wrightme
Regular Member
Yet, adding 1 and 1 in base 2 still equals an amount equivalent to the decimal number "2". It is just notated as "10" So, really, 1 plus(added) 1 still does equal '2'.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Restoring The Republic
- Thread starter deniedmyrights
- Start date
wrightme
Regular Member
Yep.
Jack House
Regular Member
Case in point.There are those propositions which are generally and widely accepted as being true, but given time they may be disproven. Or perhaps they, like Einstein's "Theory of Relativity", are accepted as truth only because they cannot (yet) be disproven.
As for your 1+1 example... 1+1 does not always equal 2. What most people assume to be self-evident rules of arithmetic -- valid at all times and for all purposes -- actually depend on what we define a number to be. In Boolean algebra 1+1=0 (carry the 1). Our only reference for the measurement or "truth" of anything in the universe is the value which we assign to it. A "statute mile" consists of 5,280 feet only because that is the value we have given to it. The freezing point of fresh water at sea level is 32ºF/0ºC - only because Daniel Fahrenheit gave it that value in the early-18th century, and we accept it as such. There is no universality in measurement.
Don't Bogart that doobie!Pax...
oak1971
Regular Member
Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here. Just some disillusioned commies and Paulites.
Gil223
Regular Member
Regardless, there is no "2" in Boolean Algebra, just ones and zeros. Therefore the result of any string of Boolean numbers must be either one or zero by default. Pax...
wrightme
Regular Member
Kinda silly distinction. When counting in base 2, there is still the equivalent value, just in different notation.
More to the point, for boolean as opposed to base 2, there is no 'carry the one'
You either have a 'true' or a 'false'.
In other words, it isn't 'adding' one plus one.
Last edited:
DrakeZ07
Regular Member
How did this thread go from talk about "Restoring the Republic" to complex mathematical theories?!
SavageOne
Regular Member
Tell that to the Maquis.
DCKilla
Regular Member
Damn the Cardassians and the Federation...
wrightme
Regular Member
Someone didn't believe that 1+1=2 is a 'universal truth.'
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
Gentle background reading on truth and its existence.
Atlas Shrugged author Ayn Rand founded Rand-ian Objectivism with the motto A is A. Depending on the edition, AS is well over a thousand pages and is only the best known of Rands voluminous writings, and that touch on "Restoring the Republic." I enjoyed Rand and Randianism but rejected them for their gloss of the 'problem of induction.'
I then read Karl Popper, starting with his address of the 'problem of induction' in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery (translated from Logik der Forschung of 1935 in 1959) in which he established falsificationism that still stands effective for me. Popper dismisses A is A, as a tautology containing no information and not falsifiable, thus not 'scientific.'
From Popper I discovered Bayes' statistics, inference and epistemology in roughly that order. Epistemology is the formal name for what y'all are discussing as "truth." The climax of Bayesianism for me is Edwin Taylor Jaynes' Probability theory: The Logic of Science. Jaynes' kicked my butt with his mathematics, but I will read it completely looking for the next gem like his 'Converging and diverging views' (5.3, pp 126 - 132). In a word, Bayesianism formalizes learning and Jaynes' 5.3 demonstrates that the credibility of the narrator polarizes the audience - just as we see occurring in popular rhetoric today, the news, media, and worst of all vulgar forum discussion.
In reading Bayesianism, I discovered Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a Lebanese financier and epistemologist, that wrote popularized financial and philosophically The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms, and Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets. His technical oeuvre is huge. I just finished 'Randomness,' in which, late, he cites Jaynes and Popper, especially Popper's the Open Society and Its Enemies of 1946. I am currently working to obtain its two volumes.
Also late in 'Randomness' Taleb cited Alan Sokal's writings and particularly Impostures Intellectuelles with Jean Bricmont of 1997 and published in English as Fashionable Nonsense. I have this for vacation reading in over the next three weeks. I particularly recommend Sokal's 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' to the participants in this thread. The conspiracy of ignorance only masquerades as common sense.
All on "Restore the Republic" as a truth.
ETA: To my PM correspondents, I'm going to let this stand for now as my reply in Randomness applications in Athenian democracy.
Atlas Shrugged author Ayn Rand founded Rand-ian Objectivism with the motto A is A. Depending on the edition, AS is well over a thousand pages and is only the best known of Rands voluminous writings, and that touch on "Restoring the Republic." I enjoyed Rand and Randianism but rejected them for their gloss of the 'problem of induction.'
I then read Karl Popper, starting with his address of the 'problem of induction' in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery (translated from Logik der Forschung of 1935 in 1959) in which he established falsificationism that still stands effective for me. Popper dismisses A is A, as a tautology containing no information and not falsifiable, thus not 'scientific.'
From Popper I discovered Bayes' statistics, inference and epistemology in roughly that order. Epistemology is the formal name for what y'all are discussing as "truth." The climax of Bayesianism for me is Edwin Taylor Jaynes' Probability theory: The Logic of Science. Jaynes' kicked my butt with his mathematics, but I will read it completely looking for the next gem like his 'Converging and diverging views' (5.3, pp 126 - 132). In a word, Bayesianism formalizes learning and Jaynes' 5.3 demonstrates that the credibility of the narrator polarizes the audience - just as we see occurring in popular rhetoric today, the news, media, and worst of all vulgar forum discussion.
In reading Bayesianism, I discovered Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a Lebanese financier and epistemologist, that wrote popularized financial and philosophically The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms, and Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets. His technical oeuvre is huge. I just finished 'Randomness,' in which, late, he cites Jaynes and Popper, especially Popper's the Open Society and Its Enemies of 1946. I am currently working to obtain its two volumes.
Also late in 'Randomness' Taleb cited Alan Sokal's writings and particularly Impostures Intellectuelles with Jean Bricmont of 1997 and published in English as Fashionable Nonsense. I have this for vacation reading in over the next three weeks. I particularly recommend Sokal's 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' to the participants in this thread. The conspiracy of ignorance only masquerades as common sense.
All on "Restore the Republic" as a truth.
ETA: To my PM correspondents, I'm going to let this stand for now as my reply in Randomness applications in Athenian democracy.
Last edited:
Arithmetic is a dying skill in the republic. And perhaps for something to be a universal truth it must be properly stated.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Boolean Algebra is NOT math dealing with numbers per se... As I pointed out the +(plus) sign is NOT used for addition, it's function as an operator is "or".
Boolean dos not necessarily imply a numbering system of any particular base. It is also not used to count as it is NOT a numbering system, so the Boolean analogy does not apply here.
If you use a base "2" numbering system then properly 1 + 1 = 10. This reaches the same result as 1 + 1 = 2 in base 10.
Math is not the universal truth, but it is a tool that allows us to perceive truth.
Last edited:
Gil223
Regular Member
Thank you for finally recognizing my point, which really had nothing to do with math, but rather, the "truth" of math. The example 1+1=2 was used by the OP as a universal truth, and my point was simply there's no such thing as a universal truth. All propositions generally accepted a "truths" are conditional. Pax...
Conditional is not the right word. Math is always true, the example noted does not show conditional truth, simply that details matter. What are the details (or in mathspeak significant figures and rounding) of 1...
georg jetson
Regular Member
There IS a such thing as a universal truth... it's called "reality".
Math is not always true unless it properly reflects reality. Reality is always true.
Last edited:
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
A is A - "Reality is reality" is a tautology of no significance meaning everything known and unknown and not reducing entropy.
DrakeZ07
Regular Member
Meh, the only Marquis I liked in the latter ST series, was Commander Riker's transporter malfunction twin, yummy~ <3
I'm not a college grad, so I can't really dispute that, but here in the USA, 1 [plus] 1 [equals] 2. Thats how I learned it, how my mother, father, and teachers taught it to me, how the majority of the world population, if not all, knows it. Yes, it is a Universal truth. Even in Philosophy, yes?
georg jetson
Regular Member
It does appear to be trivial. However, for this discussion a reminder seemed appropriate.