# 2+2=...

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » 2+2=...
4. » Page 3

Aedes

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 09:57 pm
@mister kitten,
This isn't the Godel thread, it's the 2+2 thread. But parenthetically, you MIGHT be able to find a trained mathematician or logician who could make the case that since Godel it is not a foregone conclusion that 2+2=4 or whatever. I don't know. I'm willing to accept what biographers and synthesizers of his work will call his implications. I'm not going to pretend that I can follow his mathematics and translate it to the 2+2=4 question, but I can tell you that Bertrand Russell, who is regarded along with Godel as one of the two leading logicians in the 20th century, spent a good chunk of his career trying to turn simple arithmetic into statements of pure logic and gave up / failed after Godel. That's pretty striking. If he'll give up that basic arithmetic effort in the face of Godel, then what does that mean for calculus?

Wikipedia wrote:
Before writing Principles, Russell became aware of Cantor's proof that there was no greatest cardinal number, which Russell believed was mistaken. The Cantor Paradox in turn was shown (for example by Crossley) to be a special case of the Russell Paradox. This caused Russell to analyze classes, for it was known that given any number of elements, the number of classes they result in is greater than their number. This in turn led to the discovery of a very interesting class, namely, the class of all classes. It contains two kinds of classes: those classes that contain themselves, and those that do not. Consideration of this class led him to find a fatal flaw in the so-called principle of comprehension, which had been taken for granted by logicians of the time. He showed that it resulted in a contradiction, whereby Y is a member of Y, if and only if, Y is not a member of Y. This has become known as Russell's paradox, the solution to which he outlined in an appendix to Principles, and which he later developed into a complete theory, the Theory of types. Aside from exposing a major inconsistency in naive set theory, Russell's work led directly to the creation of modern axiomatic set theory.

Russell continued to defend logicism, the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic, and along with his former teacher, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote the monumental Principia Mathematica, an axiomatic system on which all of mathematics can be built. The first volume of the Principia was published in 1910, and is largely ascribed to Russell. More than any other single work, it established the specialty of mathematical or symbolic logic. Two more volumes were published, but their original plan to incorporate geometry in a fourth volume was never realized, and Russell never felt up to improving the original works, though he referenced new developments and problems in his preface to the second edition. Upon completing the Principia, three volumes of extraordinarily abstract and complex reasoning, Russell was exhausted, and he felt his intellectual faculties never fully recovered from the effort.[10] Although the Principia did not fall prey to the paradoxes in Frege's approach, it was later proven by that neither Principia Mathematica, nor any other consistent system of primitive recursive arithmetic, could, within that system, determine that every proposition that could be formulated within that system was decidable, i.e. could decide whether that proposition or its negation was provable within the system

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 10:03 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;115189 wrote:
This isn't the Godel thread, it's the 2+2 thread. But parenthetically, you MIGHT be able to find a trained mathematician or logician who could make the case that since Godel it is not a foregone conclusion that 2+2=4 or whatever. I don't know. I'm willing to accept what biographers and synthesizers of his work will call his implications. I'm not going to pretend that I can follow his mathematics and translate it to the 2+2=4 question, but I can tell you that Bertrand Russell, who is regarded along with Godel as one of the two leading logicians in the 20th century, spent a good chunk of his career trying to turn simple arithmetic into statements of pure logic and gave up / failed after Godel. That's pretty striking. If he'll give up that basic arithmetic effort in the face of Godel, then what does that mean for calculus?

But it was not because of Godel that he gave up. He gave up because Frege showd a contradiction in his definition of "number". The class paradox.

If you look at the last sentence of the Wiki quote in your post, you will see that it confirms what I said about Godel.

mister kitten

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 11:14 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;115093 wrote:
... 2+2 = 2+2 ... or, anything else by other standards...:a-ok:

So (b) then? 16 characters long dfa;lsdkfjasdklj

Reconstructo

Tue 29 Dec, 2009 03:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115165 wrote:
People often use terms loosely. Suppose I were to say I think you are an idiot. That would be using the word, "idiot" loosely. But if I said that someone with an I.Q. of 50 was an idiot, I would be using the term "idiot" strictly.

Suppose I were to say you annoy me with your passive aggressive inanities. That would be truth as correspondence. Back to ignore for you, K.

Owen phil

Tue 29 Dec, 2009 05:33 am
@kennethamy,
Originally Posted by Aedes
This isn't the Godel thread, it's the 2+2 thread. But parenthetically, you MIGHT be able to find a trained mathematician or logician who could make the case that since Godel it is not a foregone conclusion that 2+2=4 or whatever. I don't know. I'm willing to accept what biographers and synthesizers of his work will call his implications. I'm not going to pretend that I can follow his mathematics and translate it to the 2+2=4 question, but I can tell you that Bertrand Russell, who is regarded along with Godel as one of the two leading logicians in the 20th century, spent a good chunk of his career trying to turn simple arithmetic into statements of pure logic and gave up / failed after Godel. That's pretty striking. If he'll give up that basic arithmetic effort in the face of Godel, then what does that mean for calculus?

kennethamy;115191 wrote:
But it was not because of Godel that he gave up. He gave up because Frege showd a contradiction in his definition of "number". The class paradox.

If you look at the last sentence of the Wiki quote in your post, you will see that it confirms what I said about Godel.

ken,
Where did Frege show a contradiction in his definition of "number".

Aedes,
"Bertrand Russell, who is regarded along with Godel as one of the two leading logicians in the 20th century, spent a good chunk of his career trying to turn simple arithmetic into statements of pure logic and gave up / failed after Godel."

What? Why do you think that the theorems of Principia Mathematica are not valid. Godel's theorems do not diminish the work of Russell at all.

What theorem of Principia do you claim is incorrect due to any of Godel's theorems.

kennethamy

Tue 29 Dec, 2009 07:47 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;115254 wrote:
Originally Posted by Aedes
This isn't the Godel thread, it's the 2+2 thread. But parenthetically, you MIGHT be able to find a trained mathematician or logician who could make the case that since Godel it is not a foregone conclusion that 2+2=4 or whatever. I don't know. I'm willing to accept what biographers and synthesizers of his work will call his implications. I'm not going to pretend that I can follow his mathematics and translate it to the 2+2=4 question, but I can tell you that Bertrand Russell, who is regarded along with Godel as one of the two leading logicians in the 20th century, spent a good chunk of his career trying to turn simple arithmetic into statements of pure logic and gave up / failed after Godel. That's pretty striking. If he'll give up that basic arithmetic effort in the face of Godel, then what does that mean for calculus?

ken,
Where did Frege show a contradiction in his definition of "number".

Owen phil

Tue 29 Dec, 2009 08:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115268 wrote:

Ken: But it was not because of Godel that he gave up. He gave up because Frege showd a contradiction in his definition of "number". The class paradox.

It was Russell who showed a contrradiction in Frege, not as you claim.

kennethamy

Tue 29 Dec, 2009 09:00 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;115277 wrote:
Ken: But it was not because of Godel that he gave up. He gave up because Frege showd a contradiction in his definition of "number". The class paradox.

It was Russell who showed a contrradiction in Frege, not as you claim.

You had better look it up. Russell wrote a preface to PM talking about the contradiction Frege has discovered. It was on account of this that Russell created the theory of types, and then the theory of ramified types. Since Frege had not written PM how could Russell have shown a contradiction in what Frege wrote, when Frege did not write anything to show a contradiction in?

Aedes

Tue 29 Dec, 2009 10:35 am
@mister kitten,
He gave up PM chiefly because of Godel, but also because (it seems) he got burnt out with it and it was no longer profitable to publish. Frege inspired it -- to say he took it down is, frankly, wrong.

Principia Mathematica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
PM, as it is often abbreviated (not to be confused with Russell's 1903 Principles of Mathematics), is an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic. One of the main inspirations and motivations for PM was Frege's earlier work on logic, which had led to paradoxes discovered by Russell. These were avoided in PM by building an elaborate system of types: a set of elements is of a different type than is each of its elements (set is not the element; one element is not the set) and one cannot speak of the "set of all sets" and similar constructs, which lead to paradoxes (see Russell's paradox).

Propositional logic itself was known to be consistent, but the same had not been established for Principia's axioms of set theory. (See Hilbert's second problem.)

In 1930, showed that propositional logic itself was complete in a much weaker sense - that is, any sentence that is unprovable from a given set of axioms must actually be false in some model of the axioms. However, this is not the stronger sense of completeness desired for Principia Mathematica, since a given system of axioms (such as those of Principia Mathematica) may have many models, in some of which a given statement is true and in others of which that statement is false, so that the statement is left undecided by the axioms.
Principia could not be both consistent and complete. According to the theorem, for every sufficiently powerful logical system (such as Principia), there exists a statement G that essentially reads, "The statement G cannot be proved." Such a statement is a sort of Catch-22: if G is provable, then it is false, and the system is therefore inconsistent; and if G is not provable, then it is true, and the system is therefore incomplete.

shows that no formal system extending basic arithmetic can be used to prove its own consistency. Thus, the statement "there are no contradictions in the Principia system" cannot be proven in the Principia system unless there are contradictions in the system (in which case it can be proven both true and false).

kennethamy

Tue 29 Dec, 2009 11:10 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;115296 wrote:
He gave up PM chiefly because of Godel, but also because (it seems) he got burnt out with it and it was no longer profitable to publish. Frege inspired it -- to say he took it down is, frankly, wrong.

Principia Mathematica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I admit that I am now less clear about the sequence of events that led up to Russell abandoning of the logicist program. It could certainly have been Godel. And Frege's role seems less central than I had once thought.

Zetetic11235

Sun 3 Jan, 2010 05:48 pm
@kennethamy,
The only thing Goedel says is that we cannot develop a recursively axiomatizable (this comes originally from the successor function s(0)=1 and s(x)=x+1; hence people say that it holds for any system 'strong enough for counting') that is provably consistent i.e. there is no way to prove something true and false (among other equivalent definitions), and complete in the sense that every sentence in theory that is true can be proven true and that is false can be proven false.

This means that we probably cannot build any kind of foundation to mathematics from first order logic (what Russell wanted to do with PM, and what Frege wanted to do before him). This doesn't mean that mathematics is in any way shape or form undermined. It just means everything isn't as nice and tidy as people wanted it to be.

The real important stuff is consistency. If you can prove that something true is false or vice versa, you have a problem. fortunately, calculus is safe, because Gasai Takeuti and friendsUnification . The use of unification in logic programming is precisely that of being able to replace logically equal objects with one another. The idea is to be able to have a way to automatically identify logically equivalent formulas (probably by reducing them to a normal form i.e. by having a set way to write them out and an algorithm to convert them to that form).

mister kitten

Thu 4 Mar, 2010 04:36 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;115010 wrote:
11 (in base 3)....I hope I did that right. Who uses base3?

11 in base 3, yeah!
Or
100 in base 2

Reconstructo

Fri 5 Mar, 2010 01:30 am
@mister kitten,
(1 + 1) + (1+ 1) = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

The point is it's all one number, stuck together with the same glue.

mister kitten

Fri 5 Mar, 2010 02:28 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;136396 wrote:
(1 + 1) + (1+ 1) = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

The point is it's all one number, stuck together with the same glue.

Not when squared.

jack phil

Fri 5 Mar, 2010 02:45 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;115010 wrote:
11 (in base 3)....I hope I did that right. Who uses base3?

The Mayans used base 4.

I've used their spatial multiplication to some good use, and I think their may be some interesting possibilities in it... maybe in regards to division.

I **** my pants the first time I saw this video.

Reconstructo

Fri 5 Mar, 2010 07:04 pm
@mister kitten,
mister kitten;136598 wrote:
Not when squared.

Multiplication is an operation derived from addition, but 1 and 0 are unique numbers when it comes to multiplication.

"3" * "2" =

1 1 1
1 1 1

"4" * "5'
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 08:06 PM ----------

jack;136601 wrote:
The Mayans used base 4.

Base 4 makes sense, as 4 is a "feminine number", that can be multiplied/divided evenly. Our computers also run on "feminine numbers".

Interesting stuff, really.

Reconstructo

Sat 10 Apr, 2010 02:07 pm
@mister kitten,
mister kitten;136598 wrote:
Not when squared.

OK, but what is squaring?
n squared equals n times n. (of course it gets more complicated, to allow for strangeness like e^pi*i = -1

3 squared = (3 + 3 + 3) = (1+ 1 + 1)+(1+1+1) + (1+ 1+ 1)

And three cubed:
(3 + 3 + 3) + (3 + 3 + 3) + (3 + 3 + 3)
OR
+ (1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1 + 1)
+ (1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1 + 1)
+ (1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1 + 1) + (1 + 1 + 1)

I admit it gets complex when we deal with negative numbers, and roots. But as long as a number is rational, it can be broken into ones, yes? And can't all rational numbers be written in base 2/binary?

mister kitten

Sat 10 Apr, 2010 07:09 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;150333 wrote:

I admit it gets complex when we deal with negative numbers, and roots. But as long as a number is rational, it can be broken into ones, yes? And can't all rational numbers be written in base 2/binary?

I don't know about all rational numbers.

e.g. 0.5 or 1/2

1 divided by (1+1) = half of 1

or something like that.

Reconstructo

Sat 10 Apr, 2010 10:22 pm
@mister kitten,
mister kitten;150402 wrote:
I don't know about all rational numbers.

e.g. 0.5 or 1/2

1 divided by (1+1) = half of 1

or something like that.

.5 in binary = 1/10 ?

I can't think of any rational numbers that wouldn't be translatable to base 2. 2 is a factor of all even numbers, and all odd numbers are only a unit away from an even number, right? If I understand correctly, a rational number is one that can be put into a fraction, so we don't even have to mess with "decimal" points.

ACB

Sun 11 Apr, 2010 05:49 am
@Reconstructo,
1/2 in binary = 0.1
1/3 = 0.01 (recurring part shown in red)
2/3 = 0.10
1/4 = 0.01
3/4 = 0.11
1/5 = 0.0011
2/5 = 0.01100
3/5 = 0.10011
4/5 = 0.1100
1/6 = 0.001
1/8 = 0.001
and so on.

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » 2+2=...
4. » Page 3