On 8/20/22 4:06 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 19:41:08 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/19/22 12:44 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 17:55:29 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> What don't I understand?
>>>>
>>>> The Real Number System HAS a Definition, and rules (like its Algebra)
>>>>
>>>> If you claim to be working in the Real Number system, you need to follow
>>>> its rules. (This includes that infinity is NOT a Real Number).
>>>>
>>>> If you want to Extend the Real Number System, fine, Just say you are
>>>> working in an Extended Real Number System. But when you do, remember
>>>> that you have to figure out what Algebra works in that system. You can't
>>>> just assume the Alrgebra of the Real Number System works.
>>>>
>>>> This is why clarity is important.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a clear enough understanding of your extentions (not sure
>>>> if you do either, but that is less important), but it IS an extension,
>>>> and so needs to be treated as one.
>>>>
>>>> You might want to study some of the Extended Real Number Systems and the
>>>> Trans-Finite number systems to see if anyone else has worked in the same
>>>> direction you are thinking.
>>>
>>> Jesus fucking christ. This moron will drive himself off a cliff just because the rules said so.
>>>
>>> No! You absolutely DON'T have to follow any rules! The intensional properties of your system don't matter as long as your extensional properties are satisfied.
>>>
>>> This is how interfaces work! Adhere to the contract externally - do whatever the hell you want internally. It's just irrelevant implementation detail!
>> But if your system is open, so others can work in it, you can't do that.
> Fucking idiot. That's not what an open system IS.
>
> Humans INTERACT WITH the open system.
> Humans don't WORK IN the open systems.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_system_(systems_theory)

But I am using it differently.

An open system is a system that is open for others to use, change, to
WORK IN.

Linux is an Open System vs Windows is a Closed System, as we just get to
see the "outside" of the system.

Note, in my model we WORK IN a system because we adopt its rules are are
partcipating in the behavior of the system. It allows us to actually
understand and see the abstractions in it.

Maybe your refusal to put yourself into the systems is the reason you
can't understand the abstractions of the system.

This is just one of the lies you admit you do.

>
>> I will note, that the whole discission with you has just proved your a
>> Hypocrite, as you keep on trying to get people to accept YOUR
>> definitions, but you refuse to even try to adapt to their.
> Fucking idiot. This is not about definitions.
>
> Some people may define this as red: 🔴
> Some people may define this as green: 🔴
> Some people may define this as blue: 🔴

And only the ones that define it according to the established definition
are aligned with the established system, and thus "right" in that system.

This is another of your lies that you admit you do.

>
> All of the above bindings are valid.

Depends on what you want to call valid.

To you, it seems irrelevent.

>
> The problem comes when we start de-referencing bindings!
>
> What does de-referencing 0 mean? What object is it?
> What does de-referencing ∞ mean? What object is it?

But we aren't computers so we don't actually need to "de-reference" a
binding.

>
>> Without Rules, there is no logic. (At its core, logic is applying Rules
>> to knowledge to get more Knowledge).
> Q.E.D you don't actually understand the difference between "rules of logic"; and "logic of rules".

No, I think you do understand it.

>
> Proof nets.
>
>> For example, you were asking for a "Well-Defined Definition", but that
>> ment you were IMPOSING A RULE about how to define things.
> Nonsense. I am using the standard, socially accepted concept "well-defined" objects.
>
> Recursive self-definition. A.k.a name-binding!
>
> Which I cannot demonstrate to you via this medium because it doesn't allow for different font/text colors.
>
> But I shall attempt to describe it anyway...
>
> The color of this sentence is red. <--- Imagine that the font-color is the conventional meaning of red.
> The color of this sentence is red. <--- Imagine that the font-color is the conventional meaning of green.
> The color of this sentence is red. <--- Imagine that the font-color is the conventional meaning of blue.

And, unless you have indicated you aren't in the standard meaning of the
color words, only the first sentence is "correct"

Yes, if you escape out of conventional meaning, you can talk about being
more abstract in your binding of meaning, but you need to be careful, or
you lose all sense of meaning.

>
> Or demonstrated in a much richer computational model!
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z9MRa2EB7gJwOPWSZrhIdFFsmtzr7RDDOxIgyRhln1M/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Use it; or don't use it.

And if you throw away all conventions, you have no base to start anything.

>
>> The problem with you method is that you have no idea if what you are
>> doing makes any sense, as if you don't know and follow the constraints
>> in the methods you are using, you have no promise they will give
>> reasonable results.
> You can't even well-define "reasonable" you moron :)

I don't need to, as it IS defined. Maybe not in your broken system, but
it is in the one that you actually are living in, even if you reject it.

From the dictionary:
1 a : being in accordance with reason
a reasonable theory
b : not extreme or excessive
reasonable requests
c : MODERATE, FAIR
a reasonable chance
a reasonable price
d : INEXPENSIVE
2 a : having the faculty of reason
b : possessing sound judgment
a reasonable man

1a with perhaps a bit of 1b seems to fit.

If you want more, then you run into the problem that you definition of
"well-defined" isn't actually able to be "well-defined" because ALL
definitions, when you expand them eventually become cirucular are refer
to words that are only later defined. That is why we need to understand
our First Principles, which form our base.

>
>> It seems you have already jumped of the cliff.
> You have that backwards. Your brain is already splatteerd on the rocks below.
>
> You've represented (and you are actively referencing/dereferencing) a NULL-object in your system.

What NULL-object, I don't directly work with object pointers, as that
isn't my model of logic.

>
>> Note, The Rules don't tell you what you HAVE to do, they tell you what
>> you need to do to get the results promised by the system.
> You don't even know what PROMISES are. You fucking idiot.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_and_promises

Whose says that I am using it in that meaning?

Its isn't even applicable, since I was talkinga about systems of LOGIC
and that is about program execution. Thus, not applicable.

YOU seem to be violating your own precepts. Your system is inconsistent.

FAIL.

>
>> You are ALWAYS free to alter the system to look at something new, but
>> HONESTY requires that you make it clear how you are devating, and that
>> you take into account you deviations (a good reason to make them clear).
> That sure seems like a lame attempt to bind your definition to the symbol "HONESTY".
>
>> I am not saying you HAVE to use the Real Numbers, but if you claim to be
>> doing so, you need to follow the Rules of them or you are just a LIAR.
> You can't even solve the LIAR's paradox you fucking cunt!
>
> You can't tell the difference between truth and lies!
> Neither can Mathematics. They are just inverses under negation!
>
> Modality.

But if X is established, ~x is false.

Truth IS established.

>
>> You can use what every methods you want, as long as you are honest about
>> them and what you are doing, and give others the right to do the same.
> I am honest about being dishonest, you shit-for-brains.

Glad you admit it.

If you are dishonest, why should we listen to you.

>
> I am consistently inconsistent!
> I am logical about being illogical.
>
> Undecidability! Do you actually grok it?
>
> The moment you try to bind me to your symbols your system blows up.
>
>
>
>

SO nothing you say matters.

DEFINITION.