MU has made it completely clear he's a nut-case, and not even an honest nut-case, yet some people don't get it. And a parallel with Trump and similar people. The right approach to them is to treat them appropriately. — tim wood
...from there he can throw what bombs he likes. — tim wood
I pay for a 15 minute massage — Outlander
Again mathematics generally has a purpose. — Outlander
MU has a metaphysical theory of numbers, he's a believer in them in the full b-word sense (it's part of his identity... almost literally), and modern math is kind of a heresy wrt it. That's my take. I personally envision his theories as being roughly of both the form and value of Eric the half a bee.Something tells me that it's partly solipsism, partly an expression of aggression against the imposition of an external control over his thinking. — dex
MU has a metaphysical theory of numbers, he's a believer in them in the full b-word sense (it's part of his identity... almost literally), and modern math is kind of a heresy wrt it. That's my take. — InPitzotl
I personally envision his theories as being roughly of both the form and value of Eric the half a bee.
In that case, may I ask why you're arguing your position here? If you yourself can't be persuaded by others, what makes you think others will be persuaded by you? — dex
He's yet to answer the question I posed most likely because it isolates the underlying hypocracy of his debate stance -- apparently truth has little to do with his posting motivation -- so it's only pointless to argue against that which his hypocracy is productive of. His whole intellectual orientation is faulty. But it's for some reason been useful enough for him to maintain it. — dex
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic states, in the modern reading, that all positive integers can be represented as a unique product of primes (barring order). — InPitzotl
This is jargon... they refer to the same mathematical object. — InPitzotl
Sort of, but not really. "Number" applies to a lot of things. But that's not a problem; it's actually a benefit. The definition of number should not merely not be nailed down; it should be open. But part of the point of categorizing these numbers is so that we can give particular kinds of numbers names. — InPitzotl
Math is not subject to any standard of applicability. On the contrary, the only criterion for the worth of a piece of math is whether it's regarded as interesting and beautiful by mathematicians. — fishfry
MU has a metaphysical theory of numbers, he's a believer in them in the full b-word sense (it's part of his identity... almost literally), and modern math is kind of a heresy wrt it. That's my take. I personally envision his theories as being roughly of both the form and value of Eric the half a bee. — InPitzotl
I can't help being struck by the amount of mindshare Metaphysician Undercover holds here. — fishfry
The result will be to show in even greater relief that this is a thread about Metaphysician Undercover, not about maths. — Banno
Good question. 1 is the product of zero primes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_productAnd what about 1? — Metaphysician Undercover
Where have you looked? Or am I your personal search engine now?I have yet to see a definition of "mathematical object" which allows for the application of the law of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover
We have the terms rational and real, so, you're just whining.Sure, leaving the definition — Metaphysician Undercover
I beg your pardon:I do not understand numbers well enough to create such a theory. — Metaphysician Undercover
I note here that you're not just asking for a definition of number. You're asking for a definition of number that has these properties.I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the so-called "object", or "number" which is represent by "1" and is by definition not a multitude, and therefore not composed of parts, can be divided into nine parts. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm a metaphysician, and some mathematical axioms are derived from metaphysical concepts such as the concepts of unity and continuity, which are features of "being", a subject of metaphysics. So I'm not exactly a layman on these issues. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you teach thatI partake in this forum to learn, and to help others learn. — Metaphysician Undercover
Any system of interpretation which ignores the role of "+" within an equation, to claim that "2+2" says the same thing as "4", cannot really be taken seriously — Metaphysician Undercover
Good question. 1 is the product of zero primes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_product — InPitzotl
The ontological fallacy is that unity and continuity is what is real. — Gary M Washburn
Any system? And you wish to be taken seriously? And then there's the lie: what have you learned in this thread, for example? — tim wood
That's not true — Metaphysician Undercover
It becomes harder for @InPitzotl and @jorndoe to walk away the more they invest — Banno
contradictory and infertile — Banno
Yes, but it's quite ineffective... we already knew you weren't here to learn. Along the same lines, I never heard that paragraph after the one you quoted about the history of primes (gee, I wonder why, wink wink... o/c I know why and everyone with a browser can find out why in 30 seconds). Also along the same lines, that wiki page on mathematical objects that you could just as easily have looked up as the primes is still there.First class example of deception. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is.
"the procedure proves what the procedure is supposed to", here, here, ...
Inconsistent. Recycle. — jorndoe
Yes, but it's quite ineffective... we already knew you weren't here to learn. — InPitzotl
Alright I'll play. What is the nature of this deception?You mean, I am here to learn, and not to be deceived, don't you? — Metaphysician Undercover
What is important to apprehend, is that in the general sense, understanding follows from acting — Metaphysician Undercover
You might say that I believe in metaphysics, and modern math demonstrates a poverty of metaphysics — Metaphysician Undercover
Alright I'll play. What is the nature of this deception? — InPitzotl
Oh you silly confused soul, seeing liars behind your eyelids. I suppose you also see lies in the fact that 3*3=9, given we're multiplying two threes and getting an odd number? Maybe this whole math thing isn't going to work for you.The idea that one is a product of zero. — Metaphysician Undercover
And I consider infinitesimals as poor metaphysics — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you understand that for an "equation" to be at all useful in honest mathematical practice, the right side must necessarily represent something different from the left side? If not, the equation would be a useless tautology. — Metaphysician Undercover
prove that numbers are objects — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you understand that for an "equation" to be at all useful in honest mathematical practice, the right side must necessarily represent something different from the left side? If not, the equation would be a useless tautology. — Metaphysician Undercover
The idea that one is a product of zero. — Metaphysician Undercover
I believe it's a faulty goal to partake in this forum with the intent of persuading others. We are here as philosophers with the goal of understanding. We cannot treat each other as children to be persuaded, and even a minimal degree of participation will reveal that persuasion is never forthcoming. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.