Math Is Fun Forum

  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Help Me ! » Do you really have to spend the time and effort to read all this? » 2022-01-21 05:52:20

ps. just in case you think I'm just saying here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTAyNkwrPys

#2 Help Me ! » Do you really have to spend the time and effort to read all this? » 2022-01-21 05:51:09

AlexPontik
Replies: 1

Hi all,

I am posting the below text to discuss with any of you who wish to do so, for the rest ones, do you really have to spend time and effort replying to me? Please keep in mind that you will need to read what I wrote more than once, patiently......And you need to think before you reply so that we don't have to spend more time and effort than we really do....cause do we really have to I ask you?

Text to be discussed

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prologue
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When something makes sense, it makes sense to happen again and again in reality.

When something doesn’t make sense, it isn’t worth out time and effort…cause…

…do we REALLY HAVE TO?



Generally explained…

Imagine you do the same thing with the same amount of money twice from its beginning until its end , but one of the times that it takes you more time and effort.

Would you choose again and again to do it when it takes you more time and effort to do it with the same amount of money, doing the same thing?

For example…

Imagine you order take away from the same place many times, and lately it takes longer and longer for the food to arrive, and the food may start getting a bit cold…and it doesn’t seem to be getting better in the future, but the prices don’t change…

…do you start getting a feeling this might be a waste of your time and effort or not?



Or another way said….

What is it that people wasting others’ time and effort not understanding but that exactly?

And what is it that people using money…wasting others’ time and effort not understanding but what money does when money is used sensibly?

And in the end, what is it that people don’t understand , when they hear that they have to not waste others’ time and effort when they are using money, as …

Money has to not increase the time and effort for what it is used to do, when it is used sensibly.



Or yet another way said…

When people trade with one another,

In general they do “I do this for you, you do that for me”,

And specifically whatever “this” and “that” is for the specific occasion and instance, so now…

Player do you know what money does…

Money doesn’t do what those who have money say…

Money reduces the time and effort to trade…

Or we are stuck with idiots wasting our time and effort.

Have you ever really thought of that?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main text
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In Kennyshire and Bennyshire, people are playing with money.

In Kennyshire, those who have money are playing with money, but they don't want those who don't have money to be playing with money, because those who don't have money in Kennyshire, deserve to not have money, and their entire economy is based on that.

In Bennyshire, all people are playing with money, but in order for those who don't have enough money to learn how to play with money, everyone wants those who make money to be able to make money again and again without wasting others time and effort doing so, so that they deserve the money they make, and their entire economy is based on that.

In Kennyshire, those who don't have money deserve to not have money, and as it would be sensible for all following that to do, decisions regarding money are made only by those who have money, having more money is always better than having less money for those who want more freedom to make decisions regarding money, money concentrates to those in society who want more freedom to make decisions regarding money and act accordingly to achieve that, and their entire economy is based on all of the above.

In Bennyshire, those who deserve the money they make, are able to make money again and again without wasting others time and effort doing so, and as it would be sensible for all following that to do, decisions regarding money are made according to what is common sense, having more money isn't necessarily better than having less money, as long as money concentrates somewhere in the middle of society individuals having significantly more money than the ones in the middle isn't a problem for the economy, and their entire economy is based on all the above.

In Kennyshire, those who don't have money deserve to not have money, and that is never a problem for the economy, but... as money concentrates to those who want more freedom to make decisions regarding money, the more money you have, the more freedom you have than others to make decisions regarding money, and sooner or later, for reasons of more freedom, money concentrates to only some in society and the entire economy stops working for most, until those who have money at that time start exercising their freedom to make decisions regarding money, so that the economy starts working again, after the entire economy paid the ones who had money when the economy stopped working for most but them, so that it can start working for all again...and their entire economy can't have enough of this.

In Bennyshire, those who don't have money deserve to learn from others how to make money again and again without wasting others time and effort doing so and that is always a goal for the economy, or then it is a problem for the economy, but... as money concentrates somewhere in the middle of society, the more money you have, the more you can prove to others that you are able to make money again and again without wasting others time and effort doing so, and in case that it happens, for whatever reason it may happen, that money concentrates to only some in society and that the entire economy has problems for whatever reasons this may happen, those who have money at that time start proving to all who among them is good at making money again and again without wasting others time and effort doing so, and who is causing problems for the entire economy, so that the problems are solved, before the entire economy has to pay the ones who had money when the economy started having problems, as then the ones who had money at that time wouldn't really be good at making money in Bennyshire and then they wouldn't really deserve to be considered good at making money in Bennyshire...and their entire economy can't have enough of this.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Epilogues - Clarifications
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


when the economy isn't working for the benefit of the general population, then you have to remember that the economists also say that the economy isn't working.

Why? Because either:

1.The economists are saying that the economy is working, when it is working for the benefit of the general population.

or...

2.The economists are saying that the economy is working, when it isn't working for the benefit of the general population.

but then...

3.I can easily imagine other people who claim that the economy is working, when it it working for the benefit of the general population and are willing to make sense of the economy this way, are followed by the general population (that has happened in economic history, you can search it online...), no?



When most in the economy say
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When most in the economy say that the economy is fun for most, most care for the way the economy goes…to happen again and again, or if the economy goes another way…

When most in the economy say that the economy is fun for most, most don’t care for the way the economy goes…to happen again and again, but if this is the way the economy goes…

If in the end, when most in the economy say that the economy is fun for most, most don’t care for the way the economy goes…to happen again and again, then it doesn’t seem to me that most in the economy really want the way that is fun for most to happen again and again…does it seem to you?


When most in the economy say that the economy is fun for few only, whatever way the economy goes, it is a waste of time and effort for most if it happens again and again, and most want to do something else, or if the economy goes another way…

When most in the economy say that the economy if fun for few only, whatever way the economy goes, it is not a waste of time and effort for most if it happens again and again, or most don’t want to do something else, but if this is the way the economy goes…

If in the end, when most in the economy say that the economy if fun for few only, whatever way the economy goes, it is not a waste of time and effort for most if it happens again and again, or most don’t want to do something else, then it doesn’t seem to me that most in the economy really want the way that is fun not only for few but for most to happen again and again…does it seem to you?


When most in the economy say that the economy is fun for one only, whatever way the economy goes, most say it has to not happen again, and most want to do something about it, or if the economy goes another way…

When most in the economy say that the economy is fun for one only, whatever way the economy goes, most don’t say it has to not happen again, or most don’t want to do something about it, but if this is the way that the economy goes…

If in the end, when most in the economy say that the economy is fun for one only, whatever way the economy goes, most don’t say it has to not happen again, or most don’t want to do something about it, then it doesn’t seem to me that whatever one does isn’t fun for most…does it seem to you?



When few in the economy say
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When few in the economy say what money is used to do for most in reality, most in the economy don’t think that money does whatever those who have money want money to do, or if this isn’t the case in the economy….

When few in the economy say what money is used to do for most in reality, most in the economy think that money does whatever those who have money want money to do, but if this is the case in the economy…

If in the end, when few in the economy say what money is used to do for most in reality, most in the economy think that money does whatever those who have money want to do, then it doesn’t seem to me what money does in reality has fun consequences for most in the economy…does it seem to you?


