Hey punk! That was a hot look in '93!
Ah - finally something in this thread I understand.
TVAA FWIW when practically every math uber-geek on the SDMB has issues with your interpretation of the OP topic re the Incompleteness Theorem and you start a pit thread arguing how [Dexter voice]stuuuupeeed[/Dexter voice] they are and how your interpretation is the correct one… well I suppose it’s possible they are intellectually obtuse and your perspective is the correct one, but I wouldn’t bet the rent money on it if I were you.
You didn’t understand Ferrous’ beer and Mr. Spock comment? I always understood that Vulcans were honest-to-goodness Guinness-hounds.
Must be I never watched Star Trek enough…
I’ve checked, astro. I asked individuals whom I know are capable in these fields if my point was correct. They chided me on my inability to make arguments in rigorous terms… but said I was essentially right.
How do you actually know that these “math uber-geeks” actually know what they’re talking about?
What types of people come to the SD, anyway? There are the people who’re interested in discussing interesting ideas and learning about misconceptions, and then there are those who only want a forum to scream on. SD attacts plenty of noodlebrains who like attention – how do you know these people don’t fit into the second category? If their arguments became sufficiently complicated, how could you begin to detect problems in them? I can’t stand to reread the threads I started that they posted to…
Spiritus and friends think that the universe is somehow free from all restrictions. They think that the universe can do whatever it likes, and adherence to a set of rules be damned!
They are unable to realize that anything that exists is already limited and restricted, or it wouldn’t be capable of interacting with us.
Things can be defined operationally: things are what they do. That’s why computer scientists and mathematicans who know what they’re talking about recognize that “virtual” realities are just as real and valid as the everyday ones.
SM is like the people who once claimed that human consciousness was necessary to perform calculations. How do human minds work, then? By “magic” – I mean, by some strange unknown principle that violates the laws those silly mathematicians and physicists make.
Fools.
TVAA, not to point out the obvious or anything, but are you really so arrogant as to assume that you’re the ONLY person who understands math on the board?
You said your “experts” claimed you had an inability to make rigorous arguements. Could that mean that in this written format, where you don’t have the opportunity to immediatly clear up little misunderstandings, that your posts, as they are currently written, are wrong?
Are you implying that you are incapable of having expressed yourself poorly in any of the aforementioned threads, leading to confusion and misunderstanding by other posters who have only your written words to go on, and clearly no access to your “experts”.
Really, I have no idea what the arguement is about. However, as a completely objective third party I can suggest that this thread is making you look foolish, and not because of your math abilities.
I don’t claim to understand math. I understand only a few, relatively basic concepts.
However, I have access to people who are experts. I can check my basic ideas with them – and they say I’m right.
And no, it’s not that my posts are wrong. They argue that it weakens my position not to use mathematical terminology – the same point that Spiritus made, actually. Presumably the farther away from ordinary English his statements become, the harder it is to see how ridiculous his errors are.
Check out the threads. Read the links provided in them.
You forgot the “BWAA - HA HA HA!” that goes at the end of “Fools”.
Good point.
BWAA - HA HA HA!
Ah yes. Your mythical EXPERTS.
Listen - it’s been said on here before - either put up or shut up. If you can’t defend the position that you’re trying to take without running to “EXPERTS” to get your facts straight, then you probably shouldn’t try to defend the position. You know - things get lost in translation and all that.
If these "EXPERTS" are so interested in the discussion then have them open an account and discuss the issue directly with the parties you are disagreeing with.
As I said - I don’t get the math bit - reading the links wouldn’t help me - I would get cranky, and headachy, and grumpy and then my SO would be cheesed off and he has a black belt so you better watch it. :p.
But really - trying to make a point by refering to some unknown “EXPERTS” is a really, really weak way to argue.
TVAA, I have many friends who are expert in these matters, and they assure me that you are mistaken.
See how easy that is? And how convincing? (That is, not very.)
I’m pretty sure I haven’t understood a single word Spiritus and TVAA have said.
Not to worry spooje, with the exception of the fashion reference, I’m pretty in the dark as well.
Like I said, I realize it’s not a very good arguing position.
I’m not trying to convince all of you.
I am, however, officially noting that Spiritus is grossly wrong and unable to interpret simple English statements about mathematics.
And, in all honesty, the people I know well enough to “lean on” to get them to post did read the threads. They came to the conclusion that posting wouldn’t help anything. “There are dumb people in the world”, they said, and suggested I just give up.
Now this might seem a bit convoluted. but bear with me will ya? If you only understand ‘a few relatively basic concepts’ how do you know that these ‘experts’ are correct in their understanding of the problems? Your faith in them might well be legitimate, but equally it might not be unless you are able to determine the truth or falsity of their knowledge. IMO, because you have no way of assessing that, you really don’t have a logical leg to stand on in this particular argument. Just because they say you are right does not necessarily make you right.
Or, on the other hand, they might just be yanking your chain and telling you that you’re right to shut you up.
I’m leaning towards the latter.
Fine. Without citing one of your “EXPERTS”, prove it.
Provide some online or written citations for your position and I’m quite sure that everyone, Spiritus included, will conceed your points.
However blathering away about some people that are not posting, have not contributed directly, and, for all we know, communicate to you through your tin-foil hat, doesn’t help your position here.
GIT in its formal form is extremely complex and requires moderately heavy mathematical knowledge to understand.
It’s sufficiently simple for the layperson to grasp, though. (Much like the ways that Relativity can be understood by anyone familiar with high-school physics and math, although the formal version of the theory is just nasty… ugh, tensors… [shudder].)
Consider this, originally written by a guy named Rucker in a book Infinity and the Mind:
It’s related to the Liar’s Paradox. You know, “I am lying”. If it’s true, it’s false; if it’s false, it’s true.
** I can determine that I’m correct, but it always nice to be able to check with someone who’s guaranteed to know what they’re talking about.
Highly unlikely. Of course, I really have no way to demonstrate that to you either… so you’re free to think whatever you like.
Spiritus is still wrong, though.
Great. So this post makes Spiritus wrong how?
How about your own interpretation of the material?
How about you explane to me, a lay person, why you’re right and he’s wrong.
If you truly know your material you should be able to support your position in layman’s terms.
Fire away. I have my thinking cap on.
That’s what my thread was about!
The topic involved a relatively simple consequence of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. It requires only an understanding of what GIT says and of how computation is physically realized…