User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 33

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Many Now the question is, which one is most pertinent?
    The most pertinent is the fact that at each branch or question a path is assumed to be the most pertinent
    Im out, its been fun

  2. #22

    Default

    There is the notion of a set of elements.

    {} is the set containing nothing. {bka, pha} is the set containing bka, and pha. A rigorous development is beyond the scope of a single post.

    {{x},{x,y}} is the set containing {x} (which is in turn a set containing x) and {x,y} (which is in turn a set containing {x,y}).

    A short form of writing {{x},{x,y}} is (x,y) and is called an ordered pair.


    A set containing ordered pair is a binary relation. If R is a binary relation, {x|(x,y) in R} is called the domain of R and {y|(x,y) in R} is called the Range of a R. If for every x in the domain of R there is exactly one y in the range of R such that (x,y) is in R, then R is a '1-to-1' correspondence.

    If the following three things are true of a relation of R, then R is an "equivalence relation":
    1) (x,x) is in R
    2) if (x,y) is in R, then (y,x) is in R
    3) if (x,y) is in R and (y,x) is in R, then (x,z) is in R

    The 0 is often short hand for {}. The 'successor' of a set, S, is the set containing S and the contents of S. The successor of 0 is {{}} also often known as 1. The successor of 1 is {{{}},{}} also often known as 2. You could continue on this way. The sets defined this way are the "whole numbers."

    The number of objects in a set is defined to be the whole number to which you can create a 1-to-1 correspondence.

    Now imagine that there is a set S, and binary relation, A1, consisting of ordered pairs of the form ((a,b),c), where a, b, and c are elements of S. Consider further the binary relation A2 which is {(c,(a,b))|((a,b),c) is in A1}, and yet another binary relation A3 consisting ordered pairs of the form (e,f) where e and f are from S. If the union of A1, A2, and A3 forms an equivalence relation, then A1 and A3 form a basis for an "addition" of sorts (consider modulo arithmetic for instance).

    It is often customary to use the whole numbers as S, A1 with the following properties:
    1) (({},{}),{}) is in A1
    2) if ((a,b),c) is in A1, then ((successor of a, b),successor of c) is in A1
    3) if ((a,b),c) is in A1, then ((a, successor of b),successor of c) is in A1
    and A3 being {(x,x)| x is a whole number}

    You can check that the appropriate equivalence relation holds.

    You could then introduce '+' as notation so that a+b=c means ((a,b),c) is in A1.

    Obviously, I can't make all this rigorous in one post. But hopefully it gives you some idea how mathematicians "built-up" addition conceptually from sets.

    To unravel all this for 2+2:

    We look for the appropriate element in the set of the form (({{{}},{}},{{{}},{}}),c) in A1.
    Let us build up. (({},{}),{}) is in A1. So (({{}},{}),{{}}) is in A1. Which in turn means, (({{}},{{}}),{{{}},{}}) is in A1. This then means (({{{}},{}},{{}}),{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}}). Note {{{{}},{}},{{}},{}} is often referred as 3 and is the successor of 2 which is {{{}},{}}. Finally, we arrive at what we are looking for in that (({{{}},{}},{{{}},{}}),{{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}},{{{}}, {}},{{}},{}}) is in A1. {{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}},{{{}},{}},{{}},{}} is often refered to as 4.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #23
    Rainy Day Woman MDP2525's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,536

    Default

    2+2=5

    Did the black hole suck us in yet?
    ~luck favors the ready~


    Shameless Self-Promotion:MDP2525's Den and the Start of Motorcycle Maintenance

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    There is the notion of a set of elements.

    {} is the set containing nothing. {bka, pha} is the set containing bka, and pha. A rigorous development is beyond the scope of a single post.

    {{x},{x,y}} is the set containing {x} (which is in turn a set containing x) and {x,y} (which is in turn a set containing {x,y}).

    A short form of writing {{x},{x,y}} is (x,y) and is called an ordered pair.


    A set containing ordered pair is a binary relation. If R is a binary relation, {x|(x,y) in R} is called the domain of R and {y|(x,y) in R} is called the Range of a R. If for every x in the domain of R there is exactly one y in the range of R such that (x,y) is in R, then R is a '1-to-1' correspondence.

    If the following three things are true of a relation of R, then R is an "equivalence relation":
    1) (x,x) is in R
    2) if (x,y) is in R, then (y,x) is in R
    3) if (x,y) is in R and (y,x) is in R, then (x,z) is in R

    The 0 is often short hand for {}. The 'successor' of a set, S, is the set containing S and the contents of S. The successor of 0 is {{}} also often known as 1. The successor of 1 is {{{}},{}} also often known as 2. You could continue on this way. The sets defined this way are the "whole numbers."

    The number of objects in a set is defined to be the whole number to which you can create a 1-to-1 correspondence.

    Now imagine that there is a set S, and binary relation, A1, consisting of ordered pairs of the form ((a,b),c), where a, b, and c are elements of S. Consider further the binary relation A2 which is {(c,(a,b))|((a,b),c) is in A1}, and yet another binary relation A3 consisting ordered pairs of the form (e,f) where e and f are from S. If the union of A1, A2, and A3 forms an equivalence relation, then A1 and A3 form a basis for an "addition" of sorts (consider modulo arithmetic for instance).

    It is often customary to use the whole numbers as S, A1 with the following properties:
    1) (({},{}),{}) is in A1
    2) if ((a,b),c) is in A1, then ((successor of a, b),successor of c) is in A1
    3) if ((a,b),c) is in A1, then ((a, successor of b),successor of c) is in A1
    and A3 being {(x,x)| x is a whole number}

    You can check that the appropriate equivalence relation holds.

    You could then introduce '+' as notation so that a+b=c means ((a,b),c) is in A1.

    Obviously, I can't make all this rigorous in one post. But hopefully it gives you some idea how mathematicians "built-up" addition conceptually from sets.

    To unravel all this for 2+2:

    We look for the appropriate element in the set of the form (({{{}},{}},{{{}},{}}),c) in A1.
    Let us build up. (({},{}),{}) is in A1. So (({{}},{}),{{}}) is in A1. Which in turn means, (({{}},{{}}),{{{}},{}}) is in A1. This then means (({{{}},{}},{{}}),{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}}). Note {{{{}},{}},{{}},{}} is often referred as 3 and is the successor of 2 which is {{{}},{}}. Finally, we arrive at what we are looking for in that (({{{}},{}},{{{}},{}}),{{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}},{{{}}, {}},{{}},{}}) is in A1. {{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}},{{{}},{}},{{}},{}} is often refered to as 4.
    I am more about philosophical logic, not calculus logic
    Im out, its been fun

  5. #25
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    There is the notion of a set of elements.

    {} is the set containing nothing. {bka, pha} is the set containing bka, and pha. A rigorous development is beyond the scope of a single post.

    {{x},{x,y}} is the set containing {x} (which is in turn a set containing x) and {x,y} (which is in turn a set containing {x,y}).

    A short form of writing {{x},{x,y}} is (x,y) and is called an ordered pair.


    A set containing ordered pair is a binary relation. If R is a binary relation, {x|(x,y) in R} is called the domain of R and {y|(x,y) in R} is called the Range of a R. If for every x in the domain of R there is exactly one y in the range of R such that (x,y) is in R, then R is a '1-to-1' correspondence.

    If the following three things are true of a relation of R, then R is an "equivalence relation":
    1) (x,x) is in R
    2) if (x,y) is in R, then (y,x) is in R
    3) if (x,y) is in R and (y,x) is in R, then (x,z) is in R

    The 0 is often short hand for {}. The 'successor' of a set, S, is the set containing S and the contents of S. The successor of 0 is {{}} also often known as 1. The successor of 1 is {{{}},{}} also often known as 2. You could continue on this way. The sets defined this way are the "whole numbers."

    The number of objects in a set is defined to be the whole number to which you can create a 1-to-1 correspondence.

    Now imagine that there is a set S, and binary relation, A1, consisting of ordered pairs of the form ((a,b),c), where a, b, and c are elements of S. Consider further the binary relation A2 which is {(c,(a,b))|((a,b),c) is in A1}, and yet another binary relation A3 consisting ordered pairs of the form (e,f) where e and f are from S. If the union of A1, A2, and A3 forms an equivalence relation, then A1 and A3 form a basis for an "addition" of sorts (consider modulo arithmetic for instance).

