Randomness thread, part two.

[oskar]

About once every year I buy a 10kg box of washing powder. I just pick the cheapest because I have never been dissatisfied with my choice of washing powder. So anyway, this week was that time of the year again and I had the choice between off-brand and discounted brand washing powder. I normally stay away from brands when it comes to detergents because I figure you're just paying for advertising, but the brand stuff was exactly the same price and weight and it had something extra, I forget what. Some type of fabric softener I guess. So I thought: it has something extra, that's usually better. Like when something says: +10% free, you obviously take that one over the one that's just 100% of the thing with nothing free.
So fast forward to now: all my clothes have that kind of smell that when you smell it yo know it's supposed to cover up other smells. Like when you smell Febreze, you know something awful has happened. This is what everything smells like. If I touch my clothes my fingers smell like it, so my food tastes like it. I have 10kg of that stuff. Everything smells like it. I hate it. I HATE IT!

[Keith]

send it to ong......he could put some in his bath.

[OngBonga]

Why do people here think I smell bad?

You're the farmer, keith. You're the one shovelling horse shit around. All I do is smoke weed and drink tea, hardly a smelly lifestyle.

[oskar]

[spoonitnow]

I got engaged on April 1. Today's Wrestlemania. Woop woop.

[OngBonga]

I got engaged on April 1. Today's Wrestlemania. Woop woop.

I'm an adult. I'm a child. Woop woop.

[OngBonga]

Everything isn't possible. The person who says "nothing is impossible" has obviously never tried eating a star and shitting out a planet.

[wufwugy]

Everything isn't possible. The person who says "nothing is impossible" has obviously never tried eating a star and shitting out a planet.

This always bugged me. Because I've been told there's a >0% probability of anything happening. Maybe there are caveats. I don't understand it. Somebody explain it.

[OngBonga]

Because I've been told there's a >0% probability of anything happening.

So there's a >0% probability that if I punch my monitor, my fist will will go through the screen and hit you in your stupid face?

[Savy]

So there's a >0% probability that if I punch my monitor, my fist will will go through the screen and hit you in your stupid face?

Only one way to find out!

[OngBonga]

Try playing snooker with the planets of the solar system.

Try eating your way to the centre of the planet.

Try eating molten lava and then shitting a nice cool healthy turd.

Try drinking boiling water while running a marathon.

Try going back further in time than the big bang.

Try jumping off the planet and into space.

I could go on and on...

[Savy]

This always bugged me. Because I've been told there's a >0% probability of anything happening. Maybe there are caveats. I don't understand it. Somebody explain it.

Not a statistician but I think what you're getting at is a probability of 0 doesn't mean something is impossible & a probability of 1 doesn't mean that it always happens not that something which is impossible doesn't have a probability of 0.

I'd imagine (could be wrong) that it's a case of

p(impossible event) = 0 but p(x) = 0 doesn't imply x is an impossible event kind of thing.

Try playing snooker with the planets of the solar system.

Try eating your way to the centre of the planet.

Try eating molten lava and then shitting a nice cool healthy turd.

Try drinking boiling water while running a marathon.

Try going back further in time than the big bang.

Try jumping off the planet and into space.

I could go on and on...

Arguably some of those things aren't impossible. Some are improbable but I reckon anyone could do 4 if they wanted.

[wufwugy]

So there's a >0% probability that if I punch my monitor, my fist will will go through the screen and hit you in your stupid face?

I'm not arguing with you. I'm saying that I've been told otherwise by people who say they know the math. I could be misrepresenting it, but I don't think I am. The only things I've been told to be impossible are contradictions, like when being in Toronto and San Francisco are mutually exclusive and you're in Toronto you know it's impossible to also be in San Francisco.

I've not gotten any deeper than that, as my position is your position. I've just been told otherwise by people who claim to know better. Maybe I don't understand what they really meant.

[OngBonga]

Not a statistician but I think what you're getting at is a probability of 0 doesn't mean something is impossible

I'd probably agree with that. I mean let's imagine we're holding KK vs AA and the flop is AAK. We're drawing dead, but there's a >0% chance that villain loses internet connection, or if we're playing live, maybe villain dies, or maybe there was an extra king shuffled into the deck by accident.

Although that means the probability wasn't 0% in the first place, just very close to 0%.

I suppose if something has an exact 0% probability of happening, it's literally impossible.

[oskar]

What has always bugged me about the popculture idea of multiverses where everything possible happens is that, everything possible would only happen in an infinite number of universes if the possibilities aren't infinite.

Like that Rick and Morty episode where a telephone sits on a pizza and orders a sofa over the human. That just poses a lot of unsolvable problems evolutionary.

[OngBonga]

I've not gotten any deeper than that, as my position is your position. I've just been told otherwise by people who claim to know better. Maybe I don't understand what they really meant.

I have no idea what they can mean either. I'd be more inclined to tell them to shut the fuck up rather than assume they are right.

[oskar]

Red Letter Media keeps surprising me:

https://youtu.be/2-3wkbqmgxs?t=58m43s

The whole episode is worth watching, but the ending is just amazing.

[OngBonga]

Arguably some of those things aren't impossible. Some are improbable but I reckon anyone could do 4 if they wanted.

Yeah I'd probably need to be more specific in order to qualify for "impossible", like "complete a marathon in an hour immediately after necking a pint of boiling water".

[wufwugy]

Not a statistician but I think what you're getting at is a probability of 0 doesn't mean something is impossible & a probability of 1 doesn't mean that it always happens not that something which is impossible doesn't have a probability of 0.

[OngBonga]

Take a normal dice. What's the probability of rolling an eight?

[wufwugy]

0

[OngBonga]

0

Exactly 0%?

Therefore, impossible?

[wufwugy]

should be

[OngBonga]

should be

I guess somewhere in the universe, there could be a race of beings that consider a "normal dice" to be an eight sided dice.

I wasn't specific enough to qualify for "impossible". But, I think I've made the point that, being specific enough, then yes, some things are indeed impossible.

[Savy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost...hrowing_a_dart

I think that's a nice hand wavy way of looking at it.

Also see this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probab...nterpretations

[OngBonga]

I got bored reading it, sorry. The dart thing just confused me. Why would a given point in an area have a 0% probability or being struck? It doesn't have a 0% probability, just very close.

The coin toss, sure if you flip it an infinite amount of times, then there's a 0% chance that it always flips heads. The problem is it's impossible to flip a coin an infinite amount of times, at any given point you have flipped the coin a finite amount of times, and there is a >0% probability of all the tosses being heads.

[wufwugy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost...hrowing_a_dart

I think that's a nice hand wavy way of looking at it.

This frustrates me. By discussing the diagonal of the square, it looks to me that they're saying that a thing that is not a thing is a thing. Since the diagonal of a square has area 0, wtf is it? It's nothing. It's some one-dimensional abstraction that is the same as nothing in the 3-dimensional meat space of description. Of course the probability of a dart landing on the diagonal of the square is 0 since the diagonal of the square is not a thing in which a dart is landable upon because it is not a contextually relevant thing.

My thinking here shows why I'm so bad at math theory. Imposing the "diagonal of a square" into this looks no different than imposing the "blue kitten of a square". If you define something within a sample space as unique yet the definition makes it non-accessible through interactions of the sample space, what have you even defined?

Obviously I'm wrong because I'm in over my head, but it makes no sense to me as to why.

[OngBonga]

Obviously I'm wrong because I'm in over my head, but it makes no sense to me as to why.

I suppose the idea is that the "diagonal" is an imaginary line that separates the two halves. The assumption is that the two halves make a whole, that each half is exactly 50% of the area. That means the separating line has an area of zero, and thus has a zero probability of being struck. However, if the diagonal is struck, that the dart lands precisely equidistant from opposing edges, then it proves that its area is not zero, which in turn proves that the area of each half is <50%.

It's a nonsensical approach. If the exact centre of a given area has an area in it owns right, then the non-central area is <100% of the total area.

[spoonitnow]

I'm an adult. I'm a child. Woop woop.

Random fun fact, but the average WWE viewer is over 40 years old. They have the oldest professional wrestling demographic in the world.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The problem is that mathematical darts have no cross-sectional surface area. They are simply a 1-dimensional line with an infinitessimally fine point.

In order to calculate the probability that a real dart lands in any area of its target, you take the area of the dart into account.

This is all related to the fact that when you take an integral (specifically a definite integral), you have to analyze it over some region.

By definition,
integral(x=a..b)f(x) = F(B) - F(A)

the integral of f(x) from x=a to x=b is equal to the anti-derivative of f(b) - the anti-derivative of f(a).

If a = b, then we don't even need to know f(x) or F(x), because no matter what, F(B) - F(A) = 0.

This method is fundamentally a part of probability theory and is secretely hidden behind the scenes, since the integral in this case is over the cross-sectional area of the dart, and another over the area of the target, and therefore always 0. The probability of the dart hitting any specific number is 0. The probability of the dart hitting a line is always 0. Only when the target is an area can the dart have non-0 probability of hitting it.

[OngBonga]

Random fun fact, but the average WWE viewer is over 40 years old. They have the oldest professional wrestling demographic in the world.

I really won't ever understand it. It was great when I was a kid. So was the A-Team, Knight Rider, Airwolf, and Danger Mouse. To me, wrestling is like cartoons. Sure it's entertainment. But it lacks sophistication. It's clearly not a sport, so what's the point?

I get why kids like it, I just expect that when they grow up, if there's still and interest in that sort of thing, they start watching cage fighting, or boxing, or any other fighting based sport.

I guess it's cultural. I would be very surprised if there were more adults in the UK watching wrestling than there are kids. When I watched it as a kid, adults were always telling me it's bollocks. Maybe in USA, kids watch it with their parents, thus reinforcing the cultural significance.

Certainly, there's something I'm missing here.

[OngBonga]

You've seen Natural Born Killers, right? That scene were we meet Mallory's parents... the Dad is watching Ultimate Warrior fighting someone, and is shouting at the TV... "Kill the fucking Indian"... That's the kind of adult I imagine watching wrestling... fat violent slob with no brains.

Obviously that's not the case, but it amuses me to think like that.

[Savy]

What surprises me is the amount of old wrestlers still doing it. Chris Jericho looks old but at the same time there were lots of old guys still wrestling when I watched as a kid.

My problem with it is it's mostly boring. Seems very tame too.

[spoonitnow]

I really won't ever understand it. It was great when I was a kid. So was the A-Team, Knight Rider, Airwolf, and Danger Mouse. To me, wrestling is like cartoons. Sure it's entertainment. But it lacks sophistication. It's clearly not a sport, so what's the point?

I get why kids like it, I just expect that when they grow up, if there's still and interest in that sort of thing, they start watching cage fighting, or boxing, or any other fighting based sport.

I guess it's cultural. I would be very surprised if there were more adults in the UK watching wrestling than there are kids. When I watched it as a kid, adults were always telling me it's bollocks. Maybe in USA, kids watch it with their parents, thus reinforcing the cultural significance.

Certainly, there's something I'm missing here.

The Sopranos wasn't real either.

[spoonitnow]

What surprises me is the amount of old wrestlers still doing it. Chris Jericho looks old but at the same time there were lots of old guys still wrestling when I watched as a kid.

My problem with it is it's mostly boring. Seems very tame too.

WWE is widely regarded as one of the most boring and least interesting displays of professional wrestling in the world.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Want renewed interest in Pro wrestling? Go see it live. The amateur shows take up 2/3 of the event, and if you think the pros look fake, you'll die laughing at the amateurs.

For really, though... the common argument from adults is what spoony was hinting at with his Sopranos comment -> That nearly all entertainment on TV and stage is fabricated. That doesn't mean it's for kids.

Also, those pro wrestlers are in a state of physical condition that I bet no one on FTR even aspires to. They throw and take plenty of real hits, and the life-long injuries they sustain are not fake. The drama is fabricated, but they are real people doing actually dangerous things for the glory of show business (and a paycheck). It's really not too different from any other type of show except they are all their own stunt doubles.

***
Yet, it's not for me. I respect it as a legitimate art form about as much as I do DJing. It's taking the notion of performance art in a unique direction, but not in such a way as to strip the art from the performance.

Also... Melodrama is so passe'.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[OngBonga]

The Sopranos wasn't real either.

I don't see how they compare. Well, there's some fine acting going on in both.

A get what you're saying. Wrestling tells a story. Well, if I want to watch a story, I'll watch a drama, like the Sopranos. Wrestling used to be a sport, it still in is places. I dunno, I think deep down there's a part of me that thinks that it's unfair on the actual sporting wrestlers that all the money is where the bullshit is. It's like if boxing became like Rocky, or if baseball became like [enter shitty baseball film with heart warming storyline here]. It's hollywood, when it should be sport.

So yeah, fuck pro wrestling, and fuck you adult faggots who think it's cool to bastardise sport.

[OngBonga]

/sarcasm

[OngBonga]

And yes, I typed Field of Dreams before realising that was a really bad analogy.

[spoonitnow]

I don't see how they compare. Well, there's some fine acting going on in both.

A get what you're saying. Wrestling tells a story. Well, if I want to watch a story, I'll watch a drama, like the Sopranos. Wrestling used to be a sport, it still in is places. I dunno, I think deep down there's a part of me that thinks that it's unfair on the actual sporting wrestlers that all the money is where the bullshit is. It's like if boxing became like Rocky, or if baseball became like [enter shitty baseball film with heart warming storyline here]. It's hollywood, when it should be sport.

So yeah, fuck pro wrestling, and fuck you adult faggots who think it's cool to bastardise sport.

You may find this somewhat interesting: Professional wrestling comes from the fact that actual wrestlers figured out they could make more money while maintaining their health by throwing matches. In fact, it's only fairly recently (the past ~20 years) when someone trained in professional wrestling wouldn't also be strongly trained in catch wrestling.

[OngBonga]

Vaguely interesting.

I'm not even sure I stand by what I said. I just found it funny so I posted it.

Meanwhile, in the UK...

[spoonitnow]

More randomness: Drawing large numbers of people only became the vehicle for making money through [what's become] professional wrestling after railroads and other forms of mass travel became popular and viable. Before that, it was about touring (usually with a carnival) and making money off of the betting. This is why wrestlers still speak in carny to a large degree.

Wrestling on television is largely just a vehicle to draw people to the live shows. There are typically at least two groups performing live several days each week from the WWE, and they're referred to as the [top star] tour. For example, the Roman Reigns tour might be happening at the same time as the John Cena tour with two different groups of people performing in two different locations on the same night.

Anyway, that's all of the random bs I'll go on about wrestling.

[OngBonga]

It's still all a bit sad though, really.

But then again I'm not banging two bitches, so who I am to judge your sadness?

[spoonitnow]

It's still all a bit sad though, really.

But then again I'm not banging two bitches, so who I am to judge your sadness?

It depends on your viewpoint. They went from fighting randoms for real for a stake as they went town to town, having to dispatch people quickly typically by maiming them in some way (ie: a broken limb) to being able to keep themselves much safer and make a lot more money with a lot less stress.

[wufwugy]

Spoon is always focused on the player. Ong's sentiment echos that of most people, which involves a focus on the played.

[spoonitnow]

Spoon is always focused on the player. Ong's sentiment echos that of most people, which involves a focus on the played.

I think it's better in terms of entertainment than MMA when handled correctly, and at the worst, it goes hand-in-hand. If you look at the interplay between the two in Japan, for example, it's much easier to see how that would be the case than how it's handled in North America and Europe.

[JKDS]

You people seem to like conspiracy theories, so here's one.

In spite of SCOTUS decisions regarding gay marriage and business discrimination, some states are still attempting to pass laws against marriage and for discrimination.

This is an elaborate plot by the GOP to demand a Republican scotus judge. They are pressuring these states to pass such laws, so that they can say that these cases will reach the scotus, and we need a new scalia to fight for these laws.

Tldr GOP pressure states to pass anti gay laws, with purpose of demanding new ruling by a non liberal court

[JKDS]

The alternative is they are acting independently, which is highly likely.

[wufwugy]

Rest assured that the GOP would adore to give into Obama and the Democrats on SCOTUS. They think not doing so (on virtually any issue) hurts their electoral strength. The reason that they're not giving in (at least so far) is that the grassroots backlash to such is so severe that their electoral strength would be hurt even more.

The GOP doesn't like this any more than do Democrats. Anti-gay-marriage measures at the state level are coming from the grassroots, not from the top.

[wufwugy]

The alternative is they are acting independently, which is highly likely.

I missed this.

Given the level of distaste for gay marriage among grassroots social conservatives, this is actually a pretty meager uprising. It's well below the level where things start looking too coincidental to not be a conspiracy.

[rong]

Human are such a weird species with this desperate need to control and manage the behavior of other people who they'll never even know.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Human are such a weird species with this desperate need to control and manage the behavior of other people who they'll never even know.

Agreed.

[wufwugy]

Human are such a weird species with this desperate need to control and manage the behavior of other people who they'll never even know.

That's what I'm saying.

So you've come to the Dark Side?

[rong]

Well maybe, but I still don't think tax is theft and believe in someone leading for the good of the group.

[wufwugy]

believe in someone leading for the good of the group.

As do I. It's the majority selection process I disagree with, partly because it is too much like what you described in humans controlling people they'll never meet.

If taxation isn't theft, why am I punished if I don't give something to somebody who doesn't have as reasonable of a claim to that thing as I do?

[a500lbgorilla]

It's always an interesting conversation to entertain, so

Why do you pay taxes?

The answer is as easy as you can't not. Or at least, not doing it is a very difficult choice.

So, when someone who can take everything from you, including your life, asks for a %cut of your earnings, who really has the best claim to what you believe you possess?

"Oh, no. This is all mine. It's been in my possession for ages and was born from my efforts."
"Well, I'm going to kill you and take it, unless you give it to me."

You're fortunate to live in America where the armed forces are given to the people, but don't forget that violence is always the bottom line in this natural world.

There were societies which didn't even pretend their people had any agency outside of the will of the Most Violent, and as time has gone on, through war, revolt, and revolution, we've found a good mix of violent power and independent will, but you've always got to remember the basic problem being addressed - violence is the ultimate decisive method.

And for that balance, you pay taxes.

[a500lbgorilla]

Human are such a weird species with this desperate need to control and manage the behavior of other people who they'll never even know.

If you can coax people to your will, you can court lovers to your side.



Sex and violence, folks. That's all there is to it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Q.E.D

Got laid and built the bomb.

[rong]

God dam I love you rilla

[wufwugy]

Rilla, you're not saying anything incorrect, but the conclusions you draw do not follow.

`
So, when someone who can take everything from you, including your life, asks for a %cut of your earnings, who really has the best claim to what you believe you possess?

This applies to the government, just like you intend it to. But it also applies to independent thieves. Therefore, this cannot be used to distinguish governmental taking from independent taking. This is what has compelled some people to apply the logic across the board, which is that either government taxation steals or independent thieves don't steal. The latter is unconscionable in our culture, so we make the argument that taxation is necessarily theft.

You're fortunate to live in America where the armed forces are given to the people, but don't forget that violence is always the bottom line in this natural world.

There were societies which didn't even pretend their people had any agency outside of the will of the Most Violent, and as time has gone on, through war, revolt, and revolution, we've found a good mix of violent power and independent will, but you've always got to remember the basic problem being addressed - violence is the ultimate decisive method.

This is also correct, but the conclusions you draw do not follow. There is nothing unique in the world that means a violence monopoly market is sustainable yet violence monopolistic competitive markets are not. Note that "monopolistic competitive" is the technical term for what most companies operate in; think: Apple, Caterpillar, Costco, Los Pollos Hermanos, Joe The Plumber's Plumb Plum Plumbing, etc..

You're taking on faith the idea that there can be no choice but for violence to be so monopolized that it results in compulsory revenues. Yet the fact that these government monopolies are also democratized means that they aren't actually total monopolies. Their compulsory revenues make them extremely monopolistic, yet their democratization is an extreme opposite of monopolies. They're strange bedfellows; a wacky bastardization of an antipodal merger.

It makes sense that things would be more functional and easier to just have monopolistic competitive violence markets instead of these bastardized entities of opposing elements. Regardless, directly to your point, the types of entities that governments are strongly suggests that the proposition that there must always be violence total monopolies is not correct.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Lol.

The only issue here a disagreement on the definitions and that's the whole entire story.

One side says taxation is theft, by the definitions of those words, and here's a dictionary.

The other says taxation is distinctly different from theft 'cause their definitions are not exactly identical, QED.

***
(We're totally saying QED, now, right?)

[JKDS]

I found out some cool things.

A) At a blood alcohol of 0.08, my criminalists all agree that every single person on the planet would be impaired. The wealth of science supports the claim too

B) Even at just 0.02, mental functions start to deteriorate, like short term memory and inhibitions.

C) there is such a thing as "relative tolerance", which explains why drunk ppl feel safe to drive. Going from sober to 0.08, almost everyone agrees they arnt safe. But bring them up to 0.15, then drop em back down to 0.08, they think they're fine. It's because their reference point shifted...they arnt falling down anymore, so their body thinks they're fine.

[wufwugy]

Lol.

The only issue here a disagreement on the definitions and that's the whole entire story.

One side says taxation is theft, by the definitions of those words, and here's a dictionary.

The other says taxation is distinctly different from theft 'cause their definitions are not exactly identical, QED.

***
(We're totally saying QED, now, right?)

Definitions are derived from logic. Deduction is imperative. Breaking apart the elements that make up the relevant definitions and using logic to see the other ways in which they fit is standard practice in philosophy (and math).

[wufwugy]

The statement that two things are thought of as different therefore they're different in factor is not unlike saying 2x+4 and 2(x+2) are different because they look different.

[a500lbgorilla]

Definitions are derived from logic. Deduction is imperative. Breaking apart the elements that make up the relevant definitions and using logic to see the other ways in which they fit is standard practice in philosophy (and math).

Reality is imperative. If logic and philosophy and math don't match it, then they are folly.

[a500lbgorilla]

B) Even at just 0.02, mental functions start to fluctuate, like short term memory and inhibitions.

About as much as it does hour by hour through a normal day.

[a500lbgorilla]

Lol.

The only issue here a disagreement on the definitions and that's the whole entire story.

One side says taxation is theft, by the definitions of those words, and here's a dictionary.

The other says taxation is distinctly different from theft 'cause their definitions are not exactly identical, QED.

***
(We're totally saying QED, now, right?)

I care about the idea of theft as it hugs to reality.

To call someone a thief is to beesech a greater power to "please, go catch that theif!"


"And punish him!"


What happens when that thief is the greatest power around?

You can call him a thief, but whom are you beseeching to go catch and punish him?

[a500lbgorilla]

God dam I love you rilla

Of all my favorites, you're my favorite.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Definitions are derived from logic.

I disagree.

Definitions are the result of a human need to express an idea.

A definition is a starting point.
A derivation is a method of manipulating defined terms to understand the relationships between ideas.

Logic is a set of tools and rules which allow for new statements to be generated using the defined terms. The application of the rules of logic can determine if the new statement is consistent with the old statements, but only by the application of rules. It is beyond the scope of logic to create definitions of the initial terms. It is only possible to point out inconsistencies between definitions, but it can not choose which statements' definitions are faulty. At most, it can show that one statement is more or less consistent than other statements, given the definitions. It can not show that any definition is true or false, though. Only that a set of statements is or is not self consistent.

Deduction is imperative. Breaking apart the elements that make up the relevant definitions and using logic to see the other ways in which they fit is standard practice in philosophy (and math).

All of which can only be done by asserting definitions and relationships, then testing those assertions by application of logic to various combinations of statements generated by those definitions.

Logic relies on the pre-existence of defined terms.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The statement that two things are thought of as different therefore they're different in factor is not unlike saying 2x+4 and 2(x+2) are different because they look different.

The statement that 2 things are "close enough" to the same, so they might as well be the same is not unlike saying a ball is a sphere and a planet is a sphere, so a ball is the same as a planet.

It may be a fine abstraction to help understand either balls or planets, but it is certainly not the case that they are exactly the same in all ways.

EDIT: And if you latch onto these similarities to the point of blocking out the differences, then the nature of both balls and planets is obfuscated.

[wufwugy]

Reality is imperative. If logic and philosophy and math don't match it, then they are folly.

I care about the idea of theft as it hugs to reality.

This is why we always end up arguing about two different things. You say that in practice taxation and theft are different, which is obvious and intuitive. I don't argue this topic within the realm of practice or public policy, but within the realm of theory regarding their elements. In our society, taxation does not function as theft. I argue that is because of how our society is structured. My arguments are an attempt to strip away the structure of society to develop a better understanding of the elements we're discussing.

[wufwugy]

The statement that 2 things are "close enough" to the same, so they might as well be the same is not unlike saying a ball is a sphere and a planet is a sphere, so a ball is the same as a planet.

To be clear, I am not arguing that two things are close enough to the same therefore they're the same. I'm arguing that they are the same, just on different scales, which is what make them look different. A watermelon sized ball and a planet sized ball are both balls even though they would look and function very differently in some ways.

My argument is that if you shrink taxation down to the size on which we typically call things criminal theft, we would call it theft (or as Renton pointed out a while back, extortion), and that if we ramp up theft to the scale where we call things governmental taxation, we would no longer call it theft. I argue that this scaling obfuscates perceptions of the elements.

[wufwugy]

I disagree.

Definitions are the result of a human need to express an idea.

A definition is a starting point.
A derivation is a method of manipulating defined terms to understand the relationships between ideas.

Logic is a set of tools and rules which allow for new statements to be generated using the defined terms. The application of the rules of logic can determine if the new statement is consistent with the old statements, but only by the application of rules. It is beyond the scope of logic to create definitions of the initial terms. It is only possible to point out inconsistencies between definitions, but it can not choose which statements' definitions are faulty. At most, it can show that one statement is more or less consistent than other statements, given the definitions. It can not show that any definition is true or false, though. Only that a set of statements is or is not self consistent.


All of which can only be done by asserting definitions and relationships, then testing those assertions by application of logic to various combinations of statements generated by those definitions.

Logic relies on the pre-existence of defined terms.

This is correct. My wording was poor. I meant that the definitions we accept are done so in part by logic. Initial terms are not, but when we create new terms that are logically inconsistent with accepted terms, they are (or should be) discarded. Perhaps I should have said that definitions are assessed and better understood by logic.

Your explanation of the difference is really good btw.

[wufwugy]

So I withdrew from a math class with pretty much the worst professor I've ever had (nice guy and wicked smart, but terrible at structuring education). It was right before an exam I knew I was gonna bomb. After he graded them, he sent this out to the students: "In reviewing your exams, I am convinced that most of you are confused or even utterly baffled by some of the material that we covered in the first part of the course."

I lol'd.

On a related note, I find it weird that the two main math professors I've had at this uni have had to consistently do exam regrades and provide extra credit because of poor performance from students. When do they realize that their teaching is the problem? The material is not hard, but I cannot for the life of me pick it up from their lectures and the books they use. It's as if their pedagogy is "here are some definitions and some theorems. Understand them and apply them." Meanwhile the math I'm studying from external sources (ones that exist in a highly competitive market omgomg) are fantastic and learning is a breeze.