A new math

Discuss Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, Chemistry, Archaeology, Geology, Math, Technology

Moderator: Moderators

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

A new math

Post #1

Post by olavisjo »

This topic is for discussing errors in our current understanding of math.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."

C.S. Lewis

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post #11

Post by olavisjo »

.
keithprosser3 wrote: If we limit mathematicians to work only within what we think is the case today, we might well have the vision or tools to solve the next problem.
We have already reached that point.

There is no known mathematical function that can create a random number, but the universe can.

So math is useless for explaining random numbers, which are a feature of the universe.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."

C.S. Lewis

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #12

Post by Divine Insight »

keithprosser3 wrote: As I understand it, DI is moaning about the way that mathematics has become abstracted away from any requirement to describe the 'physical world'.

But that is the great strength of maths! For example, when physicists started to realise the world was not Euclidean the mathematicians had already laid the ground work for them. The mathematicians could suggest the solution to the physicists because mathematicians had been playing with curved spaces for ages before any practical application was imagined for them. The same could be said for many of the mathematical tools physicists use.

The problem is we don't yet know what the nature of physical reality is, so we don't know what the best sort of mathematics to describe it will be. If we limit mathematicians to work only within what we think is the case today, we might well have the vision or tools to solve the next problem.

Maths is abstract. That has its plus side and its minus side, but on balance I think DI will have to get to love mathematics as it is, rather than mathematics adapting to DI on this one.
What I am proposing is actually in favor of both mathematics and science. It's also in the favor of the mathematical community. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with appeasing my own personal preferences.

Moreover, your suggestion that mathematics being "abstract" is a good thing is actually missing the points. Logic being "abstract" is a good thing. And there is absolutely no reason why people couldn't work with abstract logic to their heart's content.

In fact, mathematics itself could have set up this dichotomy and that would have been a good thing. But they didn't. Instead, what they are doing is just allowing that all of mathematics can be totally "abstract" in the sense of being freed from any physical limitations.

The problem with this is that they have then abandoned any attempt to create a mathematics that has NOT been freed in this way. That is what it is missing.

Now you may say that "Applied Mathematics" is alive and well, and is a subset of the larger abstract mathematics. But that is actually quite false. There is no such thing as "Applied Mathematics" in the sense of being a formally defined discipline. All that "Applied Mathematics" amounts to are physicists trying to restrict the abstract mathematical model to be limited by physical restraints. But the underlying mathematical concepts are entirely based upon totally abstract logical (i.e. philosophy unbounded by physical limitations or experimental evidence)

In other words, modern day mathematics is NOT a scientific discipline.

That it and of itself is not really a problem. Having an unbounded philosophical mathematics is great. I have no problem with that. But let's then recognize it for what it is.

And also let's recognize that we DO NOT have a scientific-based form of mathematics, (which is indeed possible to construct).

We aren't even trying precisely because the mathematical community has moved away from that perspective entirely.

Where does mathematics get it's power? From abstraction?

What is abstraction then?

Does abstraction mean "That which is not tangible?"

Sure, that's one meaning of the term. But is that what gives mathematics it's power? I don't think so.

The original power of abstraction came from the meaning of the term abstract to simply mean, "Applying to many cases". That's the kind of abstraction that makes mathematics powerful.

So there seems to be some confusion also on the very need for abstraction, and precisely what abstraction should even mean in mathematics.

We can have a very sound scientific mathematics that is entirely dependent upon the physical limitations of an idea of quantity whilst simultaneously remaining complete abstract. This all depends on how a person wants to define "abstract". Some people even use the term "abstract" to mean, vague, or incomprehensible by intuitive means. But is that where mathematics has strength? In being vague or incomprehensible by intuitive means? :-k

I think the mathematical community would do themselves a great favor to sit down and re-think precisely where they came from, and where they are heading.

They would have learned a great deal about irrational relative relationships if they hadn't treated them as cardinal quantities. That was a big mistake and continues to be a big mistake. They still don't understand irrational quantities intuitively. But had they realized their true nature the first time around then would see precisely why they are the way they are.

Right now they are trying to visualize them as "points" on a continuous numbers line. :roll:

That is an impossible concept to comprehend precisely because it's dead wrong. It's also absurd. A number line cannot be a continuum. It can only be discrete. Every two points must be separated by a distance, otherwise they would be the same point!

A number line that is said to be a continuum requires that all points are "touching" one another with no discrete gaps in between. Because if you had a gap you'd have to fill that gap with yet another point. Yet if all the points on the number line are touching with no gaps between them, then they must all necessarily be the same point. Because points have no breadth or width.

A number line must be discrete. For reasons not unlike those given by Zeno in ancient Greece.

And now we see that the universe tells us that this is indeed the case.

~~~~

Consider this: Had mathematics demanded a scientific approach to the concept of number they could have predicted the quantum nature of the universe BEFORE the physicists discovered it. Imagine that. That would have been pretty profound.

But unfortunately they flubbed the dub on that one.

They still think they can treat quantitative properties like a continuum today.

They haven't learned a thing.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #13

Post by Divine Insight »

olavisjo wrote: .
keithprosser3 wrote: If we limit mathematicians to work only within what we think is the case today, we might well have the vision or tools to solve the next problem.
We have already reached that point.

There is no known mathematical function that can create a random number, but the universe can.

So math is useless for explaining random numbers, which are a feature of the universe.
That's exactly right. But a discrete mathematics would explain precisely why the universe can indeed do this. ;)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #14

Post by JohnA »

Divine Insight wrote: @ JohnA.

I have offered you the following:

P = "modern mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe"

You have rejected this as being irrelevant or false.

I accept your position on this and therefore we have nothing further to discuss.

You concede that modern mathematics does need to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe.

If that's your position I have no desire to try to convince you otherwise.

I'm more than willing to simply agree to disagree with you at this point. ;)

This is the very purpose of this conditional statement. There is no point in wasting my time arguing with people who have already conceded that mathematics does not need to correctly describe the quantitative nature of the universe.
This is amazing. You once again claim to believe to know my beliefs. Fascinating.

What I said is that your conditional statement can not conclude anything. For reasons of :
You reject math and now want to use math (conditional statements) to derive at your begging the question conclusion AND there is problems using math based conditional statements in the English language. I have pointed this out, yet you persist with your straw man.

Additionally, as micatala said: This continues you fallacy of thinking everything in mathematics has to correspond to physical reality.
Math is not science, it is not a science. Trying to argue it is or should be is beyond absurdity.

Therefore, your whole thread is pointless. This is just an extension of "DI mystical experience".
quantitative nature of our physical universe
As I posted in your other thread/post, QM is not describing the macro universe: there is no answer for gravity in QM, yet. Another one of your pointless ramblings.

keithprosser3

Post #15

Post by keithprosser3 »

But a discrete mathematics would explain precisely why the universe can indeed do this.

As I see it, all that you could do is limit mathematics - put a ban such things as infinities and infinitesimals etc. I don't see how restricting maths makes it better or more powerful. I don't get why restricting mathematics to the discrete explains random numbers any better than continuous maths does. And in any case, discrete mathematics does exist as a sub-discipline of mathematics already.

It is also not clear to me whether a restricted mathematics would/should allow such physical absurdities as the square root of -1. I don't physicists would be very happy if 'i' was outlawed! What about negative numbers? There is no physical meaning to '-1 apples'.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #16

Post by Divine Insight »

JohnA wrote: This is amazing. You once again claim to believe to know my beliefs. Fascinating.
