What is math? Math is the study of light...

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: piasabird
Our brains probably do work in methematical ways.

They do or language would be impossible, we are able to calculate and turn continous signals into discrete ones where there is differentiation. Where there is distinction, there is math.

I'm trying to grasp it myself but I think "Math" is an expansion and a subset of simply arbitrary abstract counting functions to keep track of distinct patterns.

When looking at the history of mathematics, math arose because of the need to measure and keep track of distinct objects. I'm still trying to formulate where exactly math sits.

It seems to be that math is intimately connected to our ability to communicate in languages.

Spoken/written Language --> MATH <-- Our senses

Gannon, you still have not answered my question back from one of your previous threads -- what is your level of education? Other members have asked you similar questions trying to judge your level of qualification in these matters. Will you please provide a concise answer as to what amount of education you have received (on these matters, or otherwise)?

I already answered, go Look for yourself (at the end of the thread). More importantly, if the logic is sound, why is this relevant? Credentials are irrelevant to determine the truth of something. Do you need a degree to know that you'll fall off a cliff? No you use logic. Did you learn to talk before you went to school? For certain. We are constantly learning, whether we are aware of it or not. Statements of truth stand on their own, they do not need to be qualified by social status. Social status is quite simply, irrelevant. While I do acknowledge credentials, you can make a mountain out of a molehill, credentialism is a disease if taken too far out of it's place.

What matters is the content, not the person. This 'bad by association' is tribalistic thinking -- by creating a stigma and not judging the content itself. History is littered with feral thinking among even the most intelligent and educated men, which is a sad reflection on the poverty of how the human psyche functions.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

While logic is an excellent way to justify a theory, I don't feel its a very good way to formulate one. Its quite easy to see that one can use logic to prove both sides of an argument so it can be a bit arbitrary at times. For instance trying to logic your way through Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity would probably not turn out so well, however, after you know the outcome you can generally just use logic as a sort of check for consistency.

Now for the rest of the topic. Let me see if I got this right, your saying that without the ability to perceive energy in its various forms that math is impossible? I agree, however its a strictly philosophical point. Now for some thought experiments...

If there are 2 rocks floating in space and their trajectories bring them close to 2 other rocks to make 4 rocks. Is this math? Or is it only math when there is someone or something there to detect and count them? (These are special rocks that have no gravity)

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: piasabird
Our brains probably do work in methematical ways.

They do or language would be impossible, we are able to calculate and turn continous signals into discrete ones where there is differentiation. Where there is distinction, there is math.

I'm trying to grasp it myself but I think "Math" is an expansion and a subset of simply arbitrary abstract counting functions to keep track of distinct patterns.

When looking at the history of mathematics, math arose because of the need to measure and keep track of distinct objects. I'm still trying to formulate where exactly math sits.

It seems to be that math is intimately connected to our ability to communicate in languages.

Spoken/written Language --> MATH <-- Our senses

Gannon, you still have not answered my question back from one of your previous threads -- what is your level of education? Other members have asked you similar questions trying to judge your level of qualification in these matters. Will you please provide a concise answer as to what amount of education you have received (on these matters, or otherwise)?

I already answered, go Look for yourself (at the end of the thread). More importantly, if the logic is sound, why is this relevant? Credentials are irrelevant to determine the truth of something. Do you need a degree to know that you'll fall off a cliff? No you use logic. Did you learn to talk before you went to school? For certain. We are constantly learning, whether we are aware of it or not. Statements of truth stand on their own, they do not need to be qualified by social status. Social status is quite simply, irrelevant. While I do acknowledge credentials, you can make a mountain out of a molehill, credentialism is a disease if taken too far out of it's place.

What matters is the content, not the person. This 'bad by association' is tribalistic thinking -- by creating a stigma and not judging the content itself. History is littered with feral thinking among even the most intelligent and educated men, which is a sad reflection on the poverty of how the human psyche functions.

This isn't about falling off a cliff -- it's about determining the size of the cliff you're falling off of, or whether you can use the cliff's composition to lessen the extent or outcome of your fall from said cliff.

Okay, so you have a "university education". Care to elaborate? This has nothing to do with logic -- us being able to understand your education may help us ascertain where you intend to go with this and (if I may be blunt) whether or not its a waste of time. You speak like an arts student. What is your major?

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
While logic is an excellent way to justify a theory, I don't feel its a very good way to formulate one.

Actually you are mistaken - (definition) Logic - (uncountable) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.

Theory
# (countable) (sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena. In use: There is now a well-developed theory of electrical charge.

# (countable) (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview. In use: The theory of relativity was proposed by Einstein.

Without logic, you can't even formulate a theory, because as theory is a structure of objects and data, that has syntax, and therefore has logic. Do you agree that a theory is a structure of distinct objects and data?

Now for the rest of the topic. Let me see if I got this right, your saying that without the ability to perceive energy in its various forms that math is impossible? I agree, however its a strictly philosophical point.

Actually if you agree it's true in the real world, it is not a philosophical point. You've just said that "I agree that without the REAL ability to perceive REAL energy in it's various forms it makes real math impossible". Remember your ability to create math is totally dependent on your ability to process energy. So is the ability to process energy an objective observation? Yes or no?

So it seems... it's hardly philosophical if you agree that it is true for the real world, then it must be true for the real world. And is not "theoretical", when talking about human beings.

Now for some thought experiments...

If there are 2 rocks floating in space and their trajectories bring them close to 2 other rocks to make 4 rocks. Is this math? Or is it only math when there is someone or something there to detect and count them? (These are special rocks that have no gravity)

But wait, your thought experiment requires a human being first that can detect and process energy, other wise the thought experiment itself couldn't exist. Under naturalism, if you don't exist you can't detect and know about the rocks in the first place, you must be able to process energy first before you can even get to the thought experiment, since a thought experiment, is a series of mathematical statements! So your thought experiment is a bit of a non sequitor, because all thought experiments require you to espouse and then describe them, in distinct patterns. A dead person cannot describe 2 rocks, or even know the concept of space.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey

This isn't about falling off a cliff -- it's about determining the size of the cliff you're falling off of, or whether you can use the cliff's composition to lessen the extent or outcome of your fall from said cliff.

Actually if I know I would fall and hurt myself regardless of the cliff size, the size of the cliff doesn't matter. After all we calculate probabilities all the time, we don't need scientists in our cars tellnig us how to drive and avoid traffic in real-time.

This has nothing to do with logic -- us being able to understand your education may help us ascertain where you intend to go with this and (if I may be blunt) whether or not its a waste of time. You speak like an arts student. What is your major?

We don't have majors in Canada, at least that's now how we refer to our studies, I've never heard someone refer to something as 'their major'. And like I said what my degree is in is irrelevant, since a degree is a static piece of paper saying I did some kind of work and problem solving under "Certified" authorities. But we are all auto-didacts, when you learn even officially, you are actually teaching yourself by placing youself there. Also, when you go on the internet and learn new things that are true. Do you say "Well I didn't learn this formally, so this is worthless and cannot be true?". We place too much value on social status, and not on merit. Obviously you see my logic is sound, it's just that I didn't have enough details in certain areas to flesh it out in a discussion board on the internet, since it requires a lot of time and careful thought, as well as mapping the relationships

Believe me I'm going to contact a few mathematicians when I am ready and perhaps also a physicist, I've already started to ask questions on newsgroups to get feedback on what I'm working on.

And as for your comment as to "where to take it", it's quite obvious I'm smart enough to fill in the details myself. It's just in the space of time one gets to post to a thread, one doesn't have the necessary time to elaborate it all. If math is a subset of human language itself, then language itself must be mathematical, other wise you could not say:

One apple is equal to one apple. Or I bought a TV set for three hundred dollars (all words notice). Language is mathematical statements, and yet it is using words. So there it appears we are doing math all the time, whenever we compare distinct objects and the patterns of data they contain, and it is very fundamental.

It all has to do with geometry, and laws of distinction that I am working out. It's very self-recursive, if you want I'll send you preliminary copy of what I am working on.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
Actually you have not pointed out ANY FLAWS at all, because you're forgetting that all numbers and thought, and data exists within nature. Therefore it is subject to the law of existence - if it exists and is distinct from something else, it is a distinct object.

I can't point out any flaws in your argument because you are simply begging the question as I previously stated. You define "data" in such a way that anything is data. Therefore, your statement that math is simply another form of data is obviously correct. However, you have failed in forming any sort of useful definition as a result of your rush to incorporate everything into your brilliant scheme. If I postulate that everything in the universe - known or unknown - exists in the set A, then I state that my business card is a subset of A, who cares? I have contributed nothing except wasting electrons sending this BS definition to the intertubes for people to waste their time reading. This is precisely what you've done in this thread, except instead of "business card," you substituted "math." So please stop telling me how stupid I am for asking you to refine your definition to something that is actually useful rather than a definition so broad that it tells me nothing that wasn't already inherently obvious. Until then, kindly stop feigning intellectual superiority, wasting electricity, and wasting everyone's time with this jackassery.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
Actually you have not pointed out ANY FLAWS at all, because you're forgetting that all numbers and thought, and data exists within nature. Therefore it is subject to the law of existence - if it exists and is distinct from something else, it is a distinct object.

I can't point out any flaws in your argument because you are simply begging the question as I previously stated.

Actually no, you are gloriously and utterly wrong. If we can talk about it, it has existence. Else it wouldn't exist, even false statements have existence in that the statement exists, and the meaning (which exists also) is false, the fasle meaning exists, but is not true. Words are mathematical statements, I am not begging anything. Words and numbers are eqivalent. Is the number one a word? Yes or no? Is a number a thought? yes or no?

If a word is a thought it is also an idea
If a number is a thought, it is also an idea.
If it is an idea, it is a word-concept, or more simply, word.

A number is an idea,
A word is an idea, so therefore..

A word is a thought.
A word is an idea.

A word is a number, and a number is a word, because a number is a thought, and a thought is a word.

If a number is not an idea, it is not a word, if it is not a word, it is not a concept, if it is not a concept it can contain no (asbtract data), that is, to be abstract, if it has no asbtraction, it has no existence.

I'm actually in the process of showing that language and numbers are equivalent, because they share the idea-word data space.

Witness (in language only)

To think, is to discuss, to discuss in words... is to gather abstract data and to form thoughts. To think thoughts then, is to function and gather data, and form them into distinct thoughts, which are words, and therefore to think in words... Therefore all ideas are words, and all words are ideas.

Which means, thoughts, ideas and words are equivalent, they have a recursive relationship.

To have toughts, is to have words, is to have ideas

A word is an idea
A number is an idea

They share the fact, that they are both of the IDEA or thought set.

And all thoughts are word-ideas, therefore, all numbers too are also word-ideas.

The ideas are actually objects and functions at the same time, hence you can can join different ideas, for instance, you can have a car, that drives. You can have a thought that functions.

Therefore, all numbers are thoughts, therefore, all language is an expression of thought, therefore all thoughts are expressions of ideas, which are both words and numbers.

You can do proofs without numerals, using only language, and I'm working on it right now at this very moment, and it is very complicated, because I have to map all the recursive relationships.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
[clipped a lot of utter BS]

Maybe you should spend more time reading my posts and less time typing out your own garbage. You have shown definitively that if S is the set of everything, then A is a subset of S. Thanks for that profound contribution to math. I believe that has been the definition of a subset since such things were first considered many years ago.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
[clipped a lot of utter BS]

Maybe you should spend more time reading my posts and less time typing out your own garbage. You have shown definitively that if S is the set of everything, then A is a subset of S. Thanks for that profound contribution to math. I believe that has been the definition of a subset since such things were first considered many years ago.

It's not a lot of BS, and I am getting to your posts. Spefically, what do you feel is unanswered? It's not my fault if you are not capable of grasping what I am saying and listening carefully to what I've written, since what I am working on is not finished (it is a work in progress).

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
Actually you have not pointed out ANY FLAWS at all, because you're forgetting that all numbers and thought, and data exists within nature. Therefore it is subject to the law of existence - if it exists and is distinct from something else, it is a distinct object.

You define "data" in such a way that anything is data. Therefore, your statement that math is simply another form of data is obviously correct. However, you have failed in forming any sort of useful definition as a result of your rush to incorporate everything into your brilliant scheme.

IF anything exists that is DISTINCT (not equal) to anything else exactly (same time, sameplace, etc) then it is distinct. So all distinct objects, then it must be a subset of the ALL existing set. For any objects to have distinction from any other object, it must exist from and within the all set.

Data is a subset of the ALL set.

For instance DATA is existence, if something doesn't exist, it is not-data (a distinct unit). Data (a distinct unt) and existence are equivalent. Because anything which is distinct, is data. Also known as the law of existence. If I am distinct from you, that means I am not you, therefore the data that is you(the components you are made of, energy, atoms, etc), is not equal to me, but in order for you to exist, as data, you must be a subset of a greater set, the all set.

To put it simply: Data is anything that is distinct (not equal to) anything else, and is therefore it's own distinct unit. When I perceive something else other then me, I am perceving the data itself, that you exist.

To see this in action, get a piece of paper, now make a point on the paper, that point is distinct from the ALL set of the paper. The dot is distinct from the paper, and yet is a part of the paper. Therefore the dot is a subset of the paper. When you connect the dot to the paper, the dot becomes a part of the ALL paper set. That dot is on ALL the paper(all paper data). That is to say, as long as all the elements of the paper remain joned to itself, the dot is joined to all of the paper elements.

Use geometry, not arabic chicken scratch, since numbers in the real world are used to describe actual geometric units of data, or simply distinct objects, or data-shapes (i.e. objects of data).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
IF anything exists that is DISTINCT (not equal) to anything else exactly (same time, sameplace, etc) then it is distinct. So all distinct objects, then it must be a subset of the ALL existing set. For any objects to have distinction from any other object, it must exist from and within the all set.

Data is a subset of the ALL set.

For instance DATA is existence, if something doesn't exist, it is not-data. Data and existance are equivalent. Because anything which is distinct, is data. Also known as the law of existence. If I am distinct from you, that means I am not you, therefore the data that is you(teh components you are made of, energy, atoms, etc), is not equal to me, but in order for you to exist, as data, you must be a subset of a greater set, the all set.

You have defined DATA so broadly that it is equal to the set ALL. This is what you don't seem to understand. To draw any meaningful conclusions (i.e. those that are not intuitively obvious), you need to refine your definition of what constitutes "data." I suggested a manner in which this was possible above, but you denounced me as stupid (rather than my idea as poor) because you didn't seem to grasp this basic concept.

Data is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

1 : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation <the data is plentiful and easily available ? H. A. Gleason, Jr.> <comprehensive data on economic growth have been published ? N. H. Jacoby>
2 : information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful
3 : information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed

Thus, my idea that logical operators are not data seems perfectly reasonable unless the definition of data is completely bastardized to fundamentally change its meaning.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
For instance DATA is existence, if something doesn't exist, it is not-data. Data and existance are equivalent. Because anything which is distinct, is data. Also known as the law of existence. If I am distinct from you, that means I am not you, therefore the data that is you(teh components you are made of, energy, atoms, etc), is not equal to me, but in order for you to exist, as data, you must be a subset of a greater set, the all set.
You have defined DATA so broadly that it is equal to the set ALL. This is what you don't seem to understand. To draw any meaningful conclusions (i.e. those that are not intuitively obvious), you need to refine your definition of what constitutes "data." I suggested a manner in which this was possible above, but you denounced me as stupid (rather than my idea as poor) because you didn't seem to grasp this basic concept.

Actually I understand what the all set is, I just haven't defined it, so I will have to get to it. You can only define it really geometrically first, as a picture. I know what the all set is because it is represented visually in my mind. As -- ALL probability set. If a number is an object containing data, then data must be composed of ... probabilities. Fair? Data as composed of the ALL-Probability set, or simply the all-existant set, or all-existant probability-set. Sorry about the seeming false accusations (I did not mean you were stupid, just that you were not seeing what I was saying)

If this is not sufficient. Tell me what more you need and I will need time, so I promise I will get back to you on this.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
Actually I understand what the all set is, I just haven't defined it, so I will have to get to it. You can only define it really geometrically first, as a picture. I know what the all set is because it is represented visually in my mind. As -- ALL probability set. If a number is an object containing data, then data must be composed of ... probabilities. Fair? Data as composed of the ALL-Probability set. Sorry about the seeming false accusations (I did not mean you were stupid, just that you were not seeing what I was saying)

If this is not sufficient. Tell me what more you need and I will need time, so I promise I will get back to you on this.

No, you cannot define a set geometrically first. Saying that a set is represented in a certain way in your mind accomplishes nothing. The entire problem with this ridiculous line of reasoning is that it is founded on as-yet undefined axioms. You can't tell me that I'm wrong when you refuse to define the axioms on which your argument is based. I have proposed ways in which one could reasonably define the axioms based on the real definition of what constitutes data and you have rejected them. In rejecting them, you have failed to introduce alternative axioms. Therefore, your argument is, at this point, complete BS.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No, you cannot define a set geometrically first. Saying that a set is represented in a certain way in your mind accomplishes nothing. The entire problem with this ridiculous line of reasoning is that it is founded on as-yet undefined axioms. You can't tell me that I'm wrong when you refuse to define the axioms on which your argument is based. I have proposed ways in which one could reasonably define the axioms based on the real definition of what constitutes data and you have rejected them. In rejecting them, you have failed to introduce alternative axioms. Therefore, your argument is, at this point, complete BS.

Actually you can define a set geometrically first, since geometry is a series of distinct and connected units(points), lines are made of distinct points, etc. Since numbers and concepts are equivalent, i.e. a numeral is just a geometricaly shaped representation of the idea of a number, and a number is an idea. All ideas are data, and data can be represented in ANY manner. Therefore numbers can be represented visually as geometry.

One can be represented as a house, or a car, or anything. Therefore one is a transendental element. I.e. it can be anything it wants to, even geometry.. Sorry but you're just wrong.

As for the axioms, they are a work in progress... I've told you this countless times that this work is not finished. And now I have told you (I apolgize for earlier not telling you) that that data is composed of the ALL-probability set. I am working on the probability numbers but it is going to take a LONG time, you don't build a new theoretical framework in a day. I think you can agree on that. I cannot just give you something that is not completely finished, but I can give you what I have figured out thus far.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
blah blah blah

All I have asked for is your definition of "data," since it is obviously significantly different from the true definition (at least, Merriam-Webster's definition). Either give it to me or say that you will not give it to me. The rest of your BS without this definition is exactly that: BS.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
blah blah blah

All I have asked for is your definition of "data," since it is obviously significantly different from the true definition (at least, Merriam-Webster's definition). Either give it to me or say that you will not give it to me. The rest of your BS without this definition is exactly that: BS.

Now you're being an IDIOT, I've told you data is composed of probabilities, so data must then be collapsed probability. I've given you the definitions now go find something to do as we can no longer go any further then this.

Ernst Mayr, the prominent biologist, historian, said:

"Any scientific revolution has to accept all sorts of black boxes, for if one had to wait until all black boxes are opened, one would never have any conceptual advances."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
Now you're being an IDIOT, I've told you data is composed of probabilities, so data must then be collapsed probability. I've given you the definitions now go find something to do as we can no longer go any further then this.

No, you don't understand that not everything is data. Data has a very specific defintion which I gave above. You have attempted to bastardize that definition to incorporate everything, which is simply incorrect. You have equated the set of everything with the set of all data when they are not equal. This is obviated by your statement that data are collapsed probabilities, since probabilities do not exist for all items in the set of everything.

Ernst Mayr, the prominent biologist, historian, said:

"Any scientific revolution has to accept all sorts of black boxes, for if one had to wait until all black boxes are opened, one would never have any conceptual advances."

His statement is correct. However, a "black box" as he describes it is not what you have proposed here. You have proposed that everything==data, therefore light and math are data. This is a ridiculous postulate and can only hold for an equally ridiculous definition of data, since the real definition of data obviously indicates that data does not incorporate everything. So, instead of calling me an IDIOT, maybe you should read my posts a little more carefully and actually clarify things instead of getting offended when someone asks you to do so.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

No, you don't understand that not everything is data.

Actually, you've used a definition which is imprecise, here is the precise definition of data:

Noun
data (plural)

1. Plural of datum: pieces of information.
2. (collectively; uncountable) information.

Now we must go to information:

Definitions of information:

* a message received and understood
* data: a collection of factual-data from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
* knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
* (communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; " the signal contained thousands of bits of information"
* formal accusation of a crime
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So you are actually not understanding what DATA is. Any pattern that is distinct from any other pattern is an object, and all objects contain and in fact ARE at the same time data. And therefore can be represented by units of data. A piece of data is simply a distinct unit of one distinct thing.

I will elaborate:

If I draw a dot like . that dot is a piece of data, otherwise you couldn't perceive it, it is both an object and data at the same time. Your eyes are receiving the light sent (or lack of it) into your eyes, the distinction creates a pattern, and all patterns are data. You have to learn about the fact that objects are actually both data and objects (mentally, as distinct ideas, they are ONE compound idea object, of two sub idea-objects). Otherwise they would not be seperate from anything else.

So, instead of calling me an IDIOT, maybe you should read my posts a little more carefully and actually clarify things instead of getting offended when someone asks you to do so.

Actually I did read carefully, you are not THINKING carefully, because you don't understand your own thoughts and what the true definitions of them are.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
Actually, you've used a definition which is imprecise, here is the precise definition of data:

So you are actually not understanding what DATA is. Any pattern that is distinct from any other pattern is an object, and all objects contain and in fact ARE at the same time data. And therefore can be represented by units of data. A piece of data is simply a distinct unit of one distinct thing.

No, I used the actual dictionary definition of the word and gave a link to the most oft-cited dictionary in the world rather than pulling a definition out of my rear-most orifice and expecting it to slide. I am very familiar with the concept of data, having generated millions and millions of data in my years in grad school. I can say with certainty that no one who actually deals with data would define it as broadly as you have done here, as the definition you give is nebulous at best. In any case, your definition of data would not incorporate mathematical or logic operators which are not information in and of themselves. They simply transform information from one form to another in the same way that various processes can transform energy from one form to another. This does not imply that the process itself is energy, only that it is a vehicle for enabling the transformation to occur.

For example:
d/dx is an operator that transforms f(x) to df/dx
engine is an operator that transforms chemical potential energy into kinetic energy

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
Actually, you've used a definition which is imprecise, here is the precise definition of data:

So you are actually not understanding what DATA is. Any pattern that is distinct from any other pattern is an object, and all objects contain and in fact ARE at the same time data. And therefore can be represented by units of data. A piece of data is simply a distinct unit of one distinct thing.

No, I used the actual dictionary definition of the word and gave a link to the most oft-cited dictionary in the world rather than pulling a definition out of my rear-most orifice and expecting it to slide.

Actually I didn't pull it out of my rear, it's fucking fundamental and I DEMONSTRATED that it was, it's not my problem if you don't accept a repetable scientific demonstration of the concept, which I have beaten over your head many times in this thread.... you really need to go read about Boolean logic before you come back here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...an_algebra_%28logic%29

I am very familiar with the concept of data, having generated millions and millions of data in my years in grad school. I can say with certainty that no one who actually deals with data would define it as broadly as you have done here, as the definition you give is nebulous at best.

I don't care how familiar you are with it, I've given you my definition and shown it's logically consistent and not nebulous, you just refuse to accept it, that is not my problem. You say it is undefined or imprecise.

Then I have to ask you:

Using boolean representation
. = 1 (pattern-data (of one dot) is there)
= -1 (pattern-data is not there)

Is this correct? Because this is exactly what I have been fucking saying all this thread, if you can't logically follow and grasp something this simple STOP RESPONDING, I have demosntrated my definition is SOUND.

Is a pattern equivalent to data, YES OR NO? It's obvious you don't understand and it is GLARINGLY obvious now. "You know what data is", but you do not accept agreed upon defintions of data. Data is a pattern, Data = Pattern, patterns are distinct, therefore, patterns are distinct data-objects. Got it? That is not nebulous. We'll go to boolean logic to show that it is not, just once again to repeat it to beat it into you:

Using boolean representation
. = 1 (pattern-data (of one dot) is there)
= -1 (pattern-data is not there)

+1(.) (+1=) +1 (pattern-object exist-is-true)
-1( ) (-1=) -1 (Pattern-object exist-is-false)

Object exist(dot) (is equal) = true (+1)
Object exist(no dot) (is not equal) = not true (-1)

Woah, what is that?? DATA IN THE OPERATOR? Seems to be the case.

Is this definition LOGICALLY coherent? yes or no? If you say no, then don't bother coming back to this thread, because you're saying that the above is "nebulous" (i.e. undefined), which is complete and utter bullshit.

The rest of what you wrote is just fucking worthless. Maybe you need a fucking refund on that education.

Oh one more thing before I go

Consider the statement:

There is one house over there...

The concept of one in this statement seems to be both linguistic and numerical at the same time. Which if it is the case, then that would mean the concept of numbers are in fact linguistic in origin, and the concept of one number, is in fact the concept of one THING, or one object, one word, one idea.

If this is true, then that means language is in fact equivalent to mathematics, since math is a subset of linguistics, because of the concept of one linguistically, and the concept of one numerically, are the same, in the same instance.

This would mean if true, that you can do mathematical proofs for maths in words, and not have to use numerals.

There is one(one-object-thing of) house over there, there is 1(one-object-thing of) house over there.

And we have just demonstrated that it works, and we can even repeat it if necessary.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I have my own opinion about this discussion, but instead of fueling your fire Gannon, I think it should be pointed out that anyone who proclaims their own intelligence as above average is obviously hiding behind their words. If you had an intelligent idea at your finger tips and you had presented it for us, the genius would have spoken for itself. However, all we have seen at this point is a lot of arrogance and name calling, hardly traits featured by above average individuals.

Your ideas, and believe me, I use that word very lightly here, are nothing other than a random collection of thoughts about subjects and concepts you have failed to fully grasp. Cyclowizard is not an idiot, and the fact that you would call him that is more evidence that you are just an emotionally charged, mis-informed kid with an inferiority complex.

This thread makes absolutely no sense and contributes nothing to humanity in any way. You are saying a lot of words but they have no meaning or substance.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
My e-peen is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis long! I've been saying so this entire thread, so it must be true!

No. I think you should read MrDudeMan's post, smoke some weed instead of the crack you've been on, then revisit the discussion when you can pretend to be civilized.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No. I think you should read MrDudeMan's post, smoke some weed instead of the crack you've been on, then revisit the discussion when you can pretend to be civilized.

OP is determined to fail hard. His constant need to defend an incoherent idea with dribble is pretty entertaining though.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
I have my own opinion about this discussion, but instead of fueling your fire Gannon, I think it should be pointed out that anyone who proclaims their own intelligence as above average is obviously hiding behind their words.

If you can't point out the flaw in my understanding then you can't make the claim, because you cannot demonstrate it. I have given all the proper definitions. I've made the claims that:

1) Light transmits patterns
2) That these patterns are perceptual structure
3) That perceptual forms are data

Now is this a series of "random thoughts" I don't understand?

Wikipedia: (pattern - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern) A pattern is a reoccurring set of events or objects that repeat in a periodic fashion.

Wikipedia (Data -

"Information is the result of processing, gathering, manipulating and organizing data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the receiver. In other words, it is the context in which data is taken.[citation needed]

Information as a concept bears a diversity of meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. Generally speaking, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation."

Definitions of pattern on the Web:

* form: a perceptual structure; "a visual pattern must include not only objects ..."
* model: plan or create according to a model or models
* form a pattern; "These sentences pattern like the ones we studied before"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Now is a pattern a form? If it is it is information, and information as we all know, is a pattern of data.

Your ideas, and believe me, I use that word very lightly here, are nothing other than a random collection of thoughts about subjects and concepts you have failed to fully grasp.

Actually no, because I've given definitions that are agreed upon. And they are intelligible.

Is a visual form a pattern, if yes, then is it a pattern-data? yes or no? That's all we've been discussing here. If you find that unintelligible that's not my problem.

This thread makes absolutely no sense and contributes nothing to humanity in any way. You are saying a lot of words but they have no meaning or substance.

That is only your opinion and nothing more. You made the claim I didn't understand, so the onus is on you to show that I do not, if you cannot show your work then your claim is nothing more then opinion.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
My e-peen is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis long! I've been saying so this entire thread, so it must be true!

No. I think you should read MrDudeMan's post, smoke some weed instead of the crack you've been on, then revisit the discussion when you can pretend to be civilized.

I agree, I need to make it clear, obviously it's too highly technical for people to understand that a visual pattern is equivalent to data. So I'm going to have to find a way to present it in a way that others will accept.