Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
NeatNit
level5
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby NeatNit » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:51 pm

Really though, all you created was a paradox. By declaring an integer interesting based only on how it's actually uninteresting, you took away the one thing that made it interesting. Since interesting-ness is not self-supporting, it jumps back to being uninteresting, hence the paradox.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:37 pm

Though one can note that there will be one or more numbers which possess the least amount of interest.
User avatar
trickser
level5
level5
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: The Senate ; GMT+1
Contact:

Postby trickser » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:17 pm

Xocrates wrote: the least amount of interest.

If there is a least amount of interest, then interest is a value, in contrast to being just a property. If it is a value, then you can sort by the value. If you can sort by value of interest and sort by the nominal value, then you are not talking about integers.
Last edited by trickser on Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:06 pm

trickser wrote:then you are not talking about integers.

Why not? It's a property in the same sense that the number of digits of a number is a property of that number. Having a secondary numeric value associated to a number doesn't change the value of that number.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16868
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:30 pm

NeatNit wrote:Really though, all you created was a paradox. By declaring an integer interesting based only on how it's actually uninteresting, you took away the one thing that made it interesting. Since interesting-ness is not self-supporting, it jumps back to being uninteresting, hence the paradox.

Proofs 101, NeatNit. I assumed that there were uninteresting numbers. If you make that assumption, you come to a contradiction (what you are calling a paradox). Since the assumption led to a contradiction, the assumption must have been wrong. The assumption was that there were uninteresting positive integers, hence I have shown that there are no uninteresting positive integers. The problem is not the structure of the proof. Rather, if you are going to claim that there is a problem, it will be in the formal definition of "interesting."

xander
User avatar
trickser
level5
level5
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: The Senate ; GMT+1
Contact:

Postby trickser » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:54 pm

Xocrates wrote:
trickser wrote:then you are not talking about integers.

Why not? It's a property in the same sense that the number of digits of a number is a property of that number. Having a secondary numeric value associated to a number doesn't change the value of that number.


The number of digits is a deduced property, it depends on the numbers (we talk about integers, right?) value and some arbitrary rule to express it. The introduced property of interest is independent of the numbers value. Thats a difference.

That will change the numbers from a one dimensional field to a tow dimensional field, when the definition of integers is probably something about 1 and its successors. But arguing with the definition seems cheap (and silly when you don't actually know it), but I suspect some change in capacity to be found.


lets say you have 1 with interest -1 and 2 with interest 2

so 1+1 is 2 but interest is -2, so 1+1!=2
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:21 am

That's actually bullshit in more ways than one :P

Even assuming that the interest property is not independent per integer, we have not established how the + operator works in regards to interest. That your result is incorrect is enterily hipothetical.

Also:

The introduced property of interest is independent of the numbers value.

No it's not. Whatever interest the number has, will be directly or indirectly tied to their value.

For instances, 1 may be interesting partly because it's the lowest odd number, but you need to know its value to determine that.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16868
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:20 am

trickser wrote:That will change the numbers from a one dimensional field to a tow dimensional field, when the definition of integers is probably something about 1 and its successors.

The integers, let alone the positive integers, do not form a field---the integers are not closed under multiplicative inverses (and the positive integers are not even closed under additive inverses).

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:04 pm

So then, no positive integer is uninteresting?

Great. Moving on to more important subjects; aliens and bigfoot are real. See all the proof!
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:07 pm

There are robots on mars!

and bigfoot as well ofcourse but we've all known that for a long time.
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:19 pm

I think the integer 180 is pretty cool. It is now officially my number of EC which means that shortly I can call myself BSc. :D

Jelco
Last edited by jelco on Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."
- Douglas Adams
User avatar
NeatNit
level5
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby NeatNit » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:39 pm

Image
Still waiting for the next update...
User avatar
tllotpfkamvpe
level5
level5
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:04 am
Contact:

Postby tllotpfkamvpe » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:09 pm

trickser wrote:That will change the numbers from a one dimensional field to a tow dimensional field


Now I feel stupid because I googled "tow dimensions"
User avatar
christopher1006
level5
level5
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:01 pm

Postby christopher1006 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:44 pm

Got bored and made a hypothesis based off what little I know of the string theories since I couldn't find anywhere saying if anyone was even to the point of talking about what the string itself is.

If the string itself that is the base sub-particle for all matter is made of pure energy then when when the temperature is lowered to absolute zero you will have successfully destroyed "matter".
Yes, that is a penguin with rabies. Deal with it.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:02 am

So...how bout them screaming goats?

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests