Here is mine:

https://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Distribution_of_prime_numbers

:rofl: :death: That's a pretty Kierkegaardian point of view but I am agree because life tend to be pity and dreams are just dreams.

Teen wins Covid vaccine lottery in NC — frank

I was skeptical about this news but after reading this:

Chavis said she plans to use her money to fund her education. She plans to major in psychology and wants to become a therapist. She also said she may treat herself to a shopping spree.

I changed my perception.

Yes, I am happy that amount of money lands on wisdom and responsible hands.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/#GdeConUni — TonesInDeepFreeze

Already read it. Thanks for the link, I understand it better now :up:

Just what is or what does it mean to be at the limits of one's language? — Shawn

Check this out, I guess you would like it because is so related to your question. Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything

Interesting text indeed and thanks for your translation. I like Taoism so for me is welcome bringing up on the table some debates related.
I defend value depends on derivative orders because two kind of arguments:

1. We can type here a correlation about Nirvana in Buddhism. Along all the text it flows the sense that we have to aim to the “simple” or “one”. It is so related to nature and Nirvana.

The Buddha is even said to have discovered that Salvation, or Nirvâṇa, ("Extinction"), is nevertheless simply living "normal human life... doing normal human things" — Nirvana.

2. Coming up to Taoism itself. Lao Tse used to wrote an important doctrine about “emptiness” and “simplicity”. Most of his analects are so related to nature, wisdom, peace, etc... as pillar of how to build a properly life. This reminds me of verse XI:

Thirty spokes join in one hub
In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle
Mix clay to create a container
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room
Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality — Tao Te Ching

It is true that Lao Tse is so free of interpretation. But Derek Lin says the following argument that I consider is related to your text:

When we cut open a wall to make space for windows and doors, we notice that it is these openings that make the room truly useful to us. If such openings did not exist, we would have no way of accessing the room!
Therefore, we can see how we create solid objects to provide us with benefits and convenience, but it is actually the emptiness formed by, or embedded in such objects that really provide them with functionality and usefulness. — Derek Lin Tao

Why the zero appears in your formula? Is it related to “transfinite” concept ∞?

I think I didn’t get your argument because I am guessing that transfinite recursion is an infinite constructible loop at the base clause. (?)

I am confused but this enigma is making me think a lot.

I think OP is an argument for spending time with children rather than having children. You don’t need to be a parent to be in a position where children might ask you interesting questions. In fact, I would imagine school teachers get these questions more often. — TheHedoMinimalist

Agreed :up:



To be honest I guess that kid asked “where the edge is located” so randomly without any base. Probably the child saw it in TV or a book previously. It is not innate making those such of questions because we need some knowledge and culture to do so.
Kids can make these questions about “physics” or “mathematics” because they are stubborn questioning literally everything.
This is exactly an argument which develops exactly the opposite from the OP: not having kids

either most people, scientists included, are fools or the Nobel Committee back then (1921) were complete morons. — TheMadFool

To be honest, I think they still be morons :lol: sometimes I don’t even understand some Nobel laureates (at least in literature). There are a lot of good writers who died without winning it like Baroja or Cheever.

Oh my fault! Thank you for explaining me both concepts are different :up:

Instead of consider Einstein as a scientific, we should consider it as philosopher of relativism. This only could fit to understand all the paradoxes Einstein wrote in his life.

The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you" [Theaetetus 152a]
— Protagoras of Abdera.

I can find only two papers, neither related to this topic. If he taught at a community college it might have been difficult to do research and publish. — jgill

Yes you are right. There are not articles from Ravitch connected to this thread. There is only one article published here: Springer link.

I found related to this topic the following paper or "scheme":

Principles of Predicate Calculus

was thinking of the Platonic reality of a very large universe of sets, and was not thinking about the utility of set theory in physics. On the other hand he did do some work in relativity, so who knows — fishfry

Harold Ravitch, in his own opinion about Gödel, after finishing the dissertation, wrote this:

The literature, in making Gödel a Platonist, a Kantian, a Cantorian, and so forth, seems to have overlooked this possibility. We choose to view Gödel as a unique philosopher and not try to classify him. — Harold Ravitch

I guess (just my simple opinion) that Gödel was transforming through the years as metamorphosis. I am agree with you that so clearly he was a platonist but it is true that he reflects other points of view in his writings. To be honest I don’t defend we should exclude Gödel from these areas and see him as and “unique”philosopher as Ravitch wrote. Probably there are different versions of him to be consider of: Platonism, realism, relativism, etc...

I think the important fact here is about omission. When you are forced to choose between X, Y and Z previously you made a decision which lead you in this situation. So, for this reason, your are somehow forced to do “something” because omission could be worse.
There always be a lot of choices but I guess no human can stay without saying or doing whatever the choices show to us. I think is even part of the human nature to be in the act of “choosing” along their life.
Omission could be an interesting fact here. In some criminal code countries it is even a penalty not taking a choice when you are forced to (well probably this example was to extreme)

Probably you could be interested on reading this article: Madrid plans urban forest.

Despite the fact Madrid is the second city of the world with the most trees planted, I am happy our Mayor is motivated to keep planting more than 100.000 of many species. I guess it is important not only because our health and living but to show how a developed European capital city should look like.

I really want to see more green in this picture of my city!

we need to be prepared for either taking more than a generation to happen — Isaac

Completely agree. Good point :up: :100:

Good question. I guess it depends a lot of how are the parents. Sadly, we live in a very selfish/dangerous world so I think is not so profitable to this kids being born...
but it these parents are good persons and teach to the kids ethics, values, morality, etc... Probably it could be totally worthy

Even for someone like me, with basic training in math and logic, this makes sense. — TheMadFool

I thought exactly the same :clap: :lol:

circulus in probando - a premise is the conclusion. — TheMadFool

Interesting argument and point. What we are talking about here reminds me a lot from Aristotle's syllogisms, but I do not want put it on the table because it looks like nobody likes in our modern Era the syllogisms at all (they are pretty criticised by most of the authors), because this is all about (in my point of view) of how realistic or at least how solid the mathematics can be in our argumentation.

it assumes certain propositions (axioms) to be true and builds an edifice of true (mathematical) propositions on them — TheMadFool

Exactly in this part, I guess Gödel and Ravitch concided. Those axioms or propositions are so related with the "realism" itself.

he is already dead... after 53 years of his thesis approval. — javi2541997

Update: he retired from teaching in 2019. Look: https://www.coursicle.com/lavc/professors/Harold+Ravitch/
So, for more than 50 years he was a teacher. Probably he has a lot of papers related to this

Thanks for linking the article. — fishfry

Thank you and welcome :up:

ps -- I noted that the passage you quoted about vicious circles mentions the problems with Dedekind cuts. I'm not entirely sure of exactly what they mean, — fishfry

Despite the fact Ravitch quotes a lot of interesting teachers or PhD’s, the language and technical paragraphs are so complex. I don’t understand some parts of his dissertation neither so is up to us trying to give our meaning as we are doing here, debating. I am agree with you, this is an interesting academic paper and dissertation. Imagine trying to debate with Ravitch himself about he was thinking back then, but probably he is already dead... after 53 years of his thesis approval.

How do we download our posts? — TheMadFool

Good question! I also would like to download my posts as a PDF file or something related.

But in fact that's an accurate account of a position Gödel is refuting, not thinking — fishfry

:up: Reading deeply the dissertation, Ravitch wrote that the main goal of Gödel was “believing in the existence” of realism (thus, mathematics). But, he expressed this context as a criticism on Gödel’s philosophy of maths. For this reason quotes David Hume about the meaning of “existence” and “realism” and then wrote the following statement:

Gödel is primarily concerned with the clarity and force of our conception (ideas) of mathematical objects. One can follow Hume and simply refuse to consider questions involving 'existence' in this context — Professor Carnap and Ravitch

The second is that Wittgenstein's notion in §201 of Philosophical Investigations might be applied here. — Banno

Interesting! Because according to Ravitch, who made this dissertation, he referred and applied Russell’s and Poincaré’s solutions of circle paradoxes, writing:

The search for a once-and-for-all solution to the paradoxes led Russell, Poincaré, and others to the observation that each of the paradoxes trades on a vicious circle in defining an entity which ultimately creates the paradox. — Harold Ravitch, Ph.D.

When I check the bibliography used in his dissertation he never mentioned Wittgenstein: https://www.friesian.com/goedel/biblio.htm

Nevertheless, of course I think we should consider Wittgenstein here because supposedly this dissertation was about metaphysics not philosophy of science.

About Camus, I have in my room “The Plague” waiting for been read by my lazy ass!

Beckett — 180 Proof

“Malone dies” is a magnificent play of theater :100: :flower:

very interestion OP, javi; — 180 Proof

:up: :100:



To be honest with you I only picked up not only the interesting facts I read but the one I understood. In such difficult dissertation of “maths” and “philosophy” together I have to admit I need to keep reading some books to increase this area.

Sextus Emipricus had done in the former. — 180 Proof

I going to check this out more deeply. It sounds so interesting because I like Roman philosophy or thinkers a lot :up:

I haven’t revisited it since then neither! Herman Hesse was a big influence when I started in philosophy as beginner in my school.
I remember my teacher recommended me “Siddartha” too but I don’t read it yet... probably I am ready to read a Herman Hesse’s book again :up:

You should read Herman Hesse’s ‘Steppenwolf’ — Wayfarer

This book is so good :up: I read it when I was 18 years old and changed my life for good. What a good writer Herman Hesse was.

What is your idea of self for you? Is it your physical body, mind? or the combination of both?
Which one do you regard as your true self, and why? How many self / selves do you have? — Corvus

The idea of self for me depends a lot of what Descartes developed as “cogito ergo sum”. If I think and I am able to reasoning, myself exists. That’s what I consider a true self. Perhaps the exterior or my environment cheats on my but at least I don’t have a doubt about my existence.

I think it is a very good question asking how many selves can be. It depends a lot of the people we interact with. Each person has different “selves” in other people’s minds. The word person meant in Ancient Greek “mask”. I think this statement says it all. According to how we interact with others, they would have a better or worse self of me as a person.

To be honest with you, I don’t know if I have a true self... and if I have so, I want to keep with me. This is a good treasure.

I want to share this cartoon.
It is about Spanish politics. The person with the yellow scarf is an independent politician from Catalonia, called Puigdemont, who literally says: "I do not have immunity I do not have immunity!" because the European Parliament removed his condition of deputy and then Spain could prosecute him.
Nevertheless, the person in the left is our PM, Pedro Sánchez, with a vaccine saying "don't worry I will vaccinate you" because the last month he and the Justice minister decided to put free all independent Catalonia politicians prisoners.

You might like this cartoon: — Amity

I really liked it :up:

I just checked it. The cartoon is so funny and how Boris Johnson appears as a Roman Emperor is grandiose.
Anyways, Latin has always been a culture study just for the elites, as philosophy for example. This is why back in the day most of the people were angry due to “lack” of studies opportunities.
But now... as you recommend me to read the comments in the news it makes me feel sad. The most valued comment said: “If YoU FeEl BrItiSh wHy NoT StUdY WelSh?” This is clearly a statement against European values and culture, or at least Mediterranean ones.

In conclusion, probably my plan of preparing ethics as a gift could be a big failure... it looks like most of the people do not want understand anything.

Which should come first safety or freedom of choice? — SteveMinjares

I think safety comes first. If we allow people act so freely they will not respect public rules and spaces because most of them do not care at all.
Wearing a mask should be as important as a security car belt as you explained. Delta variation appeared due to the big and quick infections among the people. The only way of preventing this issue is more responsibility...
Do the most of the people have responsibility? No so we have to act applying the law

Because I believe so... You would think I am a dreamer or a rookie in basics economics :death:

Exposure to more considered ideas is helpful, but considered ideas often don't have the same kind of influence on children that deranged, paranoid, hateful ideas to. — Kenosha Kid

True. This is why is difficult to pursue because every individual is special and their mind is complex. Nevertheless, I guess we both are agree with the fact that we should not leave these kind of kids “ flowing around” with suck negative backgrounds.
I do not know yet which could be the right phenomenon to increase more consciousness about this issue. I mentioned Taoism previously but you all are right that it sounds so doctrinaire.
It is sad when these kind of kids end up harming others. Here the State failed both.

Point being, hateful and violent behaviour is typically associated with irrational notions that are immune to reason, empirical counter-evidence, etc. — Kenosha Kid

Good one :up: developing into educational classes the abilities of having better notions and knowledge could be helpful too. It is difficult to achieve and this is why some people can be pessimistic.

I wish the story ends good Baker... :flower:

Thanks for the feedback Tom and also for debating with me in this thread I think it was interesting :up:

But on the grounds of what? — baker

On grounds that, at least, people do not kill or harm each other. Because what are you saying is a vicious of competitiveness inside the money makers. But it is so different when this attitude attack the integrity of citizens.

I can't see how you think children don't know what violence is. — Isaac

They can know it but in a very simple way... It is not the same when you are more mature and can understand it more deeply.

you seem to be promoting the rather heterodox theory that it's the former not the latter that's the problem. — Isaac

Understandable. So what do you think is the solution to this and why I am seeing it bad?

Why should children not get psychological help? — Isaac

I’m not saying they do not need psychological help but avoid it because somehow this tool is still stigmatized in our society... so I don’t know what can be worse the issue or the solution.

As long as we live in a capitalist society, the above is a lost cause. — baker

It is not lost if we believe in it. Probably in a capitalist Era is difficult but we can work together and establish some moral and ethical principles.