Voyager
1yr ago
For what it's worth, as a horror story it's pretty good - it does a great job selling the mounting sense of dread as new information is presented.
Just that's not what The Motte is for.
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
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
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.
Nevertheless it is the case. We think 4, 4 is 0, therefore "0=not what you think" isn't true.
Voyager
1yr ago
No it won't.
Now you're making an unsupported assumption about my character instead of an argument. Retract it and apologize.
Obvious circular reasoning. You believe X is false, and you say it's possible for you to be convinced that X is true if X were true, but X is false, because you believe X is false.
No, I proved X is false separately. "X is false, because I believe X is false" is not an argument I've made.
Do you accept the possibility that X may be true? Yes or no.
No. X is a mathematical claim, and it's proven false.
Note that if you make a new argument I will consider the possibility again while analyzing your argument.
Voyager
1yr ago
Either way 2+2=0 can be true.
Only because 4=0. So 2+2=4 is true, and the central claim of your substack post is wrong.
Correct?
No. Some basic mistakes:
-
Isomorphy requires preservation of structure, in our case the structure of respective additions. This is not the case: Addition in
{0,1,2,3}works different than inℤ/4ℤ. -
We don't say an element in a structure is isomorphic to one in another.
-
(ℤ/4ℤ)*is an entirely different structure. For starters, it contains only 3 elements. (The*signifies we're excluding the 0.)
Voyager
1yr ago
In your opinion, which isn't infallible.
Is that supposed to be a counterargument?
This is not enough.
Yes it is. Listening to your case and engaging with your argument will make me change my mind if your case is convincing enough.
Therefore it's impossible for you to be convinced of anything (about Alice and even less of Bob), and there's no point in me even trying.
No, it's still possible for me to be convinced of true things.
You'e right there's no point trying to convince me of a false statement about math. Instead you should let yourself be convinced by me.
The information in English is limited too. Information is always limited.
"Tomorrow is Monday" has limited information.
Exactly. And because the information is limited, relevant information is missing, and you can't make your argument. If you include the missing information, e.g. by saying "Tomorrow is monday, calendar week [current+1]", it becomes obvious that your claim is false, your example only appears to support your claim because information is omitted. It's evidently possible to include this information. Talking about "limited information" is nothing but a smokescreen to hide your attempt to deceive by strategic omission.
The case where the week ends in Saturday is included.
I was specifically addressing the other case (because "this doesn't change if the end of the week is saturday" is obviously irrelevant when the first part 'this' refers to is wrong.)
You claim the information is available because if the week ends in Sunday "we both know" when the week ends. No, we don't, because I don't. If you want to claim you know when the week ends from the phrase "tomorrow is Monday" go ahead, I do not know.
No, I claim I know when the week ends from the phrase "the week ends in sunday", which was included in your example. You're playing obtuse.
And it doesn't seem to me you are engaging with my argument.
That's because you're not understanding (or pretending to not understand) my critique thereof.
My example was crystal clear in explaining that the day the week ends does not matter in describing what day comes after Sunday.
And this claim is simply not true. It does matter if we are interested in what week it is. Your example doesn't show that because it's just colloquial speech where (relevant for us) information is omitted, which is the opposite of crystal clear.
I showed that by giving a counterexample, where it does matter.
Voyager
1yr ago
Wrong. Information by its very nature is limited. Nobody is "artificially" limiting the information that can fit in one bit, one bit can only fit one bit of information. Period.
That's a red herring. We're not talking about bits. We're talking about the information we have about your example, which was given in english.
No, we don't. You are assuming where the week starts.
Liar. The end of the week being sunday was included in your description of the example.
All information is incomplete.
Not all information is incomplete in the sense that reasoning from it leads to false conclusions. Stop defending your fallacious argument.
Voyager
2mo ago
How do you think the Hausa or Fulani are likely to respond if an Igbo comes up to them and says that, actually, on account of his people’s average IQ being at least one standard deviation above the Nigerian average, they ought to be in charge of the country and occupy the majority of the top jobs in Lagos and Abuja and so on? How do antisemitic white nationalists respond if you tell them that actually it’s a good thing that Jews are disproportionately in positions of power because we are, in fact, significantly smarter than them on average and that effect is exacerbated in the long tail at IQ 160+ (so we deserve it really)?
But if HBD is true, the Igbo or Jews will disproportionately occupy higher positions, and you need to explain it.
Realistically, the alternative to "we deserve it because we're smarter" is "we don't actually deserve it, we're just oppressing you", which is clearly worse for racial relations.
HBD as a fact of nature is already leading to racial tensions via disparate outcomes. The Hausa or white supremacist are already angry because they don't have positions of power. Discussing that there's a good reason isn't the problem. Denying discussion of the good reason, leaving oppression on the table as the only potential explanation, makes it worse.
Sure, a politically color-blind world, where race is considered about as relevant as hair color and no one cares about racial distributions of anything, would be preferable in practical terms, but that's not the world we live in. And in such a world, HBD could simply be a nerdy niche topic that no one except a few scientists cares about. HBD isn't the problem here.
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.
Or maybe the antisemites actually mean "rootless cosmopolitan bankers" and just think they're identical with jews.
Q: "Why don't you just say jews, if you clearly mean it?"
A(ntisemite): "I don't specifically mean jews. Well, obviously they are jews, but if they weren't that wouldn't change anything, and if jews weren't attacking white christians I wouldn't have a problem with them. So I'm talking about the actual core of the issue."
But this also means one could complain about ruthless cosmopolitans without identifying them with jews - the entire position works without any reference to jews.
So we can't actually know a priori whether a given mention of "ruthless cosmopolitans" refers to jews.
And if you keep insisting "obviously it has to mean jews" it starts sounding a lot like "rootless cosmopolitans obviously are jews", and at this point you're reinforcing the narrative you're supposedly attacking.
It's like the old joke about the man who gets arrested after saying "Nicholas is an idiot" in Moscow, and when the defends himself claiming he meant a different Nicholas, not the beloved Tsar, the police responds with "Liar! When you talk about an idiot, you can only mean the Tsar!"
At the very least the connection "rootless cosmopolitans=jews" is embedded in your worldview, which is a dangerous situation, and the more you talk about and say "Please join me in fighting the popular perception that everyone from Comoros is a flaming gay", the more you're spreading the malicious meme.
So people who don't have this connection in their worldview, and don't want it to, become increasingly suspicious, while the actual antisemites are secretly gloating.
You can't very well fight against the perception that comorans are gay while calling "Man, Comorans are weird" a homophobic dogwhistle.
Voyager
7mo ago
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.
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).
If men wanting attractive women to sleep with them is a harmful notion of masculinity, I'm rather concerned about the future of humanity.
More options
Context Copy link