Voyager
1yr ago
No, I was asking about 2+2 (no context), as I have been made it clear countless times.
You're confused. I'm the one who pointed out several times that your "2+2" was lacking context.
I'm glad we're on the same page now though.
2+2 (standard arithmetic) is different than 2+2 (mod 4), and 4 (standard arithmetic) is different than 4 (mod 4).
And "2+2=4" is correct both in SA and (mod 4).
By X I suppose you refer to the statement "2 + 2 = 4 is not unequivocally true".
As the user in question, I can clear this up: Although I didn't make this clear at the time*, I was referring to the statement "2+2=/=4 (mod 4)" (which was @felipec 's argument in favor of "2 + 2 = 4 is not unequivocally true").
This is a plain mathematical statement which I disproved (I didn't publish the formal proof because I wasn't challenged on the informal rebuttal). I consider mathematical proof adequate justification for certainty.
*Perhaps this led to confusion, I might revisit the thread with that in mind.
You demonstrate this in your original post, so that provides an example of a meaning of X which is true.
Notably, this is not the case, the argument in the original post was flawed and the example does not demonstrate what it was supposed to. I had pointed this out in another comment thread and referred to it.
It may be represented that way, but they are not the same thing.
4 and 0 are equivalent as representants of the residue class. If you can write down 2+2 where 2 refers to a residue class, the answer can be written down as 4.
your claim that 4 (sa) = 0 (mod 4)
How many times do I have to ask you to stop misquoting me?
Voyager
1yr ago
You are trying to distract from what you said
No, I'm trying to explain what I said, because you keep removing the context:
- 2+2=0 (mod4) is not the same statement as 2+2=0
I said 2+2=4 in standard arithmetic is not the same statement as 2+2=0 (mod 4). I insisted on making this explicit, because it came up on the context of mod 4. And because I suspected you were trying lead me to a contradiction, so I made sure to speak clearly, proofing myself against it.
So if you cut out the important context, and then try to construct a contradiction that doesn't work with the context included, you're misrepresenting me.
Retract and apologize.
(Assuming here you meant to write 4 instead of 0, but otherwise it would just be an even worse misquote, so I'm charitably assuming it's a typo.)
But it's pretty clear that you meant 2+2=4, not 2+2=4 (mod 4), because the former is what most people think is true.
I meant "2+2=4", "in Z/4Z" omitted, as in your original setup*. When it's about people's reaction to the statement, formulation is important.
*But in my case it was available from context, whereas in your example it was deliberate misdirection.
People think it's true, while they're denied the context. But given the full context, which changes the meaning, it's still true.
It's also quite peculiar that you're doing what you're accusing me of: I pointed out you were contradicting yourself, you tried to weasel away, and when I nailed you down, you tried to ignore it. Do you stand by the statement
(2+2=4 (mod 4)) exists, which is not the same as (2+2=4), and you finally accept that they are two different things.
?
Voyager
1yr ago
There is nothing to interpret, it's straightforward math. I'm merely writing it down.
Voyager
1yr ago
Information is always missing.
Not information that is available and relevant to the argument. I already explained that to you. Stop defending your fallacious argument.
No, you are deliberately not engaging with my argument.
To the degree I am, it's because you're trying to set up a red herring.
Voyager
1yr ago
So it's essential.
No it isn't. You will never encounter it in most math fields. Philosophy mostly is what you do when you aren't busy with concrete problems.
Depends on what you mean by "doubt".
What should an engineer do who needs to calculate 1+1 to design a bridge? I hold that anything but "answer 2 and move on" is wasting time that could be used to build a bridge.
If having a low IQ is a sign of low moral worth or value, society would likely not invest so much resources into helping IQ people.
You're assuming 'society' is monolithic, which is strange when we're talking about intrasocietal political disagreement. That society puts resources into helping low IQ people only tells us which faction "won" in that specific policy question. That doesn't mean other people can't believe differently, and it doesn't mean these people can't be influential elsewhere.
You cut out the part where you specified (2+2=4) in standard arithmetic before I answered. That's the misrepresentation.
Since you seem to have hard time understanding context, I'll repeat my actual statement with the context explicit:
(2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) are not the same statement.
With that cleared up, any further questions?
Voyager
1yr ago
you clearly implied that "more than 0.0001% people think 2+2 is necessarily 4", obviously you meant in standard arithmetic, since very few people know that 2+2=4 (mod 4) even exists.
Obviously I meant "with unspecified context", because that was the example we were talking about. Yes, people don't know you're sneakily talking about modular arithmetic - but "2+2=4" is still true, so people are giving the correct answer, despite the confusion.
And you also accepted 2+2=4 (mod 4) is not the same statement as 2+2=4
Can you just fucking stop misrepresenting me? That would be great, thanks.
Voyager
1yr ago
No, I said (2+2=4 (mod 4)) might not be the same as (2+2=4). I very clearly never said what you claim I'm supposedly "now saying": I said "might not be", never said "is not".
You also said
(2+2=4 (mod 4)) exists, which is not the same as (2+2=4)
So yes, you said it. Do you want to retract that statement now?
YOU claimed (2+2=4) is just another representation of (2+2=0 (mod 4))...
