₦airaland Forum

Dapo777:
An I the same person that made that statement? Later you would say I can't see,who is blind now in the both of us...

Longstride:
this OP has all knowledge and no intelligence

Dapo777:
So you that posted the video you can't explain What's in the video,and you have the effrontery to call us illiterate.

sinequanon:
LOL!

4th post.

https://www.nairaland.com/2030474/faith-mathematics#28623702

He can't even find his own id.iotic post!

LOL! Hopeless!

Dapo777:
That was the only post I made on this thread before my Sharp reprimand, and I don't see why a reasonable person should take that question personal.

Work on yourself.

sinequanon:
You are happy the id.iotic post is your own, now?

One post is easily explained away, but you and your fellow trolls have a pattern of wanton ignorance going far beyond this thread.

The irony is that you feel you are in a position to preach "logic" to people, with your ineptitude and hypocrisy embarrassingly spreadeagled all over this thread for everyone to see.

Keep going, the more you do, the less I have to.

davien:
Sinequanon can't you open a thread without listing out people who you have disagreements with?

sinequanon:
The opening post doesn't name anyone.

The trolls rolled in by themselves. They called themselves out.

A troll call then became necessary.

I don't have "disagreements" with people who can't even comprehend the title of a video. You can't even begin a debate with such illiterates. So where is the disagreement supposed to come from.

plaetton:
,^^^
Don't mind this sinequanone clown.
He is the lofty and all powerful emperor of logic who gallantly waltzes in here in his glorious and majestic gold-laden invisible robe.

It only takes simpletons like us to remind his imperial Majesty that he is simply a deluded Butt-Na.ked mor.on.

Dapo777:
Guy how far Na, this ur grammar ehn

sinequanon:
Gódel's second theorem proves that there is no way of proving consistency of a mathematical system.

i.e, even if a mathematical system is consistent, you can't prove it -- you cannot distinguish it from a system which has unknown inconsistencies.

The only person who took his time to understand is PastorAIO.



Clueless.



plaetton agrees with wiegraf's clueless summary.



Meaningless.

Also a failed attempt at the wrong theorem. The thread is about Gódel II not I.



Can't read.



Comprehension problems.

These are the trolls who have set themselves up to educate us all: plaetton and wiegraf, the halfwits + 1 clueless ranter + 2 illiterates.

Don't let these folks hold you back with their disease of wanton ignorance.

asalimpo:
you opened a thread, people commented you respond by abusing everybody . While never making any other intellctual contribution outside pointing to a youtube video.

davien:
sinequanon....your views are subjective...do not expect everyone to share your views,you have to discuss how you arrived at those views and rationalize why others do not agree...otherwise you'd just be talking to yourself..

sinequanon:
Looking at your record, if you shared my views, I'd be worried.

sinequanon:
Gódel's second theorem proves that there is no way of proving consistency of a mathematical system.

i.e, even if a mathematical system is consistent, you can't prove it -- you cannot distinguish it from a system which has unknown inconsistencies.

The only person who took his time to understand is PastorAIO.



Clueless.



plaetton agrees with wiegraf's clueless summary.



Meaningless.

Also a failed attempt at the wrong theorem. The thread is about Gódel II not I.



Can't read.



Comprehension problems.

These are the trolls who have set themselves up to educate us all: plaetton and wiegraf, the halfwits + 1 clueless ranter + 2 illiterates.

Don't let these folks hold you back with their disease of wanton ignorance.

sinequanon:
The only sensible response was from PastorAIO.

You, and your fellow trolls, have no chance of understanding "intellectual contributions".

You are all still too dumb to understand where you went wrong with the title of the video.

https://www.nairaland.com/2030474/faith-mathematics#28666212

If you can't understand that, you have no hope understanding the detail.

wiegraf:
Oga, abegi, then what is the clown saying?

On a serious note has this dude ever made an iota of sense? He's like uyi on steroids

Might need to make time to permanently shut him up, but then there's no one else providing his level of entertainment around. They all cried and left

"there is no rigorous foundation for classical mathematics"

PastorAIO:
Please allow me to speak once again in Sinequanon's defence. (Sinequanon, you go pay me o! Advocacy dey cost!!)

In the OP he hardly said anything of his own opinion and what he did say of his own opinion was not part of the main thrust of the Argument. Rather, he, unfortunately, started by dissing some people albeit without mentioning names. Having not followed his posts much in the past I presume there is some baggage from before so those he was referring to already knew themselves.

Mostly he quoted other mathematicians on the subject.



In the video, which I've only watched halfway so far, they lay out Godel's Paradox at 7:50 of the video.

1) We 'Know' that First Order Mathematics is Consistent.

2)It can be proved that It is impossible to prove the consistency of First Order Mathematics.

Therefore: If it is impossible to prove it then what is the basis of our 'Knowing' Mathamatics is consistent. Where does the sense of conviction come from? Obviously not from any rigorous appraisal of Maths.

If now skip to 9:40 of the video he lays out the 3 possibilities for countering Godel's theorem.

A) If we Know First Order maths to be Consistent then there must be a way to Prove it. This is the path many have tried to take and all have failed.

B)Admit a possibility of 'transcendental', provably unprovable knowledge. In other words Claim Faith. Or Intuition.

C)Or finally, Admit that the sense of Conviction in Mathematics is an illusion and First Order Mathematics is in fact InConsistent.

I think this is the basis of why Sinequanon titles this thread Faith in Mathematics.

PastorAIO:
Please allow me to speak once again in Sinequanon's defence. (Sinequanon, you go pay me o! Advocacy dey cost!!)

In the OP he hardly said anything of his own opinion and what he did say of his own opinion was not part of the main thrust of the Argument. Rather, he, unfortunately, started by dissing some people albeit without mentioning names. Having not followed his posts much in the past I presume there is some baggage from before so those he was referring to already knew themselves.

Mostly he quoted other mathematicians on the subject.



In the video, which I've only watched halfway so far, they lay out Godel's Paradox at 7:50 of the video.

1) We 'Know' that First Order Mathematics is Consistent.

2)It can be proved that It is impossible to prove the consistency of First Order Mathematics.

Therefore: If it is impossible to prove it then what is the basis of our 'Knowing' Mathamatics is consistent. Where does the sense of conviction come from? Obviously not from any rigorous appraisal of Maths.

If now skip to 9:40 of the video he lays out the 3 possibilities for countering Godel's theorem.

A) If we Know First Order maths to be Consistent then there must be a way to Prove it. This is the path many have tried to take and all have failed.

B)Admit a possibility of 'transcendental', provably unprovable knowledge. In other words Claim Faith. Or Intuition.

C)Or finally, Admit that the sense of Conviction in Mathematics is an illusion and First Order Mathematics is in fact InConsistent.

I think this is the basis of why Sinequanon titles this thread Faith in Mathematics.

PastorAIO:
Please allow me to speak once again in Sinequanon's defence. (Sinequanon, you go pay me o! Advocacy dey cost!!)

In the OP he hardly said anything of his own opinion and what he did say of his own opinion was not part of the main thrust of the Argument. Rather, he, unfortunately, started by dissing some people albeit without mentioning names. Having not followed his posts much in the past I presume there is some baggage from before so those he was referring to already knew themselves.

Mostly he quoted other mathematicians on the subject.

There is a very vocal stratum of lay wannabe academics, who think they can "educate" everybody with their naive understanding of the nature of mathematics. They say naive things like "mathematics is totally consistent", "mathematical proof is incontrovertible evidence in physics", etc. etc.

This is what real mathematicians know..

One legendary mathematician to another:

"there is no rigorous foundation for classical mathematics"

sinequanon:
The comment I made was general. These people are at large all over the internet and elsewhere. This IS part of the discussion. The FAITH in mathematics is not only in principle, but in practice.

I made the point deliberately and it is FORTUNATE for me that some of them chose to turn up and identify themselves, their ineptitude, their FAITH, their illiteracy, and their hypocrisy. I am not trying to convince these people. I think you are wasting your time if that is what you are trying to do. My only use for them is for demonstration purposes, which they have obliged.

asalimpo:
Let me ask you a simple question, airHead.

To what end is a logical system (which math is) , suppose to be 'consistent'?

Or

put differently,

y shud a system be (or be desired to be ) consistent?

A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.[1]

PastorAIO:
Please allow me to speak once again in Sinequanon's defence. (Sinequanon, you go pay me o! Advocacy dey cost!!)

In the OP he hardly said anything of his own opinion and what he did say of his own opinion was not part of the main thrust of the Argument. Rather, he, unfortunately, started by dissing some people albeit without mentioning names. Having not followed his posts much in the past I presume there is some baggage from before so those he was referring to already knew themselves.

Mostly he quoted other mathematicians on the subject.



In the video, which I've only watched halfway so far, they lay out Godel's Paradox at 7:50 of the video.

1) We 'Know' that First Order Mathematics is Consistent.

2)It can be proved that It is impossible to prove the consistency of First Order Mathematics.

Therefore: If it is impossible to prove it then what is the basis of our 'Knowing' Mathamatics is consistent. Where does the sense of conviction come from? Obviously not from any rigorous appraisal of Maths.

If now skip to 9:40 of the video he lays out the 3 possibilities for countering Godel's theorem.

A) If we Know First Order maths to be Consistent then there must be a way to Prove it. This is the path many have tried to take and all have failed.

B)Admit a possibility of 'transcendental', provably unprovable knowledge. In other words Claim Faith. Or Intuition.

C)Or finally, Admit that the sense of Conviction in Mathematics is an illusion and First Order Mathematics is in fact InConsistent.

I think this is the basis of why Sinequanon titles this thread Faith in Mathematics.

Dapo777:
That's the irony of it,if it's impossible to prove the consistency of mathematical system,then how do we prove the consistency of the godels theorem since it is itself under mathematics.