When few in the economy say what money is used to do for few in reality, most in the economy don’t want to spend time and effort thinking about that, or if this isn’t the case in the economy…

When few in the economy say what money is used to do for few in reality, most in the economy want to spend time and effort thinking about that, but if this is the case in the economy…

If in the end when few in the economy say what money is used to do for few in reality, most in the economy want to spend time and effort thinking about that, then it doesn’t seem to me that few aren’t wasting most ones’ time and effort in reality…does it seem to you?


When few in the economy say what money is used to do for one in reality, one can’t think of a fun way to spend less time and effort to do what that one wants to do than what few say, or if this isn’t the case in the economy…

When few in the economy say what money is used to do for one in reality, one can think of a fun way to spend less time and effort to do what that one wants to do than what few say, but if this is the case in the economy…

If in the end, when few in the economy say what money is used to do for one in reality, one can think of a fun way to spend less time and effort to do what that one wants to do than what few say, then it doesn’t seem to me that one has to spend time and effort with what few say, if most would think otherwise…does it seem to you?



When one in the economy says
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When one in the economy says what one wants to do with money to most, most don’t care about what one says, or if this isn’t the case in the economy…

When one in the economy says what that one wants to do with money to most, most care about what one says, but if this is the case in the economy…

If in the end, when one in the economy says what that one wants to do with money to most, most care about what one says, then it doesn’t seem to me that one is wasting time and effort for most…does it seem to you?


When one in the economy says what that one wants to do with money to few ones, most can tell if that one can do what that one says, or if this isn’t the case in the economy…

When one in the economy says what that one wants to do with money to few ones, most can’t tell if that one can do what that one says, but if this is the case in the economy…

If in the end, when one in the economy says what that one wants to do with money to few ones, most can’t tell if that one can do what that one says, then it doesn’t seem to me that one isn’t wasting time and effort for few at least…does it seem to you?


When one in the economy says what that one wants to do with money to another one, that particular story and its consequences in reality don’t change later, or if this isn’t the case in the economy…

When one in the economy says what that one wants to do with money to another one, that particular story and its consequences in reality change later, but if this is the case in the economy…

If in the end, when one in the economy says what that one wants to do with money to another one, that particular story and its consequences in reality change later, then it doesn’t seems to me that one isn’t a waste of time and effort for another one for this particular story in reality…does it seem to you?



When no one in the economy has to say
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When no one in the economy has to say what money does for everyone in reality, money reduces time and effort spend to trade in reality for everyone, or when that doesn’t happen in reality…

When no one in the economy has to say what money does for everyone in reality, money doesn’t reduce the time and effort spend to trade in reality for everyone, but if that does happen in reality…

If in the end, when no one in the economy has to say what money does for everyone in reality, money doesn’t reduce the time and effort spend to trade in reality for everyone, then it doesn’t seem to me that using money while trading isn’t a waste of time and effort for everyone…does it seem to you?



Some of you say that money is the store of value, medium of exchange, unit of account online (Wikipedia)…

Tell that to your girlfriend/spouse/mother in law after you give her money, and the way that you do it increases the time and effort she has to spend to have fun,

Is what I say to you, and also…

You think you are funny?

Nah, you ain’t funny yet.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end, what’s the summary?

Nature is a lady…

Whatever we do with money, the way we do it has to not ignore the time and effort that we have to spend to do it, otherwise…

Whatever we do with money, the way we do it may ignore the time and effort that we have to spend to do it, but in this case…

If in the end, whatever we do with money, the way we do it may ignore the time and effort that we have to spend to do it, then it doesn’t seem to me that if we want to do whatever we do with money, again…and again…and…again…that we can continue to ignore the time and effort we have to spend to do it, and continue to really have fun, does it seem to you?

Justice is blind, and…

After girls, someplace sometime, have ended talking to one another and have together decided, they point out the ones who are not fun, and the rest show them how…

…MAMA in the end puts order.

#3 This is Cool » imagination, theories, and... reality » 2021-12-23 03:44:37

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

In order for humans to come up with a theory that approximates reality, they imagine something, and then if after they spend time and effort thinking about it, still they imagine the same something, then they have to test it in reality with experiments…but…

1) When one imagines something, something else is happening around one in reality, or if you really think otherwise…

When one imagines something something else isn’t happening around one in reality, but if you think this is really ok…

If in the end, when one imagines something, something else isn’t happening around one in reality, then it doesn’t seem to me where inside one really imagines something…does it seem to you?

2)Here’s another way to understand it: Something else than anything humans can imagine seems to be happening in reality, since the beginning of humans in reality,

Or before humans existed, what do you think was really happening?

Something that was really happening before humans existed, but that humans had to really imagine after they existed, in order for that to be possible to really happen?

3)And another way: One step before you really make everything, you haven’t really made everything yet and still something else than anything you can imagine seems to be happening…

…one step after you really make everything, the experience of one step before has to be included in whatever you made as it was before, or …you didn’t make everything.

4) and final way… Argument Physics as a science, progresses as follows:

1.There is a current theory, at any given time.

2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.

3.Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.

4.When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.

5.Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past, and this is what we said about it.

6.Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, this is what we said about it, and science keeps following its path

7.Something else happens…which was the case with some previous experiments…or else we wouldn’t be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else…but up to now, this isn’t the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.

8.What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something…they make things that don’t do something exactly…and they find that early at best, or late at worst…but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me…as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or…something else can happen as a result. This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say…logical. Isn’t it?

Someone asked me the following in the past. “can I learn about my imagination from the world out there?” The world outside your imagination is something else than anything you can imagine,

Your senses point you to that at any moment in your life, so that your body can be calm and be able to have fun in reality,

And you can imagine whatever you like, even though reality is still something else than anything you can imagine.

In order to experience that in the moment, meaning having fun in reality, you have to be able to focus on whatever it is that you are doing in the moment,

As at any moment in reality from the beginning of human history carrying on until now, the same laws of nature apply,

and the story of human history plays as it make sense, people in the medieval ages used candles as this is what made sense to them, now we use electricity, not the other way around, that wouldn’t make sense to them in their moment in time.

After you focus on whatever it is that you are doing in the moment, then you balance your imagination on what is good for you, what seems fun to you to imagine,

And allow your senses to do their work,

So that what you imagine can have some hope at least to balance on reality, as reality is something else than anything you can imagine.

Fear is natural, meaning as reality is something else than anything you can imagine, it is necessary for your senses to be able to generate fear to the conscious part of you, in varying degrees if that is really needed for your survival in the moment in reality , but…

…it is also quite possible that you may be generating fear on your own in the moment in reality that is not really necessary, so…

…fear is natural, means you have to be able to accept the unknown in reality and let fear come to you when it is really needed, from the unknown as needed, and not as you only want.

And then you have to listen to the song. What song?

In your life you slept yesterday you woke up today, and during your life you tell yourself fun stories, or you choose the other option consciously, to tell yourself not fun stories.

