Problems registering at AoCZone?
You can try resending activation email. If that doesnt work you can send an email here. If you forgot your password click here.
 Main Menu

 ForumsSearch »

 SY Nations Cup 2017

 Escape Gaming

 AoC Recorded Games

 AoE2HD Recorded Games

 AoFE Recorded Games

 Major Past Tournaments

 Auto downloadedFind »

 Users currently online
Members (45)
»  ebbu
»  Poxo
»  serv
»  Tiger
»  Zoso
Guests (157)

 AoC Clans Add yours »

 Links

 Ads

Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Hang out and relax, everyday discussions, chit-chat, off-topic, wololo
Advertisement from Google 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:09 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 16:57 GMT » abhibasusen wrote:
Btw
How can you say that "now" is an absolute truth?
Because somewhere someone has already assumed the present. Or may be nobody assumed but it can still be assumed.

From your point of view, can something be more true than now?
But I did not make the statement: " Now is an absolute truth", you are the one making that. Prove it.
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:31 pm

"If it were trivial, would it deserve an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? :roll: "
Why are you depending on Stanford to establish truth?
So you are saying I have no idea what is important, but since it is in Stanford's page it must be.
You are establishing belief on someone else's intellect.
That seems like a lack of integrity in being able to say and observe the truth.
Is that not how politicians talk? I am dishonest, but it is alright since others are more dishonest than me? Why are you asserting on "confidence" on Stanford. Then it is simply an emotion you are asserting on. Assert on your intellect, and then at least give me a good challenge. Because so far it is extremely trivial, like two children fighting and shouting.

"He discusses a notion of truth in an entirely different context - formal logic/languages. It is certainly not trivial,
let alone circular."

It is extremely trivial, under my truth. He is only giving a rule. Is his rule proven? Anyone can throw a rule. Throwing a rule is trivial to me. All rules have assumptions. All definitions are assumptions. You have to evaluate what is true? And can the same thing be made true under lesser assumptions?
Do you not think that it would be important?

It is nonetheless a good rule and definition, but depends on an assumption on top of it, so obviously it cannot be proven inside of it. See the similarity to Godel's second theorem?. I will leave you to figure out 1 + 1 = 2

"Read 'It is important to note that as Tarski originally formulated it, this theory applies only to formal languages. "
Exactly my point. He has made an assumption and his rules are only valid under that assumption. Are you trying to say anything else? That seems to be precisely what you mean to say. Tell me when you have another original thought, other than this rule, that rule blah blah. What is the assumption for the rule to be established? Did you ever think to question that?

"Yeah you need none. But your argument has no content whatsoever, and therefore is trivial. "
A: That is subjective. How are you defining "content"? So under your definition of content, it could be trivial, but please give me a definition, and I will show where and how your definition would go wrong.

"One should not get angry at what is true."
A: I am not. But one should have some respect and manners as well, when communicating, otherwise are we really better than animals?

" It cannot seriously be considered as an argument, exactly because you claim to get something out of nothing (no assumptions at all). "
A: Yes that is exactly my claim. Read it again and try refuting even a single line of my argument. You will not be able to do so. Come to me when you come up with something which could even possibly refute a single line of what I wrote.

" You are trying to build a sort of logical analogue of a 'perpetuum mobile'. Of course I know enough to evaluate what you wrote, it requires no sophistication; the flaws are obvious."
A: What are the flaws? If they are obvious: point them out to me, and I will show you how and why they are non-obvious. Beat me in a civilized argument. You just seem to be throwing words like "obvious" around to make fun and hit below the belt.

Let's play a game.
Make an assertion. If A then B.
Let's identify A(assumptions), and then let's see how to get to B from A. Try putting your own arguments in a clear concise and readable manner. Say that
A: This is my list of assumptions.
This is my method of deriving B.
This is B.

Let's talk like that. I mean you do have Euler in your nick right? I think you can give something as simple as this a shot?


