EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 132
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
| ||
|
3FFA
United States3931 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On August 18 2014 09:40 Advantageous wrote: Would "Self-explanatory" mean the same thing? Self-explanatory is more synonymous with simple-to-explain than with is-obviously-true. On August 18 2014 10:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: Anything can be an axiom since, by their nature, they are suppositions you use as the jumping off point of an argument. But does that make them automatically true? For example, if we assume the bible is true, then logically God is real. It doesn't work right? Axioms are just that, their axioms derived from suppositions. In addition to Simberto's points, How it should work is that: axioms are true by definition, postulates are tentative truths so you can actually apply logic. Axioms can't be proven to be true or false, they simply are true. Postulates can be proven to be false, and postulates are the basis of arguments (premises). In reality they're basically the same thing because English. Axioms are true in whatever universe you describe them in and one day they might be false. But then they shouldn't have been classified as axioms in the first place. Multiple definitions whooo | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12036 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:04 3FFA wrote: How does one connect to the internet in a rented house(vacation) with no wifi or cable? If you are only staying for a short period of time, phone internet/surfsticks. If you are staying for a longer period of time (months at least, talk to phone companies, but if there are no cables laid, its probably cheaper to once again use phone internet. If you really hate phone internet, ask before you rent the house if it has a connection. If you are so far out in the wilderness that you don't have mobile connections, you probably have a reason for going there like wanting to do some sort of rustic wilderness trip, so you should be able to deal with not having internet for a few days/weeks. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On August 18 2014 19:05 Hryul wrote: what's up with those shiny horses some of TL staff got? You mean like this guy? Those are Strategy staff | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
What's so special about S. Why not "A" or something? Anyone know? | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
On August 19 2014 02:56 Incognoto wrote: Why is "S" indicative of high level in Asian cultures? Korea, GSL Code-S. In lots of manga (Fairy Tail, Tokyo Ghoul, etc), "S" level stuff is high level. What's so special about S. Why not "A" or something? Anyone know? I think it's similar to how games will have bronze/silver/gold for standard placements and then a platinum medal for bonus placements like for beating a record time or a challenge that otherwise doesn't follow the typical scaling. It's an additional ranking intentionally above the standard that says that the recipient is special in some way. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 18 2014 21:23 Blisse wrote: Self-explanatory is more synonymous with simple-to-explain than with is-obviously-true. In addition to Simberto's points, How it should work is that: axioms are true by definition, postulates are tentative truths so you can actually apply logic. Axioms can't be proven to be true or false, they simply are true. Postulates can be proven to be false, and postulates are the basis of arguments (premises). In reality they're basically the same thing because English. Axioms are true in whatever universe you describe them in and one day they might be false. But then they shouldn't have been classified as axioms in the first place. Multiple definitions whooo I know all that. I know what tautology means as well. All break down to the simply just arbitrary beliefs that one must assume is true for the following discussion to take place--hence why I asked how does one know something is true without direct evidence being that they all beging with "assuming x is true, then so are all these other things." I know I exist because I perceive myself to exist. And I have faith Africa exists, because books and people tell me it exists. But until I see Africa for myself, or see direct evidence of Africa myself, I simply have to trust the books and people around me. | ||
|
MinoMoto
Latvia107 Posts
| ||
|
3FFA
United States3931 Posts
On August 19 2014 03:30 MinoMoto wrote: What Does The Fox Say? No. Does typing a lowercase 'i' instead of an uppercase 'I' when talking about myself cause myself to be viewed as a more selfless person? i only ask due to having seen many others type their "i"'s in this fashion. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On August 19 2014 03:34 3FFA wrote: No. Does typing a lowercase 'i' instead of an uppercase 'I' when talking about myself cause myself to be viewed as a more selfless person? i only ask due to having seen many others type their "i"'s in this fashion. No. It makes you look like an illiterate. (And is technically against TL rules). | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
On August 19 2014 03:28 Thieving Magpie wrote: I know all that. I know what tautology means as well. All break down to the simply just arbitrary beliefs that one must assume is true for the following discussion to take place--hence why I asked how does one know something is true without direct evidence being that they all beging with "assuming x is true, then so are all these other things." I know I exist because I perceive myself to exist. And I have faith Africa exists, because books and people tell me it exists. But until I see Africa for myself, or see direct evidence of Africa myself, I simply have to trust the books and people around me. I think the question then is what is an axiom? Or rather who defines something to be axiomatic? If I write a proof using an axiom that states 2+2=8 then you will obviously point to that and say it's wrong and therefore my conclusion is wrong. My take on the definition of an axiom is 'something so simple I'm not going to bother providing proof.' But that does not inherantly make it true or mean there is not evidence out there to reinforce the idea. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12036 Posts
Of course, you also have most of modern mathematics built on even more abstract axioms, like Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, but those are really abstract and kind of hard to wrap your head around for most people. Now, if you were to change one of them, for example use a+b=b+2a instead, you would get a completely different working set of algebraic equations following from that. This is not a wrong system of algebra either, just a different one built on different axioms. And in that system, a+b=b+2a is an absolute truth, needing no proof either. Inside it's own system, an axiom is true without requiring evidence. Trying to determine if it is true outside its own system is kind of pointless and does not really lead to anything. This is the beauty of maths. Maths does not have to fit any observations or evidence, math just is. You choose axioms, and derive from there. The axioms are true without requiring proof, and everything else follows from the axioms, and can thus logically be proven to be true. You create a consistant system that is completely true, and will always be completely true (unless you made a mistake). | ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_second_problem Regarding the question of knowing what is definitive or not without evidence, there are gigabytes of wikipedia pages you can read up to familiarize yourself with the subject and gauge how interested you really are before delving in the sinkhole of primary texts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html Something like that. The wiki article is interesting too | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On August 19 2014 04:25 xes wrote: It's interesting that arithmetic (what is being termed "algebra" here) is used as the example of math based on axioms, because there is in fact no non-trivial axiomatic system of algebra that is self-consistent, i.e. that the axiom is true "inside it's own system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_second_problem Regarding the question of knowing what is definitive or not without evidence, there are gigabytes of wikipedia pages you can read up to familiarize yourself with the subject and gauge how interested you really are before delving in the sinkhole of primary texts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology i dont think thats correct. Gödel didnt show that the axiomatic system isnt self-consistent, but that it cant be proven that it is. but maybe i misunderstood your post | ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
On August 19 2014 06:23 Blisse wrote: Axioms are true by definition. You can't prove or disprove an axiom. You don't assume that they're true. http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html Something like that. The wiki article is interesting too That purported definition is a bit of polemic pandering by espousing a ostensibly proper way to use the word "axiom." Euclidean geometry is very much a thing, and the axioms for it are just as valid now as they were back then. In fact, the various axiomatizations of Euclidean geometry behave much nicer than the axiomatizations of arithmetic, despite one being relegated to the status of postulate by our fellow magisters of The Important of Philosophy. On August 19 2014 07:31 Paljas wrote: i dont think thats correct. Gödel didnt show that the axiomatic system isnt self-consistent, but that it cant be proven that it is. but maybe i misunderstood your post I think we are in agreement, but I was negligent in my wording and you brought up a valid point. My main argument was that arithmetic is a poor example of demonstrating the inherent truth or provability in an axiom within its own axiomatic system to be used as an example of how you can define something, presumably as true, without experiencing it. The point of an axiom isn't to be self-proving (vis-a-vis a tautology) but to create the basis of an interesting structure that logical deductions can be made from. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 19 2014 10:50 xes wrote: That purported definition is a bit of polemic pandering by espousing a ostensibly proper way to use the word "axiom." Euclidean geometry is very much a thing, and the axioms for it are just as valid now as they were back then. In fact, the various axiomatizations of Euclidean geometry behave much nicer than the axiomatizations of arithmetic, despite one being relegated to the status of postulate by our fellow magisters of The Important of Philosophy. I think we are in agreement, but I was negligent in my wording and you brought up a valid point. My main argument was that arithmetic is a poor example of demonstrating the inherent truth or provability in an axiom within its own axiomatic system to be used as an example of how you can define something, presumably as true, without experiencing it. The point of an axiom isn't to be self-proving (vis-a-vis a tautology) but to create the basis of an interesting structure that logical deductions can be made from. Axioms also become very tenuous affairs leading to lots of arguments when you stray away from mathematics. For example, when designing laws, are people generally trustworthy or generally untrustworthy? When discussing ethics, whose morals should we use as a base point? Etc... | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 19 2014 11:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: The rule of law and all that shiz is a tricky topic as well, even some wishing our fellow mates would be inherently good and rational beings more often than not. I might just be another Burkean shill, but I think the way he put it was best: The individual is foolish; the multitude, for the moment, is foolish, when they act without deliberation; but the species is wise, and, when time is given to it, as a species it always acts right. In my flow of thinking, the longevity of laws and the societal results from abiding by them should be viewed together, when untrustworthy might think of submitting to laws long established, and trustworthy flourishing with all their protections and benefits.Axioms also become very tenuous affairs leading to lots of arguments when you stray away from mathematics. For example, when designing laws, are people generally trustworthy or generally untrustworthy? When discussing ethics, whose morals should we use as a base point? Etc... | ||
|
Itachii
Poland12466 Posts
| ||
| ||