Every story has an end and from the end of every story one learns something. The unpredictability of life one learns best at the end of funny stories, or else it wouldn’t really be that funny for life to be that unpredictable, is what the story seems to me to be.

https://youtu.be/hNFYMORvM_o

#4 Jokes » What is science? » 2021-11-23 22:58:00

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

What kind of entity do we believe science is player?
Science is the mother of learning...and in case you don't understand player
Repetition is the mother of learning in reality, which is why we have to say that...
Science happens over and over in reality, is what it seems to us is the reality of our stories, that remain written down as science over and over as...
Science is where all the fun plays over and over in reality with stories, that we can make sense of in a fun way for us to follow...in reality...player...
So that the experiments we do in reality, when we wonder about reality, we can also hope that they can be fun for us to do...in reality...player...
any other way we are afraid science could do nothing else for us in reality, to help us understand...how nature hopes its children will listen to the all the fun stories nature had to make before its children existed...
...so that its children don't get lost in their imagination and can't follow reality with their senses in a fun way for them.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lpkTxdbLWEOEWtVLxKHtFWf4HkU7e_Q2/view

#5 Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Do you think you should waste your time and effort with "players"? » 2021-11-19 03:17:31

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Do you think those who have money should be allowed to waste others' time and effort because they have money?
What does that mean?
When people trade with one another, In general they do "I do this for you, you do that for me", and specifically whatever "this" and "that" is for the specific instance and occasion.
Do you think that when people trade with one another, and they use money to trade, that...
1.it matters who has the most money?
Or...
2. It matters who can really reduce the time and effort to trade with another up to the point where trade is a fun story with a beginning a middle and an end, that can really happen over and over, in reality?

>Money does not reduce the time and effort for the trade itself, the act of trading with currency has taken the same amount amount of time as it did 100 years ago, did that answer the question?

100 years ago it really was in human timeline 1921...
The economy was booming, ten years later it was not.
Was the act of trading taking the same amount of time and effort between those two times?


>If I am understanding you correctly then the answer does not change just because of how well the economy is doing if we are talking about the act of the trade then it still would have taken the same amount of time without regard to the state of the world

Let's dig deeper player...
Here it is 1921, the economy is booming, there are rich and there are poor, but there is money flowing in the market,
And people can go and buy bread every day if they have the money.

Now it is around ten years later, when the economy is in a bad state, as there is few money flowing in the market, and those who happen to have the money are holding to what they have, as the economy is in a bad state.
And...people in order to buy bread have to line up around stores for hours if needed,
Unless they have REAL money at that time.

Does trade take exactly the same time and effort in exactly the reality that really happened?

Are you sure?
Really?
Well, ok waiting for your reply...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lpkTxdbLWEOEWtVLxKHtFWf4HkU7e_Q2/view

#6 Puzzles and Games » In the reality in this text » 2021-11-17 23:01:35

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

In the reality in this text, reality is something else than what life in this text can imagine, but this life in this text can, in the reality in this text, write down how that happens in this life in this text, in a fun way.
In this life in this text, life slept yesterday and woke up today, for many days up to now, since it began existing in the reality in this text, and this life in this text tells itself fun stories in the reality in this text, over and over in life in this text.
Since this life in this text, began existing at some time in the reality in this text, before that time, well…reality in this text was still there, and was still something else than what life in this text can imagine, but reality in this text, is fun over and over for life in this text, for many days up to now, since the beginning of life in this text, inside the reality in this text.
Life in this text doesn’t have to imagine reality in this text exactly as it happens, in order for something fun to happen for this life in this text, inside the reality in this text, as long as life in this text imagines something somewhere within the laws of reality in this text.
The laws of reality in this text, this life in this text notices that they happen as stories that play over and over inside reality in this text, and life in this text is capable to make any sense of reality in this text following those stories, in a fun way for life over and over inside the reality in this text.
In order for life in this text to play with the laws of reality in this text, over and over in life in this text, the way life in this text makes sense of reality in this text, has to be fun for life in this text, but it also has to be fun for reality in this text, as well.
Reality in this text, had to make life capable of making stories that are fun for life in this text to play over and over in life, inside the reality in this text, and after reality in this text made an unimaginable amount of such stories for an unimaginable amount of lives, possible to play over and over inside reality in this text, well…this is when the fun started for life, but also this is when, otherwise it wouldn’t be fun for life, how could it really be otherwise in this text, started.
Reality was there in the beginning, when it all really happened, and after whatever really happened in the beginning, an endless amount of fun stories could play for an endless amount of different species of life over and over  inside reality, up to now in this text.

But here, let’s just talk about a daily story for life in this text in the reality in this text, which is something else than what this life in this text can imagine, but that this life in this text can write down in a fun way for life in this text, living inside the reality in this text.
Life slept yesterday woke up today, and since the beginning life tells itself fun stories inside the reality in this text, and one day understandably life in this text will sleep for good, as there is new life coming to have fun inside the reality in this text, and we can’t really keep adding more and more and more life in the same space and keep it fun inside the reality in this text. (how could it really be otherwise…)
When life is asleep in any sense inside the reality in this text, it does nothing.
When life is awake in any sense inside the reality in this text, it does something.
And, life in this text wants to have fun inside the reality in this text, meaning life wants to feel something else than what life can imagine, or life in this text wants to feel how the reality in this text is really fun, for life in this text.
Can life in this text do nothing all the time? Well, no then it would never do something, and we said that when life is awake in any sense it does something, life can’t stay in bed all day, the bed can stay in bed all day, so life at some time has to do something.
Can life in this text do something all the time? Well, no then it would never do nothing, and we said that when life is asleep in any sense it does nothing, life can’t be awake all the time, and so something for other life all the time, reality can do something for life all the time, and that is
Can life in this text use only its emotions to guide it? Well, no then it would be doing nothing all the time, life following its emotions only and never relaxing from emotion to think, well that would be life doing nothing all the time inside the reality in this text.
But, can life in this text know when to choose to do nothing or something? Well, no then it would be doing something all the time, life knowing all the choices in reality at the right time, well that would be life doing something all the time inside the reality in this text.
The difficulty of choices for life in this text, seems to remain stable, as inside the reality in this text are all the real choices for life in this text, and life in this text has more choices than what life in this text can handle in the reality in this text. And this brings us to…

Life in this text needs patience to have fun in the reality in this text. Why?
Life in this text needs patience to find out why in the reality in this text. Why again?!
Because life in this text finds this in the reality in this text, in a funny way!
Sometimes, it is more fun than what life in this text can handle at that moment in its life in the reality in this text.
Sometimes, it is less fun than what life in this text wants at that moment in its life in the reality in this text.
But, when life in this text is having a good time, then it is just the right amount of fun for life in this text.
And, for life in this text to find those times in the reality in this text, this life in this text is afraid it comes back to the beginning.
Life in this text needs patience to have fun in the reality in this text.


In order for life in this text to have fun in the reality in this text, life in this text lives a story inside the reality in this text with a beginning a middle and an end. The story that life in this text will live inside the reality in this text, is something else than what life in this text can imagine, but it is something that life in this text can follow with its senses.
The way that the senses for life in this text work inside the reality in this text, is one that balances on the laws of reality in this text, and so the way that the senses for life in this text inside the reality in this text work is one that is fun for life in this text, otherwise it can’t be really fun for life in this text (how could it really be otherwise…)
When the story that life in this text plays inside the reality in this text, is more fun than what life in this text can handle, reality in this text warns life in this text, and life in this text gets early warnings in order to be able to choose to do something else before reality in this text, could do nothing further really.

#7 Puzzles and Games » A math challenge with some common sense » 2021-11-09 06:17:45

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?

1.“If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete.”

Because: The phrase “if a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete”, is itself a logical system, it is consistent with what it says, and if that is so, something is missing from this phrase, according to what the phrase says. And so this bring us to the second phrase…

2. Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?

“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”

Because: A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.

If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…

if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.

3. Why say that what was said above in 1 and 2 is enough regarding the below phrases?

“If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete.”

“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”

If those phrases need further phrases to make sense, then those phrases are incomplete regarding what they mean, or not phrases that are theorems in any sort of language…as on their own, they don’t exactly mean , what they exactly say, do they exactly?

But what do I mean by all the above exactly?

Mathematicians…

in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…

so breathe idiots…breathe…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…

If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…

When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else

When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…

If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…

When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else

When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…

If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

And remember your MAMA.

What is MAMA? MAMA is the rest.

What is the rest? The rest is all there is minus you.

And who am I? I am no one, I don’t know who the hell you think you are! Why?

Cause you ain’t someone, and you ain’t fooling no one buddy.

You need patience to have fun in life players. Why?

You need patience to find out why. Why again?!

Because you find this out in a funny way, players!

Sometimes, it is more fun than what you players can handle at that moment in your life…

Sometimes, it is less fun than what you players want at that moment in your life…

But, when you are having a good time, then it is just the right amount of fun.

And, to find those times players, it comes back to the beginning…

You need patience to have fun in life players



Really?

Yes...players...really...WHAT?! NOT REALLY?!



Nature is a lady, justice is blind, and…

…MAMA in the end puts order.

#8 Re: Puzzles and Games » [Math Challenge]: Prove me wrong. » 2021-10-18 19:47:40

GrandStrategos wrote:

Again, formal systems can’t be children, birds, or humans. Formal systems are abstract structures used for inferring theorems from axioms according to a set of rules. An abstract structure is a hypostatic abstraction that is defined by a set of laws, properties and relationships in a way that is logically if not always historically independent of the structure of contingent experiences, for example, those involving physical objects. So, in the context of first-order logic, formal systems can’t be physical objects.

do you think the more words you add...the more sense you make?

So children, birds or humans are not formal systems to you...

well...let's say that in this conversation I am not interested in what a formal system is, as it seems to you this is up to debate...
I am just interested in what a REAL SYSTEM is and children, birds and humans,

are quite more real than the language your are writing here no?


GrandStrategos wrote:

Reality is a bit more debated, but regardless of its status, it cannot be used to disprove the second incompleteness theorem because:

Assume F is a consistent formalized system which contains elementary arithmetic. Then
F ⊬Cons(F).

Specifically, this basic arithmetic has to be Robinson arithmetic, since that is the qualification needed to pass the first theorem, which is necessary for the second. We can talk about what it means to “prove” but unless you can map it to Robinson arithmetic, then you argument does not work.

Assume that you are trying to write incomprehensibly, and not try to explain yourself to others...
Do you think others will spend time and effort reading what you write?

Reality is not for you, neither for Godel himself was, something that you can imagine...it also isn't something I can imagine as for me reality is something else than anything I can imagine, and that I don't see any reason to debate with anyone...why?

Because if for you reality was something that you imagined, and it was a problem for you for me to tell you, in such a straight manner, that reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine, if reality for you was something that you imagined, why didn't you REALLY come a bit earlier to tell me about it.

Do you have any idea how simple it would be , if you simply appeared on my door and said "you're thinking to post something on a math forum regarding a famous proof, aren't you? Well, you're wrong and here's why..."
Even without the why, you coming earlier than I thought to post on my door would have been enough to convince me, but now...

what is it that you really don't understand about reality?

#9 Puzzles and Games » A carnival of geniuses » 2021-10-07 13:26:50

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Throughout my life, I have met tons of you geniuses, and you always seem to think that you know what seems to be happening in reality, again and again.

And, as you seem to think that you know what seems to be happening, anything that you geniuses think is happening, is allowed to be said, but something else happening than what you geniuses think, is not allowed to be said.

And this geniuses…is a problem...as when something said makes sense, it makes sense to be said again, or it only makes sense to be said once, but then unlike other things said, that thing said once, would never be forgotten, if it really made that sense…
…and something really said once that would never be forgotten, people would always remember without having to say it again…
…and something that people would always remember without having to say it again, would really have to be happening in reality, again and again.

And here geniuses, we have gathered to say what really is happening in reality again and again…so let’s start…

Before humans happened in reality, they haven’t yet imagined what is happening in reality again and again, as people haven’t happened yet in reality, to imagine anything.

One step before humans have imagined what is happening in reality again and again, they haven’t yet imagined what is happening in reality again and again, and that should be obvious for you geniuses, so again and again one step before humans find out, reality is something else than what humans imagine.

One step after humans have imagined what is happening in reality again and again,  reality was happening again and again since one step before humans found what really is happening in reality, again and again…

…and this may puzzle some of you geniuses…as you seem to think that you know what is happening in reality again and again…

If you geniuses know what is happening in reality again and again, surely you geniuses can really do it again and again…and that geniuses is because…

If you knew what is happening in reality again and again, but you could really do it only once, after you did it once reality still has to happen again and again, if you really knew reality geniuses, as…

Before you do something that you really have to not do, reality warns you,
Before you do something that you really have to do, reality calls you to do it, and…
One step before you really know something, reality has already told you what seems to be happening in reality over and over again, as I did tell you geniuses who you missed it in this text.

And that is because reality is fair to let you free, after you do what you have to really do, to ask yourself this question: “Do I really have to do something else, or am I done?”, and to find undisturbed from the geniuses the answer to this question, if you spend the time and effort that you have to spend, to find something.

So remember geniuses…
Nature is a lady, justice is blind, and…
…MAMA in the end puts order.

#10 Re: Puzzles and Games » [Math Challenge]: Prove me wrong. » 2021-10-06 23:19:12

The next one replying, put time and effort before you do so, I am not going to waste my time with wannabes here...

#11 Re: Puzzles and Games » [Math Challenge]: Prove me wrong. » 2021-10-06 23:17:14

GrandStrategos wrote:

Simple answer: Systems exist in mathematical logic, and they cannot be applied to life in general, because there is no set of formulas that explain life.

If there is no set of formulas that explain life, then surely your explanation below, isn't that set, that explains life, is it?
But apart from that, if there is no set of formulas that explain life, then the books you have don't explain any part of life, to any degree...which is untrue.
A set of formulas can explain life, to life...this is why humans...use formulas...to explain life to themselves...

...or else people wouldn't be using formulas.

Now is there a statement, that completely and consistently defines life, regardless of who it is we are talking about?
Yes, life is something else than anything you can imagine ,this is why you have to live a life to realize that.

GrandStrategos wrote:

The key problem here seems to be a isunderstanding of what a formal system actually is. The child and the birds are NOT formal systems, because there is no set of axioms that fully defines them. Children cannot be defined by a set of axioms, because we cannot fully define the child. Physically, yes, but you cannot prove their mental state or their unconscious desires. “But the child can speak!” Yes, but you will receive an answer in the formal system of English, or whatever language they speak, because languages are formal systems of their own. We need a definitive set of axioms from the source.

A set of axioms that fully defines them, is their DNA, plus the laws of nature, which they cannot break.
DNA of a bird, plus laws of nature regarding birds, you got yourself a bird.
DNA of a human child, plus laws of nature regarding human children, you got yourself a child.

GrandStrategos wrote:

The same goes for the birds; why does one bird go in one direction to find food, while another chooses a completely new one?
There is no axiom that describes what direction it goes in and whether it finds food.

There is, it is an axiom for life that life is free to make choices, from the beginning of life.

GrandStrategos wrote:

This is certainly false, because children and birds do not all share the exact same sequences of genes as others in their set.

When taking DNA, all the set of genes, which define a healthy species, are part of the set of genes which make life possible in reality.


GrandStrategos wrote:

The third example can follow a similar line of logic. Humans do not formulate sentences before speaking by using their own “system” because humans cannot be defined by a set of axioms, and are thus not a system. Rather, we use the formal system of the English language, specifically using the formal language defined by English, specifically its  syntax (how it is spelled) and its semantics (what it means). If human were individual formal systems, then everybody would have their own language, since systems cannot learn from other systems.

Systems cannot learn from other systems, is wrong at best...a waste of my time and effort replying to you at worst...as you as a system cannot learn from other systems...

Regarding systems, you writing down that "humans cannot be defined by a set of axioms" is an axiom also genius...you should have considered that before you attempted such a tedious and long reply...


GrandStrategos wrote:

There is another thing that makes your first 3 examples non sensical, and that is the fact that all 3 examples show living beings learning, not proving. Implying that a child has proven how to walk, or a bird to fly, or a human to speak logically all imply that they had it since birth, which is false. And you can’t prove learning, since humans, animals, and other living beings interpret knowledge in different ways.

Genius...focus in your next reply, as I am not going to waste more of my time and effort with your random walks in your head...

In order to learn something, genius, replying to me with such certainty, not having spend any time and effort to think, you have to prove to yourself what you learned...otherwise you haven't proved to yourself genius that you are making sense before you say something...

"Implying that a child has proven how to walk, or a bird to fly, or a human to speak logically all imply that they had it since birth, which is false"
Healthy children can learn how to walk from birth.

Healthy birds can learn how to fly from birth.

Both are made able to be able to prove that to themselves from birth, that happens through their instincts, meaning children have the instinct to try to walk, and birds have the instinct to try to fly.

If you here, still don't understand, do you think that children don't have the instinct to fly from birth, and can prove this to themselves...once they learn how to walk?





GrandStrategos wrote:

And as stated before, a bird has no axioms to even form a proof about itself. The child cannot prove himself, mainly because he does not understand the axioms of himself, because that requires knowledge of what he is. Children do not even begin to question their identity as a person.

The genetic code defines a living being.
The genetic code of a species defines a species.

Children begin to question their identity as a person, even before they can talk...this is why they do talk to you, to tell you who they are and what they want.

GrandStrategos wrote:

Physics is a formal system. However, what you describe is not physics. What you describe is the scientific method. Replace “physics” with another science and the implied point still stands. Physics is not the research papers, but the actual meat and norms; the formulas, the variables, and the rules that we believe it follows. Physics has axioms such as Newton’s Laws of Motion. A mistake here is that you are equating consistency to consistency in results. The system of physics on paper is everything we know about motion. When we discover a new part of physics, the system is not inconsistent, we just discover something that may or may not change our understanding of the system of physics.

It is an axiom up to now that reality seems to happen in the same way it happened before, reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine.
Even if reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine, everyone can still say that.
Anyone disagreeing with reality being something else than anything anyone can imagine, claim to be then one for who reality it that one imagines.

And if you are that one, genius, for who reality is what you imagined, and you had a problem with me writing straight to your face here, that reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine, why didn't you come earlier to tell me about it?
Wasn't reality something you genius imagined, so me telling you that reality is something else than anything anyone can imagine is part of your imagination?
And if that is so, why am I wasting my time and effort with your thoughtless, smartass wannabe answer....

Think genius, next time you reply to me, everything that you have written up to now, has been just a waste of time and effort.

#12 Puzzles and Games » [Math Challenge]: Prove me wrong. » 2021-10-01 02:36:30

AlexPontik
Replies: 6

Hi all,

Relax and be patient while reading, as below I am claiming that one of your famous mathematicians is wrong, that I am right, and on top of all of this bragging, that all of you can prove that to yourselves after you read what is written below, and...I am no famous mathematician...I am no one really...but...none of you are someone either...or do you think you are?

We start with some examples, regarding the argument I am making here.

Examples (the formal argument is provided under the challenge section)
for a child to walk, a child balances its body on its feet, and for the child to learn to walk, the child has to be able to prove that to itself, within its system, meaning once the child learns how to balance as described earlier, the child thinks, "I think I get how to walk",
or otherwise said,
"you have to balance your body on your feet to walk" is an axiom in order to be able to walk, and even children can prove this to themselves within their system.

"Most birds can fly" is an axiom in the reality I observe, that birds seem to be able to prove to themselves.
"If you are a bird, and you really sense that you can fly from your nature, then you can learn how to really fly", is an axiom that I observe birds are able to prove to themselves within their own system.

But, if we look at humans again, since one may say that animals are off limits for what we are discussing...
being able to make sense of the world around you by just observing and talking about it, is an axiom humans follow in order to have fun in reality
as when humans are talking nonsense, they haven't thought yet, how reality...really makes sense,
and other humans can prove that to them, so that...

then they can prove what makes sense to themselves, within their own system, after thinking about what was said alone, without bothering other humans with nonsense, before they prove it to themselves...by thinking about it.

Challenge <-- Prove to me that I am wrong (examples are provided above, if you don't understand below)
Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?
“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”
Because:
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.

Or if you want it explained in any other way...let's experiment with physics:
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.
Isn't it? If it doesn't seem to you,  here's why I think that:

Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening, appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

Or if you are still unconvinced, and you want it explained using casual language:
After someone says that "the consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system", can someone prove to oneself that in order for one to relax, one simply starts relaxing and waits, or is this inconsistent with someone's logic, and then someone cannot relax? Why?
If you want to naturally relax, you simply start doing that(relaxing) and you wait... and you can notice yourself after doing that again and again, that this is an axiom to relax, that you can consistently prove to yourself.
If you want to understand the logic of relaxing, the logic of relaxing is to have a simple common word which describes the starting point of naturally relaxing...if you want to use more words to describe that starting point of naturally relaxing, then this is less relaxing...than simply relaxing.
If you don't want to understand the nature of relaxing, don't worry too much about it, just relax and do something else.


Links regarding the challenge. Check on section "incompleteness theorem"  number 2 (links are provided so that you understand what we are discussing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del


Kind regards, and thank you for your patience,
no one.

p.s.
"Ok, but WHY ARE YOU SENDING THIS TO US?", someone may ask.
Use the links below, follow the money, and...be patient:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.250991363520389&type=3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNFYMORvM_o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFrv57zoPq0

#13 This is Cool » easy and difficult things in life... » 2021-07-19 17:29:14

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

if someone tells you that something should be easy for you
if someone tells you that something should be easy for you, and then when you try something, something is easy, that was good advice in the end, but
if someone tells you that something should be easy for you, and then you try something, and something is difficult for you, it doesn't seem to me that it is easy for someone to judge what is easy for you, let alone give you advice....
as someone told you something should be easy for you, then you try it, then it is hard, and then someone doesn't know what that someone is talking about.
If that someone knew what that someone was talking about, then the specific thing someone told you should be easy for you, when you try it, then it has to be easy for you, or someone misjudged...

...regarding you, when you judge something is easy for you, something is easy for you...
...when you judge something is difficult for you, something is difficult for you...
...and when something other than the above two happens to you, you have misjudged what is easy and difficult for you for the specific occasion.


People who excel at difficult things
In order for people to have a good life, they need to have fun in a way that is fun for their own selves , or else they are not having fun, and the universe can't do anything to change that for them if they don't change their way, that they notice, is not fun for them.

Regarding people who excel at difficult things, either...
The things those people excel at, are not difficult for them up to the point they excel...or...
The things those people excel at, are difficult for them up to the point they excel, ...and then ....

People who excel at things, that are difficult for them up to the point they excel, make it more difficult for anyone else to excel, as they already know that there are some for who it is easy to excel up to the point they excel, if they don't add some extra hurdles on the way for others...so that...they can excel instead...
Do these people make sense in general?
No, they don't in general.
And in specific, they make things difficult for others...

Shamed for doing something difficult
Some people find things which the majority find easy to do, difficult to do, and they are shamed for this.
Some people find things which the majority find easy to do, difficult to do, and they are not shamed for this.
Whether they are shamed for doing something or not, depends on the consequences something has in reality, on whether the rest like something in reality, and in the end on whether the rest people think it is sensible for them to try to be kind to others for the specific occasion, and...
sometimes it is sensible to be kind to another, and sometimes you are not being sensible with yourself, spending time and effort with another, and regardless of how kind you want to be to another, in the end justice is blind, since the beginning of humans, and you are not being sensible with yourself, when you ignore that.



things that are easy are easy for those who understand how to do them,

and things that are hard are no different than the things that are easy for those who don't understand how to do them...



Humans who have a different definition of easy than other humans, should remember:

Something is easy for me, if it is not hard for me to do in reality.

Something is easy for some people, if it is not hard for some people to do in reality.

Something is easy for most people , if it is not hard for most people to do in reality.



And what I mean by this is

If something is easy for most people or some people, but it is not easy for one, then whether something is easy doesn't become hard for everyone because of one, does it?





Clarifications

if people in groups or societies, don't have a common way to judge which things are easy or difficult, it seems to me things get more difficult for that group or society as time passes , or do you think this is not the case?

And what is that way,
which is common in a group of people to judge which things are easy or difficult,
you may wonder?..

In short it is what I initially wrote down. If you want me to write more...
You have a group of people, or society, people do things, and for the things they do, those things can be easy or difficult for them, on average, and that is because of the following...
When people in the group or society, want to judge other people in the same group or society doing things, they do that using their own personal view, but... regardless of their personal view, the common view people in the group or society have, is the view that most people have... commonly, that is the view that makes common sense for that group of people or society.
Because within a group of people, the common view people in the group or society have, is the view that most people have, the common view people in the group or society have, better for that group or society be a sensible one,
or else things get more difficult for the group or society, as time passes...
as the human senses work to support humans to have fun in their lives and stay alive up until they die, when humans follow their senses... and they warn them when they are not really having fun...
So how people in a group or society built a common view, happens in a funny way...
people exchange views, some are really thinking while doing that, some are really just choosing the views expressed in the group or society, that they would want the universe to impose to the rest of the group, as if the humans sense don't have common elements among humans...
But regardless of peoples' personal views,
the way that that human senses work is in a funny way for the conscious being inside the human body, because otherwise,
it wouldn't be funny for the conscious being inside the human body,
and this is because this is the best the universe could do for the conscious being inside the human body, both for the easy and the difficult times, as reality in the end is something else than anything you can imagine, because it really seems to be happening on its own without you really having to imagine reality, for reality to happen.
But to cut a long story short, so that I can hope that you at least have some reason to read my reply, in the end
within a group of people or society, people build a common view on which things are difficult or easy, however...unfortunately up to now, there can be cases where the entire group or society doesn't make sense, but this isn't what people who make up the group or society want to do, this is simply what they did, is what we find in the past, so that we can learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

#14 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Is Bible Prophecy Important? » 2021-07-08 06:34:02

Here's what I believe in something means to me...


what does it mean I believe in something?
It means I learn nothing else but something for some time, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

I learn something else and not just something for some time, but if you think this is REALLY of for you when you believe in something…

If in the end, I believe in something means I learn something else and not just something for some time, it doesn’t seem to me I believe in something specifically…does it seem to you…?


And what seems to be happening?

When one imagines something, something else is really happening around one, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one imagines something, something else isn’t really happening around one, but if you REALLY think this is ok…

If in the end, when one imagines something, something else isn’t really happening around one, it doesn’t seem to me where inside one imagines something…does it seem to you where ..?



Yes but what about God?

When one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, the ones before one did not write it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, the ones before one wrote it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, and the ones before one wrote it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, it doesn’t seem to me that...

GOD REALLY DIDN’T FORGET SOMETHING TO DO,
IF GOD REALLY DID EVERYTHING

...for the next ones who would like to write something down for the same God…does it seem to you…?

#15 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » What money does, who is good at making it, and who is an economist » 2021-07-08 06:21:11

We are doing the following thought experiment in the steps described below, with some instructions as well.

instructions have to be followed for the experiment to be completed, or else you are not really considering what is written below...

...so if that is the case for you, and you didn't follow the instructions below,

please don't waste our time and effort with your reply about something, that you could have posted as a subject on its own elsewhere...



1.Imagine that you do something,

instructions 1: feel free to imagine, following the steps and instructions below from beginning until the end.

Clarifications...

follow the instructions from beginning until the end, and don't waste my time and effort.



2.You do this something that you imagine in two different ways from its beginning until its end

instructions 2: you can come back to me with two stories, each with a beginning and and end, about something done in two different ways from its beginning until its end.

Clarifications...

Two stories that start and end, don't waste my time and effort, and follow the instructions from beginning until the end.

Where the instruction don't limit you, there you are free to imagine.



3.First you do it with money from its beginning until its end

*instructions 3:*Trade is happening in the first story with money.

Clarifications...

This means that, either you do something for another, and another gives the agreed amount of money to you,

or another does something for you, and you give another the agreed amount of money to another...and the agreed amount of money...

is the amount of money you and another...agreed in order to trade.

Example...

Why the below is provided as an example, in case it offends you, you will find out in number 4.

e.g. prostitution is legal in the place where this example...takes place, and you or another give money to the other other one in exchange for gender.



4.Secondly you do it without money from its beginning until its end

*instructions 4:*Trade is happening in the second story without money.

Clarifications...

This mean that, you do this for another and another does that for you, this and that is whatever it is for the specific occasion and instance, and money isn't involved between the two of you, in the second story.

Also this means that the stories you can come back to me are one story with trade and money

and the other story also with trade but without money...so follow the instructions, and don't waste my time and effort.

Example...

And now time has come to find out why prostitution was discussed in number 4, with the following example.

e.g. you and another have gender, and money isn't involved in this example.

You and another freely chose to have gender with one another, and freely chose not to use money.

Why this example is used in number 5., you will find out in number 6.



5. For the second way when you do it without money, you have to spend less time and effort to do it, from its beginning until its end

*instructions 5:*In the first story when you do it with money, you have to spend more time and effort to do it, from its beginning until its end

Example...

Time to find out the difference between 4. and 5. with the following example.

e.g. You have gender with another, another is your partner in life, and after gender...

having heard that that money's means , store of value, medium of exchange, unit of account...

you decide to give to another, who is your partner in life, after you had gender with one another...money...

so as to show the value of another to you, for the exchange that took place, with a real unit of account...

What do you think another would do, especially if you were a man and another was a woman...and you gave to a woman who was your partner in life, money after having gender with her, in order to thank her for having gender with you?

Still unconvinced?.. ok, let's move one...



6. I wonder would you say you are using your money wisely?

Clarifications...

follow the instructions from beginning until the end, and don't waste my time and effort.



7. Because if you would, wait a minute before you start replying, and listen to me.

In both stories that you can come back to me, you are trading with another.

In one of the stories, you have to spend more time and effort, to do what you freely imagined you do with another, plus you have to also use money on top of having to spend more time and effort to do it, unlike the way you do it in the other story.

In the other story, you have to spend less time and effort, to do what you freely imagined you do with another, and as you also have to not use money in the second story, you don't have to spend time and effort to use money, unlike the way you do it in one of the stories.



8. So it seems to me that the other story, and not one of the stories, is what you would be looking for...if it seems sensible to you to spend less time and effort, and not get caught up in one of those stories...you know the ones I'm talking about, no?.. if not, I am talking about one of the stories where you have to spend endless time and effort even for the simplest of things.



"Hey, I don't understand the above, what's the summary?", one may ask.

Money reduces the time and effort people have to spend to trade with one another.

Clarifications for the "I don't understand" one.

When one is wasting one's money, it is up to that one to find this out in the end for oneself.



2. When the way one uses money increases the time and effort one has to spend to do what one wants to do, one is wasting either one's money, or another one's money, or the rest one's money.

Clarifications for the "I don't understand, and I am offended" one.

When one is wasting another one's money, another one doesn't want to waste another one's time and effort, and tries to avoid trading with one, and trades...with another one.



3. And in the end, how all have to remember the above, is...

When some are wasting the rest of our money, it is up to the rest of us to show to some that we don't want some to be wasting our time and effort with their endless nonsense stories about what money does, because...



Clarifications for everyone.

Money reduces the time and effort people have to spend to trade with one another,

or people are wasting each other's time and effort spending their money...

...and then they have the nerve to call what they are doing trading with one another



Up to now, some people don't know how to not waste one another's time and effort, it seems to me,

and they add money on top of that, as if that would make their case better...

... how about they put some time and effort thinking now, so that they don't end up wasting our time and effort, because money reduces the time and effort people have to spend to trade with one another.

#16 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » What Is Religion? » 2021-07-08 06:05:55

Here's what I believe in something means to me...


what does it mean I believe in something?
It means I learn nothing else but something for some time, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

I learn something else and not just something for some time, but if you think this is REALLY of for you when you believe in something…

If in the end, I believe in something means I learn something else and not just something for some time, it doesn’t seem to me I believe in something specifically…does it seem to you…?


And what seems to be happening?

When one imagines something, something else is really happening around one, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one imagines something, something else isn’t really happening around one, but if you REALLY think this is ok…

If in the end, when one imagines something, something else isn’t really happening around one, it doesn’t seem to me where inside one imagines something…does it seem to you where ..?



Yes but what about God?

When one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, the ones before one did not write it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, the ones before one wrote it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one writes something down for the same God as the ones before one, and the ones before one wrote it down EXACTLY as the same God would want it to be written down, it doesn’t seem to me that...

GOD REALLY DIDN’T FORGET SOMETHING TO DO,
IF GOD REALLY DID EVERYTHING

...for the next ones who would like to write something down for the same God…does it seem to you…?

#17 Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » If a solution to a problem is easy to verify for correctness... » 2021-07-08 05:42:04

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Questions: If the solution to a problem is easy to verify for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?


Answer

when a solution to a problem appears, it is easy to verify that solution solves the problem, or you would have another problem and not a solution, no?


Consider the below problem

Pick a coin choose a side and flip it as freely as you want to live.

After you can guess the side the coin ends up facing you right all the time and regardless of the time and space you live, I have a question for you.

Why didn't you come here now to tell me about it stop writing before I finish this question here?

The above is a problem whose solution is easy to verify for correctness, but the problem isn't easy to solve, no?

Because if any problem was easy to solve, someone could predict the future, but next doesn't happen next in imagination really, next happens next in reality.





Another way to explain...

1.You are asking, if the solution to a problem is easy to check for

correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?

2. When a solution for the problem appears it is easy to check that

this solution solves the problem, or else you would have

another problem, and not really a solution.

3. A problem needs to start a path in time and space which ends

with a solution for this problem, in order for the problem to be

solved in time and space, or else all paths in time and space

with a beginning, a middle, and an end wouldn’t solve this

problem.

4. if it is easy to solve…

5. it is easy to check that the solutions solve the problem, or you’d

have more problems,

6. or you didn’t find this path… … so pick a coin, choose a side, and flip it as freely as you want

to live.

7. After you can guess the side the coin ends up facing you right all

the time, I have a question for you.

8. Why didn’t you come here to tell me about it now?





Clarifications

Consider the below problem

You pick a coin choose a side and flip it as freely as you want to live.

After you think you can guess the side the coin ends up facing you right all the time and regardless of the time and space you live, I have a question for you.

The second phrase is you solving the problem of flipping a coin and guessing before which side the coin will end up facing you.





The solution

Why didn't you come here now to tell me about it stop writing before I finish this question here?



The problem of one flipping a coin freely, and guessing the side the coin end up facing them, before the coin ends up with one side facing one in reality, is a problem that no one can solve, on their own.

But anyone can point out to everyone that no one can solve it, so that there isn't anyone who thinks that "if the solution is easy to verify for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?" a real question, because the answer is pretty simple...



Solutions are easy to verify for correctness, and problems don't have to be easy to solve, they can be easy, but they can also be hard, like the problem of guessing what will happen next in reality.

#18 Jokes » the historians... » 2021-07-07 12:10:05

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

In a well known café in Paris, on the day celebrating the French revolution, officers of the state have gathered in three tables while discussing about important matters planning the future of the state...

One of them who is heading the secret services says "No one shall learn the truth! Because the truth in the hands of our enemies, is of great danger to us, and we will show them who puts order in the end!"

Another of them who is a judge in the supreme court says "No one shall question our justice system! Because justice in the hands of our enemies, is of great danger to us, and we will show them who puts order in the end!"

Another one who is a heading the army says "No one shall question our power! Because power in the hands of our enemies, is of great danger to us, and we will show them who puts order in the end!"

A young waitress over listening the conversation, while bringing some croissants says to all of them "How about you big men, allow women to choose on their own the bad men, and point them out so that the rest men around can show them, how mama in the end puts order...so that we all can enjoy the revolution day again..."

#19 Jokes » [Unsatisfied Customer] When someone doesn't like it all... » 2021-07-06 01:54:31

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Someone: I don't like it, and it doesn't make sense to me!
No one: what specifically don't you like, and doesn't make sense to you?
Someone: All of it! I don't like it and it doesn't make sense to me!
No one: How would you like it to be making sense for the ones before you in order for them to choose to do it, in a way that you like and you chose before you were made?
No one: and how would you like it to be making sense for the next ones so that they choose to do it all,  in a way that all of it you don't like, and all of it doesn't make sense to you?
Someone: I would like all of it, if it was made in the right way, that made sense!
Someone: and I am afraid you are in the all of it that I don't like, and doesn't make sense, what is it that you don't understand?
No one: How you think outside of all of it that you don't like and doesn't make sense to you...how is it that you understand it all...

