I don’t think it’s the best definition either. But it’s a useful definition and mathematically sound. As a shape increases its sides, it becomes “circular” to the point where people can no longer distinguish between “sided” and “round”. At some point it is a circle.
Are these rocks round?
But, but, but, they have sides!?!?
It’s not about language games. People accept definitions and estimations pragmatically. Maybe there are gray areas. Maybe a flat rock is also round at the same time as being flat. Reality has complexity. The point is that definitions can be simplified, and so can causes. Humans can understand causes, pragmatically. If there is an offshore earthquake, and 100% of the time a tidal wave follows from that, then we can begin to accept the cause of the tidal wave is an offshore earthquake. Unless of course a meteor crashes into the ocean, or nuclear bomb is set off in the ocean, then those too cause tidal waves.
Some causes and effects are much more difficult to dispute and doubt than others. Some causes are very common. Some are very rare.
If you are going to just ignore the language definitions, then why not just say that a square has 8 sides. Or better yet, just say that ALL shapes have an infinity of sides and make the language completely useless.
You are both being liberal nihilists (a redundant phrase).
Don’t Forget the philosophy of the as if (Vaihinger) - even concepts of natural science are rooted in Imagination of the as if. Nancy Cartwright wrote critical about this.
No, I didn’t. Stop playing language games with me, you liberal nihilist.
The problem with James is that he’s accusing people of violating WORDS rather than REALITY itself. In other words, he’s accusing people of deviating from the norm regardless of whether their deviation is for the better or for the worse. He didn’t say “yes, that’s one way to define circles, and a pretty decent one at that, but it is less precise than the popular definition that involves the concept of equidistance”. What he said is “you don’t agree with the way Google defines circles”. That’s all. Note that I don’t know whether UrWrong’s definition of circles is less precise than the popular definition. I didn’t do the analysis. Though it does appear to be so, given that it relies on the concept of side which represents a linear pattern of points in space, I am not sure. And even if it is less precise, I don’t know by how much, so I can’t tell whether such an imprecision is significant or insignificant.
There are many reasons why people violate established definitions. It might be because they want to find better definitions. This is what I do. I want to understand things better, in a more detailed, and thus precise, manner. Or maybe it’s because their circumstances are such that a different definition is more effective at helping them achieve their ends.
You can say that a square has 8 sides. You can also say it has an infinite number of sides. But noone does so because there is no reason to. This is different with circles.
You have no respect for truth DESPITE your obsession with Google definitions. If I explained to you what circles are without resorting to the popular opinion of what they are (i.e. a set of points in a plane that are equidistant from some fixed point) you would not accept it even if my definition was superior to – more precise than – the popular one. Why? Because it is not conventional. From your point of view, tradition is something that is infallible and therefore unquestionable.
The purpose of language is to COMMUNICATE and not to THINK. Thinking and talking are two different, separate, processes. You can think without talking and you can talk without thinking. Thinking is about analyzing similarities and differences between observations in order to choose the best possible assumption regarding some unknown state of the universe. In plain terms, thinking is about making decisions. No language is necessary.
What’s so wrong with saying that circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides? Is it perhaps the fact that it is not the official definition? Seriously? You say that circles have no sides, not because it’s true, but because the official definition does not define circles in terms of sides?
You think that language precedes circles? Circles came into existence the first time we defined them? Is that how things come into existence? You define them and then they come into existence? Circles are merely words, right? Not phenomena or objects of our experience? We do not experience circles before we describe them using words? We describe them using words and then we experience them? Is that how things work?
Reality should bend to fit how you describe it using words?
Saying a circle has infinite sides simply means that no matter how many times its circumference is divided up there will be no sides
You could divide it up as many times as were mathematically or logically or physically possible and there would be none. You could
divide it up an infinite number of times and there would still be none. Which is exactly the same as saying it has no sides. Because
if it did then it could not be a circle as it is defined. Which is that every point on the circumference is equidistant from the centre
It depends on what it refers to. If it refers to education in general, then the non-logical part of language can (but mostly does not) be more important than the logical part of language. The cohesion of the language (mostly called “text”) is always important.
Semantics is a subdiscipline of the disciplines (1) semiotics, (2) linguistics, (3) logic, (4) mathematics. It can only deal with meanings and definitions. Each linguistic lexem (word) that can be find in a encyclopedia, a dictionary, a lexicon can only be described by its meaning and defintion, perhaps supported by other language forms (see: (1), (2), (3), (4) and the chart below), but not by more.
So if you want to know what, for example, a “circle” is, then you have to refer to (a) the meaning and definition of the word “circle” and to (b) the history of its meaning and definition, which means that they can change over time. But the result of this change (caused e.g. by an experiment) is always either a new or a renewed kind of meaning and definition.
And mathematics is a subset of logic, logic is a subset of linguistics, linguistics is a subset of semiotics, and they all are language.
The smaller the subset is or the more properly, coherently, consistently the subsets and sets are connected, the more exact is the information.
Don’t worry about it. If you need my support, you have it.
You are the most intelligent person on this forum.
And not only on this forum, you’re the most intelligent person on Earth.
And not only on Earth, you’re the most intelligent Homo Sapian of all times.
There never was a Homo Sapian of your caliber.
Your are simply too good to interact with any of us here.
That’s why you keep your comments short.
You are right and everyone else is wrong.
You are humble and everyone else is arrogant.
There is simply no point discussing anything with people who are wrong and arrogant.
You’re a misunderstood genius.
You are way ahead of your time.
You have no choice but to wait – to be patient – and ignore all of the detractors.
Deep down you know that one day you will be the face of humanity.
It is a fact that most of us already know what the word “circle” means i.e. what phenomenon it refers to. And if someone does not then we can help them understand what we mean by the word “circle” by using non-verbal communication. Remember that non-verbal communication precedes – it is more fundamental than – verbal communication. All you need is a finger with which you can point at things that are associated with the word and things that are NOT associated with the word. This is one of the simplest ways to learn the meaning of words. There are even simpler approaches than that and they involve the use of some kind of force. Violence is a form of communication. You can also use verbal communication in order to explain what your words mean but this involves describing what you mean by your words using some other words – those that are familiar to the other side. This helps you get your point across quicker but the risk that you will be misunderstood is higher.
I am pretty sure that all participants in this threads share the same exact understanding of what circles are. There is thus no need to explain what they are. The disagreement is regarding MATHEMATICAL or LOGICAL MODELS of circles. For example, James models circles in terms of radius whereas UrWrong models them in terms of sides. What they are doing is they are taking one object (circles) and bringing them into relation with another object (radius, sides.) James says that UrWrong’s approach is wrong because it is not how Google describes circles. If that’s not autistic then I don’t know what is.
I think that people who place too much emphasis on language are people who are too socially dependent.
Very feminine.
Google’s definition is thousands of years old, not in dispute, and taught throughout the world. The version that involves sides, is, as far as I know, taught no where. It is Urwrong’s fallacious invention.
Such words are not up for you or he to redefine and expect to be respected for it.
Yes, but “most of us”, obviously doesn’t include you or Urwrong.
You pay too much attention to irrelevant things and make too much fuss about nothing.
That’s the problem I have with you.
In other words, you suffer from autism.
When someone says something like “circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides” they are not “redefining” circles but merely providing an alternative logical model of them.
Most importantly, they are NOT rejecting – or at least it is nowhere implied that they are rejecting – the standard model of circles (which involves the concept of equidistance.)
You’re too rigid.
Of course you are too rigid, you are autistic.
And this is not the first I come across such a way of conceptualizing circles.
Maybe it’s not taught in schools, I don’t know, but so what?
What exactly is your point?
Oh right, you have no point, you’re simply autistic.
You ruined this discussion – you reduced it to petty arguments – thanks to your pedantry.
There’s absolutely NOTHING that you are adding to the discussion (whether it is that concerning causality or the tangential discussion concerning circles.)
If you were at least telling us that UrWrong’s model of circles is less precise than the standard model, then at least there would be some substance to what you’re saying.
But as it is, your posts are without any substance.
Waste of fucking time.
“Fallacious invention”.
Holy fucking shit.
You think that people who described circles the first OWN these circles?
Is that the severity of your retardation?
See how stupid you are?
You don’t even UNDERSTAND what I said.
Moron, people understood what circles are long before there was anyone to describe them in terms of equidistance.
Not all life is verbal.
Language and what makes it work is hardly “nothing” when communicating over the Internet is all you have.
Your attempts to corrupt and destroy the only language you have is more than a little self defeating, naive, and stupid - a child starting a fire in his own bed.
Noone is destroying language, moron.
When you say something like “circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides” you are not corrupting language but merely using it to express your logical model of circles.
The problem is you are AUTISTIC which means you take words TOO LITERALLY.
And when you cannot understand them literally you scream LANGUAGE GAMES.
You are embarassing yourself, James.
I am serious.
And there I was thinking that at least you had looked up what “autism” means.
But then for people who invent their own definition of words, I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised by anything they state.
