestion was to define your terms better to avoid it. You might want to consult a semanticist.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 03-06-2010 10:03 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by anglagard, posted 03-06-2010 11:14 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 22 of 24 (549413)
03-06-2010 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by lyx2no
03-06-2010 10:32 PM


Re: English
Whatever you do, don't mention Parmenides around Jon or he is going to start saying that because movement is impossible, it is not he that moves in space but rather it is the universe that moves around him thus creating the illusion.

Oh crap, is he reading this?

Edited by anglagard, : mispelled Parmenides


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Its us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 10:32 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 23 of 24 (549414)
03-06-2010 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
03-06-2010 10:03 PM


Sorites paradox
Jon writes:

Then, I grabbed one of those piles, picked it up, and dumped it onto the other pile. Imagine my shock to discover that, contrary to my original suspicion that the addition of my one pile to one other pile would yield two piles, I ended up with only one pile!


You have just bumped into a variation on the sorites paradox.

Jon writes:

I wish the mathematicians would have warned me of this little glitch in their system before I tried adding them.


It isn't a problem with the mathematics. It's an example of why mathematicians tell you that mathematics is not about reality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 03-06-2010 10:03 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 24 of 24 (549452)
03-07-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
03-06-2010 10:03 PM


Yes, Bozo
I wish the mathematicians would have warned me of this little glitch in their system before I tried adding them. I ended up having to start all over from nothing.

We did tell you about it. I told you about it.

The mathematical system of the natural numbers is a mathematical system. If you wish to use it as a model of reality then you should first ascertain empirically that it is indeed a model of the aspect of reality to which you wished to apply it.

As it is, your complaint is as meaningful as if you bought a lawnmower, tried to use it as a suppository, and now you're writing to the lawnmower manufacturer complaining that their lawnmower hurt when you tried to stick it up your ass. Well yeah, that'll happen. But the manufacturers didn't market it as a suppository. It's not their fault if you are nutty enough to use it in a way that they never intended. It's yours. It is not a "little glich" in the lawnmower about which the manufacturers should have warned you. Doubtless they would have warned you if they'd realized that anyone in the whole world would be so stupid as to try to cram the lawnmower up his ass. In that case, they would have avoided liability by putting a big warning label on the lawnmower saying NOT TO BE USED AS A SUPOSITORY. But who would believe that anyone in the world would be that stupid?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 03-06-2010 10:03 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019