What is addition?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Are each of us one self or a bunch of clones that produce the belief/dimension that we are the same self?
Next: CLICK CLICK
From: John Jones on 29 May 2010 21:06 John Stafford wrote: > In article <pan.2010.05.19.15.13.54(a)erkonx.net>, Zerkon <Z(a)erkonx.net> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 May 2010 03:10:16 +0100, John Jones wrote: >> >>> "2 + 2 = 4" does not express a truth, it expresses a pattern (such as >>> two by two re-patterns to four by one). The whole pattern is given. >>> There is no truth about it. >> Which then would apply to this and all posts and all forms of learned >> communication as also being whole patterns given. Correctness (if not >> truth) is established by mutual human agreement. 2+2 must be recognized >> by a human capable of seeing the pattern which then is said to express. >> >>> "2 + 2" says nothing. It does not express a pattern, >> Therefore it says something. > > Mr. Jones, if there is any human enterprise that has truth, it is > mathematics. Once proven, a theorem becomes TRUTH. It is how mathematics > must work, from proof to proof. Mathematics can't show a truth because mathematics takes truth as given.
From: John Jones on 29 May 2010 21:07 heptangular wrote: > On May 18, 9:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> "2 + 2 = 4" does not express a truth, it expresses a pattern (such as >> two by two re-patterns to four by one). The whole pattern is given. >> There is no truth about it. >> >> Addition is not a function that is followed by an outcome. It is a means >> to express at least two ways of looking at patterns. The pattern is given. >> >> On the other hand, "2 + 2" says nothing. It does not express a pattern, >> nor is it a function, for a function has an outcome. The addition sign >> that is used in "2 + 2" plays a different role to the addition sign in >> "2 + 2 = 4". Amen. > > Quantitative systems, like other formal schemes, can feature > absolutes. What? Maths is rules of behaviour. Maths makes no comment on absolutes. > It's the one context where they're legit, just as a common > trade like plumbing has its axiomatic conventions and requirements for > conducting work operations and the manufacturing of parts. Go against > the "certainties" of fact and procedure established in a specific > profession and get accused of irresponsibility eventually. Whether or > not the world outside of invented human systems has "truths" and > "absolutes" is a different (potential) waste of time issue. >
From: Akira Bergman on 29 May 2010 22:52 On May 19, 12:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "2 + 2 = 4" does not express a truth, it expresses a pattern (such as > two by two re-patterns to four by one). The whole pattern is given. > There is no truth about it. > > Addition is not a function that is followed by an outcome. It is a means > to express at least two ways of looking at patterns. The pattern is given.. > > On the other hand, "2 + 2" says nothing. It does not express a pattern, > nor is it a function, for a function has an outcome. The addition sign > that is used in "2 + 2" plays a different role to the addition sign in > "2 + 2 = 4". Amen. You are making a similar mistake as in the "True but not provable" thread. You are again confusing the rhetorical tautology with the tautology of mathematical logic. You are making another mistake by clashing the word "pattern" with the "truth" of mathematical logic. Everything has a pattern when represented. Therefore the statements; "The whole pattern is given. There is no truth about it." do not make any sense. The statements; "On the other hand, "2 + 2" says nothing. It does not express a pattern" expose this mistake more clearly. Maybe you should read a good book on mathematical logic, and not post any more on this topic until you have a good understanding.
From: Charlie-Boo on 29 May 2010 22:59 On May 19, 2:41 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 8:05 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > > "2 + 2 = 4" does not express a truth, it expresses a pattern (such as > > > two by two re-patterns to four by one). > > > WOW! > > > That's profound! > > > How long did it take for you to think that up? > > Wow. That's a profound heckle. How long > did it take you to think it up? And why did > you censor the header? > > Oh well, don't worry. He's not here to feed > the trolls, he's here to troll the feeds. Your > replies will splat against his windshield > of apathy. What a profound reaffirmer! But back to thinking . . . C-B
From: Charlie-Boo on 29 May 2010 23:01
On May 18, 10:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "2 + 2 = 4" does not express a truth, it expresses a pattern (such as > two by two re-patterns to four by one). The whole pattern is given. > There is no truth about it. > > Addition is not a function that is followed by an outcome. It is a means > to express at least two ways The two ways are due to the use of = not due to the use of + in the expression. C-B > of looking at patterns. The pattern is given. > > On the other hand, "2 + 2" says nothing. It does not express a pattern, > nor is it a function, for a function has an outcome. The addition sign > that is used in "2 + 2" plays a different role to the addition sign in > "2 + 2 = 4". Amen. |