Thus we have found problems in such a framework.

Then this is also not new but the old re-formulation of Xenos Paradox

Let me attempt anyway

Infinity + Infinity + infinity ♾ = ♾ Infinity

I have used philosophy instead of the technical field of math as don’t know how to apply mathematical notations on this site.

The one that Cantor build … infinity of infinities.

A redundancy in terms by applying Occams Razor

Sure, the simple application of a non-linear equation solves the countable infinity problem that was proved by Cantor and consequently the first argument of Hilbert in his presentation of the above paradox.

What "tweaking" of keystone's incorrect approach "solves" the problem? — Real Gone Cat

Essentially the use of non-linear equations could be useful.

A strange take indeed but that’s what math is …strange!

0.9 - 0.9 = 0.09 — Real Gone Cat

Genius.

Or to remove the decimal 9-9 = 0.9

You have truly distorted and confounded my conception of Math.

Next on the curriculum

1 + 1 = -5 or 3 or anything apart from 2

I am confused. At what point did I offer you any math for such a refutal ?

Then I shall have to clone you an infinite amount of times to satisfy hilberts problem.

Please sign below

The way I see it and this is my mere conjecture at this point for our instruments do not allow us to peer at the every infetesimal scales thus randomness is attributed to unknown events is that such phenomena are found at the observable scale too and as our instruments still face the same problem at this scale then we can not truly attribute cause and effect thus the end result appears random also.

Your last paragraph…which scale are you referring to by “our scale” and which physical processes?

Randomness produced at the quantum level = randomness and classically defined phenomena on the macro level. And vice versa

Keystone, your effort here is clearly appreciated by Tones. With a little bit of tweaking here and there you might be able to solve this infamous mathematical problem.

Just don’t let guys like Tones put you off as you can see he’s clearly the moody type but generous depending on the lunar cycle.

As for the problem posed by Hilbert himself I think it’s worth noting that his playfulness with the concepts of infinity or infinates is not something new but he has clearly presented mathematicians with a carefully constructed brick wall.

You’re simply describing the way things are … if she was to devote her time to eating less hotdogs and going for some excercise … in 6 months time you’d pay for an hour of her company…

And she plays a mean flute.

Unless I'm missing something no, because it's the first term plus the sum of a bunch of products, so you need a sigma not a — Srap Tasmaner

By no means a mathematician here either but what truly prohibits the use of Pi in the above equation.

Happy to be informed.

Descartes confirmed that it is no illusion via his cogito argument.

Though people may disagree on what even a patato is it still produces vodka and chips.


Might as well disagree on the definition of tomatoes too plenty will.

So then just because there is disagreement to the definition of something then gaining consensus on that is important before imparting to discuss further ideas pertaining to it.

Again, and I must reiterate people may disagree on anything these days even …what is gender … what is man what is woman.

But this is not only stupid but a waste of time. For nature has differentiated the two gender by the granting of balls and vaginas respectively.

Consciousness is the attunement of all senses to thinking processes.

By attuned I mean the processing of sensory input for the organisms interaction with environment. But it goes beyond this to include the area of pure thought/reason as elucidated by Kant who provided more than a satisfactory answer on the matter.

Ha! Abusive he says…if you are truly struggling with the terms consciousness and self-awareness then a dictionary is your friend not your enemy.

Although the two above terms overlap consciousness extends to the other as well as to itself.

And yes we do this everyday whilst we are awake but that does not negate its value.

Way to welcome a new member pal. Just dismiss a line of inquiry which you deem pointless whilst to others is not.

Maybe channel your personal opinions in an appropriate area.

Also to add your invokation of Pi into the equation is also interesting and could be a fruitful area of research in your attempt for proof/disproof.

Criticism is feedback. And helpful to individuals to be confronted with themselves if they can not do so unaided.

At the risk of sounding a moraliser. I do not condemn but sympathise with the various levels of ignorance that produce such behaviour.

The interesting bits I took from the video is what happened with negative numbers.

Maybe Toa got close.

Brute force as was stated cannot disprove to give counter examples. And as was properly stated in the video a different approach is required to disprove it.

What that is remains in the realms of pure mathematics.

My two cents on it is the inclusion if of taos research and proximity to solving the problem with a synthesis of what happens with negative integers

It was meant as a joke. No monopolies in mind … well perhaps a certain high street/pub chain. Without naming names they sued the insurers for lockdown for lost earnings during those covid inconvenient lockdown.

Edit: It was the insurers. Though I wouldn’t have put it beneath them if they’d gone for government.

The government!!!

Because of the improper exercise of it e.g. corruption…see hitler, putin etc

All power is equal, the abuse of it is not. Some temper it others go mad with it.

I was hoping that you would connect the dots yourself as any good philosopher should do.

Also note that it is not a criticism.

As for my comment about Chomsky / he has his fair share of critics and my comment is not meant to make me one of his newest critics just a passing observation as I am unfamiliar with his work nor see the appeal just yet.

Don’t know much about this Chomsky guy but looking at the quotes you’ve provided he seems like the typical academical scholar divorced from reality.

This should answer the question in your OP

From The Wealth of Nations

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.
Chapter V.
Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
Chapter V, p. 38.
In reality, during the continuance of any one regulated proportion, between the respective values of the different values of the different metals in the coin, the value of the most precious metal regulates the value of the whole coin.
Chapter V, p. 50.
The value which the workmen add to the materials, therefore, resolves itself in this case into two parts, of which the one pays their wages, the other the profits of the employer upon the whole stock of materials and wages which he advanced.
Chapter VI, p. 58.
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
Chapter VI, p. 60.
A very poor man may be said in some sense to have a demand for a coach and six; he might like to have it; but his demand is not an effectual demand, as the commodity can never be brought to market in order to satisfy it.
Chapter VII, p. 67.
The natural price, therefore, is, as it were, the central price, to which the prices of all commodities are continually gravitating.
Chapter VII, p. 69.
Secrets in manufactures are capable of being longer kept than secrets in trade.
Chapter VII, p. 72.
In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate.
Chapter VIII, p. 80.
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of the workman. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
Chapter VIII, p. 80.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.
Chapter VIII, p. 81

I’ve read enough to understand his most important points.

Here is a brief summary of his overall thought.

Power and riches appear then to be, what they are, enormous and operose machines contrived to produce a few trifling conveniencies to the body, consisting of springs the most nice and delicate, which must be kept in order with the most anxious attention, and which, in spite of all our care, are ready every moment to burst into pieces, and to crush in their ruins their unfortunate possessor. ...
But though this splenetic philosophy, which in time of sickness or low spirits is familiar to every man, thus entirely depreciates those great objects of human desire, when in better health and in better humour, we never fail to regard them under a more agreeable aspect. Our imagination, which in pain and sorrow seems to be confined and cooped up within our own persons, in times of ease and prosperity expands itself to every thing around us. We are then charmed with the beauty of that accommodation which reigns in the palaces and economy of the great; and admire how every thing is adapted to promote their ease, to prevent their wants, to gratify their wishes, and to amuse and entertain their most frivolous desires. If we consider the real satisfaction which all these things are capable of affording, by itself and separated from the beauty of that arrangement which is fitted to promote it, it will always appear in the highest degree contemptible and trifling. But we rarely view it in this abstract and philosophical light. We naturally confound it, in our imagination with the order, the regular and harmonious movement of the system, the machine or economy by means of which it is produced. The pleasures of wealth and greatness, when considered in this complex view, strike the imagination as something grand, and beautiful, and noble, of which the attainment is well worth all the toil and anxiety which we are so apt to bestow upon it.
And it is well that nature imposes upon us in this manner. It is this deception which rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

- Adam Smith

I do not see how any self interested business entity/person has any obligation to social responsibility unless it affects its profits.

Adam Smith covered this concept pretty well.

I am very familiar with his thought that of Plato and the subsequent martyr to the cause.

What’s your point ?

I don’t think you can really know what Aristotle intended with that statement but feel more than free to speculate on it.

After all he died a few thousand years ago and probable can’t be bothered to offer what he did or did not mean?

*Deus - Gently pokes Aristotle’s bones, hey mr philosopher someone’s got a bone to pick with you

I threw the cat into the equation because hey if Schrödinger can do it why can’t I?

In any case the curiosity between cats and us is not as far fetched as you think Albeit us being better able to articulate it and less obsessed with catching mice.

Given that any human advance to that is build when others lay the groundwork and then others after that it does certainly make sense.

Most ideas can be refined and improved upon in terms of efficiency such as the internal combustion engine.

Walking off such developments stalls progress and eventually another independent thinker will develop the same invention independently. See the development of Calculus for example Newton/Leibniz.

And to quote the gravity man himself Isaac

"if I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

So the pretext here then SSU is that ignoring the above trilateral agreement was because of the perceived threat of NATO expansion.

Not worth the paper it was written on then.

Forgive my hasty assumption then in that case although you work in a related field I believe you can still exert some influence on the psychology-psychiatry field and can be a force for good.

I hope

And learning is useful for education prepares us for most things where the application of acquired knowledge is useful.

Of course and if we do somehow fall into vice to recognise whether that is helpful or not and if appropriate chose virtue.

1. Inquiry should involve both the self and the external world. After all it is our mind the perceives it. Self inquiry helps as it will remove the barriers you have mentioned in point 4. What do I mean? Firstly we all develop habits and learned behaviour, scrutinising them helps us first recognise that there is a barrier and then equip us with the tools needed to overcome them. Tools mental aids whatever you want to call them.

2) Consciousness is awareness an evolved trait that allows us to observe and interact with the world