Moderator: Flannel Jesus
James S Saint wrote:And it isn't like you would ever be able to actually prove what it requires you to prove.
Carleas wrote:James S Saint wrote:And it isn't like you would ever be able to actually prove what it requires you to prove.
Mmmm... Like how I can't prove that looking at a crowd of people isn't enough to tell me my eye color...
James S Saint wrote:Mmmm... Like looking at a pattern of colors in a circle of which you are a part isn't enough for you to deduce your color.
Carleas wrote:James S Saint wrote:Mmmm... Like looking at a pattern of colors in a circle of which you are a part isn't enough for you to deduce your color.
Nor do I need to prove that, since that's not my claim
They certainly know how to take the fun out of math.phoneutria wrote:Carleas and James are both getting a 3 day ban.
phoneutria wrote:Carleas and James are both getting a 3 day ban.
phyllo wrote:They certainly know how to take the fun out of math.
Two egos trying to wrestle each other to the ground.I'm having fun. Maybe if you developed a strong opinion about the Blue Eye problem or the Master Logician problem, you'd have fun too!
phyllo wrote:Two egos trying to wrestle each other to the ground.I'm having fun. Maybe if you developed a strong opinion about the Blue Eye problem or the Master Logician problem, you'd have fun too!
Nobody else thinks that it's fun.
Get over yourselves.
LOLShove it up your ass, wuss. You hide then try to jump in to make big of yourself. Then jump away again, never facing reality. Get over your insecurity and get off your pretentious high horse. Be man enough to just be part of the fun and you won't trigger so much lack of it.
phyllo wrote:It's too easy.
LOLTake your own advice chump. You were the one who came onto this thread with demeaning rhetoric .. that you are still spewing.
Carleas wrote: I maintain that it is a given of the problem, in the same way that the normal structures of logic are a part of the set of givens of this problem.
James S Saint wrote:And realize that every "logic/math structure" must be independently proven before accepted by logicians/mathematicians.
James S Saint wrote:Having a given in a math puzzle that 2+2=3 disallows the puzzle from being properly resolved regardless of it being a "given".
Carleas wrote:James S Saint wrote:And realize that every "logic/math structure" must be independently proven before accepted by logicians/mathematicians.
That's false. The most basic aspects of logic are simply defined, they are not and cannot be proven using logic. A system cannot prove itself.
Carleas wrote:You seem to be rejecting the statement "my eye color does not follow as a logical consequence of your eye color" as a given of the form you describe. Hopefully you agree that the statement "X does not follow from Y alone" is such a statement, something inherent in the structure of logic that doesn't need to be independently proven?
The other thread does not address the issue we're discussing here. The premise of that thread (that my argument is of the form P -> Q , Q |- P) is a misunderstanding of my argument. The idea that the methods used in this purely logical problem are the same as the methods used in experimental physics is a misunderstanding of the difference between formal logic and observation, between mathematical induction and scientific induction.
Arminius wrote:How big are the sides of each square at least, if they are all different in size and integer (thus: in whole numbers)?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:How big are the sides of each square at least, if they are all different in size and integer (thus: in whole numbers)?
To rephrase:
What is the least size of each square if they are all different integer sizes?
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: Ecmandu, Silhouette