I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Huang on 15 Mar 2010 21:43 On Mar 15, 6:54 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > No, it isn't. At least not your version. Mathematics deals with > > concrete and precisely defined objects. > > How is, say, the first extendible cardinal or a non-measurable set of > reals "concrete"? > > > Fuzzy Mathematics is not mathematics. It's a cult. > > Fuzzy mathematics is perfectly fine, ordinary mathematics. Some people > do associate the mathematical models, results, techniques, with dubious > and bizarre philosophizing, but that's another matter[1]. > > Footnotes: > [1] Bart Kosko's _Fuzzy Thinking_ is a wonderful read if one enjoys > paranoid rants and fifth-rate philosophy. There's also a bit about > fuzzy logic in the book. Alas, most texts on these topics are boring, > entirely lacking the chutzpah and inanity of Kosko's more exciting > fuzzy thinking. > > -- > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi) > > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Fuzzy mathematics is universally accepted throught the math community. One of the things it says that real world "objects" are difficult to define, so you give them fuzzy definitions and then whether something is or is not an apple becomes a question of probability. Let me restate that for Mr SBM Ostap Bender Jr : "Whether Something Is Or Is Not An Apple Becomes A Question Of Probability" Now - Bender wanter me to give a probabilistic treatment of simple arithmetic such as 2 + 3 = 5. Mr Bender - this is childs play for a mathematician. This is not a challenge at all. If you have 2 apples and you add 3 apples, abd the definition of apple is fuzzy, then by definition you are doing probability theory disguised as arithmetic. Sorry I dont mean to sound hostile toward you Mr. Bender, but I must insist that my primary assertion remains unchallenged - and at this point it is appropriate to mention - that "Every Probabilistic Problem In Mathematics Can Be Restated In Terms Of Existential Indeterminacy And Conservation Of Existential Potential." Fuzzy math included !! :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle, wirf sie nicht vor die Saue."
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 15 Mar 2010 21:44 Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> writes: > As stated elsewhere, Conjectural Modelling is a system of > "conjectures" which are consistent with respect to each other. It is > not mathematics and never will be, it is not supposed to be. But if I > have a cube or a sphere and I say there is a 50:50 potential that this > cube exists, then you cane safely say that %50 of the time you are > indeed doing mathematics and %50 of the time you are doing nonsense. > > These are not philosophical banalities. Indeed not. They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical interest or relevance. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Huang on 16 Mar 2010 07:18 On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > As stated elsewhere, Conjectural Modelling is a system of > > "conjectures" which are consistent with respect to each other. It is > > not mathematics and never will be, it is not supposed to be. But if I > > have a cube or a sphere and I say there is a 50:50 potential that this > > cube exists, then you cane safely say that %50 of the time you are > > indeed doing mathematics and %50 of the time you are doing nonsense. > > > These are not philosophical banalities. > > Indeed not. They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical > interest or relevance. > > -- > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi) > > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Inane or not, I see no proof that modelling based on "that which exists" is any better or worse than modelling based on "that which might exist". Inane or not, it is consistent. I'd like to see where that consistency fails to hold. Then I will believe that I have wasted someone's time.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 16 Mar 2010 09:26 "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> writes: > I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you > so far is trivial, very typical of any little child. I'm a bit perplexed by this remark, as well as your earlier claim, that Huang's assertions are philosophical banalities. I don't see anything trivial, trite or commonplace to e.g. his "primary assertion" "Every Probabilistic Problem In Mathematics Can Be Restated In Terms Of Existential Indeterminacy And Conservation Of Existential Potential." nor do I think it typical of little children's musings, who, in my experience, rarely maunder erratically about "existential indeterminacy", fuzzy logic etc. Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear to be, rather, an expression of some impenetrable and abstruse philosophical doctrine. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 16 Mar 2010 09:50
On Mar 16, 6:26 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you > > so far is trivial, very typical of any little child. > > I'm a bit perplexed by this remark, as well as your earlier claim, that > Huang's assertions are philosophical banalities. I don't see anything > trivial, trite or commonplace to e.g. his "primary assertion" > > "Every Probabilistic Problem In Mathematics Can Be Restated In Terms Of > Existential Indeterminacy And Conservation Of Existential Potential." > What is "Existential Potential" and where exactly did Huang use this term? Look, Descarte's saying "A think therefore I am" is a somewhat cute one-liner. Not among my favourite 100000 one-liners, but cute. But a post devoted to seriously discussing the "profundity" of this cute saying, belongs in sci.philosophy not sci.math. > nor do I think it typical of little children's musings, who, in my > experience, rarely maunder erratically about "existential > indeterminacy", fuzzy logic etc. Sure they do. I told my son about Zade's fuzzy logic, and so he uses this term left and right to make himself look "profound". Similarly, if you teach the term "existential indeterminacy" to a child (or to a parrot for that matter), (s)he will put this term into a lot of sentences. > Huang's babbling and his "primary > assertion" appear to be, rather, an expression of some impenetrable and > abstruse philosophical doctrine. And that's what I wrote to him in my initial post: " Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air?" In any case, I would like you to interpret for me the profundity of Huang's observations like this: > Now - Bender wanter me to give a probabilistic treatment of simple > arithmetic such as 2 + 3 = 5. If you have 2 apples > and you add 3 apples, abd the definition of apple is fuzzy, then by > definition you are doing probability theory disguised as arithmetic. Is "2+3=5" really "probability theory"? |