Board index » delphi » Re: Idle Thoughts

Re: Idle Thoughts


2005-08-24 04:10:59 PM
delphi224
Wayne Niddery [TeamB] writes:
Quote
Jarle stabell writes:
>
>But if we agree that 3.999... is to have any meaning at all, what
>else can it denote if not the limit?

In fact it has no meaning *outside the context of some practical use*
- and any practical use means some limit on accuracy is required.
Warning, mathematicians: your concepts have no meaning *outside the
context of some practical use*, so stop wasting your lives in this
trivial pursuit.
 
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

Quote
It is an infinite series approaching 1/3 ever closer. It is not 1/3.
Ermm... you might prefer to gear the subject towards pulling teeth,
maths doesn't seem to be your area of expertise.
Eric
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

Hi Rudy!
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] writes:
Quote
That is the problem. The new laws have cost me some 20-30% less
turnaround, i.e. almost no profit. I must really be careful with my
finances. I simply hope that patients will finally see the light, and
realize that things have actually not changed a lot, for them.
Yes, I know that (one of my best friends is a dentist, too) - in these time
you'd better be a radiologist than a dentist in Germany...
Greetings from Cologne
Robert
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

At 12:32:10, 24.08.2005, Robert Wachtel writes:
Quote
Hi Rudy!

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] writes:
>That is the problem. The new laws have cost me some 20-30% less
>turnaround, i.e. almost no profit. I must really be careful with my
>finances. I simply hope that patients will finally see the light, and
>realize that things have actually not changed a lot, for them.

Yes, I know that (one of my best friends is a dentist, too) - in these
time you'd better be a radiologist than a dentist in Germany...
Really. And I heard Holland and the UK are desperatley looking for
dentists. <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting
than the question of whether a submarine can swim." -- Edsger Dijkstra
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

Lauchlan M <LMackinnonAT_NoSpam_ozemailDOTcomDOTau>writes
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
and
that maybe it will arrive at the proof
There is no proof, just disproof. All mathematical "proofs" are just
tautologies, since mathematics is simply a language, nothing more. Granted,
it is a highly useful, even indispensable, language, but it is just a
language in the end.
--
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.1092
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

John Jacobson aka Captain Jake writes:
Quote
Lauchlan M <LMackinnonAT_NoSpam_ozemailDOTcomDOTau>writes
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
>and
>that maybe it will arrive at the proof

There is no proof, just disproof. All mathematical "proofs" are just
tautologies, since mathematics is simply a language, nothing more.
Granted, it is a highly useful, even indispensable, language, but it
is just a language in the end.
Some of the mathematical reasoning here is certainly equivalent to
pidgin English.
But to reduce mathematics to "simply a language, nothing more" seems to
me at best just a glib debating point.
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

"IanH" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
John Jacobson aka Captain Jake writes:
>There is no proof, just disproof. All mathematical "proofs" are just
>tautologies, since mathematics is simply a language, nothing more.
>Granted, it is a highly useful, even indispensable, language, but it
>is just a language in the end.

But to reduce mathematics to "simply a language, nothing more" seems to
me at best just a glib debating point.

www.cut-the-knot.org/language/MathIsLanguage.shtml
And, yes, I am aware there is ano pposing point of view to my own:
www.geocities.com/agihard/mohl/mohl_language_function.html
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

IanH writes:
Quote
But to reduce mathematics to "simply a language, nothing more" seems
to me at best just a glib debating point.
I think that what John is saying follows quite directly from Godel's
incompleteness theorm. Hence, it is hardly a trivial point.
-Craig, already regretting having posted to this thread... :)
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] . Vertex Systems Corp. . Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
IB 6 versions prior to 6.0.1.6 are pre-release and may corrupt
your DBs! Open Edition users, get 6.0.1.6 from mers.com
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

Captain Jake writes:
Quote

"IanH" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
news:XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
>John Jacobson aka Captain Jake writes:
>>There is no proof, just disproof. All mathematical "proofs" are
just>>tautologies, since mathematics is simply a language, nothing
more.>>Granted, it is a highly useful, even indispensable,
language, but it>>is just a language in the end.
>
>But to reduce mathematics to "simply a language, nothing more"
>seems to me at best just a glib debating point.
>

www.cut-the-knot.org/language/MathIsLanguage.shtml
I think you've taken the metaphor these people are using and stretched
it just a wee bit too far, but hey - that is your prerogative.
Quote
And, yes, I am aware there is ano pposing point of view to my own:
www.geocities.com/agihard/mohl/mohl_language_function.html
Would be dull if we all thought the same - think what it would do to
the traffic in here <g>
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] writes:
Quote
IanH writes:

>But to reduce mathematics to "simply a language, nothing more" seems
>to me at best just a glib debating point.

I think that what John is saying follows quite directly from Godel's
incompleteness theorm. Hence, it is hardly a trivial point.

-Craig, already regretting having posted to this thread... :)
I think that the fairly successful match between mathematics and
reality to date suggests a deeper value to maths than the quote
highlighted, however.....
...following Godel's incompleteness theorem directly is completely
non-trivial and directly beyond my completely trivial understanding.
- Ian, getting out before the philosophy police arrive in force ;-)
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

"IanH" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
I think you've taken the metaphor these people are using and stretched
it just a wee bit too far, but hey - that is your prerogative.
I didn't come to my conclusion based on their metaphor, but on a basic
philosophy of how human knowledge comes to be, and of what it actually
consists. The best exposition of this phliosophy comes in the writing of Sir
Karl Popper. Craig mentioned Godel's incompleteness theorem, which is an
excellent admission of this basic nature of human knowledge. Interestingly
enough there is a similar type of "incompleteness theorem" in economics,
namely Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which states that there is no logical
manner to form the concept of a collective choice. All languages, whether
they are spoken languages like English, or written languages like
mathematics, have their limits. It is the height of human conceit for us to
fancy that our languages themselves are anything more than imperfect
attempts to describe the world around us. They never prove anything, though
they can enlighten us as to the implications of our own assumptions. We must
never confuse the idiosyncrasies of our languages with the underlying
reality they are supposed to describe.
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

In article <430c8f32$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, XXXX@XXXXX.COM says...
Quote

I think that the fairly successful match between mathematics and
reality to date suggests a deeper value to maths than the quote
highlighted, however.....
Because the /language/ of mathematics is rooted in /our/ perception of
reality. If our perception of reality (and of course, one could ask what
is real and what is illusion, but we won't go down that wormhole) was
different then the language of mathematics would be different.
Quote

...following Godel's incompleteness theorem directly is completely
non-trivial and directly beyond my completely trivial understanding.
If you're interested, "Goedel, Escher and Bach" is a nice, gentle
introduction to the subject...
Quote

- Ian, getting out before the philosophy police arrive in force ;-)

The PPF (Philosophy Police Force) are quite nice chaps. All of them have
graduated from the University of Wallamaloo. Only problem is, they're
all called Bruce...
--
John
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

Captain Jake writes:
Quote
"IanH" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
news:XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
>I think you've taken the metaphor these people are using and
>stretched it just a wee bit too far, but hey - that is your
>prerogative.

I didn't come to my conclusion based on their metaphor, but on a
basic philosophy of how human knowledge comes to be, and of what it
actually consists. The best exposition of this phliosophy comes in
the writing of Sir Karl Popper. Craig mentioned Godel's
incompleteness theorem, which is an excellent admission of this basic
nature of human knowledge. Interestingly enough there is a similar
type of "incompleteness theorem" in economics, namely Arrow's
Impossibility Theorem, which states that there is no logical manner
to form the concept of a collective choice. All languages, whether
they are spoken languages like English, or written languages like
mathematics, have their limits. It is the height of human conceit for
us to fancy that our languages themselves are anything more than
imperfect attempts to describe the world around us. They never prove
anything, though they can enlighten us as to the implications of our
own assumptions. We must never confuse the idiosyncrasies of our
languages with the underlying reality they are supposed to describe.
Getting a bit theological here Jake, IMO.
Using the Incompleteness Theorem to understand the nature + limits of
mathematical proof is one thing; extending this to a critique of human
conceit + idiosyncrasies is further than I'd go.
Anyway, time for me to go home and for this to go to off-topic (no
offence intended: feel free to have the last word).
Thanks for the chat
Ian
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

"Captain Jake" wrote
Quote
We must
never confuse the idiosyncrasies of our languages with the underlying
reality they are supposed to describe.
Mimesis (the representation of reality) is only a part of linguistic
function. For better or worse, language acts are also a part of that world,
so it is impossible not to confuse (in the sense of intermix) language and
reality. See J.L. Austin or John R. Searle.
bobD
 

Re: Idle Thoughts

John Wester [Group W] writes:
Quote
With D2006 getting closer, something just struck me (no, not my Team
Lead). If D2005 is BDS 3.0, is it safe to assume that D2006 would be
BDS 4?

I'm a superstitious kinda guy and given my experience with:

The Apple IV, VMS 4, VB4, Delphi 4

can you guys please, pretty please just skip BDS 4.0 and go straight
to BDS 5.0?
How about we add dried chicken feet to the box? That should help
adjust numerological superstitions.
-Danny
--
Delphi Compiler Core: blogs.borland.com/dcc