Math Is Fun Forum

  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

#1 Puzzles and Games » A carnival of geniuses » 2021-10-07 13:26:50

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Throughout my life, I have met tons of you geniuses, and you always seem to think that you know what seems to be happening in reality, again and again.

And, as you seem to think that you know what seems to be happening, anything that you geniuses think is happening, is allowed to be said, but something else happening than what you geniuses think, is not allowed to be said.

And this geniuses…is a problem...as when something said makes sense, it makes sense to be said again, or it only makes sense to be said once, but then unlike other things said, that thing said once, would never be forgotten, if it really made that sense…
…and something really said once that would never be forgotten, people would always remember without having to say it again…
…and something that people would always remember without having to say it again, would really have to be happening in reality, again and again.

And here geniuses, we have gathered to say what really is happening in reality again and again…so let’s start…

Before humans happened in reality, they haven’t yet imagined what is happening in reality again and again, as people haven’t happened yet in reality, to imagine anything.

One step before humans have imagined what is happening in reality again and again, they haven’t yet imagined what is happening in reality again and again, and that should be obvious for you geniuses, so again and again one step before humans find out, reality is something else than what humans imagine.

One step after humans have imagined what is happening in reality again and again,  reality was happening again and again since one step before humans found what really is happening in reality, again and again…

…and this may puzzle some of you geniuses…as you seem to think that you know what is happening in reality again and again…

If you geniuses know what is happening in reality again and again, surely you geniuses can really do it again and again…and that geniuses is because…

If you knew what is happening in reality again and again, but you could really do it only once, after you did it once reality still has to happen again and again, if you really knew reality geniuses, as…

Before you do something that you really have to not do, reality warns you,
Before you do something that you really have to do, reality calls you to do it, and…
One step before you really know something, reality has already told you what seems to be happening in reality over and over again, as I did tell you geniuses who you missed it in this text.

And that is because reality is fair to let you free, after you do what you have to really do, to ask yourself this question: “Do I really have to do something else, or am I done?”, and to find undisturbed from the geniuses the answer to this question, if you spend the time and effort that you have to spend, to find something.

So remember geniuses…
Nature is a lady, justice is blind, and…
…MAMA in the end puts order.

#2 Re: Puzzles and Games » [Math Challenge]: Prove me wrong. » 2021-10-06 23:19:12

The next one replying, put time and effort before you do so, I am not going to waste my time with wannabes here...

#3 Re: Puzzles and Games » [Math Challenge]: Prove me wrong. » 2021-10-06 23:17:14

GrandStrategos wrote:

Simple answer: Systems exist in mathematical logic, and they cannot be applied to life in general, because there is no set of formulas that explain life.

If there is no set of formulas that explain life, then surely your explanation below, isn't that set, that explains life, is it?
But apart from that, if there is no set of formulas that explain life, then the books you have don't explain any part of life, to any degree...which is untrue.
A set of formulas can explain life, to life...this is why humans...use formulas...to explain life to themselves...

...or else people wouldn't be using formulas.

Now is there a statement, that completely and consistently defines life, regardless of who it is we are talking about?
Yes, life is something else than anything you can imagine ,this is why you have to live a life to realize that.

GrandStrategos wrote:

The key problem here seems to be a isunderstanding of what a formal system actually is. The child and the birds are NOT formal systems, because there is no set of axioms that fully defines them. Children cannot be defined by a set of axioms, because we cannot fully define the child. Physically, yes, but you cannot prove their mental state or their unconscious desires. “But the child can speak!” Yes, but you will receive an answer in the formal system of English, or whatever language they speak, because languages are formal systems of their own. We need a definitive set of axioms from the source.

A set of axioms that fully defines them, is their DNA, plus the laws of nature, which they cannot break.
DNA of a bird, plus laws of nature regarding birds, you got yourself a bird.
DNA of a human child, plus laws of nature regarding human children, you got yourself a child.

GrandStrategos wrote:

The same goes for the birds; why does one bird go in one direction to find food, while another chooses a completely new one?
There is no axiom that describes what direction it goes in and whether it finds food.

There is, it is an axiom for life that life is free to make choices, from the beginning of life.

GrandStrategos wrote:

This is certainly false, because children and birds do not all share the exact same sequences of genes as others in their set.

When taking DNA, all the set of genes, which define a healthy species, are part of the set of genes which make life possible in reality.


GrandStrategos wrote:

The third example can follow a similar line of logic. Humans do not formulate sentences before speaking by using their own “system” because humans cannot be defined by a set of axioms, and are thus not a system. Rather, we use the formal system of the English language, specifically using the formal language defined by English, specifically its  syntax (how it is spelled) and its semantics (what it means). If human were individual formal systems, then everybody would have their own language, since systems cannot learn from other systems.

Systems cannot learn from other systems, is wrong at best...a waste of my time and effort replying to you at worst...as you as a system cannot learn from other systems...

Regarding systems, you writing down that "humans cannot be defined by a set of axioms" is an axiom also genius...you should have considered that before you attempted such a tedious and long reply...


GrandStrategos wrote:

There is another thing that makes your first 3 examples non sensical, and that is the fact that all 3 examples show living beings learning, not proving. Implying that a child has proven how to walk, or a bird to fly, or a human to speak logically all imply that they had it since birth, which is false. And you can’t prove learning, since humans, animals, and other living beings interpret knowledge in different ways.

Genius...focus in your next reply, as I am not going to waste more of my time and effort with your random walks in your head...

In order to learn something, genius, replying to me with such certainty, not having spend any time and effort to think, you have to prove to yourself what you learned...otherwise you haven't proved to yourself genius that you are making sense before you say something...

"Implying that a child has proven how to walk, or a bird to fly, or a human to speak logically all imply that they had it since birth, which is false"
Healthy children can learn how to walk from birth.

Healthy birds can learn how to fly from birth.

Both are made able to be able to prove that to themselves from birth, that happens through their instincts, meaning children have the instinct to try to walk, and birds have the instinct to try to fly.

If you here, still don't understand, do you think that children don't have the instinct to fly from birth, and can prove this to themselves...once they learn how to walk?





GrandStrategos wrote:

And as stated before, a bird has no axioms to even form a proof about itself. The child cannot prove himself, mainly because he does not understand the axioms of himself, because that requires knowledge of what he is. Children do not even begin to question their identity as a person.

The genetic code defines a living being.
The genetic code of a species defines a species.

Children begin to question their identity as a person, even before they can talk...this is why they do talk to you, to tell you who they are and what they want.

GrandStrategos wrote:

Physics is a formal system. However, what you describe is not physics. What you describe is the scientific method. Replace “physics” with another science and the implied point still stands. Physics is not the research papers, but the actual meat and norms; the formulas, the variables, and the rules that we believe it follows. Physics has axioms such as Newton’s Laws of Motion. A mistake here is that you are equating consistency to consistency in results. The system of physics on paper is everything we know about motion. When we discover a new part of physics, the system is not inconsistent, we just discover something that may or may not change our understanding of the system of physics.

It is an axiom up to now that reality seems to happen in the same way it happened before, reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine.
Even if reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine, everyone can still say that.
Anyone disagreeing with reality being something else than anything anyone can imagine, claim to be then one for who reality it that one imagines.

And if you are that one, genius, for who reality is what you imagined, and you had a problem with me writing straight to your face here, that reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine, why didn't you come earlier to tell me about it?
Wasn't reality something you genius imagined, so me telling you that reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine is part of your imagination?
And if that is so, why am I wasting my time and effort with your thoughtless, smartass wannabe answer....

Think genius, next time you reply to me, everything that you have written up to now, has been just a waste of time and effort.

#4 Puzzles and Games » [Math Challenge]: Prove me wrong. » 2021-10-01 02:36:30

AlexPontik
Replies: 5

Hi all,

Relax and be patient while reading, as below I am claiming that one of your famous mathematicians is wrong, that I am right, and on top of all of this bragging, that all of you can prove that to yourselves after you read what is written below, and...I am no famous mathematician...I am no one really...but...none of you are someone either...or do you think you are?

We start with some examples, regarding the argument I am making here.

Examples (the formal argument is provided under the challenge section)
for a child to walk, a child balances its body on its feet, and for the child to learn to walk, the child has to be able to prove that to itself, within its system, meaning once the child learns how to balance as described earlier, the child thinks, "I think I get how to walk",
or otherwise said,
"you have to balance your body on your feet to walk" is an axiom in order to be able to walk, and even children can prove this to themselves within their system.

"Most birds can fly" is an axiom in the reality I observe, that birds seem to be able to prove to themselves.
"If you are a bird, and you really sense that you can fly from your nature, then you can learn how to really fly", is an axiom that I observe birds are able to prove to themselves within their own system.

But, if we look at humans again, since one may say that animals are off limits for what we are discussing...
being able to make sense of the world around you by just observing and talking about it, is an axiom humans follow in order to have fun in reality
as when humans are talking nonsense, they haven't thought yet, how reality...really makes sense,
and other humans can prove that to them, so that...

then they can prove what makes sense to themselves, within their own system, after thinking about what was said alone, without bothering other humans with nonsense, before they prove it to themselves...by thinking about it.

Challenge <-- Prove to me that I am wrong (examples are provided above, if you don't understand below)
Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?
“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”
Because:
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.

Or if you want it explained in any other way...let's experiment with physics:
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.
Isn't it? If it doesn't seem to you,  here's why I think that:

Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening, appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

Or if you are still unconvinced, and you want it explained using casual language:
After someone says that "the consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system", can someone prove to oneself that in order for one to relax, one simply starts relaxing and waits, or is this inconsistent with someone's logic, and then someone cannot relax? Why?
If you want to naturally relax, you simply start doing that(relaxing) and you wait... and you can notice yourself after doing that again and again, that this is an axiom to relax, that you can consistently prove to yourself.
If you want to understand the logic of relaxing, the logic of relaxing is to have a simple common word which describes the starting point of naturally relaxing...if you want to use more words to describe that starting point of naturally relaxing, then this is less relaxing...than simply relaxing.
If you don't want to understand the nature of relaxing, don't worry too much about it, just relax and do something else.


Links regarding the challenge. Check on section "incompleteness theorem"  number 2 (links are provided so that you understand what we are discussing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del


Kind regards, and thank you for your patience,
no one.

p.s.
"Ok, but WHY ARE YOU SENDING THIS TO US?", someone may ask.
Use the links below, follow the money, and...be patient:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.250991363520389&type=3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNFYMORvM_o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFrv57zoPq0

#5 This is Cool » easy and difficult things in life... » 2021-07-19 17:29:14

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

if someone tells you that something should be easy for you
if someone tells you that something should be easy for you, and then when you try something, something is easy, that was good advice in the end, but
if someone tells you that something should be easy for you, and then you try something, and something is difficult for you, it doesn't seem to me that it is easy for someone to judge what is easy for you, let alone give you advice....
as someone told you something should be easy for you, then you try it, then it is hard, and then someone doesn't know what that someone is talking about.
If that someone knew what that someone was talking about, then the specific thing someone told you should be easy for you, when you try it, then it has to be easy for you, or someone misjudged...

...regarding you, when you judge something is easy for you, something is easy for you...
...when you judge something is difficult for you, something is difficult for you...
...and when something other than the above two happens to you, you have misjudged what is easy and difficult for you for the specific occasion.


People who excel at difficult things
In order for people to have a good life, they need to have fun in a way that is fun for their own selves , or else they are not having fun, and the universe can't do anything to change that for them if they don't change their way, that they notice, is not fun for them.

Regarding people who excel at difficult things, either...
The things those people excel at, are not difficult for them up to the point they excel...or...
The things those people excel at, are difficult for them up to the point they excel, ...and then ....

People who excel at things, that are difficult for them up to the point they excel, make it more difficult for anyone else to excel, as they already know that there are some for who it is easy to excel up to the point they excel, if they don't add some extra hurdles on the way for others...so that...they can excel instead...
Do these people make sense in general?
No, they don't in general.
And in specific, they make things difficult for others...

Shamed for doing something difficult
Some people find things which the majority find easy to do, difficult to do, and they are shamed for this.
Some people find things which the majority find easy to do, difficult to do, and they are not shamed for this.
Whether they are shamed for doing something or not, depends on the consequences something has in reality, on whether the rest like something in reality, and in the end on whether the rest people think it is sensible for them to try to be kind to others for the specific occasion, and...
sometimes it is sensible to be kind to another, and sometimes you are not being sensible with yourself, spending time and effort with another, and regardless of how kind you want to be to another, in the end justice is blind, since the beginning of humans, and you are not being sensible with yourself, when you ignore that.



things that are easy are easy for those who understand how to do them,

and things that are hard are no different than the things that are easy for those who don't understand how to do them...



Humans who have a different definition of easy than other humans, should remember:

Something is easy for me, if it is not hard for me to do in reality.

Something is easy for some people, if it is not hard for some people to do in reality.

Something is easy for most people , if it is not hard for most people to do in reality.



And what I mean by this is

If something is easy for most people or some people, but it is not easy for one, then whether something is easy doesn't become hard for everyone because of one, does it?





Clarifications

if people in groups or societies, don't have a common way to judge which things are easy or difficult, it seems to me things get more difficult for that group or society as time passes , or do you think this is not the case?

And what is that way,
which is common in a group of people to judge which things are easy or difficult,
you may wonder?..

