TakenItSeriously

Assume that you have discovered a method that can determine a very efficient route for any given set of cities every time, but your not sure if its the most efficient route.

How can we know if the resulting route is the most efficient? i.e. how can we test the method we have discovered to be the solution without actually solving all permutations for every problem?

Is their some formula that produces the minimum distance without giving the route?

Assume that you have discovered a method that can determine a very efficient route for any given set of cities every time, but your not sure if its the most efficient route.

How can we know if the resulting route is the most efficient? i.e. how can we test the method we have discovered to be the solution without actually solving all permutations for every problem?

Is their some formula that produces the minimum distance without giving the route?

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Justice doesn't differ between cultures only what we perceive to be fair and we have no control over that. 

Ok, I’ll bite, what’s your definition for justice?

On 11/26/2017 at 3:45 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

Many papers are published claiming if one sense is weaker due to a disability than the other senses of the brain compensate.  If a person is blind they have better hearing.  This is what every mother tells her disabled child and so I was told it, too, as I was born blind.  You scientists have even published it in peer-reviewed journal and it's so simple to test that you are all lying or insanely manipulating the truth.

Test: throw a ball into a park with trees, a soccer ball, close your eyes, and try to find it after it's settled.  Not a single other sense other than visual will ever help you with this kind of problem.  No matter if you were born blind or became blind or had an eye disease.  I have tried this test at the age of 39, figuring I have better hearing than others and I couldn't find the ball.  But my friend with good eyes found it within 5 seconds.  I could have spent a full 24 hours searching with some logic the park and would have found it.

If you scientists have lied successfully about something this basic, and even mothers repeat it to us blind sons, then what else are you all lying about?  Can someone explain this to me?  If you don't believe me... try this.  Close your eyes for a week and train your ears.  Guess what?  You'll have the same hearing as a blind man except he can't train his eyes.

The brain absolutely does not compensate with any senses for a missing or damaged sense.  This is a folklore that people pass around to comfort those whom are disabled and it is quite an abusive strategy of comforting.  Please cease and dissist this manipulation and start publishing the truth already.  I can't even see any letters that I have just typed nor this vrey sentence.

I’m not a scientist but I do believe in science, but just not absolutely which I think is a mistake from any point of view.

It’s probably due to their being trained to believe only in the evidence that they can record which sounds good in theory but can cause them to sometimes overlook the obvious, but that’s just a guess on my part.

I tend to hear absurd expectations from many in these forums like I’m supposed to run out and buy some satelite time which I thought was a scientist being facetious until I realized most aren’t scientists but kind of avid followers of science like myself, though I never liked the term follower.

That’s because I have a thing about objective logic which is just the way my mind works. So I have to logically attack a problrm based on the evidence thats available and rethink my possible solutions  until I can finally see a reasonable solution that doesnt just fit the evidence, but makse a lot of sense given the evidence.

So as to be clear, this is just my opinion based on my own experimental experiences of closing my eyes and walking around and my use of objective logic to find a reaason that fits with the evidence and my experience.

But in my opinion, I would agree with the OP and say that our senses don’t suddenly become more acute as if we are experiencing evolution in realtime. But it’s far more likely that we are adjusting the acuteness of our focus on the remaining senses.in order to hear far more then we could with say when wearing earbuds playing music. 

I would even speculate that our brain becomes better at interpreting what our senses are telling us in order to adapt to our situation.

But thats just a laypersons point of view.

There is some profound misunderstanding about the significance of the roll that validity or more importantly invalidity plays in logic.

Aside from the laws of logic or the roles that axioms play, You can think of validity/invalidity as the only rule in logic.

The consequence of it being the only rule and the fact that logic basically represents all thinking outside of math, then its fair to say that the scope of invalidity covers every type of error mankind has ever made since the dawn of consciousness. so it needs to be taken a little more seriously than just the proper usage of English.

If you think rigor is important in math, then think of invalidity at least with the same importance as the rigor you apply to math. because the lack of respect for invalidity is literally just plain ignorance. and every thing that comes from ignorance.

I’ll try to write something up on logic later but for now there is an easy trick that we can use when dealing with paradoxical problems.