"Even if you had a point, it would be considered to be of no value, because everyone else assumes that it is meaningful to say that something is true (so did Descartes, Tarski, etc indeed any scholar)"
A: No value to you maybe, but I just solved the problem of sarcasm detection in NLP ( gave the best possible solution and established in reason why no better solution than that currently exists) with a friend in under 30 minutes, using my theory. ( Breaking Descartes's argument is one application of it. This was broken in under 90 minutes, by applying that particular theory.( you can have a glimpse of it, on the previous two times I have discussed that on AocZone, and was ridiculed here, and laughed at. Refute my argument by pointing out where I am wrong.

Right now all you are saying is: This is of no use. Wrong my theory solves a lot of things, and this is but one application. Do you really think making the cardinality of the set of assumptions required to establish a belief, smaller is a trivial thing?
What did Karl Popper( could have been someone else, he pops to mind right now, google the exact thing) say.
If I can say A using N assumptions, and if I can say A using N-1 assumptions, then the second A is more absolute or more fundamental truth than the first A, because it is established under lesser assumptions. The more rules or assumptions you define, the more likely you will go wrong(need to have more data to check them). How is that not obvious to you?


"thus what you say cannot seriously refute what Descartes, Tarski, etc. said."
A: Again I did not say that. That is what you think I said. I said I beat them at establishing a more fundamental truth. I made N-1 assumptions than them.

"Your main claim is that 'truth cannot be defined'. Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant: Descartes etc. don't assume that truth can be defined, they just assume that a notion of 'truth' exists (but what this notion is we don't know, we merely assume existence). "
A:
1) Descartes etc. don't assume that truth can be defined
2) just assume that a notion of 'truth' exists
What is the difference between 1) and 2). Both have an assumption there. At least read before you write something down.
I am simply saying an assumption exists, which I have removed and you are continuously trying to justify that assumption.
I am saying there is no need to make that assumption in the first place at all. N-1 assumptions. Do not think I said this or that. I said exactly what I said. Nothing more nothing less. And it is true.

"It is true that the set of real numbers is closed and open "
A: Wow you can speak some truth. But,

"(this is trivial if you look at the definitions)."
A: Please write down the definition and I will show you how they are either ambiguous or use the axiom of infinity. There is no other way to derive them.

"Closed and open are not notions that exclude each other. Sets are not doors (which are either open or closed). Clearly you are not familiar with these notions."
A: Yes, I am familiar a little bit with them,enough to know it. You need to make use of an axiom of infinity, to establish close or open set anyways, and then you simply bend the rules in set theory to explain what a set should be or could be. Just more rules.
You continuously keep throwing rules. Please try and come up with an original thought.

"The definitions of open and closed do not depend on this axiom. They rely on standard logic, the set-theoretic notions of union, intersection, and complement."
A: The definition might not, but then the establishment or proof or deriving the reals or putting them under either "open", or "close" will depend on the axiom of infinity. These are again rules which you HAVE to make up, because Descartes made that one extra assumption. And you need consistency in your formal language of mathematics.
Godel said you cannot have both consistency and completeness. You do not want completeness, but try to be consistent, under your set of assumptions. All those rules are simply rules needed to maintain consistency. True or False?

Edit: Please forgive the tone if you find it offensive. I always respond nicely to nice things. I could be wrong, and I have no shame in admitting it. I would happily accept I am wrong, but at least show me where I am wrong, and stop saying this is "obvious", without defining obvious, or trivial, without defining "trivial" etc.. Mistakes are obvious without pointing them out.
Maybe you do not like this, but at least give it a shot that there is a non zero probability of what I am saying could be true.
I mean do you think anyone here is capable of saying what I am saying in such clear, concise and precise answers to each and every one of your questions? Right now, you are not being concise. All you are saying is that some other guy said this, someone said something else. In reasoning we are in the business of doubt, otherwise how are we different from religion if we just say that we trust what someone else is saying? Pick any one line of my argument and refute it. Ask nicely and I promise I will respond nicely.
Last edited by  _InDuS__novice on Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:00 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:41 pm

"Your post is really tough to read. Do you always mean me when you say "you" or do you switch between me and people in general? I also don't understand your point and train of thought in all of this."
A: I apologize for that man. I try and address the speaker or the questioner. By you I mean the person who made the statement of doubt, so obviously it is addressed to that particular person. If anyone else wants a complete meaning, they have to read through the statement of doubt and my particular reply to the particular questioner. There is no better way of discourse possible right. You are simply getting out of context. You need to get the context from what has been said earlier by the questioner.

"Your "Logic1" seems like a possible way I could define logic and then the yes/no section shows why it has to exist?"
Exist has not yet been defined so far. You can reason in thought right. For example.
Assumption: I am hungry.
Ergo: I need food (some feeling there).

Assumption: A implies B.
B implies C.
Ergo A implies C.
That is logic.

"Your "Logic2" seems like an alternative way logic could be defined, or can Logic1 and Logic2 be simultaneously valid definitions of logic?"
These are all the processes in thought you can use to establish if something is true or false.
All of them simultaneously define logic.
But if you want it compressed: Logic if anything which yields truth, upon application. What could be simpler than that.
It is a tool essentially to generate truth given a set of assumptions(beliefs). Where the set of assumptions also contains an object which is "NO assumptions"

"i do not understand what your "Logic3" Part means at all, as well as the paranthesis part, what is "this" and "it" you are talking about? Please help me out, I do not understand your post at all."
A: That is not meant for you sorry about that. Will explain later to who it is meant to. It is without context, but it is a rule as well, and you are allowed to do this one particular thing in logic, which for now I am going to keep to myself.

"Are you waiting for my response on how I define logic before you adress the issue I explained in my first post, or does this post of yours explain everything already?"
A: Please leave my thoughts and hopes on me. I expect nothing but discussion here. I am also hoping for a civilized one, but Euler seems to be breaking the rules of discussion, by saying this is obvious this is not. Can someone point it out to him what is not obvious?

"It does not matter how you define logic. No matter how you do it, you will always need assumptions. "
A: How did you establish that? If you have not, then it is an assumption and just another trivial rule. Establish it through arguments what you are saying is true.

"If you argue according to your "logic1" you have to assume that this is the way logic works. Same for 2 (and 3?). Like you said about logic1:
  30 Jul 2017, 15:57 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:
Does this exist?
No: If not how can you ever establish anything in reasoning? You can never jump from any A assumption to any B assertion.
Kindly note that I can define existence as some reason under some structure with or without assumptions. You always have a thought, it is always made under a set of assumptions, if you also include the one "no assumption" statement in that set.
But, please do make a term like "existence" clear before throwing an argument which includes that term. I mean define things properly first, otherwise it is just moving from one wiki page to another to find one definition after another.
I have given clear, concise and precise definitions. If you think they are not clear to you. Ask what is not clear, and I will try my best. If you think something is incorrect in reasoning point it out, and I will correct my mistake.

If you do not assume that this kind of logic exists, no discussion would ever make sense. That is exactly what I am saying about "Descartes assumption" that true/false are intrinsic properties of statements. If we do not assume that, no discussion would ever make sense.

A: Can you make this more precise?
Something like I am asserting this "meaning" from A (assumptions), through a particular chain of reasoning. I get something like that extremely quickly. What you are saying right now, seems like a very roundabout way of saying thing, which is a little confusing to me. Make it simple, clear, concise and precise like I have. State your assumptions first, then state your reasoning, then state the belief you establish. Above all put a question mark for the particular question you are trying to answer through all of this.
Last edited by  _InDuS__novice on Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:56 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:49 pm

https://ng2600.quora.com/

Kindly note my blog.
I might be a novice in AOC, but I am no novice in Philosophy and arguments and logic.
Beat me on arguments, stop throwing arbitrary rules around me.

Kindly note that this is a humble request to make arguments polite. Let's just try to figure out things first, and then assume beliefs about it later. There is no need to start from a context, or an abstract or even look for one.
Last edited by  _InDuS__novice on Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  Fall » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:00 pm

Novice, if I was to say to you that "according to your perception of the world around you, the universe exists." Would that statement be true?
01:09:40 [TIC]darvoi: i will land my island
User avatar
 Fall
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Jun 12, 2013
Age: 24
 1926 (55%)
 
Advertisement from Google 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:14 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 20:00 GMT » Fall wrote:
Novice, if I was to say to you that "according to your perception of the world around you, the universe exists." Would that statement be true?

A: I would say, I can make an assumption.
1) World is real. ( Based on my definition of real)

Then I can say.
Let's say this is true, or not.
If True then this.
If not then this.
I can evaluate both the sides of an assumption. Why do you want me to make more assumptions than required? Minimum assumptions will yield the maximum truth. (obviously)
And I can notice assumptions made in your arguments instantaneously and compare them to see which argument has lesser assumptions. Obviously one has to make some assumption in their head, otherwise you regress.

I think you guys find it hard to compare the cardinality of the set of assumptions required to establish a belief.
The lesser the cardinality the better. Obviously. why would you make more assumptions than you would need to?
If you do that, then more chances of that assumption failing ( Popper's philosophy?)

Edit: Sorry I need to sleep a little. Give me a little time to reply back. All of this should be hard enough to digest for you guys. Give it a shot. Might just start making some sense ( it will!)

@Fall: I know you have grasped it. Please stay silent. Let them try. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
What Euler has just said is "Truth is trivial"
Let me show him, how everything else is trivial.Descartes, Godel, and Tarski.
Insulting me is one thing, insulting what is True is another.
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:43 pm

  30 Jul 2017, 20:14 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:
Insulting me is one thing, insulting what is True is another.

Alright. Since this did happen.
Kindly note this:
linkedin.com/in/nishank-gupta
My Linkedin profile since last week.

My blog on Quora:
https://ng2600.quora.com/

This has been already stated by me:


Dear All,

I have found a non trivial mistake in Descartes's argument.
I have sent all of you emails individually, and none of you have gotten back to me.

Right now if you read my argument, all you will have against it are rules. Rules you have pre-defined as to why and how things in Philosophy should be and can be. All such rules are assumptions.

I will not wait in silence anymore. Consider this as a challenge issued to the pre-existing Philosophy in the world. Beat me in Philosophy.

My blog on math and Philosophy.
https://ng2600.quora.com/

Please evaluate and judge the content's quality on your own.

Best Regards,

Nishank Gupta
MSFE, Columbia University

Kindly note that this has been issued to Philosophy Departments, all over the world.

I plan on traveling to Columbia ( my alma matter).
Let it be Stanford, or Princeton, or UCLA (Terry Tao), or whoever else.
I have only ever made one mistake in "Logic" or reasoning in my life, and I know what it has been.
I already know I will win. Why? Because I have already seen through each and every one of your arguments.

All of you start from a priori or a statement of belief to establish another. I start from a question (no assumptions), and establish your same arguments (under one less assumption), and more.
Beat me in a civilized argument or discussion. Anyone can throw rules or hit below the belt. Not doing so is non trivial. Rules are trivial.

Give it a shot. Pinpoint even a single reasoning of mine which is incorrect. ( As I said only one mistake, and I will gladly correct it, if you can find it, because correcting it is trivial, I would only need to start from a different point in reason, and I can do that easily in Logic)
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  Euler_ » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:12 pm

"If it were trivial, would it deserve an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? :roll: "
Why are you depending on Stanford to establish truth?
So you are saying I have no idea what is important, but since it is in Stanford's page it must be.
You are establishing belief on someone else's intellect.
That seems like a lack of integrity in being able to say and observe the truth.
Is that not how politicians talk? I am dishonest, but it is alright since others are more dishonest than me? Why are you asserting on "confidence" on Stanford. Then it is simply an emotion you are asserting on. Assert on your intellect, and then at least give me a good challenge. Because so far it is extremely trivial, like two children fighting and shouting.


