Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s math |
On 4/2/2024 11:52 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:About the di-aletheic, ....On 04/02/2024 04:25 PM, Jim Burns wrote:>On 4/2/2024 6:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:On 04/02/2024 02:40 PM, Jim Burns wrote:>>My exploration of Unicode is a little treat>
I give myself for having to repeat the same thing
over and over and over.
Doesn't it repeat itself,
and we just echo it?
Speech with no speaker?
Not a thing I've seen around here, at least.
>
Perhaps that is the target which ChatGPT and such as
are aiming at. I ask you to take me at my word
when I claim to be a Natural.Intelligence,
something between a chimp and an angel.Yeah, we know you're sort of genius.>
To clarify,
I am claiming that I'm a human being.
>
I am sort.of.a.genius compared to the most recent
version of Hasbro Build.A.Brain and its ilk.
I'm confident that you are too.
>
It will be interesting to find out
how long that will stay true.
>Yet, are you a platonist?>
A mathematical platonist?
I think this covers it:
>
| Most writers on the subject seem to agree that
| the typical working mathematician is
| a Platonist on weekdays and
| a formalist on Sundays.
|
— Philip J. Davis
>
It would be an impressive exaggeration to call me
"a working mathematician", but
I can mathematick, I have, and I will.
>
When I mathematick,
real numbers exist. Full stop.
>
When I want an answer, it's easier to think about
teeny.tiny.dot.real.numbers ...somewhere ...somehow.
Existing Platonically.
>
However,
when I want to give a reason to mathematick,
"Look at these formulas" just seems to me
way more effective than
"Somewhere... somehow... there are teeny.tiny.dots".
And that's formalist.
>
I think you've mostly seen formalist.me.
Mostly, I've been doing
Sunday.style big.picture stuff.
Hand me a different problem, and
you'll discover a different me.
>
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.