#20 Jokes » 3 wise men and a waitress » 2021-07-06 01:52:01

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Three wise men are talking about their enemies in a packed restaurant.
"I bet God this son of a math will die!", shouts the first one.
"I bet God the mother of this son of a math will die!!", shouts the second one.
"I bet God the entire family of this son of a math will die!!!", shouts the third one, while their order arrives.
"Here's your order gentlemen", she says and leaves, and while she is on her way to the kitchen, she stops in the middle of the packed restaurant, turns to face the wise men and says loudly to them, so that everyone can hear them.
"God doesn't respond to bets in reality, or otherwise I bet God after something happens to me because of the will of one of you, one of the members of the families of the people in this restaurant lives to wipe every last one of you...so how about you chill down a bit, and be gentlemen while dining here...wise men..."

#21 Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » What money does, who is good at making it, and who is an economist » 2021-06-18 02:40:08

AlexPontik
Replies: 1

What money does
When one uses money to do something, the usage of money reduces the time and effort one has to spend to do this something, because if you REALLY think otherwise…

When one uses money to do something, the usage of money doesn’t reduce the time and effort one has to spend to do this something, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one uses money to do something, the usage of money doesn’t reduce the time and effort one has to spend to do something, it doesn’t seem to me one knows how to use money…does it seem to you…idiot?






Who is good at making money
When one is good at making money, one is good at making money again and again, because if you REALLY think other-wise…

When one is good at making money, one is not good at making money again and again, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one is good at making money, one is not good at making money again and again, it doesn’t seem to me that the rest around one think one is good at making money…does it seem to you…idiot?





Who is an economist
When one is an economist, one knows what money does, and who is good at making it, because if you REALLY think oth-erwise…

When one is an economist, one doesn’t know what money does, or doesn’t know who is good at making it, but if you think this is REALLY ok for you…

If in the end, when one is an economist, one doesn’t know what money does, or doesn’t know who is good at making it, it doesn’t seem to me that when the economy isn’t working we all don’t know why that is…does it seem to you…idiot?

#22 Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » What's the story with physics and why should mathematicians care? » 2021-06-05 19:33:10

AlexPontik
Replies: 0

Argument

Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the be-ginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.


And all the above in summary  is

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.

Isn't it?


because for mathematicians it seems that...
1. "If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete"
2. "The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system"
3. …and if you ask me reality for mathematicians, either is inconsistent, or incomplete…and the opposite they cannot prove to them-selves within the system…before they lose their balance in reality…they have no idea…and let’s say ok with all of these but…

...didn't their mothers teach them anything in their lives?

#23 Re: Puzzles and Games » A maths question for a physicist » 2021-06-05 03:11:59

…reality for mathematicians, either is inconsistent, or incomplete…and the opposite they cannot prove to them-selves within the system…before they lose their balance in reality…they have no idea…and let’s say ok with all of these but…

Argument

Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the be-ginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.


And all the above in summary  is

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.

Isn't it?

#24 Re: Puzzles and Games » A maths question for a physicist » 2021-05-14 00:16:40

Hi Bob,

thanks for you reply, let me comment on some of your phrases, which grabbed my attention, and you can guide me according to your view on these, so that I fully get your thinking.

Bob wrote:

Mathematical modelling requires a set of axioms, so we can be sure what the originator is talking about and a set of proofs so we can get something useful out of the model.

I would put it as, in mathematical modelling axioms seem to exist, which commonly make sense to people other than the model's originator.

The ability of humans to make sense of what seems to be happening around them, is not unique in humans, other animals do so as well, but humans seem to be the only ones in this planet using their senses commonly with written language, meaning that they can write things down, and what is written down can be common sense to many others.

When words in some order make sense to humans regardless of their background, time or place, then this is usually what humans call common sense, for example:

A dog defecating on the street is probably an unpleasant site, if you are not the dog's owner, and even then things don't look all that bright for the viewer, but most people wouldn't say that what makes sense for the dog is to go to a toilet and make sure it doesn't make a mess, as it is a dog, and most people get that.

A human defecating on the street however, is a completely different story and most humans get that, some humans don't get that, and there are also the one who like to pretend that they don't get that, and what in the end applies commonly for humans, is what humans commonly get (pretty straightforward argument if you ask me, but I may be wrong in my thinking).


Bob wrote:

Ever since the Russell paradox: "If the barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, then who shaves the barber?"

The barber shave himself once and after that commits suicide, is what seems to be happening here to me, and that was all the story about this magical barber...


Bob wrote:

What Gödel did was to show that axioms on their own aren't enough.  He showed there exists theorems of this kind:

"This theorem cannot be proved".

Because if it can, then we have a logical inconsistency.

If this theorem cannot be proved, then it doesn't make sense to humans to write that theorem down, or it doesn't make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, because...

otherwise if this theorem cannot be proved, then it does make sense to humans to write that theorem down, and it does make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, but...

if in the end this theorem cannot be proved, and it does make sense to humans to write that theorem down, and it does make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, it doesn't seem to me that what humans write down ends up making sense to them, nor that that making sense was their intention of writing that theorem down.



Bob wrote:

As a physicist, you are used to theories becoming popular and then being overtaken by new knowledge.  eg. Newtonian mechanics worked well for centuries and even allowed the discovery of new planets, but got overtaken by Einstein's relativity.  And now that's in trouble because of quantum theory.  And as they smash particles with ever increasing energy, new stuff pops into the Universe.

But, in the world of physics (and several dozen other disciplines that use maths), we can always do the experiment to find out if the model is any good.  For a brief while during my undergraduate years I did a course that 'proved' Gödel's theory.  It was hard work and I couldn't re-hash any of it now. But I'm prepared to accept it, within the narrow world of logic.  Have I been able to live with this shattering knowledge?  Funnily enough, yes I have.  The World doesn't know about Gödel, so it keeps turning anyway.

As a physicist, this is what seems to me to be happening:
1) Humans have a current theory of physics, which describes what seems to be happening to some degree.
2) A new theory is proposed, which described what seems to be happening to a degree closer to reality, and usually can be simplified to the old theory (the old theory wasn't untrue, it was close enough to reality, but now something closer is proposed).
3) Experiments have to be done, in order to verify that the new theory seems to be happening in reality.

Humans are not imagining stuff, and stuff happens around them.
Stuff happens around humans, and humans can imagine how that is.
And what seems to be happening in the end is something else than anything a human can imagine, even though any human can say it.


Bob wrote:

I recommend you use your brain power for something else and stop worrying about unprovable theorems.  The World (and this forum) needs you!

if you make a theory with unprovable theorems, you don't have to worry about a lot, as you are already are not making much sense, it seems to me.
If you are trying to make sense however, what you theorize about, has to be common sense for others, and the way this is common sense for others, is their proof, not yours in the end.
What I mean is  I welcome any input, however I didn't decide to spend my time and effort writing here, so that I prove something to myself, I am doing so as I cannot disprove to me what I wrote, and what I wrote is pretty simply written for anyone who wants to discuss that exactly, it seems to me.

(and arguments of the type, Godel's language is too advanced for the common mind, is too advanced for the common minds in this forum)

#25 Puzzles and Games » A maths question for a physicist » 2021-05-12 23:57:15

AlexPontik
Replies: 4

Does the below argument make sense?

1.    Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?
“If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete.”
Because:
The phrase “if a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete”, is itself a logical system, it is consistent with what it says, and if that is so, something is missing from this phrase, according to what the phrase says. And so this bring us to the second phrase.

2.    Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?
“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”
Because:
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.

Kind regards

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB