"Functions" in math vs. computer science

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread Starter

Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
I have no problem with just wanting to sound out / discuss

But when I do, I try to make the heading clear on that subject

"Functions" in math vs. computer science

Seems to have no relationship to the way you seem to be taking this discussion,

hence my question,
Bruh, you seriously can relax with this. The first post clearly sets the tone of what is being discussed with functions in math vs. computer science vis-a-vis infinity. Sometimes the depth of a topic cannot be articulated with 6 words in a subject line. Read the first post and it’s clear this is all in topic. Anyone who judges the totality of a discussion without reading the opening post should seriously rethink their approach to forum participation. ;)
 
Last edited:

andrewmm

Joined Feb 25, 2011
1,754
Bruh, you seriously can relax with this. The first post clearly sets the tone of what is being discussed with functions in math vs. computer science vis-a-vis infinity. Sometimes the depth of a topic cannot be articulated with 6 words in a subject. Read the first post and it’s clear this is all in topic. Anyone who judges the totality of a discussion without reading the opening post should seriously rethink their approach to forum participation. ;)
Scan I clarify

A user wanting to find some answers,
searches , via the title say

your saying if I understand right

the user then has to read the , in this case 5 pages, and 1151 words, to decide the relevance,
and conclude its nothing to do with the title ?


In the Uk, if that was advertising , it would I understand be called miss leading,

But if your happy with that label, then so be it.

have good day
 

Thread Starter

Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
Scan I clarify

A user wanting to find some answers,
searches , via the title say

your saying if I understand right

the user then has to read the , in this case 5 pages, and 1151 words, to decide the relevance,
and conclude its nothing to do with the title ?


In the Uk, if that was advertising , it would I understand be called miss leading,

But if your happy with that label, then so be it.

have good day
Huh? No, above I specifically said they read the first post to determine it, nothing more.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,475
Scan I clarify

A user wanting to find some answers,
searches , via the title say

your saying if I understand right

the user then has to read the , in this case 5 pages, and 1151 words, to decide the relevance,
and conclude its nothing to do with the title ?


In the Uk, if that was advertising , it would I understand be called miss leading,

But if your happy with that label, then so be it.

have good day
Sorry my friend but i have to agree with Jenn on this. Just because you do not see the association between one question and the other that doesnt mean none of us do. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to start a new thread :)

Seriously, you have to talk about some 'side' issues sometimes to clarify the original issue or conclusion. Again what you are saying is that any new user that comes to this thread will see other questions being asked but i would be worse if they read "The sun always revolves around the Earth" and took it to be true fact rather than read on to see the discussion of how and why it is really planets that revolve around their stars.

Take a break and see how this thread evolves you wont be sorry.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,475
It’s axiomatically based on a false notion that ℕ and ℝ are separate things, and that more than 1 continuum exists, when all of ℕ exists in ℝ. We can map all of ℝ to any 2 intervals of ℕ, like (0, 1), so ℕ contains the continuum and is just whole number cuts of it, like ”guard bands.” We can also model ℝ using 0 and 1. Therefore both hail from the same phenomena, and that is consciousness. They’re both names for potential infinity.

Ergo, consider a magic apple tree, that when you pick an apple and put it in a bushel, another apple appears in its place. You keep picking apples from the tree and putting it in the same bushel. ℝ is the tree, and ℕ is the bushel. Does it make sense to determine the cardinality of the tree by bijecting it to the bushel? No, they’re both the same thing in disguise, and treating them separately makes no sense.
So you saying that the attempt to determine that their may be more reals than natural numbers is an effort in futility?

I'll have to give this some more thought myself but your replies are motivation :)

It seems to me that the truth or falsity depends on the actual problem at hand. Maybe for one bushel and one tree that produces exactly one new apple every time one is picked off of it is on par with what goes into the bushel, but if the tree always produced 2 new apples for each one picked then it seems reasonable to think that the tree would always contain two times the number of apples in the bottomless bushel basket.
Maybe the reals vs naturals is a different argument but i'll give it more thought too.

I think what we are lacking here is a good mathematical description of what seemingly nonsensical examples we are coming up with. Maybe we just need to get more concise, if that is possible for every problem that is.

I think i see where you might be coming from though, like with a question about apples and oranges: were there more apples than oranges in the world at exactly 5:00am GMT on 09/12/2021. Probably doesnt matter to anyone.

Physics is changing really really fast now though too. I wonder if that will change some of our ideas and definitions in very extreme and unexpected ways, as it already has with space and time. A black hole at the bottom of the bushel basket could alter the reality of what exactly is going into it, but let's not go there just yet :)
 
Sorry my friend but i have to agree with Jenn on this. Just because you do not see the association between one question and the other that doesnt mean none of us do. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to start a new thread :)

Seriously, you have to talk about some 'side' issues sometimes to clarify the original issue or conclusion. Again what you are saying is that any new user that comes to this thread will see other questions being asked but i would be worse if they read "The sun always revolves around the Earth" and took it to be true fact rather than read on to see the discussion of how and why it is really planets that revolve around their stars.

Take a break and see how this thread evolves you wont be sorry.
just looking at the post from the future users point of view,

we will see how it goes,

BTW: Are you implying I do not understand the question posed ?
thats a little insulting , thank you,

I do get whats happening,
I also see the OP has posted a bunch of bits cut together from other boards,

Over many years students have done same,
 

Thread Starter

Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
just looking at the post from the future users point of view,

we will see how it goes,

BTW: Are you implying I do not understand the question posed ?
thats a little insulting , thank you,

I do get whats happening,
I also see the OP has posted a bunch of bits cut together from other boards,

Over many years students have done same,
Sorry, this is all original thought. Others might have arrived at similar conclusions, but it is not cut-and-paste. You also keep saying “question,” when I said there isn’t a “question.“ Not every thread is someone “seeking an answer.” This is now more off-topic due to this “off-topic” discussion! The entire point of discussing “functions in computer science vs. math” is seen in the thread’s opening post, and has most applicability to the nature of infinity.
 

Thread Starter

Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
So you saying that the attempt to determine that their may be more reals than natural numbers is an effort in futility?

I'll have to give this some more thought myself but your replies are motivation :)

It seems to me that the truth or falsity depends on the actual problem at hand. Maybe for one bushel and one tree that produces exactly one new apple every time one is picked off of it is on par with what goes into the bushel, but if the tree always produced 2 new apples for each one picked then it seems reasonable to think that the tree would always contain two times the number of apples in the bottomless bushel basket.
Maybe the reals vs naturals is a different argument but i'll give it more thought too.

I think what we are lacking here is a good mathematical description of what seemingly nonsensical examples we are coming up with. Maybe we just need to get more concise, if that is possible for every problem that is.

I think i see where you might be coming from though, like with a question about apples and oranges: were there more apples than oranges in the world at exactly 5:00am GMT on 09/12/2021. Probably doesnt matter to anyone.

Physics is changing really really fast now though too. I wonder if that will change some of our ideas and definitions in very extreme and unexpected ways, as it already has with space and time. A black hole at the bottom of the bushel basket could alter the reality of what exactly is going into it, but let's not go there just yet :)
Ha… yes, I’d say it’s entirely futile and oxymoronic other than to prove that it is. ;--) The thing is, the bushel and the tree are the same thing. All of the bushel is “in the tree.” If ℕ and ℝ were fundamentally “different phenomena” it would be one thing. But the tree can’t determine its countability or cardinality by bijecting to something that is in the essence of itself, because it itself is the generator where “the next index number” is where the next apple is. Fractions are a manmade illusion due to using a base other than infinity (a unique symbol for each value—consciousness is the symbol generator), as L. Kronecker said, “‘God/consciousness‘ made the integers, all the rest is the work of man.”

And, here’s how it goes back to the subject line: A function is a map in mathematics, not a generator. A map does not map to itself. ℝ → ℕ even as a concept is entirely bollocks to begin with. :—)

It’s all due to the definition: infinity is not actual or knowable, it’s a potential to know. What is the opposite of unknowable infinity? A set.
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,475
Ha… yes, I’d say it’s entirely futile and oxymoronic other than to prove that it is. ;--) The thing is, the bushel and the tree are the same thing. All of the bushel is “in the tree.” If ℕ and ℝ were fundamentally “different phenomena” it would be one thing. But the tree can’t determine its countability or cardinality by bijecting to something that is in the essence of itself, because it itself is the generator where “the next index number” is where the next apple is. Fractions are a manmade illusion due to using a base other than infinity (a unique symbol for each value—consciousness is the symbol generator), as L. Kronecker said, “‘God/consciousness‘ made the integers, all the rest is the work of man.”

And, here’s how it goes back to the subject line: A function is a map in mathematics, not a generator. A map does not map to itself. ℝ → ℕ even as a concept is entirely bollocks to begin with. :—)

It’s all due to the definition: infinity is not actual or knowable, it’s a potential to know. What is the opposite of unknowable infinity? A set.
Ok maybe we should back up just a little here and make some more elementary ideas clearer.

To start, do you argue against there being an infinite number of fractions between 0 and 1, or if you prefer, between integers 1 and 2? And if you do, do you argue that 1.5 (exactly one and one half) is not a number or something like that? If either, what is your argument for dismissing these fractions?

We have to start small like this because if we dont we end up talking about too much at once and start going in circles.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,475
just looking at the post from the future users point of view,

we will see how it goes,

BTW: Are you implying I do not understand the question posed ?
thats a little insulting , thank you,

I do get whats happening,
I also see the OP has posted a bunch of bits cut together from other boards,

Over many years students have done same,
So i cant imply anything? What if i am wrong with that implication, then are you still insulted and if so, why when you know what you know better than i know what you know. The more confident you are in your own beliefs the less insulted you should be because you would know for sure that the other person is at fault, and if you recognize that fact then you should expect other people to recognize that fact and so you never look like a fool no matter what anyone says.

I will add that you do have interesting views so even if i did call you ignorant about one point that doesnt mean that i would think that you are some sort of village idiot. It would be only one point out of a host of things and then i would have to admit guilt too for at least one thing somewhere, sometime, about some thing :)

But i am not sure you recognize that you yourself have contributed to side topics in this thread and so maybe you should go into PM's about your concerns and leave the thread to talk about what it needs to.
Also keep in mind that when you sensor speech you, perhaps inadvertently, seek to replace one prejudice with another, the other being the one you more strongly believe in.

But interestingly there is one argument that actually uses a computer program as an argument for what we are discussing about infinity and stuff like that. I may introduce this argument shortly.

Finally, i think what you are talking about should be talked about but not in a thread that is discussing something entirely different such as some mathematical or scientific principle. You (we) could talk about what exactly constitutes a divergence in subject matter and what doesnt.
 
Last edited:

ericgibbs

Joined Jan 29, 2010
13,624
hi,
Due to the fact that the TS is again repeatedly back Editing her Posts and so thus making the replies from other members meaningless and out of context.

So it has been decided that the Thread be Closed, pending a Moderation decision.

Moderation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top