In short it is what I initially wrote down. If you want me to write more...
You have a group of people, or society, people do things, and for the things they do, those things can be easy or difficult for them, on average, and that is because of the following...
When people in the group or society, want to judge other people in the same group or society doing things, they do that using their own personal view, but... regardless of their personal view, the common view people in the group or society have, is the view that most people have... commonly, that is the view that makes common sense for that group of people or society.
Because within a group of people, the common view people in the group or society have, is the view that most people have, the common view people in the group or society have, better for that group or society be a sensible one,
or else things get more difficult for the group or society, as time passes...
as the human senses work to support humans to have fun in their lives and stay alive up until they die, when humans follow their senses... and they warn them when they are not really having fun...
So how people in a group or society built a common view, happens in a funny way...
people exchange views, some are really thinking while doing that, some are really just choosing the views expressed in the group or society, that they would want the universe to impose to the rest of the group, as if the humans sense don't have common elements among humans...
But regardless of peoples' personal views,
the way that that human senses work is in a funny way for the conscious being inside the human body, because otherwise,
it wouldn't be funny for the conscious being inside the human body,
and this is because this is the best the universe could do for the conscious being inside the human body, both for the easy and the difficult times, as reality in the end is something else than anything you can imagine, because it really seems to be happening on its own without you really having to imagine reality, for reality to happen.
But to cut a long story short, so that I can hope that you at least have some reason to read my reply, in the end
within a group of people or society, people build a common view on which things are difficult or easy, however...unfortunately up to now, there can be cases where the entire group or society doesn't make sense, but this isn't what people who make up the group or society want to do, this is simply what they did, is what we find in the past, so that we can learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

#6 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Is Bible Prophecy Important? » 2021-07-08 06:34:02

Here's what I believe in something means to me...


what does it mean I believe in something?
It means I learn nothing else but something for some time, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

I learn something else and not just something for some time, but if you think this is REALLY of for you when you believe in something…

If in the end, I believe in something means I learn something else and not just something for some time, it doesn’t seem to me I believe in something specifically…does it seem to you…?


And what seems to be happening?

When one imagines something, something else is really happening around one, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one imagines something, something else isn’t really happening around one, but if you REALLY think this is ok…

If in the end, when one imagines something, something else isn’t really happening around one, it doesn’t seem to me where inside one imagines something…does it seem to you where ..?



Yes but what about God?

When one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, the ones before one did not write it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, the ones before one wrote it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, and the ones before one wrote it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, it doesn’t seem to me that...

GOD REALLY DIDN’T FORGET SOMETHING TO DO,
IF GOD REALLY DID EVERYTHING

...for the next ones who would like to write something down for the same God…does it seem to you…?

#7 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » What money does, who is good at making it, and who is an economist » 2021-07-08 06:21:11

We are doing the following thought experiment in the steps described below, with some instructions as well.

instructions have to be followed for the experiment to be completed, or else you are not really considering what is written below...

...so if that is the case for you, and you didn't follow the instructions below,

please don't waste our time and effort with your reply about something, that you could have posted as a subject on its own elsewhere...



1.Imagine that you do something,

instructions 1: feel free to imagine, following the steps and instructions below from beginning until the end.

Clarifications...

follow the instructions from beginning until the end, and don't waste my time and effort.



2.You do this something that you imagine in two different ways from its beginning until its end

instructions 2: you can come back to me with two stories, each with a beginning and and end, about something done in two different ways from its beginning until its end.

Clarifications...

Two stories that start and end, don't waste my time and effort, and follow the instructions from beginning until the end.

Where the instruction don't limit you, there you are free to imagine.



3.First you do it with money from its beginning until its end

*instructions 3:*Trade is happening in the first story with money.

Clarifications...

This means that, either you do something for another, and another gives the agreed amount of money to you,

or another does something for you, and you give another the agreed amount of money to another...and the agreed amount of money...

is the amount of money you and another...agreed in order to trade.

Example...

Why the below is provided as an example, in case it offends you, you will find out in number 4.

e.g. prostitution is legal in the place where this example...takes place, and you or another give money to the other other one in exchange for gender.



4.Secondly you do it without money from its beginning until its end

*instructions 4:*Trade is happening in the second story without money.

Clarifications...

This mean that, you do this for another and another does that for you, this and that is whatever it is for the specific occasion and instance, and money isn't involved between the two of you, in the second story.

Also this means that the stories you can come back to me are one story with trade and money

and the other story also with trade but without money...so follow the instructions, and don't waste my time and effort.

Example...

And now time has come to find out why prostitution was discussed in number 4, with the following example.

e.g. you and another have gender, and money isn't involved in this example.

You and another freely chose to have gender with one another, and freely chose not to use money.

Why this example is used in number 5., you will find out in number 6.



5. For the second way when you do it without money, you have to spend less time and effort to do it, from its beginning until its end

*instructions 5:*In the first story when you do it with money, you have to spend more time and effort to do it, from its beginning until its end

Example...

Time to find out the difference between 4. and 5. with the following example.

e.g. You have gender with another, another is your partner in life, and after gender...

having heard that that money's means , store of value, medium of exchange, unit of account...

you decide to give to another, who is your partner in life, after you had gender with one another...money...

so as to show the value of another to you, for the exchange that took place, with a real unit of account...

What do you think another would do, especially if you were a man and another was a woman...and you gave to a woman who was your partner in life, money after having gender with her, in order to thank her for having gender with you?

Still unconvinced?.. ok, let's move one...



6. I wonder would you say you are using your money wisely?

Clarifications...

follow the instructions from beginning until the end, and don't waste my time and effort.



7. Because if you would, wait a minute before you start replying, and listen to me.

In both stories that you can come back to me, you are trading with another.

In one of the stories, you have to spend more time and effort, to do what you freely imagined you do with another, plus you have to also use money on top of having to spend more time and effort to do it, unlike the way you do it in the other story.

In the other story, you have to spend less time and effort, to do what you freely imagined you do with another, and as you also have to not use money in the second story, you don't have to spend time and effort to use money, unlike the way you do it in one of the stories.



8. So it seems to me that the other story, and not one of the stories, is what you would be looking for...if it seems sensible to you to spend less time and effort, and not get caught up in one of those stories...you know the ones I'm talking about, no?.. if not, I am talking about one of the stories where you have to spend endless time and effort even for the simplest of things.



"Hey, I don't understand the above, what's the summary?", one may ask.

Money reduces the time and effort people have to spend to trade with one another.

Clarifications for the "I don't understand" one.

When one is wasting one's money, it is up to that one to find this out in the end for oneself.



2. When the way one uses money increases the time and effort one has to spend to do what one wants to do, one is wasting either one's money, or another one's money, or the rest one's money.

Clarifications for the "I don't understand, and I am offended" one.

When one is wasting another one's money, another one doesn't want to waste another one's time and effort, and tries to avoid trading with one, and trades...with another one.



3. And in the end, how all have to remember the above, is...

When some are wasting the rest of our money, it is up to the rest of us to show to some that we don't want some to be wasting our time and effort with their endless nonsense stories about what money does, because...



Clarifications for everyone.

Money reduces the time and effort people have to spend to trade with one another,

or people are wasting each other's time and effort spending their money...

...and then they have the nerve to call what they are doing trading with one another



Up to now, some people don't know how to not waste one another's time and effort, it seems to me,

and they add money on top of that, as if that would make their case better...

... how about they put some time and effort thinking now, so that they don't end up wasting our time and effort, because money reduces the time and effort people have to spend to trade with one another.

#8 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » What Is Religion? » 2021-07-08 06:05:55

Here's what I believe in something means to me...


what does it mean I believe in something?
It means I learn nothing else but something for some time, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

I learn something else and not just something for some time, but if you think this is REALLY of for you when you believe in something…

If in the end, I believe in something means I learn something else and not just something for some time, it doesn’t seem to me I believe in something specifically…does it seem to you…?


And what seems to be happening?

When one imagines something, something else is really happening around one, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one imagines something, something else isn’t really happening around one, but if you REALLY think this is ok…

If in the end, when one imagines something, something else isn’t really happening around one, it doesn’t seem to me where inside one imagines something…does it seem to you where ..?



Yes but what about God?

When one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, the ones before one did not write it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, the ones before one wrote it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, and the ones before one wrote it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, it doesn’t seem to me that...

GOD REALLY DIDN’T FORGET SOMETHING TO DO,
IF GOD REALLY DID EVERYTHING

...for the next ones who would like to write something down for the same God…does it seem to you…?

#9 Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » If a solution to a problem is easy to verify for correctness... » 2021-07-08 05:42:04

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Questions: If the solution to a problem is easy to verify for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?


Answer

when a solution to a problem appears, it is easy to verify that solution solves the problem, or you would have another problem and not a solution, no?


Consider the below problem

Pick a coin choose a side and flip it as freely as you want to live.

After you can guess the side the coin ends up facing you right all the time and regardless of the time and space you live, I have a question for you.

Why didn't you come here now to tell me about it stop writing before I finish this question here?

The above is a problem whose solution is easy to verify for correctness, but the problem isn't easy to solve, no?

Because if any problem was easy to solve, someone could predict the future, but next doesn't happen next in imagination really, next happens next in reality.





Another way to explain...

1.You are asking, if the solution to a problem is easy to check for

correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?

2. When a solution for the problem appears it is easy to check that

this solution solves the problem, or else you would have

another problem, and not really a solution.

3. A problem needs to start a path in time and space which ends

with a solution for this problem, in order for the problem to be

solved in time and space, or else all paths in time and space

with a beginning, a middle, and an end wouldn’t solve this

problem.

4. if it is easy to solve…

5. it is easy to check that the solutions solve the problem, or you’d

have more problems,

6. or you didn’t find this path… … so pick a coin, choose a side, and flip it as freely as you want

to live.

7. After you can guess the side the coin ends up facing you right all

the time, I have a question for you.

8. Why didn’t you come here to tell me about it now?





Clarifications

Consider the below problem

You pick a coin choose a side and flip it as freely as you want to live.

After you think you can guess the side the coin ends up facing you right all the time and regardless of the time and space you live, I have a question for you.

The second phrase is you solving the problem of flipping a coin and guessing before which side the coin will end up facing you.





The solution

Why didn't you come here now to tell me about it stop writing before I finish this question here?



The problem of one flipping a coin freely, and guessing the side the coin end up facing them, before the coin ends up with one side facing one in reality, is a problem that no one can solve, on their own.

But anyone can point out to everyone that no one can solve it, so that there isn't anyone who thinks that "if the solution is easy to verify for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?" a real question, because the answer is pretty simple...



Solutions are easy to verify for correctness, and problems don't have to be easy to solve, they can be easy, but they can also be hard, like the problem of guessing what will happen next in reality.

#10 Jokes » the historians... » 2021-07-07 12:10:05

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

In a well known café in Paris, on the day celebrating the French revolution, officers of the state have gathered in three tables while discussing about important matters planning the future of the state...

One of them who is heading the secret services says "No one shall learn the truth! Because the truth in the hands of our enemies, is of great danger to us, and we will show them who puts order in the end!"

Another of them who is a judge in the supreme court says "No one shall question our justice system! Because justice in the hands of our enemies, is of great danger to us, and we will show them who puts order in the end!"

Another one who is a heading the army says "No one shall question our power! Because power in the hands of our enemies, is of great danger to us, and we will show them who puts order in the end!"

A young waitress over listening the conversation, while bringing some croissants says to all of them "How about you big men, allow women to choose on their own the bad men, and point them out so that the rest men around can show them, how mama in the end puts order...so that we all can enjoy the revolution day again..."

#11 Jokes » [Unsatisfied Customer] When someone doesn't like it all... » 2021-07-06 01:54:31

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Someone: I don't like it, and it doesn't make sense to me!
No one: what specifically don't you like, and doesn't make sense to you?
Someone: All of it! I don't like it and it doesn't make sense to me!
No one: How would you like it to be making sense for the ones before you in order for them to choose to do it, in a way that you like and you chose before you were made?
No one: and how would you like it to be making sense for the next ones so that they choose to do it all,  in a way that all of it you don't like, and all of it doesn't make sense to you?
Someone: I would like all of it, if it was made in the right way, that made sense!
Someone: and I am afraid you are in the all of it that I don't like, and doesn't make sense, what is it that you don't understand?
No one: How you think outside of all of it that you don't like and doesn't make sense to you...how is it that you understand it all...

#12 Jokes » 3 wise men and a waitress » 2021-07-06 01:52:01

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Three wise men are talking about their enemies in a packed restaurant.
"I bet God this son of a math will die!", shouts the first one.
"I bet God the mother of this son of a math will die!!", shouts the second one.
"I bet God the entire family of this son of a math will die!!!", shouts the third one, while their order arrives.
"Here's your order gentlemen", she says and leaves, and while she is on her way to the kitchen, she stops in the middle of the packed restaurant, turns to face the wise men and says loudly to them, so that everyone can hear them.
"God doesn't respond to bets in reality, or otherwise I bet God after something happens to me because of the will of one of you, one of the members of the families of the people in this restaurant lives to wipe every last one of you...so how about you chill down a bit, and be gentlemen while dining here...wise men..."

#13 Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » What money does, who is good at making it, and who is an economist » 2021-06-18 02:40:08

AlexPontik
Replies: 1

What money does
When one uses money to do something, the usage of money reduces the time and effort one has to spend to do this something, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one uses money to do something, the usage of money doesn’t reduce the time and effort one has to spend to do this something, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one uses money to do something, the usage of money doesn’t reduce the time and effort one has to spend to do something, it doesn’t seem to me one knows how to use money…does it seem to you…idiot?






Who is good at making money
When one is good at making money, one is good at making money again and again, because if you REALLY think other-wise…

When one is good at making money, one is not good at making money again and again, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one is good at making money, one is not good at making money again and again, it doesn’t seem to me that the rest around one think one is good at making money…does it seem to you…idiot?





Who is an economist
When one is an economist, one knows what money does, and who is good at making it, because if you REALLY think oth-erwise…

When one is an economist, one doesn’t know what money does, or doesn’t know who is good at making it, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one is an economist, one doesn’t know what money does, or doesn’t know who is good at making it, it doesn’t seem to me that when the economy isn’t working we all don’t know why that is…does it seem to you…idiot?

#14 Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » What's the story with physics and why should mathematicians care? » 2021-06-05 19:33:10

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Argument

Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the be-ginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.


And all the above in summary  is

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.

Isn't it?


because for mathematicians it seems that...
1. "If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete"
2. "The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system"
3. …and if you ask me reality for mathematicians, either is inconsistent, or incomplete…and the opposite they cannot prove to them-selves within the system…before they lose their balance in reality…they have no idea…and let’s say ok with all of these but…

...didn't their mothers teach them anything in their lives?

#15 Re: Puzzles and Games » A maths question for a physicist » 2021-06-05 03:11:59

…reality for mathematicians, either is inconsistent, or incomplete…and the opposite they cannot prove to them-selves within the system…before they lose their balance in reality…they have no idea…and let’s say ok with all of these but…

Argument

Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the be-ginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.


And all the above in summary  is

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.

Isn't it?

#16 Re: Puzzles and Games » A maths question for a physicist » 2021-05-14 00:16:40

Hi Bob,

thanks for you reply, let me comment on some of your phrases, which grabbed my attention, and you can guide me according to your view on these, so that I fully get your thinking.

Bob wrote:

Mathematical modelling requires a set of axioms, so we can be sure what the originator is talking about and a set of proofs so we can get something useful out of the model.

I would put it as, in mathematical modelling axioms seem to exist, which commonly make sense to people other than the model's originator.

The ability of humans to make sense of what seems to be happening around them, is not unique in humans, other animals do so as well, but humans seem to be the only ones in this planet using their senses commonly with written language, meaning that they can write things down, and what is written down can be common sense to many others.

When words in some order make sense to humans regardless of their background, time or place, then this is usually what humans call common sense, for example:

A dog defecating on the street is probably an unpleasant site, if you are not the dog's owner, and even then things don't look all that bright for the viewer, but most people wouldn't say that what makes sense for the dog is to go to a toilet and make sure it doesn't make a mess, as it is a dog, and most people get that.

A human defecating on the street however, is a completely different story and most humans get that, some humans don't get that, and there are also the one who like to pretend that they don't get that, and what in the end applies commonly for humans, is what humans commonly get (pretty straightforward argument if you ask me, but I may be wrong in my thinking).


Bob wrote:

Ever since the Russell paradox: "If the barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, then who shaves the barber?"

The barber shave himself once and after that commits suicide, is what seems to be happening here to me, and that was all the story about this magical barber...


Bob wrote:

What Gödel did was to show that axioms on their own aren't enough.  He showed there exists theorems of this kind:

"This theorem cannot be proved".

Because if it can, then we have a logical inconsistency.

If this theorem cannot be proved, then it doesn't make sense to humans to write that theorem down, or it doesn't make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, because...

otherwise if this theorem cannot be proved, then it does make sense to humans to write that theorem down, and it does make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, but...

if in the end this theorem cannot be proved, and it does make sense to humans to write that theorem down, and it does make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, it doesn't seem to me that what humans write down ends up making sense to them, nor that that making sense was their intention of writing that theorem down.



Bob wrote:

As a physicist, you are used to theories becoming popular and then being overtaken by new knowledge.  eg. Newtonian mechanics worked well for centuries and even allowed the discovery of new planets, but got overtaken by Einstein's relativity.  And now that's in trouble because of quantum theory.  And as they smash particles with ever increasing energy, new stuff pops into the Universe.

But, in the world of physics (and several dozen other disciplines that use maths), we can always do the experiment to find out if the model is any good.  For a brief while during my undergraduate years I did a course that 'proved' Gödel's theory.  It was hard work and I couldn't re-hash any of it now. But I'm prepared to accept it, within the narrow world of logic.  Have I been able to live with this shattering knowledge?  Funnily enough, yes I have.  The World doesn't know about Gödel, so it keeps turning anyway.

As a physicist, this is what seems to me to be happening:
1) Humans have a current theory of physics, which describes what seems to be happening to some degree.
2) A new theory is proposed, which described what seems to be happening to a degree closer to reality, and usually can be simplified to the old theory (the old theory wasn't untrue, it was close enough to reality, but now something closer is proposed).
3) Experiments have to be done, in order to verify that the new theory seems to be happening in reality.

Humans are not imagining stuff, and stuff happens around them.
Stuff happens around humans, and humans can imagine how that is.
And what seems to be happening in the end is something else than anything a human can imagine, even though any human can say it.


Bob wrote:

I recommend you use your brain power for something else and stop worrying about unprovable theorems.  The World (and this forum) needs you!

if you make a theory with unprovable theorems, you don't have to worry about a lot, as you are already are not making much sense, it seems to me.
If you are trying to make sense however, what you theorize about, has to be common sense for others, and the way this is common sense for others, is their proof, not yours in the end.
What I mean is  I welcome any input, however I didn't decide to spend my time and effort writing here, so that I prove something to myself, I am doing so as I cannot disprove to me what I wrote, and what I wrote is pretty simply written for anyone who wants to discuss that exactly, it seems to me.

(and arguments of the type, Godel's language is too advanced for the common mind, is too advanced for the common minds in this forum)

#17 Puzzles and Games » A maths question for a physicist » 2021-05-12 23:57:15

AlexPontik
Replies: 4

Does the below argument make sense?

1.    Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?
“If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete.”
Because:
The phrase “if a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete”, is itself a logical system, it is consistent with what it says, and if that is so, something is missing from this phrase, according to what the phrase says. And so this bring us to the second phrase.

2.    Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?
“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”
Because:
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.

Kind regards

#18 Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Gödel's incompleteness theorems...get ready for fun... » 2020-12-07 09:43:30

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

1.Prove that the following phrase is wrong.
“If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete.”

Proof:
Choose as a logical system the system consisting of:
•    a coin,
•    a lifeform on earth whose purpose is to flip the coin and try to guess which side the coin ends up facing the lifeform, let’s say a human, since they have this ability
•    and finally the rest from the previous two, the coin and the lifeform,  out of all there is, meaning reality, where the lifeform can test what seems to be happening , and what doesn’t.