    It is often customary to use the whole numbers as S, A1 with the following properties:
    1) (({},{}),{}) is in A1
    2) if ((a,b),c) is in A1, then ((successor of a, b),successor of c) is in A1
    3) if ((a,b),c) is in A1, then ((a, successor of b),successor of c) is in A1
    and A3 being {(x,x)| x is a whole number}

    You can check that the appropriate equivalence relation holds.

    You could then introduce '+' as notation so that a+b=c means ((a,b),c) is in A1.

    Obviously, I can't make all this rigorous in one post. But hopefully it gives you some idea how mathematicians "built-up" addition conceptually from sets.

    To unravel all this for 2+2:

    We look for the appropriate element in the set of the form (({{{}},{}},{{{}},{}}),c) in A1.
    Let us build up. (({},{}),{}) is in A1. So (({{}},{}),{{}}) is in A1. Which in turn means, (({{}},{{}}),{{{}},{}}) is in A1. This then means (({{{}},{}},{{}}),{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}}). Note {{{{}},{}},{{}},{}} is often referred as 3 and is the successor of 2 which is {{{}},{}}. Finally, we arrive at what we are looking for in that (({{{}},{}},{{{}},{}}),{{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}},{{{}}, {}},{{}},{}}) is in A1. {{{{{}},{}},{{}},{}},{{{}},{}},{{}},{}} is often refered to as 4.
    TL;DR LOLZ. How long did that take you to do? *Just joking, just joking*

  6. #26
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,568

    Default

    2 + 2 = 1

    Two piles of sand plus two piles of sand equals one pile of sand.

    (One must consider units to get a meaningful result.)

  7. #27
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    2 + 2 = 1

    Two piles of sand plus two piles of sand equals one pile of sand.

    (One must consider units to get a meaningful result.)
    2 piles of sand + 2 piles of sand = 4 combined piles of sand.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    I am more about philosophical logic, not calculus logic
    Formal reasoning is formal reasoning, whether you learn it in philosophy or in math. I believe math teaches it better, personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    TL;DR LOLZ. How long did that take you to do? *Just joking, just joking*
    Actually not very long. I didn't try to make it rigorous, just show one possible mathematical definition for 2+2.

    Most mathematicians and computer scientists who have studied sets could do a similar explanation in a few minutes.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  9. #29
    Senior Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    2w3
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    491

    Default

    This question isn't easy. LIES!

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Formal reasoning is formal reasoning, whether you learn it in philosophy or in math. I believe math teaches it better, personally.
    Philosophical Logic

    From wiki:
    Philosophical logic

    Philosophical logic deals with formal descriptions of natural language. Most philosophers assume that the bulk of "normal" proper reasoning can be captured by logic, if one can find the right method for translating ordinary language into that logic. Philosophical logic is essentially a continuation of the traditional discipline that was called "Logic" before the invention of mathematical logic. Philosophical logic has a much greater concern with the connection between natural language and logic. As a result, philosophical logicians have contributed a great deal to the development of non-standard logics (e.g., free logics, tense logics) as well as various extensions of classical logic (e.g., modal logics), and non-standard semantics for such logics (e.g., Kripke's technique of supervaluations in the semantics of logic).

    Logic and the philosophy of language are closely related. Philosophy of language has to do with the study of how our language engages and interacts with our thinking. Logic has an immediate impact on other areas of study. Studying logic and the relationship between logic and ordinary speech can help a person better structure his own arguments and critique the arguments of others. Many popular arguments are filled with errors because so many people are untrained in logic and unaware of how to formulate an argument correctly.
    To the bolded. I dont study the relationship between logic and speech. I study the speech itself and the logistics within the speech. This is how I listen and understand. What I do goes beyond if X then Y, or If not A then not B. Its not mathematical logic. I dont study logic, I practice logic.
    Im out, its been fun

Similar Threads

  1. Long - the quotes of lovable larrikin, Nobel physicist Richard Feynman
    By InsatiableCuriosity in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-02-2010, 11:18 PM
  2. Following the Trend...S/N Problems
    By Orangey in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-11-2010, 08:36 AM
  3. The Split Brain function problem
    By sculpting in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-12-2009, 09:04 AM
  4. Naomi Klein: What the hell is her problem, anyway?
    By pure_mercury in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 05:37 PM
  5. A very easy math problem I can't do
    By FDG in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-28-2008, 10:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO