0816: "Applied Math"
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

 Posts: 199
 Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:17 am UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Ha, ha, guys. I meant that it's been proven that the set that would be made by such a proof breaks some fundamental principle of sets, so any proof that could show this wouldn't be recognizable as a valid proof as it's usually understood. I think Gödel himself proved that, actually? Should probably look this up. Not really my field.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it"  Donald Knuth
Re: 0816: Applied Math
DT_ wrote:mafaraxas wrote:To be a small sticker on notation:
where it says [imath]P \Lambda \bar{P}[/imath], what you probably meant, the adjoint (conjugate transpose for finitedimensional spaces), is usually written [imath]P^*[/imath] rather than [imath]\bar{P}[/imath] to distinguish it from only doing complex conjugate (without doing transpose) of all the elements in the matrix. So [imath]P \Lambda P^*[/imath] is how you usually see it. Unless this was the hidden joke and Randall was trying to troll mathematicians or something.
Also I don't really see what the comic has to do with applied math at all. Consistency of logic systems is about as far from applied math as you can get (restricting yourself to the realm of math). Unless this is part of the joke too? I don't know.
P is a proposition, not a matrix. The girl has proved "P and not P."
Well I guess you know what I've been seeing too much of
Re: 0816: Applied Math
Waylah wrote:Turing Machine wrote:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/
seriously not terribly highlevel logic here, guy
I was reading that link, and I got down to
(5) (5) is false, or neither true nor false, or the fourth thing.
And that's still supposed to be paradoxical, but I don't see how. Why can't 'the fourth thing' be a true thing? In which case, (5) is the fourth thing, and true. Which is not paradoxical.
Surely it would only be paradoxical if it was
(5) (5) is false, AND neither true nor false, or the fourth thing
or any other arrangement that says it can't be the fourth thing and true. Hahaha, what about
(5) (5) is false, or neither true nor false, or a paradox
To the contrary:
"The fourth thing" is meant to be another value in some unspecified logic system; "a paradox," for example, could be "the fourth thing."
Here, follow along with me:
The section is about trying to get away from paradoxes by using more possible "truth values" in a logic system. "True" and "false" alone failed to begin with, motivating the addition of "neither true nor false". This business of "the fourth thing" is supposed to cover things that don't want to be "true", "false", or "neither". Paradox (4) is such a thing.
Also, paradox can't be a truth value. You have to reach into the logic system and add "paradox" with your bare hands where they seem to pop up. If you do that, you can't say your logic is sound and reliable and academic.
Try counting from 1 to apple orchard. I don't know how you're going to move from numbers to concepts without a willful (mis)interpretation.
Re: 0816: Applied Math
yhnmzw wrote:Try counting from 1 to apple orchard. I don't know how you're going to move from numbers to concepts without a willful (mis)interpretation.
Do I have to explain everything to you nitwits? It's the simplest possible thing imaginable. First, convert from base 10 to base apple orchard. Second, start counting until you reach 10.
If you're taking me too seriously, you probably are making a mistake.
 neoliminal
 Posts: 626
 Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
"It is better to be complete than consistent."  John Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
LucasBrown wrote:
Alt text: "Dear Reader: Enclosed is a check for ninetyeight cents. Using your work, I have proven that this equals the amount you requested."
The principle of explosion returns.
HEY! You forgot to carry the two!
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Um, I haven't studied this much, but it seems obvious to me that you can prove a system of logic to be inconsistent. Take ordinary logic and add the axiom "P ^ ~P". Done. No?
Nice of Knuth to send her $0.98. Could just as easily have said the number she claimed was equal to negative $10,000, so she owes him!
Nice of Knuth to send her $0.98. Could just as easily have said the number she claimed was equal to negative $10,000, so she owes him!
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Tualha wrote:Um, I haven't studied this much, but it seems obvious to me that you can prove a system of logic to be inconsistent. Take ordinary logic and add the axiom "P ^ ~P". Done. No?
That'll just prove that your extended system of logic is inconsistent, not your starting system
The problem with the "usual" logic is that it is unknown whether is possible or not to derive a contradiction from the axioms
(and it is also impossible to know if such derivation will occur, and the problem extends to a general logic systems as well)

 Posts: 98
 Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:48 am UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
xnick wrote:Tualha wrote:Um, I haven't studied this much, but it seems obvious to me that you can prove a system of logic to be inconsistent. Take ordinary logic and add the axiom "P ^ ~P". Done. No?
That'll just prove that your extended system of logic is inconsistent, not your starting system
The problem with the "usual" logic is that it is unknown whether is possible or not to derive a contradiction from the axioms
(and it is also impossible to know if such derivation will occur, and the problem extends to a general logic systems as well)
nope
 neoliminal
 Posts: 626
 Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
fix'd
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

 Posts: 3
 Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:53 am UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
When you convert $3,372,564.48 into US dollars from the currency of the nation of San Serrife, then you do get 98 cents.
 NumberFourtyThree
 Posts: 30
 Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:00 am UTC
 Location: Too many to list here, due to a cloning accident.
Re: 0816: Applied Math
Ezbez wrote:SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?
Assume such a proof exists. Then P and not P. Contradiction. Therefore, no such proof exists.
No, because if such a proof exists then contradictions are allowed and do not disprove things. You are begging the question by using reasoning based on logic being consistent to prove that logic can't be inconsistent.
The world is imperfect because it has to be. If everything were perfectly fair and without problems we would all live the exact same pointless life, with no possible meaning to it.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
xnick wrote:Tualha wrote:Um, I haven't studied this much, but it seems obvious to me that you can prove a system of logic to be inconsistent. Take ordinary logic and add the axiom "P ^ ~P". Done. No?
That'll just prove that your extended system of logic is inconsistent, not your starting system
I just meant that in principle, you can prove at least some systems of logic to be inconsistent.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Tualha wrote:xnick wrote:Tualha wrote:Um, I haven't studied this much, but it seems obvious to me that you can prove a system of logic to be inconsistent. Take ordinary logic and add the axiom "P ^ ~P". Done. No?
That'll just prove that your extended system of logic is inconsistent, not your starting system
I just meant that in principle, you can prove at least some systems of logic to be inconsistent.
This was known
 NumberFourtyThree
 Posts: 30
 Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:00 am UTC
 Location: Too many to list here, due to a cloning accident.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Tualha wrote:xnick wrote:Tualha wrote:Um, I haven't studied this much, but it seems obvious to me that you can prove a system of logic to be inconsistent. Take ordinary logic and add the axiom "P ^ ~P". Done. No?
That'll just prove that your extended system of logic is inconsistent, not your starting system
I just meant that in principle, you can prove at least some systems of logic to be inconsistent.
Only by using a different system of logic. If you formulate your proof in the same system of logic you have just proven your proof is invalid as it rests on an invalid system of logic.
The world is imperfect because it has to be. If everything were perfectly fair and without problems we would all live the exact same pointless life, with no possible meaning to it.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Instead of using the term invalid, just use the term inconsistent. Invalid can be mistaken to imply that it is always incorrect. Inconsistent is a more consistent term.
The whole point is proving that conventional logic is inconsistent by forming a paradox; a situation where it can neither be proven true or false. Conventional logic has no method of resolving such paradoxes, though extended logic may be able to.
I do not think it is possible to prove the nonexistence of such logic.
The whole point is proving that conventional logic is inconsistent by forming a paradox; a situation where it can neither be proven true or false. Conventional logic has no method of resolving such paradoxes, though extended logic may be able to.
I do not think it is possible to prove the nonexistence of such logic.
I am NOT a snake.
Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.
Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
<scoff> Everyone knows that although mathematics is inconsistent, any two contradictory statements are so computationally distant that their existence can only be confirmed using a special computer made of light...
Re: 0816: Applied Math
yhnmzw wrote:Waylah wrote:Turing Machine wrote:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/
seriously not terribly highlevel logic here, guy
I was reading that link, and I got down to
(5) (5) is false, or neither true nor false, or the fourth thing.
And that's still supposed to be paradoxical, but I don't see how. Why can't 'the fourth thing' be a true thing? In which case, (5) is the fourth thing, and true. Which is not paradoxical.
Surely it would only be paradoxical if it was
(5) (5) is false, AND neither true nor false, or the fourth thing
or any other arrangement that says it can't be the fourth thing and true. Hahaha, what about
(5) (5) is false, or neither true nor false, or a paradox
To the contrary:
"The fourth thing" is meant to be another value in some unspecified logic system; "a paradox," for example, could be "the fourth thing."
Here, follow along with me:
The section is about trying to get away from paradoxes by using more possible "truth values" in a logic system. "True" and "false" alone failed to begin with, motivating the addition of "neither true nor false". This business of "the fourth thing" is supposed to cover things that don't want to be "true", "false", or "neither". Paradox (4) is such a thing.
Also, paradox can't be a truth value. You have to reach into the logic system and add "paradox" with your bare hands where they seem to pop up. If you do that, you can't say your logic is sound and reliable and academic.
Try counting from 1 to apple orchard. I don't know how you're going to move from numbers to concepts without a willful (mis)interpretation.
When I said "how about ... paradox" I did prefix it with 'haha'. But you totally missed my point; yes, as you say, " 'a paradox,' for example, could be 'the fourth thing.' " and that would work as a paradox, and yet not a paradox, but then yes it would have to be a paradox, but then that would mean it is not a paradox, etc. (hence the 'haha'). But 'the fourth thing' doesn't have to be 'a paradox'. There wasn't anything in point (5) that said the fourth thing couldn't allow the statement to be true also. Then the statement could be the fourth thing, and be true.
Granted, that doesn't get you very far, because all you need to do is change a carefully placed or to an and, and you're back to square one.

 Posts: 98
 Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:48 am UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Read the article next time.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
troyp wrote:<scoff> Everyone knows that although mathematics is inconsistent, any two contradictory statements are so computationally distant that their existence can only be confirmed using a special computer made of light...
Nice to see that someone else has read that story, but they really only needed that computer to map the entire defect. They found a starting point without it, remember?
For those who are wondering, the story is "Luminous" by Greg Egan. Also has a sequel, "Dark Integers".
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Tualha wrote:Nice to see that someone else has read that story, but they really only needed that computer to map the entire defect. They found a starting point without it, remember?
Oh yeah, I remember now: they found the first anomaly with a yearslong distributed computing effort.
Been a while since I last read Luminous.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Kyrn wrote: Inconsistent is a more consistent term.
LoL
Based on this I raise another question: are paradoxes ironic?
Re: 0816: Applied Math
Waylah wrote:yhnmzw wrote:Waylah wrote:Turing Machine wrote:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/
seriously not terribly highlevel logic here, guy
I was reading that link, and I got down to
(5) (5) is false, or neither true nor false, or the fourth thing.
And that's still supposed to be paradoxical, but I don't see how. Why can't 'the fourth thing' be a true thing? In which case, (5) is the fourth thing, and true. Which is not paradoxical.
Surely it would only be paradoxical if it was
(5) (5) is false, AND neither true nor false, or the fourth thing
or any other arrangement that says it can't be the fourth thing and true. Hahaha, what about
(5) (5) is false, or neither true nor false, or a paradox
To the contrary:
"The fourth thing" is meant to be another value in some unspecified logic system; "a paradox," for example, could be "the fourth thing."
Here, follow along with me:
The section is about trying to get away from paradoxes by using more possible "truth values" in a logic system. "True" and "false" alone failed to begin with, motivating the addition of "neither true nor false". This business of "the fourth thing" is supposed to cover things that don't want to be "true", "false", or "neither". Paradox (4) is such a thing.
Also, paradox can't be a truth value. You have to reach into the logic system and add "paradox" with your bare hands where they seem to pop up. If you do that, you can't say your logic is sound and reliable and academic.
Try counting from 1 to apple orchard. I don't know how you're going to move from numbers to concepts without a willful (mis)interpretation.
When I said "how about ... paradox" I did prefix it with 'haha'. But you totally missed my point; yes, as you say, " 'a paradox,' for example, could be 'the fourth thing.' " and that would work as a paradox, and yet not a paradox, but then yes it would have to be a paradox, but then that would mean it is not a paradox, etc. (hence the 'haha'). But 'the fourth thing' doesn't have to be 'a paradox'. There wasn't anything in point (5) that said the fourth thing couldn't allow the statement to be true also. Then the statement could be the fourth thing, and be true.
Granted, that doesn't get you very far, because all you need to do is change a carefully placed or to an and, and you're back to square one.
One significant problem with this set of logic: Analyze point 5 itself.
"(5) (5) is false, AND neither true nor false, or the fourth thing."
Note that it is phrased in an eitheror format, which implies truth or nontruth. If we assume that there is such a value which represents neither true or false, (5) would STILL match that value (in a conventional logic sense, in a more accurate and extended sense, it neither matches or notmatches. See the pattern here?), because like (4), it is also neither true or false.
The problem is that we are explaining this extended logic using our common logic, which is inherently impossible without inconsistency, since the extended logic is developed solely to solve said inconsistency. Refer to that bracketed section.
EDIT: alternatively: consider this set: Inconsistent values. Why is it so hard to believe that this set can intersect itself?
Further consideration: Consider the Sets "True" and the Set "False", which comprises all possible logical statements. "Inconsistent" statements would fall under the overlap of "True" and "False".
Now consider the sets "Inconsistent: True", and "Inconsistent: False". Let us assume that there is a section of overlap between them where they are "Inconsistent". The issue is that this overlapped section would fall entirely under "Inconsistent: True" (Basically, there are no statements which are "Inconsistent: True" but not "Inconsistent: False"). Further analysis would note that "Inconsistent: False" is basically the combined sets of "True" and "False".
In short: All logical statements fall under sets "True" and "False", where set "Inconsistent" is defined as the overlapped members between "True" and "False".
LAST EDIT: And now, a thought exercise: There's actually a last section not considered here: Illogical statements such as "This sentence apple moo". This statement would technically fall under the section completely outside "True" and "False" (and hence outside "Inconsistent" as well). How does this section interact with the other sections?
I am NOT a snake.
Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.
Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Wait, she's cashing a Knuth reward check? No one cashes a Knuth reward check!
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
I'll have to check out those Greg Egan stories; I've really liked what I've read of him so far.
Ted Chiang has a story on the subject that I enjoyed, and it's online for free: Division By Zero.
Neoliminal's remix makes an interesting complement to the Chiang story.
Ted Chiang has a story on the subject that I enjoyed, and it's online for free: Division By Zero.
Neoliminal's remix makes an interesting complement to the Chiang story.

 Posts: 98
 Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:48 am UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
HonoreDB wrote:I'll have to check out those Greg Egan stories; I've really liked what I've read of him so far.
Ted Chiang has a story on the subject that I enjoyed, and it's online for free: Division By Zero.
Neoliminal's remix makes an interesting complement to the Chiang story.
what's this guy from misetings doing here
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Hey, no fair switching handles between fora.

 Posts: 253
 Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:29 pm UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Zemyla wrote:Wait, she's cashing a Knuth reward check? No one cashes a Knuth reward check!
Well, since cashing it and not cashing it are equivalent...
Re: 0816: Applied Math
NumberFourtyThree wrote:SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?
You forget the subject. If logic itself is inconsistent, then an apparently solid proof that something can't be proven might be also provably false, as you could prove contradictory and false things. By the very nature of the question to prove that such a proof is impossible would be irrelevant as the production of such a proof would show that the proof of its inability to be proved was invalid.
A more troubling objection is that all proofs rely on basic logic, so such a proof of logic's invalidity would thus prove itself to be invalid and unable to be relied on to prove anything, including logic being invalid.
A logician draws a sharp distinction between the proof system he's dealing with and the metalanguage he's using to describe it (and to prove things about it). If I wanted to prove that the LK sequent calculus is sound and complete, I wouldn't write a proof using the sequent calculus. I would write a proof in English, using a variety of syntactic and semantic definitions which describe the proof system, but which are not a part of it.
When approached without rigor, logic is an area where it's easy to make spurious (but seemingly profound) statements.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
I'm mildly disappointed that so many people took my "proof" on page 1 to be serious.
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Hilbert cringes at Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
This probably makes him roll in his grave.
This probably makes him roll in his grave.

 Posts: 4
 Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:18 pm UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
What about T ^ ~T?
Re: 0816: Applied Math
dindon wrote:When approached without rigor, every subject is an area where it's easy to make spurious (but seemingly profound) statements.
I fixed that a bit for you.
"Si ad naturam vives, numquam eris pauper; si ad opiniones, numquam eris dives."
Live rightly and you shall never be poor; live for fame and you shall never have wealth.
~Epicurus, via Seneca
Live rightly and you shall never be poor; live for fame and you shall never have wealth.
~Epicurus, via Seneca

 Posts: 98
 Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:48 am UTC
Re: 0816: Applied Math
Ghavrel wrote:dindon wrote:When approached without rigor, every subject is an area where it's easy to make spurious (but seemingly profound) statements.
I fixed that a bit for you.
lolsokalhoax
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
not going to lie, i get really happy when randall makes all of the characters in a comic female.
i hate the view that "male is default", or even when there are a few (in the case of web comics) strips that do have some female characters there is at least one male present and, even funnier, there will be hundreds of other strips with no female characters. i didn't realize it until a little while ago that "all male = default, normal; all female = feminazis, crazy, wanting more than equality", but now i wonder how my female friends can stand reading/watching anything science/engineering oriented
i hate the view that "male is default", or even when there are a few (in the case of web comics) strips that do have some female characters there is at least one male present and, even funnier, there will be hundreds of other strips with no female characters. i didn't realize it until a little while ago that "all male = default, normal; all female = feminazis, crazy, wanting more than equality", but now i wonder how my female friends can stand reading/watching anything science/engineering oriented

 Posts: 15
 Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:44 pm UTC
Re: 0816: "Applied Math"
Wow, girls suck at math.
Re: 0816: Applied Math
dindon wrote:NumberFourtyThree wrote:SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?
You forget the subject. If logic itself is inconsistent, then an apparently solid proof that something can't be proven might be also provably false, as you could prove contradictory and false things. By the very nature of the question to prove that such a proof is impossible would be irrelevant as the production of such a proof would show that the proof of its inability to be proved was invalid.
A more troubling objection is that all proofs rely on basic logic, so such a proof of logic's invalidity would thus prove itself to be invalid and unable to be relied on to prove anything, including logic being invalid.
A logician draws a sharp distinction between the proof system he's dealing with and the metalanguage he's using to describe it (and to prove things about it). If I wanted to prove that the LK sequent calculus is sound and complete, I wouldn't write a proof using the sequent calculus. I would write a proof in English, using a variety of syntactic and semantic definitions which describe the proof system, but which are not a part of it.
When approached without rigor, logic is an area where it's easy to make spurious (but seemingly profound) statements.
The premise of the comic is that the basic rules of logic that underlie all human reasoning don''t work. You can't just "step outside" of logic to use some metasystem to prove such a thing impossible.

 Posts: 98
 Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:48 am UTC
Re: 0816: Applied Math
troyp wrote:dindon wrote:NumberFourtyThree wrote:SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?
You forget the subject. If logic itself is inconsistent, then an apparently solid proof that something can't be proven might be also provably false, as you could prove contradictory and false things. By the very nature of the question to prove that such a proof is impossible would be irrelevant as the production of such a proof would show that the proof of its inability to be proved was invalid.
A more troubling objection is that all proofs rely on basic logic, so such a proof of logic's invalidity would thus prove itself to be invalid and unable to be relied on to prove anything, including logic being invalid.
A logician draws a sharp distinction between the proof system he's dealing with and the metalanguage he's using to describe it (and to prove things about it). If I wanted to prove that the LK sequent calculus is sound and complete, I wouldn't write a proof using the sequent calculus. I would write a proof in English, using a variety of syntactic and semantic definitions which describe the proof system, but which are not a part of it.
When approached without rigor, logic is an area where it's easy to make spurious (but seemingly profound) statements.
The premise of the comic is that the basic rules of logic that underlie all human reasoning don''t work. You can't just "step outside" of logic to use some metasystem to prove such a thing impossible.
contradictions don't refute logic, hth
Re: 0816: Applied Math
Turing Machine wrote:contradictions don't refute logic, hth
The premise of the comic is certainly that it does: "You've shown the inconsistency  and thus invalidity  of basic logic itself".
This is true in that if you could prove P and not P, then you could no longer be confident that a valid chain of inference would constitute a sound argument.
From 'P and not P', you could infer any proposition at all, including a proof that you can't prove 'P and not P'. This is why NumberFourtyThree said such a proof would be irrelevant. dindon responded by talking about the distinction between a logic and a metalogic, presumably accusing NumberFourtyThree of assuming that the proof was formulated in the system under investigation.
In fact, there was no assumption about the proof. Any mathematical proof relies on basic logic, regardless of its formulation.
I can't believe I'm arguing about this
Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: mscha and 95 guests