The above system seems to be a logical system, since it can be defined above, and can be tested in reality for consistency and completeness, in general and specifically (this follows next in the text in case you are in a hurry to find it here…)

The reasoning for the choice of the logical system:
In reality, out of all the human written knowledge, specifically for the laws of physics written down by humans and remain as laws of physics up to now, they seem to be happening consistently to humans since the beginning of humanity, up to now, and there is available human knowledge written  down which verifies this, up to now, by having recorded experiments’ results done in the past in reality, testing these laws of physics, so that the ones that remain and make up the laws of physics, are still consistent with reality.

Out of the human written knowledge, specifically the laws of  physics written down by humans, in the end, are what seems to humans to be happening around them in reality, up to now.
Laws of physics seem to be written down when reality can make common sense to humans with language, as a species, and they write down how that is, generally and for specific occasions.
When laws of physics remain in human knowledge, what is written down makes common sense to humans who otherwise had no prior experience of one another up close in reality, what is written down has been tested in reality, and experiments up to now verify the results expected.

If all the laws physics where one day found to be inconsistent with reality, then humans cannot be part of any logical system as a lifeform, as their logic is not what seems to be happening in reality, and the logic in reality replaces them at sometime. If this is assumed as true the initial sentence is wrong, as humans are not part of a logical systems, and cannot write down such sentences.
However, up until now what seems to be happening is that some of the laws of physics humans write down remain consistent, meaning they don’t change, remain written down, and are not forgotten, and some are proven inconsistent with reality, and are either changed, or forgotten, and the what was previously written down, is not any more a law of physics.

With this in mind, one law in physics does not change, can be written down, and should not be forgotten.

The basic law of physics, or what seems to be happening in reality for humans:
The basic law of physics is that “physics tells you what seems to be happening in reality for humans, and what happens next in reality, humans don’t know before next passes and now comes in reality”, or simplified “what happens next, happens next in reality”.

The proof for the basic law of physics “physics tells you what seems to be happening in reality for humans, and what happens next in reality, humans don’t know before next passes and now comes in reality” is both consistent and complete as a logical system is provided below:
•    1.Conduct the following experiment in reality:
        Pick a coin choose a side and flip it as freely as you want to live.
•    2.Conduct the following thought experiment in your imagination:
        After you can decide the side the coin end up facing you right all the time, and regardless of the space and time where you live, I have a question for you.
•    3.Here’s the problem and here is the solution to the problem:
        Why didn’t you come here now to tell me about it?

Observation:
o    No one came to tell me, regardless of whether I wasn’t expecting anyone to come, or I tried to leave my mind free to the endless possibilities of reality with the hope of expecting anyone/anything…
Further Observation:
o    … time passed…and no one came again…
Furthest Observation:
o    …time passed…and again and again no one came…so in order not to waste any more of the readers time and effort here’s my
Final Observation:
o    it seems to me that some humans don’t know what seems to be happening in reality
o    or they would be here now to tell me about it, since they would know already what happens next in reality, before I write anything here now, so here is what seems to be happening in reality…
o    Something else than anything humans can imagine happens in reality, it happens consistently, and it happens from the beginning of human recorded knowledge, up to now, and for all recorded knowledge which is the same as “physics tells you what seems to be happening in reality for humans, and what happens next in reality, humans don’t know before next passes and now comes in reality” and the proof that this statement is happening in reality and not in someone’s imagination is the disproof of

2.Prove that the following sentence is wrong.
“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”

Proof:
Beginning:
1.When the consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system, the system cannot do what it does in reality, because

2.Otherwise when the consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system, the system can do what it does in reality, but

3.If in the end when the consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system, the system can do what it does in reality, it doesn’t seem to me that the “system” cannot consistently and completely prove in reality that what happens next, happens next in reality and that this is an axiom for the system.
Middle:
1.When the system cannot prove that what happens next, happens next in reality, then reality happens next and the system doesn’t know what seems to be happening in reality, because

2.Otherwise when the system cannot prove that what happens next, happens next in reality, then reality doesn’t happen next, or the system knows what seems to be happening in reality, but

3.If in the end when the system cannot prove that what happens next, happens next in reality, then reality doesn’t happen next, or the system knows what seem to be happening in reality, it doesn’t seem to me that the system is not reality itself.

The end : humans as a logical system is:
1.When one human cannot prove that what happens next, happens next in reality, then reality happens next, and this human doesn’t know what seems to be happening in reality, because

2.Otherwise when one human cannot prove that what happens next, happens next in reality, then reality doesn’t happen next, or this human knows what seems to be happening in reality, but

3.If in the end when one human cannot prove that what happens next, happens next in reality, then reality doesn’t happen next, or this human knows what seem to be happening in reality, it doesn’t seem to me that there isn’t freedom out of all there is in reality for the rest humans to prove this to that one human.

Or otherwise phrased for the human lifeform, as a logical system:
•    Conduct the following experiment in reality:
        Pick a coin choose a side and flip it as freely as you want to live.
•    Conduct the following thought experiment in your imagination:
        After you can decide the side the coin end up facing you right all the time, and regardless of the space and time where you live, I have a question for you.
•    Here’s the problem and here is the solution to the problem:
        Why didn’t you come here now to tell me about it?

Well, it seems to me you didn’t because I just proved none of the rest of you couldn’t, regardless of the space and time where you live, or have I missed something out of all there is, or have I done something untrue, dishonest, or unjust, to what there might be?
That I do not know, because I do know that what happens next, happens next in reality, and reality doesn’t seem to lie to me, but humans do seem to do so sometimes.

#19 Re: This is Cool » Is this argument logical or not? » 2020-06-19 11:05:55

Mathegocart wrote:

I have also noticed that you have posted these same arguments on a couple of other forums.. so far, practically no productive discussion(this is not an insult; just an observation, so don't get enraged..) do you think there might be a reason with why no one is attempting to engage with you? Or are they all just asinine fools who don't get the true nature of humanity?

You seem to have already reached a conclusion yourself by your response, perhaps you are right, but to explain myself my current view is that:

1.you need patience to have fun. Why? You need patience to find this out. Why? Because you find this out in a funny way.
2.Sometimes it is more fun than what you can handle at this moment of your life, sometimes it is less fun, but when you are having a good time, it is just the right amount of fun.
3.And to find those times, it comes back to the beginning, you need patience to have fun, and if you are skipping through this text, you are not being patient.


Humans can feel good or bad, by default they feel good. Why? Because if by default they felt bad, , there would be no driver for children to do anything if life felt bad for them by default, and humans would have stopped existing.
Does "by default they feel good" mean they feel good all the time? No. Why? Because if that was the case humans wouldn't need to do anything and would have stopped existing (they feel good all the time, so there is no reason for them to take care of themselves).
So how does life go for humans? It has ups and downs, for a good life, life is still good for the person who lived it, for a bad life, life is still bad for the person who lived it.
So what do people do? They try to live a good life, according to what feels good for them.
How they do that is by using their experience and good judgement, no one ever reaches an infallible point, as each occasion and time requires a different approach.
So how are experience and good judgement useful, if each occasion and time requires a different approach? Because if you learn to balance your past experiences (regardless whether they are good or bad) with good judgement (wanting to feel good but at the same time wanting to be careful, not shut off fear from your life), you have a good life.
This is easily described in writing, but, as written above, each occasion and time require a different approach, so to do this requires a lifetime.

#20 Re: This is Cool » Is this argument logical or not? » 2020-06-10 08:49:08

What is the difference between "fun" and "quest" for you?
If one man lives with a "quest" for dominance and stability (of their own life), could the same man live without fun?
And if that man lives with  a "quest" for dominance and stability (of their own life), a life that in the end is not fun, aren't the words dominance and stability in the end lies that man told himself, and nothing else?
Why would anyone tell himself such lies? Because he wasn't funny, and he chose to define life with more pronounced words. The words that exist in language are enough, and within those words the ones most commonly used, are the ones that define what we humans call "common sense".

And this is what my "common sense" tells me:

Humans need to feel good. Why? For the simple reason and no other that otherwise they would feel bad, and in the end they would damage themselves (this is why bad feels bad, so that you try to avoid feeling this way).
And what about the in between? In between is  all the fun, some people manage to keep their lives feeling good, and it doesn't necessarily has to do with any "quests" they have, some don't, and it has everything to do with the "quests" they have (because their "quests" are in their heads, but fun happens on every part of yourself, emotion is not localized in you brain).


"Also, you must give evidence for whatever beliefs you put forth. It is not up to us to come up with evidence to justify your claims."
Most people think that fun is trivial and they have more serious things to do, and this is where we are.
And my argument is, oh do they?
How about they write to us what more fun is there in life, than just fun? Or do I need to provide evidence to you that there is nothing more fun in life, than just fun?

(If you are having thoughts, then how does one has a fun life, the answer is easy, you find it with patience. Why? Because you need patience to have fun. Why? Because you find how to do this out in a funny way.
Sometimes it is more fun than what you can handle at that moment in your life, sometimes it is less fun than what you can handle at that moment in life, but when you are having a good time, it is just the right amount of fun.
And to find those times, it comes back to the beginning, you need patience to have fun. )

#21 Re: This is Cool » Is this argument logical or not? » 2020-06-01 10:00:31

Mathegocart wrote:

I also read your book and read this passage.

“Some humans, very frequently male in gender, if you read anything written about history, seem to go
bananas and want to hurt the rest humans, male or female, cause they are not having fun.”

What does this mean(To me, it seems a little odd..)? And how are they "not having fun?" Can I have some historical examples(because there seems to be none in your Google Docs.)

Also, could you make your posts a little more.. cogent? For one, it would help if you removed your 1., 2., and 3. points and simply said "humans HAVE tried to have a beginning, middle, and end in all their stories..)
I am not attempting to insult or debase your person. All I am saying is that writing at a higher level would make yourself more understandable and receivable to all.

Sure, primarily war in history is envisioned, planned and conducted by men (read anything you like in history and find the counterexamples, then weigh them with the times that the previous phrase applies. If this isn't obvious to you, I will need you to guide me to your view, I am more than willing to hear your perspective)
Also primarily crime in society is envisioned, planned, and conducted by men also (the majority of inmates are male).

the phrase is analyzed below in detail:
Some humans (meaning not all), very frequently (from a statistical point of view) male in gender, if you read anything written about history (meaning if you read anything written about history), seem to go
bananas (means they lose their previous contained good self) and want to hurt the rest humans, male or female (meaning war or crime), cause they are not having fun (meaning if things in the universe were going the way they wanted to, then they would be having fun and would be their previous contained good self).

#22 Re: This is Cool » Is this argument logical or not? » 2020-06-01 02:44:04

Hi Agnishom,

I agree with your comments, as like you wrote, this is an inductive argument (when I initially wrote this I had "sorta proof" instead of "proof", but I thought in the end it weakened the argument, as I needed more words to explain why I would write "sorta proof").
But since it makes some sense to someone let me explain myself a bit further with this argument, to get another's person's perspective. Also just to warn you from the beginning the below is a bit far fetched smile.


I use the following simple model to describe myself. Generally, I can:
1. feel, which ranges from subtle to intense.
How good and how bad I don't know , but the fact that there is this range is obvious to me judging from my life's experience. The specific point in the range which happens at any given moment, depends on the occasion.
For example, sleeping feels less to me than swimming, and swimming feels less than me hitting myself (and also the last one feels a bit stupid for me to do repeatedly to verify...)

2. calm down, which requires time to work, and when successful changes feelings to a less intense state.
How much time, I don't know , but the fact that I can't calm down instantaneously is obvious to me judging from my life's experience. How much time it will take for me to calm down depends on the occasion, and my previous state.
For example physical pain going away (i.e. stop feeling pain) takes more time , than putting myself to sleep.
Calming down is related to thinking, but when I am thinking, I am also trying to reach some conclusion after I imagine, feel, and calm down from emotion.

3. experience, which has to do with what I can sense happening in time to me.
How experience can be defined formally, I honestly don't know(despite my attempts in this text), but the fact that what I experience has to do with what I can sense happening in time to me,  is obvious to me judging from my life's experience.
For example, when sleeping without dreams I don't have any memory of experiencing anything when I wake up.
Sleeping with dreams which I remember, I can sense in time, and remember the dream in some order in time (probably not continuous but still ordered in time).
When I am awake, regardless of the occasion, and how relative time may seem in the moment, I can feel time passing by.


(and here I may easily be wrong...) it seems to me that the same model applies to other people, regardless of their life's experiences.

If I attempt to define the above three words more formally, I would try something like the below (which is a bit stupid to do, so please go easy on me smile ):

4.Axioms:
1.all people have emotions, which are infinite and uncountable , meaning there are no words which can describe exactly every emotion one feels in the moment, just potential models of humans which go around this problem.
2.But all emotions are bound within the same set for all humans, and this set is the one that describes the humans as a species.
3.Let's name this set H. For any set X for which H is subset of X, and H not equal to X, then X does not describe humans.

Definitions:
1.Feel: an infinite uncountable set of all emotions one can feel at any given moment, i.e. Feel={x|x is any emotion a human has at any given moment}.
What's the use of this:
Using this set, for any given period in time, the emotions one human passes through will be a subset of Feel.
An example would be that for the  time period of 8 hours during work, one passes through calm, happy, disappointed, laughing and the list of emotions continues (with both good and bad).
While we mentioned that the set Feel is infinite and uncountable, we also mentioned that humans have a range of emotions they can go through while being alive.
This range may be similar, but it is not the same with other living beings or, the set Feel for humans is a subset of the set Feel for all life.
For example, cats can see easier in the dark than humans, and they can do this using their emotions instinctively.
Following in the text the set Feel refers only to humans, this last note is to point to the fact that there is more emotion around in life than humans can feel.

2.Calm down: a permutation of a subset of Feel, with the first emotion in the permutation being more intense than the last (or the last being more subtle than the first).
What's the use of this:
We mentioned that calming down takes time for humans. The amount of time it takes is described if we consider the emotions one passes through during this time period.
So we use a subset of Feel to describe a time period for a human. But humans don't pass through all emotions randomly, there is a process to the madness.
What this process is I don't know, but emotions are in some order in the time period for humans to choose to repeat, plus I can write the fact that to for a human to calm down the emotions move from more intense to more subtle.
Let as consider any permutation of the subset of Feel and use two examples below.
1.For example I choose to pass through being not at all, a bit, and hungry first, and then choose to eat, in order to feel satisfied, fulfilled, joy when I eat.
Other permutations in this example make no sense, but there are examples where this is more tricky...
2.For example in human interaction there is no easy way to order the humans emotions, for the interaction to be good for all participants.
Due to this human interactions are circumstantial, and humans try to navigate their emotions per occasion.
3.In practice, most humans try to bound their behavior per occasion, and they aim to be able to do this instinctively, in order to avoid getting hurt.
When this works, people repeat the behavior, when it fails they get hurt in some way and need to do something else than calming down.
For calming down, if we consider a permutation of a subset of feel, with the first emotion in the permutation being more intense than the last (or the last being more subtle than the first), the process of calming down is described enough for the time period it refers to.
Emotions in the the permutation of a subset of feel, can have spikes (i.e. one emotion to the next are distant), even when one is calming down. For example if you have a toothache, and you are trying to calm down, you still get spikes of pain.

Think: a cycle of a subset of Feel, which humans want to repeat
In general the time periods humans go through can be described with the following process as:
1. one wakes up sometime 2. one passes through emotions the rest time one is up (actions are implied here) 3. one sleeps sometime later. --> this is usually a day, although some night owls may stretch it , thus the general description.
For smaller or longer periods of time, humans try to have a 1. beginning, 2. middle, 3. end in all their stories, arguments, facts, or actions in general ,or what they do cannot be understood by others.
For example a story is John went to the grocery shop, bought bananas, came back home and ate them.
For example an argument is that John should have remembered to buy shampoo as his wife asked him to.
For example a fact is that the sun rises every day (An argument here would be that the sun rose yesterday and the day before as long as one can remember, and a story that there was once a time when the sun was a gas cloud condensing slowly to our solar system that we have today).
For example an action described is I wanted to make an omelette I put a pan on the fire, added oil, waited for the oil to get hot enough(judging by experience), broke and added the eggs to the pan, added enough salt and pepper(judging by experience), and waited until the eggs are cooked (judging by experience).
A cycle of a subset of feel describes a time period, for which the emotions are ordered in a cycle for humans.
This may or may not be according to what humans want. When it is, people want to repeat this cycle of emotions, when it isn't people try to avoid it. In everyday words, this is "think before you act".
However, all these written down here are jargon, and to move from a subset of Feel to a cycle of feel which you want to repeat, is a bit of a pain in the math, if I want to be honest with you (I mean look at what I'm writing trying to write here...).
So it requires patience to observe the cycle of emotions you go through and judge where you are out of your desired boundaries.
And patience is a word for which I don't know its meaning, I simply follow it intuitively.

3.Experience: when referring to a moment, it is a moment in time (for humans=an emotion a human has at any given moment), or otherwise it is a cycle of a subset of H. (Feel set= single human, H = Feel set for all humans as a species = all humans now, in the past, and in the future)
What's the meaning of this:
At any given time you experience something when you are awake.
Otherwise experience refers to a common experience humans want to have and can share, either by living it together, or by one talking about it to another.
For example me writing this text is an experience, as I am typing these words this moment. But this isn't a common experience unless I am making any sense with this text.
For example a common experience is a family.

#23 Puzzles and Games » What is there? » 2020-05-27 07:06:34

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Hi all,

is the below argument logical, or is there an error in the reasoning?
both positive and negative feedback are welcome, but please, keep it classy smile

Question: What is there?
Reply: Now, there is nothing, something, and something else.
Reasoning:
1.Why? Because if there was something else, we included it.
2.And why is something else included from the beginning? Because it's different from nothing and something, it's...something else.
3.Also nothing is different from something (and both different from something else as mentioned).

#24 This is Cool » Is this argument logical or not? » 2020-05-27 06:56:00

AlexPontik
Replies: 10

Hi all,

is the below argument logical to you (does it make sense), or am I wrong somewhere (p.s. yeah, I know it's a weird argument...).
All feedback welcome, but please keep it classy

Hypothesis:
A joke is funny if and only if:
1) When I think of it, it is abnormal.
2) When I feel it, it feels good.
3) I cannot experience it continuously for it to still remain funny.

Forward Proof:
Assume a joke is funny --> prove that all 3 above are true:
1) If when I thought of it, it was normal, it wouldn’t surprise me. Yet a successful joke always surprises me.
2) If when I felt it, it felt bad, it wouldn’t be a joke to me.
3) No matter how good a joke is, I can only experience it from time to time for it to be funny.

Backwards Proof:
Assume all three above are true --> prove it is funny
Start from 2.
2) it feels good. It belongs in the set of experiences I want to live.
1) I think it is abnormal. It is a surprise/unknown experience I want to live.
3)I cannot experience it continuously. It is an unknown experience I want to live, but once…or from time to time…but I’m not sure when…isn’t it ?

In the above text, by definition the following words provide answers to the following questions in life:
1.Think: If I calm down from emotion, what conclusion do I reach?
2.Feel: which emotions come to me?
3.Experience: within everything, it is me, it is the rest (rest = everything-me). What is my connection with everything, this time?

#25 Puzzles and Games » Just Fun Society » 2020-05-22 12:13:14

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Hi all,

This one isn't for the faint of heart , and it requires quite some patience, so beware you were warned! roll
Feel free to skip this thread here, also if you expect formulas. roll
You will need to use your logic and common sense to understand the puzzle first, and then provide a solution. roll

The puzzle has as follows:
1. Unfortunately (or fortunately, cause you can skip this thread here and avoid wasting your time...) you have to read the text in the below link (21 pages, but with images, cause it's fun!). Be patient, or skip this thread.
2. After reading it, you need to think with what you know = imagine + have experienced in the past, on whether something missing from the text. What this means, you will find while reading the text, be patient, or skip this thread.
3. We are waiting for your feedback smile, keep it clear, keep it simple, keep it classy, or skip this thread cool

Let's talk about everything! So that we know what on earth we're talking about

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB