On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 13:30:44 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The act of constructing a formal theory (such as set theory, or theory of computation) is what I call "programming".
> So, you are just admititng you are using the wrong words for things.
So you are just admitting that you are a fucking idiot who has nothing to contribute to the discussion.
You are performing the exact same function as a compiler/interpreter - you are just whining about my use of language.

> Which seems to be largely about redefining language to related but
> different meanings.
It's not re-definition if it was never defined to begin with.

> I also note that he talks about being ABLE to build a theory in the
> programming model, not tha it MUST be done that way.
Shame. Cute little tinsy winsy compiler!

> So, you are just incorrect that computation MUST be prior to any theory.
You are incorrect about me being incorrect.
> You are just showing that you live in an anti-social framework.
If my framework is anti-social then your framework is outright terrorism.

In my "framework" we don't actually need idiots (like you) enforcing semantics.
We can negotiate meaning in real-time.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 13:31:15 UTC+2, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> A computer just sees symbols.
No, it doesn't. A computer just sees voltages. And in so far as it tries to pretend it's a discrete system there are still issues of meta-stability under the hood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_(electronics)

>It doesn't "know" that a circle with a stroke through it represents zeroness.
It doesn't even know that "0" represents zeroness. It doesn't even understand what "representation" means!
> However if you have a finite set of symbols, but an unbounded set of numbers you
> want to represent, then you have to have rules which are more sophisticated than a one to one mapping.
What's the difference? Are symbols not numbers? Are numbers not symbols?

I don't even understand what your point is. Is there any situation in which you might want; or have two numbers sharing a repserentation?

I mean, you could, in principle call "X" a qubit and say that it represents both 1 and 0 with probability 0.5.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 14:19:01 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/21/22 7:31 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 08:14:09 UTC+1, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>
> >> 0 points to "zeroness".
> >> 1 points to "oneness"
> >> 2 points to "twoness"
> >>
> > A computer just sees symbols. It doesn't "know" that a circle with a stroke through it
> > represents zeroness.
> > However if you have a finite set of symbols, but an unbounded set of numbers you
> > want to represent, then you have to have rules which are more sophisticated than
> > a one to one mapping.
> > Now I'm no mathematician, so I couldn't tell you if there is an infinite supply of such rules,
> > all working on different principles, or a limited set, maybe with a unbounded number
> > of accidental variations which don't change the underlying system (e.g. we can say that
> > the decimal point separates the units from the fractions, or we can write the order
> > of magnitude and put the decimal point after the most significant digit, or do lots of
> > variations on that, but we haven't changed the underlying system).
> The number of Provable Theorems in the real number system is, I beleive,
> infinte (not sure if it is a countable or an uncountable infinity, I
> think countable).
>
> The key is that the number of required axioms that we start from is
> finite, and the number of steps to get to any provable rule is finite.
>
> Note, with the Induction process, we can generate a countable infinite
> number of properties from a finite number of base properties. This makes
> the list of properties be an uncomputable set, since you can only
> compute a finite set.
*cough*bullshit*cough*

You still haven't identified; or proven the semantic properties of "finiteness" and "infiniteness".

You still haven't drawn a line on the continuum where the finite cardinals stop and the infinite cardinals start.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 16:32:31 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > What is 'Provable Theorems', definition man!
> As usual I'm curious about the meta question... Why would you ask this?
> Do you think that people who study formal theories have not defined what
> a provable theorem is? And if you know that they have, but have some
> issue with that definition, why not ask about what's bothering you about
> it? Are you asking for RD to copy and paste two chapters from a
> textbook like Shoenfield's, Mendelson's or Kleene's?

I guess the disagreement is (as always) about acceptable standards/criteria of "definition" and "proof".

Copy/pasting chapters out of the Bible is no definition/proof of anything.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 22:32:31 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> wij <wyni...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:19:01 UTC+8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> The number of Provable Theorems in the real number system is, I beleive,
> >> infinte (not sure if it is a countable or an uncountable infinity, I
> >> think countable).
> >
> > What is 'Provable Theorems', definition man!
> As usual I'm curious about the meta question... Why would you ask this?
> Do you think that people who study formal theories have not defined what
> a provable theorem is? And if you know that they have, but have some
> issue with that definition, why not ask about what's bothering you about
> it? Are you asking for RD to copy and paste two chapters from a
> textbook like Shoenfield's, Mendelson's or Kleene's?
>
> --
> Ben.

'P' and 'T' are capitalized and 'theorem' is 'defined' for proved statement.
RD likes to say things he don't really understand. He likes using 'definition',
or some kind of standard as if he is the standard. Who knows what the
definition man means.
I was trying to remind him to say something meaningful. RD is more stubborn
than olcott, he can keep questioning/preaching disguised nonsense till the
end of the world.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 17:33:55 UTC+1, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 13:31:15 UTC+2, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A computer just sees symbols.
> No, it doesn't. A computer just sees voltages. And in so far as it tries to pretend it's a discrete system there are still issues of meta-stability under the hood.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_(electronics)
> >It doesn't "know" that a circle with a stroke through it represents zeroness.
> It doesn't even know that "0" represents zeroness. It doesn't even understand what "representation" means!
> > However if you have a finite set of symbols, but an unbounded set of numbers you
> > want to represent, then you have to have rules which are more sophisticated than a one to one mapping.
> What's the difference? Are symbols not numbers? Are numbers not symbols?
>
> I don't even understand what your point is. Is there any situation in which you might want; or have two numbers sharing a repserentation?
>
Say we've got an RGB channel that is, ultimately, connected to an analogue voltage-controlled light.
Now we represent the values by 8 bit quantities.
So a zero, of course, means "off".
But what does 1 represent. Is it 1/255 or 1/256 on? LIkely we want to fudge that. The difference cannot be visually distinguished.
But depending on how our electronics are wired up, sometimes one value will be eaiser to implement, sometimes the other.
So that would be an example of two numbers sharing a representation.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 19:19:34 UTC+2, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 17:33:55 UTC+1, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 13:31:15 UTC+2, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > A computer just sees symbols.
> > No, it doesn't. A computer just sees voltages. And in so far as it tries to pretend it's a discrete system there are still issues of meta-stability under the hood.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_(electronics)
> > >It doesn't "know" that a circle with a stroke through it represents zeroness.
> > It doesn't even know that "0" represents zeroness. It doesn't even understand what "representation" means!
> > > However if you have a finite set of symbols, but an unbounded set of numbers you
> > > want to represent, then you have to have rules which are more sophisticated than a one to one mapping.
> > What's the difference? Are symbols not numbers? Are numbers not symbols?
> >
> > I don't even understand what your point is. Is there any situation in which you might want; or have two numbers sharing a repserentation?
> >
> Say we've got an RGB channel that is, ultimately, connected to an analogue voltage-controlled light.
> Now we represent the values by 8 bit quantities.
> So a zero, of course, means "off".
> But what does 1 represent. Is it 1/255 or 1/256 on? LIkely we want to fudge that. The difference cannot be visually distinguished.
> But depending on how our electronics are wired up, sometimes one value will be eaiser to implement, sometimes the other.
> So that would be an example of two numbers sharing a representation.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are confusing numbers sharing representations with representations sharing numbers. You have 8 bits to use.

00000000 could be interpreted as number 0, or as number 1.

Indexing.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 18:30:39 UTC+1, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 19:19:34 UTC+2, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 17:33:55 UTC+1, Skep Dick wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 13:31:15 UTC+2, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > A computer just sees symbols.
> > > No, it doesn't. A computer just sees voltages. And in so far as it tries to pretend it's a discrete system there are still issues of meta-stability under the hood.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_(electronics)
> > > >It doesn't "know" that a circle with a stroke through it represents zeroness.
> > > It doesn't even know that "0" represents zeroness. It doesn't even understand what "representation" means!
> > > > However if you have a finite set of symbols, but an unbounded set of numbers you
> > > > want to represent, then you have to have rules which are more sophisticated than a one to one mapping.
> > > What's the difference? Are symbols not numbers? Are numbers not symbols?
> > >
> > > I don't even understand what your point is. Is there any situation in which you might want; or have two numbers sharing a repserentation?
> > >
> > Say we've got an RGB channel that is, ultimately, connected to an analogue voltage-controlled light.
> > Now we represent the values by 8 bit quantities.
> > So a zero, of course, means "off".
> > But what does 1 represent. Is it 1/255 or 1/256 on? LIkely we want to fudge that. The difference cannot be visually distinguished.
> > But depending on how our electronics are wired up, sometimes one value will be eaiser to implement, sometimes the other.
> > So that would be an example of two numbers sharing a representation.
> I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are confusing numbers sharing representations with representations sharing numbers. You have 8 bits to use.
>
> 00000000 could be interpreted as number 0, or as number 1.
>
> Indexing.
>
That's another potential ambiguity.
Is the lowest number we can represent one or zero?
However in the case of a light, normally you'd have an "off" state which would be represented by zero,
because zero current is flowing.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 19:36:33 UTC+2, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> That's another potential ambiguity.
> Is the lowest number we can represent one or zero?
> However in the case of a light, normally you'd have an "off" state which would be represented by zero,
> because zero current is flowing.

Again. I have no idea what you are aven asking; or saying. Numbers don't exist.

When we are talking about light/physics we are dealing with quantities, not numbers.

We use the symbols we call numbers to represent quantities.

On 8/21/22 12:26 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 13:30:44 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The act of constructing a formal theory (such as set theory, or theory of computation) is what I call "programming".
>> So, you are just admititng you are using the wrong words for things.
> So you are just admitting that you are a fucking idiot who has nothing to contribute to the discussion.
> You are performing the exact same function as a compiler/interpreter - you are just whining about my use of language.

Nope.

>
>> Which seems to be largely about redefining language to related but
>> different meanings.
> It's not re-definition if it was never defined to begin with.

But it has been. Your just incorrectly refuse to accept the language
that has been establishedn

To say otherwise is just a FALSEHOOD.

>
>> I also note that he talks about being ABLE to build a theory in the
>> programming model, not tha it MUST be done that way.
> Shame. Cute little tinsy winsy compiler!

Nope, maybe too big for your machine.

>
>> So, you are just incorrect that computation MUST be prior to any theory.
> You are incorrect about me being incorrect.

Nope. Try to prove it.

>
>> You are just showing that you live in an anti-social framework.
> If my framework is anti-social then your framework is outright terrorism.
>
> In my "framework" we don't actually need idiots (like you) enforcing semantics.
> We can negotiate meaning in real-time.
>
>

Nope, Your system, from the way you describe it, it just a junk pile.

My guess is there is actually something useful in it, but because you
seem to like being a Dick, youy are just giving it a poison pill.

On 8/21/22 12:33 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 13:31:15 UTC+2, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A computer just sees symbols.
> No, it doesn't. A computer just sees voltages. And in so far as it tries to pretend it's a discrete system there are still issues of meta-stability under the hood.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_(electronics)

So, are your computation machines physical computers, or an abstract
concept that does computations. It makes a difference.

>
>> It doesn't "know" that a circle with a stroke through it represents zeroness.
> It doesn't even know that "0" represents zeroness. It doesn't even understand what "representation" means!
>
>> However if you have a finite set of symbols, but an unbounded set of numbers you
>> want to represent, then you have to have rules which are more sophisticated than a one to one mapping.
> What's the difference? Are symbols not numbers? Are numbers not symbols?
>
> I don't even understand what your point is. Is there any situation in which you might want; or have two numbers sharing a repserentation?
>
> I mean, you could, in principle call "X" a qubit and say that it represents both 1 and 0 with probability 0.5.
>

It actually happens all the time, especially when you don't specify what
system you are using (like you seem to like to do).

What number does "10" represent?

It could be Two, Ten, Sixteen, or even Pi, or many more.

There are then things like "Infinity" where even when the differing
systems may have a general agreement, there are important differences.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 19:47:42 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It's not re-definition if it was never defined to begin with.
> But it has been. Your just incorrectly refuse to accept the language
> that has been establishedn
Why do you keep incorrectly using the word "incorrectly"

> To say otherwise is just a FALSEHOOD.
That's an incorrect definition of "falsehood".

> > You are incorrect about me being incorrect.
> Nope. Try to prove it.
The burden of proof isn't on me.

You claimed (but failed to prove) my "incorrectness". I am dismissing your baseless claim as easlily as you asserted it.

> >
> Nope, Your system, from the way you describe it, it just a junk pile.
Prove it.

> My guess is there is actually something useful in it, but because you
> seem to like being a Dick, youy are just giving it a poison pill.
We aren't arguing about my system's utility.

We are arguing about your undecidable assertions. Fucking idiot.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 19:58:10 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> What number does "10" represent?
>
> It could be Two, Ten, Sixteen, or even Pi, or many more.
>
> There are then things like "Infinity" where even when the differing
> systems may have a general agreement, there are important differences.
I have no idea how to explain this to your idiot-ass.

Numbers don't exist. They are human inventions which we use in various ways.

For all you know "10" doesn't even represent a number!
It represents the fact that my kitchen lights are on, and my bedroom lights are off.

On 8/21/22 2:49 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 August 2022 at 14:57:40 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:

>> So it depends on which system you are working in, and how you want to
>> define a number.
> I am not working in a number system. I am working in a representation system.
>
> Shame. Is representation theory out of your depth?

Maybe you are, but it seems you don't actually know what you are
actually working on as it keeps on changing.

Maybe because you don't know which First Principles you are based on.

You were just making a lot of claims about the numbers, and now you say
you aren't even talking about numbers.

Note, your generally need something to represent to build a meaningful
representation system.

>
>> Natural Numbers have a very direct relation to counting things.
>> Integers add some abstractions to allow for 0 or negative quantities,
>> but are still basically counts but with an abstraction.
>> We can then move to Reals, which move from what can be "counted" to what
>> is Measured. We move from "How Many" to "How Much"
> Cute. Numbers.
>
> What type of symbol-manipulation systems are those?
>

They aren't.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:13:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Shame. Is representation theory out of your depth?
> Maybe you are, but it seems you don't actually know what you are
> actually working on as it keeps on changing.
I keep talking about computation.

You keep thinking it's "changing". Shame - your system must be really broken if you are constantly context-switching (and blaming me for it).

> Maybe because you don't know which First Principles you are based on.
I alreaxy explained it to you. Why are you having so much trouble comprehending?

My first principle is thatthere are no first principles.

> You were just making a lot of claims about the numbers, and now you say
> you aren't even talking about numbers.
I have no idea what you mean by "claims about the numbers". Numbers don't exist!

> Note, your generally need something to represent to build a meaningful
> representation system.
A representation system doesn't have to be "meaningful"!

It just has to fucking represent what it's designed to represent.

> > What type of symbol-manipulation systems are those?
> >
> They aren't.
So we can ignore everything you have to say about the symbols 0 to 9 then?

Thanks for finally letting us know!

On 8/21/22 2:03 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 19:58:10 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What number does "10" represent?
>>
>> It could be Two, Ten, Sixteen, or even Pi, or many more.
>>
>> There are then things like "Infinity" where even when the differing
>> systems may have a general agreement, there are important differences.
> I have no idea how to explain this to your idiot-ass.
>
> Numbers don't exist. They are human inventions which we use in various ways.
>
> For all you know "10" doesn't even represent a number!
> It represents the fact that my kitchen lights are on, and my bedroom lights are off.
>
>

If you so.

I guess to you, NOTHING actualy exists.

Are you sure that you even exist? WHY?

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you so.
>
> I guess to you, NOTHING actualy exists.
>
> Are you sure that you even exist? WHY?

Fucking idiot! I use the existential quantifier for COMPUTATION!

I exist, I don't exist! It doesn't fucking matter - but the state transition compute EXACTLY one bit of information!

On 8/21/22 2:19 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:13:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Shame. Is representation theory out of your depth?
>> Maybe you are, but it seems you don't actually know what you are
>> actually working on as it keeps on changing.
> I keep talking about computation.
>
> You keep thinking it's "changing". Shame - your system must be really broken if you are constantly context-switching (and blaming me for it).
>

Nope. You are just showing you don't understand what you are actually
saying (which has thus lost all its meaning).

>> Maybe because you don't know which First Principles you are based on.
> I alreaxy explained it to you. Why are you having so much trouble comprehending?
>
> My first principle is thatthere are no first principles.

Then you have nothing to build meaning, so you system is meaningless. BY
DEFINITION.

>
>> You were just making a lot of claims about the numbers, and now you say
>> you aren't even talking about numbers.
> I have no idea what you mean by "claims about the numbers". Numbers don't exist!

If you say so. If they don't exist, you can't then talk about what they are.

>
>> Note, your generally need something to represent to build a meaningful
>> representation system.
> A representation system doesn't have to be "meaningful"!
>
> It just has to fucking represent what it's designed to represent.

So, it seems you are working on a representation system that doesn't
actually have anything to represent, and thus is meaningless.

It is very hard to design for something you don't understand.

>
>>> What type of symbol-manipulation systems are those?
>>>
>> They aren't.
> So we can ignore everything you have to say about the symbols 0 to 9 then?
>
> Thanks for finally letting us know!
>

Nope, Just because the NUMBERS aren't a symbol-manipulation system
doesn't mean we can't apply one to them. The key is the representaiton
system is dependent for meaning on the number system it is attached to.

You just seem to be wanting to put the cart before the horse, and then
say that the horse doesn't actually exist.

On 8/21/22 2:24 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If you so.
>>
>> I guess to you, NOTHING actualy exists.
>>
>> Are you sure that you even exist? WHY?
>
> Fucking idiot! I use the existential quantifier for COMPUTATION!
>
> I exist, I don't exist! It doesn't fucking matter - but the state transition compute EXACTLY one bit of information!

So, you admit you don't ACTUALLY know anything, since you just admitted
you don't even know the value of that bit.

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:37:06 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/21/22 2:24 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> If you so.
> >>
> >> I guess to you, NOTHING actualy exists.
> >>
> >> Are you sure that you even exist? WHY?
> >
> > Fucking idiot! I use the existential quantifier for COMPUTATION!
> >
> > I exist, I don't exist! It doesn't fucking matter - but the state transition compute EXACTLY one bit of information!
> So, you admit you don't ACTUALLY know anything, since you just admitted
> you don't even know the value of that bit.

I don't give a shit about its value.

It flipped! Change happened. Unit of time passed.

On 8/21/22 2:39 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:37:06 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/21/22 2:24 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> If you so.
>>>>
>>>> I guess to you, NOTHING actualy exists.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure that you even exist? WHY?
>>>
>>> Fucking idiot! I use the existential quantifier for COMPUTATION!
>>>
>>> I exist, I don't exist! It doesn't fucking matter - but the state transition compute EXACTLY one bit of information!
>> So, you admit you don't ACTUALLY know anything, since you just admitted
>> you don't even know the value of that bit.
>
> I don't give a shit about its value.
>
> It flipped! Change happened. Unit of time passed.
>
>

So, you really have zero knowledge in your system.

Thats for confirming it.

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-7, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 August 2022 at 20:23:13 UTC+2, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Mathematics views the entire, infinitely long series as a single whole.
>
> That's a wee bit presumptious on the ability of Mathematicians, is it not?
>
We do it all the time. Whole books have been writtien about the arithmetic
of transfinite cardinals.
>
> I could also view Time as a sngle whole. But I sure as shit can't tell you what happens in the end.
>
If you can explain how you imagine Time to be a set I see the parallel.
Of course, you also explain the connection between that set and "the
end" (whatever that is) and what "happen" means.

You have a bad habit of confusing informal meta-language with precise
formal language.

> > I think it would be fair to view a natural number generator as not a mathematical concept.

> Why not?!? It's absolutely a Mathematical concept.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
>
This is an example of you mixing the meta-language into a more
formal context. Here you use "Mathematics" in an ordinary
discourse (meta) way to make a point against a more rigorous
meaning (it is what mathematicians do).

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:08:13 AM UTC-7, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 01:55:04 UTC+2, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Set theory is a fundamental tool for a formal treatment of any
> > subject. Learn some of it or be forever ignorant,
>
> I think we have a fundamentally divergent understanding of computation.
>
> Computation is conceptually prior to set theory.
> Computation is prior to any theory - even a theory of computation!
> The act of constructing a formal theory (such as set theory, or theory
> of computation) is what I call "programming".
> Of course, I can't take much credit for this view. This is Peter Naur.
> Programming is theory-building.
> https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Naur.pdf

If you really mean what you said you need to construct a formal
Naurian definition of set theory. I am very certain that you can't
do that without using sets.

On 8/21/2022 3:08 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 01:55:04 UTC+2, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 3:23:43 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:26:45 AM UTC-7, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:31:43 AM UTC-7, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 20:48:02 UTC+2, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 4:46:10 AM UTC-7, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show me the number 0! Not the symbol representing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most mathematicians would, given this context, take 0 to mean
>>>>>> the empty set. Then the successor of any number N would be N
>>>>>> plus the set whose only member is N.
>>>>> That's not really an answer. Show me the empty set. Not the syhmbols representing it - the empty set itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a fundamental problem with representation systems. When you represent nothing does it become something or is it still nothing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is nothing something; or is it just NO(thing)?
>>>> These, I have said, are problems for philosophers. Try to live
>>>> with the empty set. It's the best known of all the sets.
>>> "This is a computer science forum, not a set theory forum."
>>>
>> The name of the forum - comp.theory - could expand to various
>> things. I read it "computation".
>>
>> Set theory is a fundamental tool for a formal treatment of any
>> subject. Learn some of it or be forever ignorant,
>
> I think we have a fundamentally divergent understanding of computation.
>
> Computation is conceptually prior to set theory.

And the idea of sets is prior to set theory. Now go in your corner, have
a good cry and take a nap. When your head clears you can wake up and go
be nasty to the big boys again. (Does your mommy know you've been bad?)

> Computation is prior to any theory - even a theory of computation!
>
> The act of constructing a formal theory (such as set theory, or theory of computation) is what I call "programming".
>
> Of course, I can't take much credit for this view. This is Peter Naur. Programming is theory-building.
>
> https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Naur.pdf--
Jeff Barnett

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 20:55:39 UTC+2, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you really mean what you said you need to construct a formal
> Naurian definition of set theory. I am very certain that you can't
> do that without using sets.
And I am very certain that formalism in general is not about set theory.