Problems registering at AoCZone?
You can try resending activation email. If that doesnt work you can send an email here. If you forgot your password click here.
 Main Menu

 ForumsSearch »

 SY Nations Cup 2017

 King of the Desert

 Escape Gaming

 Polaris Series

 AoC Recorded Games

 AoE2HD Recorded Games

 AoFE Recorded Games

 Major Past Tournaments

 Users currently online
Members (26)
»  Xtasy
Guests (63)

 AoC Clans Add yours »

 Links

 Auto downloadedFind »

 Ads

Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Hang out and relax, everyday discussions, chit-chat, off-topic, wololo
Advertisement from Google 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  Euler_ » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:33 am

  31 Jul 2017, 00:39 GMT » _InDuS__novice wrote:
I am going to shut up now.
My thinking is done.
Are you capable of some thought as well?

Please share the reactions (if any) you get from universities :lol: You will be drowned in a wave of laughter and ridicule. What thinking? You did none. All you wrote is utter nonsense, because it reduces to
1) So we start from this question: “ Is it possible to define truth?”,
2) and we establish that it is not possible, by reasoning, without any assumptions.
3) And this statement “ Is it possible to define truth?” A. No
4) Is now absolutely true ( since it is without any assumptions)
5) We have just established an absolute truth, without making any assumptions or definitions.


Don't fool yourself into thinking that this makes any sense. The rest is just pompous talk which is characteristic of the crank ('I am so brilliant, this will be revolutionary', etc) . I expect you to come up with an elementary proof of Fermat's last theorem sooner or later. :lol: Know your place; a small men never was and never will be the doer of anything great. You talk a lot, but reason and sound judgement are clearly something foreign to you.
 Euler_
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Jul 22, 2016
 1751 (59%)
 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  Aurelius » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:29 am

+1. Thanks for taking the time to answer him Euler. I was hoping that someone would.
User avatar
 Aurelius
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Aug 17, 2013
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  _ratS » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:42 am

there are two types of people:
1 scientific type - keyword "they rely on facts";
2 artistic type - keyword "whatever comes to their mind".

original poster, u r an artist
 _ratS
 
Posts: 743
Joined: Jun 19, 2008
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  kw1k000000 » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:39 pm

  31 Jul 2017, 01:47 GMT » Aurelius wrote:
You're all over the place.

If you publish your ideas in a peer-reviewed journal, please feel free to come back here and post a link to it. Will not happen, but still - that is the way to get recognition for research. Not e-mailing random universities claiming to have "beat" famous philosophers.


This is the most important observation. If his theory and deductions were as good as he is claiming them to be then he wouldn't be writing thousand word essays of mumbo jumbo on AOC forum.
ImageAll hail, the king of aoc! Image

Tyrant_DauT
 kw1k000000
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
 1657 (56%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  klvowledge » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:37 am

I am a PhD candidate in math, and I just noticed this thread for the first time. I also admit that I did not read 90% of this thread, in case I'm missing anything.

What I think OP is trying to do, is define a logic from the inside-out, so to speak. For example instead of saying something like "the number 1 is assumed to exist, and 1+1=2", he is attempting to say like "since we created 2, there must exist a 1 so that 1+1=2".

Despite his apparent persistence to create a more concrete form of logic, what I'm pretty positive he's doing is simply going in circles, and landing on the same conclusions the logicians have before him. Even if that's the case, I applaud his efforts; why not try to discuss/argue it? Even if this forum seems like a less than ideal place to discuss such things.
 klvowledge
Expert Player
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Oct 20, 2010
 2203 (53%)
 
Advertisement from Google 
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  Genette » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:42 am

@True: What you described would be an example for logical deduction (which can be a fair approach in philosophy, granted). But if one then doubts not just premises, but fundamental concepts such as true or false, then the logic simply goes in circles.
User avatar
 Genette
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jul 28, 2012
 1624 (49%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  Aurelius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:39 pm

  11 Aug 2017, 05:37 GMT » klvowledge wrote:
I also admit that I did not read 90% of this thread, in case I'm missing anything.
[...]
Even if that's the case, I applaud his efforts; why not try to discuss/argue it? Even if this forum seems like a less than ideal place to discuss such things.


How do you know that people have not tried to discuss it or argue it if you haven't read 90% of the thread? Go back and read Euler's posts for example.

Also, the topic starter isn't interested in discussing the validity of his claims: He said straight out that he knows he's right. (For which he deservedly got called a 'crank'). While to everyone else (perhaps with a few exceptions) it's complete nonsense.
User avatar
 Aurelius
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Aug 17, 2013
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  klvowledge » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:15 am

  Genette wrote:
@True: What you described would be an example for logical deduction (which can be a fair approach in philosophy, granted). But if one then doubts not just premises, but fundamental concepts such as true or false, then the logic simply goes in circles.


Yes, that is correct Genette!

  Aurelius wrote:
  11 Aug 2017, 05:37 GMT » klvowledge wrote:
I also admit that I did not read 90% of this thread, in case I'm missing anything.
[...]
Even if that's the case, I applaud his efforts; why not try to discuss/argue it? Even if this forum seems like a less than ideal place to discuss such things.


How do you know that people have not tried to discuss it or argue it if you haven't read 90% of the thread? Go back and read Euler's posts for example.

Also, the topic starter isn't interested in discussing the validity of his claims: He said straight out that he knows he's right. (For which he deservedly got called a 'crank'). While to everyone else (perhaps with a few exceptions) it's complete nonsense.


Aurelius, I'm not claiming that no one attempted to discuss or argue it. I'm simply saying why not?

However, I see what you mean by the topic starter not being interested in discussion. I kind of agree with you on your last points.
 klvowledge
Expert Player
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Oct 20, 2010
 2203 (53%)
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby  IvIaximus » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:20 pm

  11 Aug 2017, 05:37 GMT » klvowledge wrote:
Even if this forum seems like a less than ideal place to discuss such things.

#shotsfired #subtlediss #11loveit #oneandonlytruth
Emin:
Not going to write one page down to explain how nonsense evolution is. lol
---
[19:10]<BielySokol>What happen?
[19:15]<+[ByT]Poxo> sorry, **** up start and cat starting throwing up in the table
 IvIaximus
 
Posts: 3242
Joined: May 16, 2010
Age: 26
 

Re: Beating Descartes, Tarski and Kurt Godel.

Postby _InDuS__novice » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:41 am

Hey I am back.

My mind was working too fast earlier.

I will describe my idea in great detail. Do not worry about it.
I have slowly began regrasping others point of view. I realize I did not provide the necessary background to appreciate this in detail.

Kindly do not take offense on my statement about Beating famous Philosophers. There are only so many words in the English language. All of them can be considered offensive in some way or the other :P

I have immense respect for all three of them. I am where I am because I stood on the shoulders of giants.

Give me 3-4 days to write the explanations down. I will be moving this to reddit, because aoczone as you said is probably not the appropriate forum for this.

It will be peer reviewed, I guarantee you that. By everyone, and anyone wanting to. I also know why it seems to you that I am going in circles.

Some patience :), and this is going to be great fun, I promise.
_InDuS__novice
 
 
 
PreviousNext

Return to Community Café

Who is online

Users browsing this forum:  Black Adder and 2 guests

Legend: Global moderators, News posters, Tournament moderators