The source of every paradoxical problem is an intuitive error. Thats what makes them seem so paradoxical. Its the conflict between logic and intuitiive error. So you can start by mulling over how that applies to these problems

.I still cant see anywhere stating if those problems have discovered solutions or not. Other than the millet problem which Aristotle  had successfully refuted back in the same era it was proposed. Which suggests that they should have all been solved.by now. 

Does anyone know for certain the state of those problems?

I used to think that there wer no more unsolved paradoxes until I discovered the balance paradox still had no solution so I dont make that assumption anymore, and I’m not going to keep posting known solutions.

That would be like posting solutions that prove the earth is round.or something.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

OK. So that's a problem with your understanding.

Instead, focus on the simpler example: "this statement is false"

 

It still makes no sense to me, sorry. 

It looks like a self conflicting statement

I guess Id describe it like a statement that 2+2=5 which I understand, isn’t the best analogy, maybe divide by zero is closer.

Better still, it’s an infinite recursive loop maybe?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

"Some of Zeno's nine surviving paradoxes..."

Which is (not very clearly) referring to the fact that he wrote a book with 40 or so paradoxes in. Of those 40, only 9 are now known about (that is the sense in which "survived" was used).

I see, that makes more sense. Thanks.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

It was obviously trying to catch up with a slower computer.

How do you mean? As in someone redirecting my google results?

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where did you see that it didn't have a solution? (Please don't make me ask a third time)

I guess we cross posted. see three posts up.

I’ll try and find the link

Something is wrong with my browser I got to that page and everything froze

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

The implied topic of the statement is the utterance itself.

It is, effectively, short for "I am lying when I speak this sentence."

Or, more concisely, "This statement is not true."

By your logic, the sentence, "I am happy" would be meaningless as well, because it doesn't state what it is referring to. But that is obviously an incorrect conclusion. 

ok, I guess you see meaning where I don’t. if someone told me “I am lying” Id ask him ”about what?”

but if someone said “I’m happy”, Id say “good for you” 

To me one makes sense the other doesn’t.but thats not the point

Either could have validity  as a statement of logic or not depending on the context, but not making sense is a valid point of invalidity.

Otherwise it’s like trying to make sense out of nothing.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Listed where?

No listing, he just showed the riddle, and I found a solution. I thought it had already had been solved back then.

In fact today was the first time I saw that it didnt have a solution.

Oh I see what you meant, I googled unsolved logic problems and found it listed under Zihnos paradoxes. is said there were a series with 9 that still survived which I thought meant 9 had remained unsolved. then I saw that the millet problem had a solution given

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think this is a tad unfair as TIS has the germ of the resolution, but has just not stated it clearly.

However in view of the reception I got in the last thread about these ancient paradoxes, I am disinclined to help further.

Why? did I say something that was offensive. I certainly didn't mean to but if I did offend, I’m sorry.

I just fiund out this one had a solution already. Bummer, I thought they were all supposed to be unsolved.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you have "solved" the paradox by just ignoring it. Well done.

or you could say, I annihilated it

Description of the paradox from the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy:

The argument is that a single grain of millet makes no sound upon falling, but a thousand grains make a sound. Hence a thousand nothings become something, an absurd conclusion.^[16]

 

 

Solution

Either the first assumption is invalid or the second one is Invalid.

If a thousand millets makes noise then one millet must also make some kind of noise regardless of how slight.

Or neither makes noise such as falling in a vacuum.

Therefore there’s no paradox.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

It's very difficult to generate a paradox without having something self-referential.

If you talk about the statement "you don’t look fat in those jeans.” then it doesn't refer to itself and it's not paradoxical

The issue of "I am lying" is that it juxtaposes language and metalanguage.

 

In math we try to prove a solution to a problem

In logic we see if it can be disproven through invalidity.

Once a statement is proven as being invalid its done. There’s no need to bring metalanguage into it.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

+1 for understanding the point.

 

and "I am lying" doesn't refer to anything.

The conventional way to phrase this is to first classify everyone as either liars or truthers in everything they say.

Then to offer the statement I am a liar.

 

I think you may be thinking about a related problem with two characters: one that lies and one that tells the truth.

8 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

I think the OP misses the point

But as a logic exercise, thinking about what "I am lying" - by itself, and referring to itself - really means, is a very different thing.

Yes, that was my point.

The statement  “I am lying” must refer to what they’re lying about to have meaning.. Otherwise it’s an invalid statement as in its not a meaningful statement.

It may look kind of like a natural thing to say because such statements typically refer to something in the previous sentence but there’s nothing in the previous sentance to refer to.

Maybe you can think of it like using reference frames

If you dont provide an observer in their own reference frame and what their observing in the context of it’s reference frame. then the problem doesnt make sense.

“I am lying” is implying a referal to something that isnt there. so it doesnt make sense.

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

That you have had too much Christmas spirit already?

 

 

Seriously I was unable to determine your beef from that ramblng post.

 

As regards paradoxes, I have not encountered all of them.

The ones I have encountered are usually formed by combining two (or more) statements inappropriately.

Resolution is achiveved by untangling them and taking one statemen at a time.

I’m not sure what your getting at.

Its a solution to a famous paradox with a few examples of problems that are similarly overlooked.

Ok, I removed the example that might look like a rant, though it was intended to be a common example of the same type of oversite.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yep. It is quite hard to argue that anything is detected directly!

If you define DM as invisible non interactive matter, its true that we can only measure it indirectly through other matter.

If you define DM as a magnetic field, then the effects of the field on matter is direct evidence of the field.

So which would be real case?

1 hour ago, Janus said:

What is it that makes "matter"?   We consider a table as being made of matter.  I can touch it and it feels solid. 

But what is really happening I "touch" the table.  My hand, and the table is made up of atoms with electrons in shells around a nucleus and these electrons have electric fields.  So what is happening is that my the electric fields of the electrons of the outer layer of my hand interact with the electric fields of the outer layer electrons of the table.  It is just an interaction of fields and nothing is really "touching" anything in the way we commonly think about it.  

The matter of the table is made of atom bound together by electromagnetic forces. Are the atoms themselves matter? We generally say that they are. Atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Are they matter?  Again, we tend to say that they are. Protons and neutrons going further are made from quarks.

Quarks and electrons are considered fundamental particles, They are also considered matter particles.

So, what are these fundamental particles made of?  are they little balls of "something" that is imbued with the properties we measure the particle as having, or are they just the some total of the properties they exhibit?  Thinking of them in the first way seems like trying to extend the analogy of how the macroscopic world appears to be down to where it doesn't hold.

It seems much more likely that the second view is better, a fundamental particle is just "made up" of its combined properties. It has a mass and maybe a charge, etc. and fields associated with them, and the only way to interact with them is through these properties.  They are just entities with a collection of properties.

If this is the case,  Is there a single property that defines its "matterness".  If it can't interact through the electromagnetic force, is it not matter? 

Is the Neutrino matter? it has mass, but no charge, it also interacts with other matter rarely and only under certain conditions. A neutrino could pass through light years of lead without having one interaction.   Would you call a neutrino "matterless mass".   The WIMP model for dark matter just assumes that is is made up of particles like the neutrino, and which share like properties in some respects.

Yes, but youre forgetting one thing, all of the examples you gave are detectable by means other than it’s mass. Can we say the same for DM?

Matter we can detect directly.or at leas through it’s particle like evidence left behind.

DM is only detectable indirectly through it’s effect on matter.

Magnetic fields are also only detectable through their effect on matter

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ah gotcha, yeah that does present its challengs. I knew a few people that had that problem. It explains quite a bit so I will keep that in mind in the future.

I’m so glad you understand. Not everyone does and then I guess I just seem like an a*****e to them so I rarely bring it up.

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It takes a lot of effort to understand particle physics. Its not an easy topic. So don't feel bad about that.

Its one of primary reasons why I stress the importance of understanding correctly terms such as mass, energy, work, potential and kinetic energy..

The list goes on but any musunderstanding of the definitions will always prevent correct understanding of particle physics. (or physics in general)

Yeah, but hard work I can handle, its just that without a short term memory I have to rely only on long term memory and LTM is apparently choosy about what it retains and just rejects stuff that has no meaning.

For example, if I’m reading something and come accross a paragraph that makes no sense to me I literally have no memory of its contents. I know I read it but couldn’t tell you a single word of what I read. It made academics a nightmare because, unless I could get a question answered in realtime, the rest of the lechture was just white noise.

1 on 1 I could learn practically anything very quickly because I could ask why and have it answered, but probably not with particle physics because knowing why something happens apparrently stops working at the fundamental levels below Quantum Mechanics and thinking “it just does” doesn’t help me to retain it.