I claimed that 2+2=4 (mod 4) is another representation of 2+2=0 (mod 4). I specified "in Z/4Z" the first time I made my statement, I referred to modular arithmetic the second time, I clarified my statement to the literal same when you asked.
The question I answered referred to 2+2=4 in standard arithmetic(although it took you 5 comments to finally clarify your ambiguous question), which makes it a different question with a different answer.
You're trying to cut out the context, which makes it a misrepresentation of me. Retract and apologize.
(2+2=4 (mod 4)) might be the same statement as (2+2=0 (mod 4)), but not (2+2=4).
So you're now saying that 2+2=4 without further context is not the same statement as 2+2=4 (mod 4)?
Dare I hope you finally saw reason? That you accept that you are not allowed to say "2+2=4" without context and pretend you mean modular arithmetic, and that "2+2=4" is simply true?
(And if you're just going to say the () change the meaning, then you should start off defining your idiosyncratic notation, and by "start off" I mean you should have done it 10 posts ago when you first used it. And then you should retract your argument, since it's a non-sequitur obfuscated by misleading notation.)
Voyager
1yr ago
The OP was definitely talking about "all female or all-Latino trading firms."
OP was talking about undervalued people making their own company. They're all female/minority because that's the reason they're undervalued.
That ain’t happening without selection pressure.
If women are as undervalued as is claimed, the best candidate for a given budget and the cheapest candidate of a given quality will pretty much always be a women. So you don't have commit to only hiring women to end up with all women - it's a natural consequence of optimal behaviour.
Likewise, the “Progressive half” of retail investors would be leaving money on the table if they opted out of the vast majority of the market.
Investors are always opting out of a majority of the market they consider less profitable - profitability just usually isn't as clearly demarcated. The point is that if the claim is true, everyone else is leaving money on the table - so the rational move is to go to the part of the table where the money is lying and pick it up.
Even if you're right, that's a nitpick towards the OP, not a rebuttal. There's still money to be made if you let in the occasional white male who doesn't want more money than he's worth.
Voyager
1yr ago
I took the liberty of clarifying my position instead of answering the badly posed question. Naturally modular arithmetics is not the same as integer arithmetics.
"2+2=4" is true in both, only in one 2+2=0 is also true.
Voyager
1yr ago
No, math is abstract truth. If the application ever becomes an issue, you're looking to apply math to another field.
In any case, the statement in question is a straightforward arithmetic equation. There's no room for interpretation here.
Voyager
1yr ago
Then explain how that's supposed to be a response to my point, please.
My point being that in Z/4Z, 2+2=0 and 2+2=4 are the same statement. Ergo, 2+2=0 is merely another way to write down what we think. We might not literally think it, but we are thinking an equivalent statement.
Voyager
1yr ago
And who decides the correctness of my position?
The correctness of your position is a matter of fact. No one decides it, we research it. I have done so and found out it's not correct. If I happened to be wrong about that, there would be convincing counterarguments you could make, proving me wrong. But I notice you're not even trying to argue X anymore.
How is this not the definition of circular reasoning?
It's the definition of a strawman. I have not made the circle of reasoning you describe. I have proven that X is not true, separately.
Voyager
1yr ago
Some possible changes can only be peaceful to the extent that people submit themselves to victimization without complaint.
Then I think we should enable free speech, so the would-be victims can complain.
That's the flipside: Censorship can be weaponized as well, and the only real protection is free speech. And censorship is less likely to protect the victims, because the group that has the power to enforce societal change against them likely also can apply censorship against them.
Voyager
1yr ago
The subconscious will win out initially if entrenched (if not, it's just "huh, I learned something"), but it will remember the counterargument and be weakened in its conviction. Repeat a few times and you can change the subconscious mind. Adjusting with new information is just how humans learn.
However, I do believe that "You can't reason someone out of an emotion they didn't reason themselves into" is mostly* true, and "Scared of X" is an emotional response. You can potentially reason someone out of a position that incites emotion, but the emotion itself will remain. If I'm worried, then I might be convinced nothing will go wrong, but I will still be worried.
This obviously becomes a problem when, like in OP's example, people make it about the emotions themselves.
- It can be done and is called therapy, but it requires highly trained professionals, lots of time and effort, and the target's cooperation.
Voyager
1yr ago
Did you just claim less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=4?
4 is what everyone thinks, 0 is merely a different representation of the same object. So people are giving the correct answer, you're just insisting on a different formulation.
I'm willing to engage in open debate with you, and your chance to convince me depends on the correctness of your position. You can't expect to convince anyone if you don't have a point. An open mind does not require me to ignore knowledge I have.*
If you refuse to talk further when you turn out to be wrong, you will never learn anything.
*And you don't see it, but I did some research to verify my position before responding. Do you insist Russell should doubt 1+1=2 after writing PM?
And if you make a new argument, I will do more research to refute it.
Voyager
1yr ago
You just accepted your mind cannot possibly be changed below.
I accepted that my mind cannot be changed on a proven statement. This naturally excludes the possibility of a convincing argument. But in the general case, my mind can be changed.
That's the end of the road then.
No, it remains to convince you that X is false.
Family is exceeding personal, and therefore incest porn is kinda distanced and meta. The guy watching mother/son porn isn't attracted to his mother - but the woman in the video isn't his mother, she's someone else's mother.
More options
Context Copy link