All I am saying is that the amount of attention that philosophers have given to Tarski's theory makes it extremely unlikely that it is trivial. I don't care whether it is Stanford or any other university, you can find entries about Tarski's theory in any encylopedia of philosophy. It is just that SEP is a very reliable one.

He is only giving a rule. Is his rule proven? Anyone can throw a rule. Throwing a rule is trivial to me. All rules have assumptions. All definitions are assumptions. You have to evaluate what is true? And can the same thing be made true under lesser assumptions?
Do you not think that it would be important?

It is nice to have few assumptions, but if you have none you cannot prove anything. You cannot deduce something nontrivial from nothing. You will notice this once you learn how to make a proper proof. :)

That is subjective. How are you defining "content"? So under your definition of content, it could be trivial, but please give me a definition, and I will show where and how your definition would go wrong.

Check your main 'argument'
1) So we start from this question: “ Is it possible to define truth?”,
2) and we establish that it is not possible, by reasoning, without any assumptions.
3) And this statement “ Is it possible to define truth?” A. No
4) Is now absolutely true ( since it is without any assumptions)
5) We have just established an absolute truth, without making any assumptions or definitions.


1) Okay, we pose a question
2) Okay, lets establish it (crazy strong argument incoming :shock: :shock: )
3) Okay, we repeat the question and let us simply assume the answer is no.
4) Okay, we neither assumed something nor presented an argument demonstrating that it is not possible to define truth.
5) Okay, we did nothing but let us repeat again that we made no assumption and used no definitions (of course 'possible' needs no definition :roll: ). We nevertheless had no problems in establishing our "absolute truth".

Refute my argument by pointing out where I am wrong.

I did this above, I made it clear that it is not even argument, it is just a bunch of claims.

"(this is trivial if you look at the definitions)."
A: Please write down the definition and I will show you how they are either ambiguous or use the axiom of infinity. There is no other way to derive them.

Let X be a topological space. A member of the topology of X is said to be open. A subset of X is closed if its complement is open. X is open (X is by definiton of 'topology a member of th topology') and closed (its complement is the empty set which is by definition a member of the topology). Now take X to be the real numbers :roll:

Please forgive the tone if you find it offensive.

The only thing I find offensive is how you say I am insulting you because I consider what you wrote to be trivial. At the same time you don't hesitate to call well-respected theories trivial.
 Euler_
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Jul 22, 2016
 1751 (59%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _InDuS__novice » Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:38 am

[quote="30 Jul 2017, 22:12 GMT » Euler_"]

"All I am saying is that the amount of attention that philosophers have given to Tarski's theory makes it extremely unlikely"
Point noted.
Kindly everyone else note this point as well.

I am going to shut up now.
My thinking is done.
Are you capable of some thought as well?

Just a last parting thought though: Show this to your children and notice who they laugh at.
Congratulations! You have learnt to lie.
I request you to kindly conduct this experiment in private.

My last parting message here on these forums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sPsS7SU-TY
Kindly make your children listen to this as well. They are kind, they are important, they are nice.
User avatar
 _InDuS__novice
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Location: India
 1614 (49%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  Aurelius » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:47 am

You're all over the place.

If you publish your ideas in a peer-reviewed journal, please feel free to come back here and post a link to it. Will not happen, but still - that is the way to get recognition for research. Not e-mailing random universities claiming to have "beat" famous philosophers.

Your best statement was that you've only been wrong one time in your entire life when it comes to logic. Must be great to be almost infallible.

I just solved the problem of sarcasm detection in NLP ( gave the best possible solution and established in reason why no better solution than that currently exists) with a friend in under 30 minutes, using my theory.


This is the one way you can have any credibility. Describe an application of your "theorem", in detail, and the results.
User avatar
 Aurelius
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Aug 17, 2013
 
 
PreviousNext

Return to Community Café

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Legend: Global moderators, News posters, Tournament moderators