I just go by what you post John.
JohnA wrote: What I said is that your conditional statement can not conclude anything.
My conditional statement is not intended to conclude anything. :roll:

Do you not understand how conditional statements work?

If I am holding this conditional statement out to be TRUE (which I am), then it's my responsibility to back it up with convincing proofs to those who accept the truth of the proposition P.

If you reject P, then I owe you nothing. I do not need to show you any proofs or anything else because you have already confessed to the truth of my conditional statement by rejecting the hypothesis. Moreover, this should not concern you in the least since you believe the hypothesis to be FALSE.
JohnA wrote: For reasons of :
You reject math
I do not reject all of math. That's a strawman on your part and you have been corrected on this countless times already but you continue to use this utterly false accusation against me in spite of the fact that I have shown it to be false slander countless times.

I do not reject all of math. What part of that do you not understand?
JohnA wrote: and now want to use math (conditional statements) to derive at your begging the question conclusion AND there is problems using math based conditional statements in the English language. I have pointed this out, yet you persist with your straw man.
Conditional statement are NOT mathematics. They are simply part of logic. It's true that mathematics relies on logic and makes use of conditional statements all the time. So any mathematician worth his salt should be familiar with how they work. But there is nothing in conditional statements that relies on mathematics.

Also, I am not offering this conditional statement as an argument, or as "proof" of anything. On the contrary I put it out here to weed out people who aren't concerned that mathematics doesn't correctly describe the quantitative nature of the physical universe. After all, if you don't care about that there is no point in talking to me. You're just wasting time for both of us.
JohnA wrote: Additionally, as micatala said: This continues you fallacy of thinking everything in mathematics has to correspond to physical reality.
Math is not science, it is not a science. Trying to argue it is or should be is beyond absurdity.
And you are more than welcome to hold that subjective opinion.

I begin with this conditional statement precisely to weed out people who hold your subjective views.

Like I say, all we can do on that issue is agree to disagree. ;)

It's pointless to argue over subjective unprovable opinions.
JohnA wrote: Therefore, your whole thread is pointless. This is just an extension of "DI mystical experience".
Based on your subjective views it's clearly pointless to you. So why do you bother to keep reading it and posting to it then? :-k

You clearly disagree with the hypothesis of my position. So at this point you only need to say so. And I believe that you already have said so repeatedly. So why bother to beat a dead horse?
JohnA wrote:
quantitative nature of our physical universe
As I posted in your other thread/post, QM is not describing the macro universe: there is no answer for gravity in QM, yet. Another one of your pointless ramblings.
There is no answer for a Quantum Gravity. But what does that have to do with macro gravity? :-k

Nothing.

QM does not conflict with macro gravity. The only place where there exists a problem is that General Relativity is not compatible with explaining gravity on the quantum scale.

So this is not a problem for my position.

It's already well-known and well-understood that we need to find a theory of Quantum Gravity.

How many physicists do you know who are searching for Continuum Theory to replace Quantum Mechanics? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

keithprosser3 wrote: As I see it, all that you could do is limit mathematics - put a ban such things as infinities and infinitesimals etc. I don't see how restricting maths makes it better or more powerful.
Restricting things to the truth make them more truthful. Whether they are more powerful or not is irrelevant. Although there is no need to restrict mathematics in the way that you are no doubt imagining.

In fact, don't mathematicians claim to only be interested in truth? :-k
keithprosser3 wrote: I don't get why restricting mathematics to the discrete explains random numbers any better than continuous maths does. And in any case, discrete mathematics does exist as a sub-discipline of mathematics already.
Well to understand how it explains natural random numbers you would need to understand the formalism far more than I can ever hope to explain in threads where everyone is so extremely hostile to the very idea.

And yes, I know that discrete mathematics exists as as "sub-discipline" of mathematics already. But it exists in much the same way as "Applied Mathematics" exists as a sub-discipline. It's not taken as a serious complete mathematics. It's simply viewed as a very restricted part of the larger "Real Mathematics". Because of this it doesn't address the issues that need to be addressed.
keithprosser3 wrote: It is also not clear to me whether a restricted mathematics would/should allow such physical absurdities as the square root of -1. I don't physicists would be very happy if 'i' was outlawed! What about negative numbers? There is no physical meaning to '-1 apples'.
Yes it does allow for this. It simply recognizes these attributes for what they actually are, rather than trying to treat them as "absolute properties" of things call numbers. They are actually "relative" properties between quantities.

Recognizing this difference is the epiphany. That's where the insight occurs.

Most of the ideas don't need to be tossed out, they simply need to be understood for what they truly are.

For example, in Set Theory the number Zero is defined as the Empty Set.

In a discrete mathematics the number Zero would be defined as the Absence of a Set.

Now this may seem trivial, but it's far from it.

However, in both mathematics the number Zero is rigorously defined quantitative concept.

So nothing is lost. Understanding is gained.

Also consider this. If a set is defined as a collection of individual things, then what would an empty set be in this case? It would be a collection that does not contain so a thing. But what would it be then?

By defining an empty set to be the essence of zero, we have created a phantom property of a collection of things that is not the collection of a thing.

In discrete mathematics Zero is simply defined as the absence of a set. There is no contradiction to the definition of a set as a collection of things here. There is no phantom property created. And we can't use Zero to define the meaning of the Number One. So we are forced to define the Number One differently. And that actually turns out to be very productive.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

keithprosser3

Post #18

Post by keithprosser3 »

Well to understand how it explains natural random numbers you would need to understand the formalism far more than I can ever hope to explain in threads where everyone is so extremely hostile to the very idea.
PM me then. I am confident I would be able to understand the formalism. I'm in my second year of an Open University maths degree and have come across a couple.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #19

Post by JohnA »

Divine Insight wrote:
JohnA wrote: This is amazing. You once again claim to believe to know my beliefs. Fascinating.
I just go by what you post John.
JohnA wrote: What I said is that your conditional statement can not conclude anything.
My conditional statement is not intended to conclude anything. :roll:

Do you not understand how conditional statements work?

If I am holding this conditional statement out to be TRUE (which I am), then it's my responsibility to back it up with convincing proofs to those who accept the truth of the proposition P.

If you reject P, then I owe you nothing. I do not need to show you any proofs or anything else because you have already confessed to the truth of my conditional statement by rejecting the hypothesis. Moreover, this should not concern you in the least since you believe the hypothesis to be FALSE.
JohnA wrote: For reasons of :
You reject math
I do not reject all of math. That's a strawman on your part and you have been corrected on this countless times already but you continue to use this utterly false accusation against me in spite of the fact that I have shown it to be false slander countless times.

I do not reject all of math. What part of that do you not understand?
JohnA wrote: and now want to use math (conditional statements) to derive at your begging the question conclusion AND there is problems using math based conditional statements in the English language. I have pointed this out, yet you persist with your straw man.
Conditional statement are NOT mathematics. They are simply part of logic. It's true that mathematics relies on logic and makes use of conditional statements all the time. So any mathematician worth his salt should be familiar with how they work. But there is nothing in conditional statements that relies on mathematics.

Also, I am not offering this conditional statement as an argument, or as "proof" of anything. On the contrary I put it out here to weed out people who aren't concerned that mathematics doesn't correctly describe the quantitative nature of the physical universe. After all, if you don't care about that there is no point in talking to me. You're just wasting time for both of us.
JohnA wrote: Additionally, as micatala said: This continues you fallacy of thinking everything in mathematics has to correspond to physical reality.
Math is not science, it is not a science. Trying to argue it is or should be is beyond absurdity.
And you are more than welcome to hold that subjective opinion.

I begin with this conditional statement precisely to weed out people who hold your subjective views.

Like I say, all we can do on that issue is agree to disagree. ;)

It's pointless to argue over subjective unprovable opinions.
JohnA wrote: Therefore, your whole thread is pointless. This is just an extension of "DI mystical experience".
Based on your subjective views it's clearly pointless to you. So why do you bother to keep reading it and posting to it then? :-k

You clearly disagree with the hypothesis of my position. So at this point you only need to say so. And I believe that you already have said so repeatedly. So why bother to beat a dead horse?
JohnA wrote:
quantitative nature of our physical universe
As I posted in your other thread/post, QM is not describing the macro universe: there is no answer for gravity in QM, yet. Another one of your pointless ramblings.
There is no answer for a Quantum Gravity. But what does that have to do with macro gravity? :-k

Nothing.

QM does not conflict with macro gravity. The only place where there exists a problem is that General Relativity is not compatible with explaining gravity on the quantum scale.

So this is not a problem for my position.

It's already well-known and well-understood that we need to find a theory of Quantum Gravity.

How many physicists do you know who are searching for Continuum Theory to replace Quantum Mechanics? :-k
No, you go by "DI mystical experience" grounded in obscurantism.
QM does not conflict with macro gravity. The only place where there exists a problem is that General Relativity is not compatible with explaining gravity on the quantum scale.
Oh dear. Obscurantism again.
You claimed that QM can explain the macro universe. So, tell me how does QM explain gravity (me standing on earth and not floating away)?


Now, for the record:
Which areas of math do you reject? And Why.
Which areas of science do you reject? And Why.
Which areas of logic do you reject? And Why.
Which areas or words of dictionaries do you reject? And Why.

A conditional statement refer to logic and math (subset of logic which uses by logical reasoning)
A conditional statement, symbolized by p -> q, is an if-then statement in which p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion.
The conditional is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis leads to a false conclusion.
Conditional statements are part of Discrete Mathematics!

This is what I disagree with:

This is very sneaky of you to define your 'argument' using a Conditional statement since the only way we can show it false is when the hypothesis (p) is true and the conclusion (q) is false. But your forgot to say:

1) You need to demonstrate there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the hypothesis and conclusion of your conditional statement.
Your conditional statement (you can even use truth tables if you wish) that one hypothesis / premise is enough to make a conclusion is unfounded. You need a valid sound argument (at least 2 P's and 1 C) for this nonsense you are trying to conclude.


2) There are problems using conditional statements in normal English language to make conclusions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_c ... onditional

3) Now, you said you are not trying to make a conclusion, yet conditional statements refer to a hypothesis and conclusion (if hypothesis true, then conclusion = true). You even stated that you want to make a conclusion in your 1st post in this thread!

4) Conditional statements rely on discrete math, which your reject (both in saying you reject parts of math and that conditional statement are math indeed).


You reject / ignore this for some UNKNOWN reason, offering obtuse obscure projections of obscurantism.


Therefore, I reject your conditional statement "argument" since it is logically flawed. I reject P and Q and P -> Q. Happy now?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #20

Post by Divine Insight »

JohnA wrote: You claimed that QM can explain the macro universe. So, tell me how does QM explain gravity (me standing on earth and not floating away)?
It doesn't explain it in detail. But in theory it could. It could explain it in terms of subatomic particles called gravitons. In fact, this is the proposal in the Standard Model. It's not a completed or experimentally verified hypothesis, but it's a hypothesis that is at least compatible with the theory and plausible within that theory.

There is nothing in General Relativity that even remotely allows for quantum effects.

So my point is that QM is potentially upward compatible to the macro world, at least in theory. But the opposite is not true of GR.

You seem to always avoid my questions.

How many physicists do you know who are searching for Continuum Theory to replace Quantum Mechanics? :-k
JohnA wrote: Which areas of math do you reject? And Why.
I reject the a set theory based on an idea of an Empty Set.

The reason I reject this is because it is extremely logically flawed. It's based on totally illogical constructs, and it produces absurd conclusions. It is a formalism that by its very own predictions has proven itself to be false by contradiction.

