Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next »

Posts:11,186
Registered: 06.04.04
Kurt Goedel  
May 28, 2004 2:13 PM



 
Greetings,

I definitely am blind or something must've happened in the few hours I was out for dinner with my wife.
We were in the middle of a discussion involving an Incompleteness Theorem and then some, but I
can't find the entire thread anymore? ... It has been killed for some reason. Was it too off topic or did
some ***** sprinkle in too much foul language while I was enjoying my smoked salmon and a very
fine Marques de Caceres red wine? In both cases, it would be a pity. Anyone care to pick up the
discussion where we left it? In good manners and mood that is.

kind regards,

Jos
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 28, 2004 2:16 PM (reply 1 of 635)



 
Seems to be gone. My guess is Ulrika reported it for abuse because she couldn't come up with a reply to the questions posed to her. That's just a guess, though.
 

Posts:11,186
Registered: 06.04.04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 28, 2004 2:34 PM (reply 2 of 635)



 
Seems to be gone. My guess is Ulrika reported it for abuse because she couldn't come up with a reply
to the questions posed to her. That's just a guess, though.

Although I don't know Ulrika at all, I sincerely doubt she did such a thing. I think your guess is wrong.
By answering your reply I'm afraid that we're going to turn this newborn thread into another meta-
discussion ... so lets not, ok?

kind regards,

Jos
 

Posts:31,095
Registered: 4/30/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 28, 2004 3:44 PM (reply 3 of 635)



 
The thread became complete, which was a contradiction, so it does not exist.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 28, 2004 3:45 PM (reply 4 of 635)



 
Although I don't know Ulrika at all, I sincerely doubt
she did such a thing. I think your guess is wrong.

I hope you're right.

By answering your reply I'm afraid that we're going to
turn this newborn thread into another meta-
discussion ... so lets not, ok?

Sounds like a plan.
 

Posts:1,183
Registered: 1/23/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 28, 2004 4:20 PM (reply 5 of 635)



 
Anyone care to pick up the discussion where we left it?

Yes, I was waiting for you to define what you meant by system "going outside itself" and being able to "cover its own domain".
 

Posts:11,186
Registered: 06.04.04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 2:49 AM (reply 6 of 635)



 
Anyone care to pick up the discussion where we left it?

Yes, I was waiting for you to define what you meant by system "going outside itself" and being able
to "cover its own domain".

Well, the first term (going outside itself) wasn't invented by me (I can't show you a link because the
previous discussion is all lost for the posterity) and the second phrase (cover its own domain) was
just my sloppy wording for Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.

But that was not what the discussion (in statu nascendi) was all about. It was YATarchivist, if I'm not
mistaken, who interpreted the vague 'going outside itself' with the premise that if one X doesn't have
a property T, then a collection of X can't have this property T. The latter refers back to the statement
that one cell isn't able to speak, so a bunch of cells (e.g. a human being) isn't able to speak.

That last statement is clearly false for the simple reason that every X might contain a fraction of that
property T and the collection of X-es completes the entire property T. This has nothing to do with
'systems going outside themselves' and I responded that to YATarchivist, i.e. the X and T thingy
is not an example of 'systems going outside themselves' and therefore had nothing to do with
Kurt Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.

It was this 'systems ... outside' that gave me the association with Kurt Goedel; which I mentioned and
it became the start of the discussion.

kind regards,

Jos
 

Posts:4,906
Registered: 23/07/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 6:11 AM (reply 7 of 635)



 
It was YATarchivist, if I'm not mistaken, who interpreted the vague 'going outside itself' with the premise that if one X doesn't have a
property T, then a collection of X can't have this property T.

Either your memory is wrong or we had a serious miscommunication. I was arguing against UJ's claim that said premise was mathematically proven because "a system can't go outside itself". I asked for a reference to the relevant theorem, and you then raised Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
 

Posts:11,186
Registered: 06.04.04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 7:40 AM (reply 8 of 635)



 
Either your memory is wrong or we had a serious miscommunication.

I'm afraid option two applies here ... I was responding (when the thread went down) to your 'one X doesn't
have property T, a collection of X does have property T' remark, w.r.t. to Goedels theorem.
Maybe we should just stop this thread ...

kind regards,

Jos

ps. how do you manage to get those umlauts in? My little laptop always goes beep when I attempt
to enter anything more than plain text ... I guess I'm just clumsy ...
 

Posts:4,906
Registered: 23/07/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 8:14 AM (reply 9 of 635)



 
ps. how do you manage to get those umlauts in?

blink I haven't been bothering with them. If I wanted to, though, I'd use the HTML entity ö (quick test ö)
 

Posts:11,186
Registered: 06.04.04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 8:40 AM (reply 10 of 635)



 
ps. how do you manage to get those umlauts in?

blink I haven't been bothering with them. If I
wanted to, though, I'd use the HTML entity ö
(quick test �)

darn &oumlf c&oumlurse (slaps f&oumlrehead) it's s&ouml simple ...

Thanks for the tip and

kind regards,

J&oumls ( <-- cl&uumlmsy &oumlaf)
 

Posts:5,965
Registered: 5/17/03
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 9:56 AM (reply 11 of 635)



 
Seems to be gone. My guess is Ulrika reported it for
abuse because she couldn't come up with a reply to the
questions posed to her. That's just a guess, though.

Sorry nasch my spanking schedule is a little tight right now. Later maybe and until then, stay naughty!

I can't recall having posted to a Goedel thread recently. I don't know much about it but that suits me fine. Knowledge can get in your way you know -:)

What was it about?
 

Posts:5,965
Registered: 5/17/03
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 10:21 AM (reply 12 of 635)



 
What was it about?

Was it about the meaning of life?

Well, I claimed you have to create any meaning yourself because biological life itself doesn't provide any. I really didn't think I could prove it and my argumentation wasn't that strong, unfortunately.
 

Posts:5,965
Registered: 5/17/03
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 10:44 AM (reply 13 of 635)



 
My argument went something like this,

1. The cell is the smallest component of life as we know it.
2. A cell in itself doesn't have any inherent meaning.
3. If one cell doesn't have any meaning then no composition of cells has any meaning.
4. You're a composition of cells so the mere fact that you live doesn't provide any meaning to your life.

I had the idea that you could somehow use Goedel's theorem here (I didn't remember the name when I posted). I don't know if it would work but it's a fascinating thought that maybe you could prove that there's no meaning of life -:)
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
May 29, 2004 10:54 AM (reply 14 of 635)



 
My guess is Ulrika reported it for
abuse because she couldn't come up with a reply to the
questions posed to her.

I would have to say that that seems unlikely to me.

There are any number of more likely possibilities including that some Sun admin just fat fingered the wrong id when trying to delete something else.
 
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next »