The very idea that there are endless collections that are more endless than other endless conclusions is itself an absurd conclusion. Thus it proves itself to be a false formalism by it's own absurd contradictions.

It's also totally unnecessary.

There are many other areas of mathematics that I disagree with. There is no need to speak of "Absolute Negative Numbers". That's an absurdity too. The negative property of a quantity is a relative property that requires an external context.

Things like negativity are not absolute properties of quantities such as a set or collection of objects. On the contrary negativity is only produced when one set is doing something relative to another set. Therefore negative is not an "absolute" property of the concept of quantity. It's a relative property between sets.

Yet our current mathematical formalism treats negative quantities as though they are some sort of absolute concept, which they are not.

We also don't need to treat irrational relationship as though they are cardinal properties of sets. That's absurd, and totally unproductive. There is no such thing as a collection of things that has the quantitative property of pi for example. Unless you treat distance as though it's a thing, but that's a folly that we should have avoided early on. Unfortunately we didn't so now we're stuck with this folly.
JohnA wrote: Which areas of science do you reject? And Why.
I can't think of too much of anything in actual science that I reject. Now I do have some problems with calling something like String Theory "Science". It's far from science, and most physicists will own up to that. In fact, many very prominent scientists question whether String Theory is "science" or "philosophy".

I can argue that String Theory is nothing more than an attempt to continue mathematics beyond where mathematics may even apply physically. If QM is true, then mathematics as we know it may break down at the Planck scale. If that's the case then describing "strings" that are smaller than the Planck scale to be vibrating according to known wave mechanics is silly. Yet this is what String Theory depends upon.

So I don't view String Theory as valid "science". But I accept the more obvious things like evolution, the age of the Earth, and even the age of the universe, and possible a "Big Bang" of some sort. Although it's unclear precisely how we should think of the "Big Bang".
JohnA wrote: Which areas of logic do you reject? And Why.
I don't know of any logic that I reject. I do, however, realize that ALL LOGIC is dependent upon foundational unprovable premises. And therefore any logical reasoning is always suspect because it may be based upon false premises.

Logic is only as sound as its underlying unprovable premises.
JohnA wrote: Which areas or words of dictionaries do you reject? And Why.
Like most professionals I prefer to use dictionaries that are created specifically for the discipline under study. I would never run out and get a layman's dictionary to be used in a mathematics class. I would get a dictionary of mathematical terms for that. And even then I would realize that it's only a guide.

I have used mathematics dictionaries quite often throughout my life. I've have found disagreements between dictionaries published by different publishers. I have also found contradictions, or at least ambiguities within single dictionaries when looking up terms used in various definitions.

I have also come to the realization that dictionaries of any sort cannot be trusted to be perfect nor complete. After all, if they were complete, then the subjects they are defining would need to be complete as well. And we know that's not the case.
JohnA wrote: A conditional statement refer to logic and math (subset of logic which uses by logical reasoning)
A conditional statement, symbolized by p -> q, is an if-then statement in which p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion.
The conditional is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis leads to a false conclusion.
Conditional statements are part of Discrete Mathematics!
Conditional statements are used in Discrete Mathematics.

You are right a conditional statement is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis least to a false conclusion. But it is also considered to be true if the hypothesis is simply false.

See:

Image

And this is exactly why I am using a conditional statement for this purpose.

I claim that my conditional statement offered in my first post of this thread is TRUE.

Well there are three conditions where the statement is TRUE, and only one where it is FALSE.

If you reject the truth of the hypothesis P, then the conditional statement is given a truth value of TRUE.

Therefore if you disagree with P, you automatically must conceded that my conditional statement is logically true. You simply don't care because you reject the hypothesis. It doesn't matter to you that it's true precisely because you have rejected the hypotheses.

The only case where it can be false is when you accept the hypothesis to be TRUE, and then refuse to accept that the conclusion is also TRUE.

I am simply saying that if you accept the truth of the hypothesis then I can show why the conclusion necessarily has to be true. I haven't had a need to do that yet because no one is willing to accept the truth of the hypothesis.

This is precisely why I have chosen to present it in this form.

There is no point in my even bothering to argue with people who reject the hypothesis. That's just a total waste of time for everyone involved.

You don't seem to understand this.

If you reject the truth of P, then you're wasting our time to continue to argue with me about it. You have already conceded Q when you have rejected P.

This is precisely what I have chosen this form to present my case.

This was no accident. ;)
JohnA wrote: This is what I disagree with:

This is very sneaky of you to define your 'argument' using a Conditional statement since the only way we can show it false is when the hypothesis (p) is true and the conclusion (q) is false.
But that is precisely what you will need to show if you wish to discuss this topic with me. ;)
JohnA wrote: But your forgot to say:

1) You need to demonstrate there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the hypothesis and conclusion of your conditional statement.
Your conditional statement (you can even use truth tables if you wish) that one hypothesis / premise is enough to make a conclusion is unfounded. You need a valid sound argument (at least 2 P's and 1 C) for this nonsense you are trying to conclude.
All of that comes later John.

You need to accept the truth of P before we can even begin to move in that direction.

If you reject P before we start, then what's the point in even bothering to move forward? You've already conceded at that point.
JohnA wrote: 2) There are problems using conditional statements in normal English language to make conclusions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_c ... onditional
So? Just because there can be problems doesn't mean there has to be in every case.

All I'm doing with this conditional statement is trying to weed out unreasonable people. Clearly it doesn't always work for that intended purpose. :lol:

My purpose it to try to get off on a good solid start. There's nothing "sneaky" about it at all. If you reject P, fine. How many times do I need to say that?

If you reject the truth of P, then I have nothing to prove to you. I'm not even interested in trying to prove anything to you at that point.

It's just a way to avoid superfluous arguments like you keep presenting.

But clearly, like I say, even this approach doesn't appear to be working in your case.
JohnA wrote: 3) Now, you said you are not trying to make a conclusion, yet conditional statements refer to a hypothesis and conclusion (if hypothesis true, then conclusion = true). You even stated that you want to make a conclusion in your 1st post in this thread!
No John you are totally wrong. I'm not demanding that that Q must be true.

All I'm saying is that if you accept P then I can show that Q is true.

Clearly you aren't understanding. There is nothing in this conditional statement that demands that anything needs to be true or false.

I'm the one who is claiming that this conditional statement is TRUE. Therefore it's up to me to prove it.

However, if you reject the truth of P, then I'm done. The conditional statement is then automatically TRUE (see the truth table above). Anytime P is said to be false, the conditional statement then takes on the truth value of TRUE.

That's precisely why I chose a conditional statement as the format John.
JohnA wrote: 4) Conditional statements rely on discrete math, which your reject (both in saying you reject parts of math and that conditional statement are math indeed).
No they don't. They are logic, not math. They don't rely on a concept of quantity at all. They have nothing to do with the concept of number. They are Boolean. they are either TRUE or FALSE, no numbers or quantitative ideas are required at all.

But then again, I suppose you do have a point academically speaking, because the "Mathematical Community" thinks it OWNS LOGIC. :roll:

In fact, you have already spoken before like as if there is no difference between logic and mathematics, if you reject one you automatically reject the other. That seemed to be your view on that.

I disagree with that view as well.

So we're back to a point where we can simply agree to disagree again.
JohnA wrote: You reject / ignore this for some UNKNOWN reason, offering obtuse obscure projections of obscurantism.


Therefore, I reject your conditional statement "argument" since it is logically flawed. I reject P and Q and P -> Q. Happy now?
If you reject P then my conditional statement P -> Q is TRUE.

Look at the TRUTH TABLE for P -> Q John.

Image

If you reject P as being False, then P -> Q is automatically TRUE.

Are you going to deny the TRUTH TABLE?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply