/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4574277]

What subject if any are you knowledgeable enough about that you could have and defend a position in in a legit patritian-intellectual debate?

[Anonymous No.4574282]

World of Warcraft.

[Anonymous No.4574284]

>>4574277
Go home OP. You're drunk

[Anonymous No.4574294]

>>457424
Was my wording confusing? I'm pretty sure it makes syntactic sense. Then again it is 5am and I'm high as fuck off sleep starvation.

[Anonymous No.4574297]

>>4574294
for
>>4574284

[Anonymous No.4574306]

>>4574277
westberlin rap from 1997 - 2006

[Anonymous No.4574324]

>>4574306
Give us a taste of your knowledge?

[Anonymous No.4574330]

Southern gothic literature and a decent amount of music that I have mostly arbitrarily placed in that genre, like Sixteen Horsepower and certain Nick Cave albums.

It was probably 60% natural love for the atmosphere and style of SG lit and 40% a conscious decision to specialise in one area.

[Anonymous No.4574334]

>>4574277
anything art and theatre related

and I do mean anything

[Anonymous No.4574336]

>>4574324
sure, what do you want to know?

[Anonymous No.4574338]

>>4574330
Not to derail, but can you give me a bit of brief info on what you consider important about Southern gothic literature? I've been working on a short story that uses it as a motif and I've read a bunch of articles but it'd be nice to hear about it from someone first hand

[Anonymous No.4574339]

Lolis

[Anonymous No.4574346]

>>4574336
Idk give me a sample of something you might say if you met someone else with the same expertise.

[Anonymous No.4574347]

Chinese literature
Chinese linguistics and origin of putonghua
Motifs/themes/origins of Norse and Greek mythology, possibly Celtic as well.

I've never really studied anything worthwhile apart from those subjects.

[Anonymous No.4574348]

>>4574338
This isn't coming from the point of view of someone who has studied it in a scholarly way, but the most important thing I have found is that the protagonist is usually detached from everyone and is subject to a rotating cast of mostly freaks and sad people. But they are also never a conduit for the reader, they'll never just start spouting exposition to make it easier on people. You get the feeling that the main character is not special and just another one of the freaks, and the story just happens to be from their perspective.

Flannery O'Connor's short stories are a quick place to see what i'm getting at I think.

[Anonymous No.4574349]

OP here. The reason I ask is because I was watching this debate between William Buckley and Christopher Hitchens (say what you will about him, but the man had mad rhetorical skillz) and was wondering if /lit/ or anyone on /lit/ could hold a debate on that level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUH4RzAofv8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Anonymous No.4574350]

>>4574277
i cringe every time i see that fucking word - patrician - on this godforsaken website

don't use it. a real "patrician" wouldnt

[Anonymous No.4574354]

>>4574348
But those aren't insights or anything,, you're just reciting a list of tropes you've noticed

[Anonymous No.4574356]

>>4574350
I'll remember to put it in quotes next time

[Anonymous No.4574358]

>>4574346
although M.O.R.s first album NLP is considered to be the Straigt Outta Compton of german (Battle-)Rap, personally I think that Kool Savas ruined by bringing in Azad and his friends from Frankfurt as feature guests. They didn't really fit into the whole thing. Instead, guys like Rhymin Simon, Gris or the Beatfabrik would've made 10 times better. Still a good album though. You could just tell already that Savas was already going into a totally different direction.

[Anonymous No.4574363]

>>4574348
>>4574354 is correct but for my purposes, that was exactly what I was looking for, tropes to play with. Definitely gave me some stuff to think about, thanks

[Anonymous No.4574364]

>>4574350

Do you have more of these pictures? They are hiLARIOUS

[Anonymous No.4574366]

i'm pretty decent on classical music

[Anonymous No.4574368]

>>4574277
>patritian

[Anonymous No.4574369]

>>4574358
How does NLP compare to Straight Outta Compton?

[Anonymous No.4574370]

>>4574364
There's a whole tumblr of them out there waiting for you.

[Anonymous No.4574374]

Anime post 90s.

[Anonymous No.4574379]

>>4574364
my fave

[Anonymous No.4574380]

>>4574379
Good god lol

[Anonymous No.4574381]

Cocksucking

[Anonymous No.4574382]

Some areas of eSports:
The mid-to-late Korean Brood War scene (by God was BW a pinnacle of eSports never to be returned to)

and how awful League of Legends is as an eSport and how ironically toxic it is for global eSports.

i am truly pathetic

[Anonymous No.4574392]

>>4574277
Why is she wearing two watches?

[Anonymous No.4574395]

>>4574369
just as Straight Outta Compton was a milestone for Gangsta-Rap, NLP made german Rap turn more aggressive and hardcore. Until then everything was very soft and kind of boring.

[Anonymous No.4574396]

The superiority of science over philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4574401]

>>4574392
So it hurts more when she tells you she doesn't have time for you.

[Anonymous No.4574408]

>>4574396
Did you forget your fedora?

[Anonymous No.4574410]

All of them. But mostly Stirner.

[Anonymous No.4574417]

>>4574408
>dat projection

It takes quite a lot of fedoras to believe that philosophy is still a valid field of inquiry in the 21st century. I bet you are the same kind of pseudo-intellectual who prefers to buy Darwin's or Newton's historical books instead of modern textbooks because he's not interested in actual contents but only in name dropping and pretentiousness.

[Anonymous No.4574430]

>>4574417
Jesus Christ, cant you just go back to /sci/ and leave the adults alone?
I bet you are one of those that take Dawkins seriously

[Anonymous No.4574433]

>>4574430
>not taking Dawkins seriously

He is a brilliant evolutionary biologist and his refutation of theology is flawless. He is a profound thinker and far ahead of his time. Don't be mad because you don't understand him. Have fun believing in fairy tales, kid, while the grown-ups accept science and reality.

[Anonymous No.4574435]

>>4574277
>patritian
Let me post you a comic.

[Anonymous No.4574438]

[Anonymous No.4574440]

[Anonymous No.4574443]

[Anonymous No.4574444]

Psychology, Programming(Developing true AI for the danish military, baby. More lines of code than Mac OS X Tiger, but don't tell anyone), Neurology

[Anonymous No.4574447]

>>4574444
>true AI

What a meaningless buzzword. Nobody in AI research talks about "true" AI. Don't be an anti-intellectual sci fi kid.

[Anonymous No.4574451]

>>4574444
>he thinks AI is a prolem of programming
my sides are in orbit

[Anonymous No.4574461]

>>4574433
>his refutation of theology is flawless
See? If you actually knew about philosophy and sociology you'd see its mostly recycled, bad-written arguments from true thinkers, like Feuerbach and Freud. Also, you'd see he is wildly unscientific while at it, using decontextualized internet quotes as debate material and outdated sociological models.

[Anonymous No.4574466]

>>4574461
>true thinkers
>Freud

Are you fucking serious?

[Anonymous No.4574468]

chess
scott joplin
js bach
your mom

[Anonymous No.4574470]

>>4574466
Yeah, he is so bad Dawkins is regurgitating his arguments on monotheism.

[Anonymous No.4574484]

what is Neruda's finest poem?

[Anonymous No.4574485]

>>4574470
Also its interesting to see. From all points I made you chose the most harmless, unrelated even, to question.
Makes me question if you are really that good to debate

[Anonymous No.4574492]

>>4574470
Literally every argument, no matter how weak, is sufficient to destroy religious fairy tales. That's how absurd and inconsistent they are.

>>4574485
>all points I made
You didn't make any points. When I told you how sciene made philosophy obsolete, you immediately jumped to a straw man attack against Dawkins. Afraid of having to admit I'm right?

[Anonymous No.4574494]

>>4574451
It's not. but are you saying it's not a proponent?
We are basically trying to emulate the new progress in mapping the brain and basing an AI around it. I can't tell you how it works entirely.
>>4574447
Boy are you gonna feel like a cunt in a few years

[Anonymous No.4574496]

Nothing. I was fairly competent at writing, but I've built up so much anxiety around it that I simply can't work with it anymore

[Anonymous No.4574498]

>>4574494
What's your background in AI?

[Anonymous No.4574505]

>>4574498
My background isn't in AI at all, it's not like I'm leading the project or something, I've made databases for the state hospitals and police.

[Anonymous No.4574508]

>>4574492
I just returned your straw man, bby (i bet you are the kind that...)
the problem is you got so butthurt you had to do damage control to defend your lord and savior, so the center of the debate changed, naturally. If you are secure with it again we can go back to the initial subject :)

[Anonymous No.4574510]

>What subject if any are you knowledgeable enough about that you could have and defend a position in in a legit patritian-intellectual debate?

I am experienced in explaining why 0.999... cannot be equal to 1.

[Anonymous No.4574516]

>>4574510
It is, though

[Anonymous No.4574519]

>>4574505
>I've made databases for the state hospitals and police.

Whoa dude, are you telling me you actually used the SQL command "create table"? Sure is advanced computer science in here.

[Anonymous No.4574527]

>>4574510
Why?

[Anonymous No.4574525]

>>4574508
>ad hominem

I'm still waiting for an argument from your side. I know you have none.

[Anonymous No.4574529]

>>4574516
Prove it and I'll tell you why your proof is wrong.

[Anonymous No.4574531]

>>4574516
No lol you faggot it's written right there 0.9999 isn't 1 because it is missing 0.1111111111, lol stupid kid

[Anonymous No.4574536]

>>4574510
what is your answer to the infinite geometrical sequence sum argument?
(remodelate 0.999... as 9/10 + 9/100 + ...
apply infinite geometrical sum formula
equals 1)

[Anonymous No.4574538]

>>4574519
Well, our "SQL Create Table" got us paid 200 million dollars just for the hospital work, so someone must appreciate it

[Anonymous No.4574540]

>>4574527
From calculus we know [math]\lim_{x\to\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{x}\right)^x=\frac{1}{e}[/math].

Consider the sequence [math]a_n = 10^n[/math].

Clearly [math]\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=\infty[/math].

Therefore [math]\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{a_n}\right)^{a_n}=\frac{1}{e}[/math].

But [math]\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{10^n}\right)=0.999\ldots[/math].

So [math](0.999\ldots)^\infty=\frac{1}{e}\neq 1=1^\infty[/math].

[math]\Rightarrow~0.999\ldots\neq 1[/math]

QED

[Anonymous No.4574541]

>>4574536
>>4574531

[Anonymous No.4574543]

>>4574531
It's not. It's missing 0.000000...

[Anonymous No.4574547]

>>4574395

Is there anything by Prinz Pi as good as Keine Liebe?

[Anonymous No.4574550]

>>4574536
Geometric series uses limits. It only shows that 1 is a limit point of 0.999... Limits are hypothetical points at infinity. 0.999.... will come infinitely close to 1 but never reach it.

[Anonymous No.4574556]

>>4574540
Okay, but you're missing the bigger picture. The one where you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.4574558]

>>4574540
Can you do this in MS paint?

[Anonymous No.4574559]

>>4574538
Code monkey work is still a low tier service. There's also millions of moneys being spent on waste collection every year. That doesn't make it intellectually demanding.

[Anonymous No.4574565]

>>4574550
x = 0.9999... *10
10x= 9.9999... - 0.999999...
9x=9.0 /10
x=1

1=0.999...

[Anonymous No.4574566]

>>4574540
>mfw no jsmath on /lit/

[Anonymous No.4574567]

>>4574559
what are you trying to prove?

[Anonymous No.4574568]

>>4574547
anything up to Donnerwetter is great. Neopunk was misunderstood. You might want to try Geschriebene Geschichte, it's a Best Of of his old stuff. But yes, Keine Liebe is by far his best song. Personally I also like Cyborg and Herren der Welt.

[Anonymous No.4574573]

>>4574559
Whatever dude, I'm not saying I'm a genius, I'm saying I could defend a position in a position in a patrician intellectual debate. Because my record demands respect, not because I deserve it. I never said I'd defend my position well.

[Anonymous No.4574576]

>>4574565
Not an equivalence and therefore not a proof. You cannot do it backwards. Like when you start with
x = 1
10x = 10
9x = 9.999... - 0.999...

How would you get to x = 0.999...?
Hint: You can't without circularly assuming it.

[Anonymous No.4574581]

>>4574573
You said you were qualified to talk about AI. Obviously you aren't, if your only "argument" boils down to "I got paid money for code monkey work". Go back to your cave.

[Anonymous No.4574585]

>>4574581
There's a difference between being "knowledgeable enough to defend a position" and being competent

[Anonymous No.4574586]

>>4574525
It is different to say: you are idiot therefore you are wrong and you are wrong therefore you are an idiot.(if you read philosophy you probably wouldn't make such basic logic mistakes). I just showed that it was you that deviated the center of the debate and that was you that started with the straw man, so you cant complain when I answer in the same tone.
But lets get to it, shall we?
Show me how the scientific method will bring to us a new ethical code and answers to the unprecedented questions about biotechnology and bio-engineering such as, is it ethical to change or choose the genetic code of your offspring? How to deal, then, with the growing social difference it it would bring? Couldn't it create some new kind of social apartheid? (rich people only can afford it, so the social differences grow so much that become genetic differences and then we would have that the "haves" and "have-nots" become different species)

[Anonymous No.4574589]

>>4574585
>this is what incompetent people actually believe

[Anonymous No.4574591]

>>4574589
Yeah. Are you saying everyone who's been in a high profile debate has DESERVED to be there? Then you're incompetent too

[Anonymous No.4574594]

>>4574591
OP was talking about "legit patritian-intellectual debates" and not talk show debates for the general public.

[Anonymous No.4574595]

>>4574334
who's the best contemporary artist?

[Anonymous No.4574597]

>>4574566
>>4574540
>1^infinity
yeah no that's bullshit, by that same reasoning (1-1/x)^x -> 1^infty = 1
you can't just treat the x in 1/x and ^x as separate variables

also if 0.999... were different from 1 it'd be lower than 1 so necessarily 0.999...^infinity = 0

[Anonymous No.4574602]

>>4574468
What's the most underrated Bach piece?

[Anonymous No.4574604]

>>4574586
>It is different to say: you are idiot therefore you are wrong and you are wrong therefore you are an idiot.
Then why do you use the former while I use the latter?

>such basic logic mistakes
Obviously logic is another weakness of yours. Please take a course on formal logic.

>Show me how the scientific method will bring to us a new ethical code
Pic related. The neuroscientist Sam Harris proved that objective morality can and should be subject of science.

[Anonymous No.4574605]

>>4574594
I assume you haven't been to many legit, scholarly debates then? they don't have a perfect track record either. Often inviting high ranking government official, people with "ethical" authority, and finally people like me.

[Anonymous No.4574606]

>>4574597
>also if 0.999... were different from 1 it'd be lower than 1 so necessarily 0.999...^infinity = 0
This is true. 0.999...^infinity = 0.

[Anonymous No.4574612]

>>4574586
How is that an argument in favor of philosophy? How are philosophers more qualified to talk about ethics and morality? Has philosophy ever objectively solved an ethical problem? No, it fucking hasn't and philosophers talking about ethics are simply talking out of their ass, using the typical "appeal to emotion" fallacies they always use. After all ethics is still solved by common sense and without needing to consult the pseudo-intellectualism of someone who studied philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4574615]

>>4574605
I hate to break it to you, but if you ever got invited to a debate, then it wasn't because you are a good debater but only because they needed a clown, a laughingstock.

[Anonymous No.4574624]

>>4574615
So we agree I could get invited to one.
I win

[Anonymous No.4574626]

>>4574604
Well, I showed that you were the cause of the debate deviation, not me, then called you a butthurt idiot who was doing damage control (repeating myself: you opened with a straw man, I responded with one. You, unlike me, took it seriously and turned it into the centre of the debate).
Also, the idea of the thread is to show you can hold a discussion, not that you can namedrop books and outsource the debate to other people

[Anonymous No.4574635]

>>4574438
>>4574440
>>4574443
Fucking what

[Anonymous No.4574643]

>>4574626
I'm still waiting for you to post an argument that isn't ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.4574646]

>>4574606
that's not what the pic says

[Anonymous No.4574655]

>>4574348
>no academic jargon

you aint ready to play intellectual round these parts boy

[Anonymous No.4574656]

>>4574612
It is an argument in favor of the limitations of the scientific method. I'd love to hear how it deals with ethics if namedrop guy over there would actually debate for a change.
The implicit idea is that, when the scientific method fails, philosophy enters. You are just showing off your ignorance on philosophy and ethics, really. Ethical problems can't be objectively answered,(is what i propose) just discussed endlessly. Thus, various philosophers and civilizations produced new ethical codes, correcting the mistakes of the past. Hopefully, this discussion is an ever-ascending spiral to a definitive truth. What philosophy can do is to show the limitations and contradictions of the actual model, thus inciting the discussion. Its not always about wrong and right answers, sometimes its about right questions

[Anonymous No.4574658]

>>4574438
>>4574440
>>4574443
what the fuck
why would someone make something like this

[Anonymous No.4574662]

>>4574656
>he thinks philosophy is about finding definitive truth

[Anonymous No.4574668]

>>4574643
there were not ad-hominems in my last post.
Im still for a decent counter-argument that is not "hey read this book". Seriously, would you do that in an actual debate?

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.4574670]

literature

[Anonymous No.4574683]

>>4574656
>the limitations of the scientific method.
There are no limitations to the scientific method.

>Ethical problems can't be objectively answered,
Thanks for confirming that philosophy is bullshit and not helpful at solving problems. If anyone is gonna solve ethical questions, then it will be scientists applying rationality instead philosophical "muh feelings" bullshittery.

[Anonymous No.4574689]

>>4574379
But this one is the best

[Anonymous No.4574690]

>>4574612
there's no objective way to discuss ethics. the minute you try to measure/quantify "ethics" is the minute you disregard other peoples notions of what ethics are. it's too ambiguous for science.

[Anonymous No.4574694]

>>4574662
No I don't.
I hope that Hegel was right and the dialectic between ethical models will lead to ever-greater ethics. Its the same difference between saying that it is infinity and it goes to infinity

[Anonymous No.4574695]

>>4574668
There is no debate going on here. I stated the fact that philosophy was made obsolete by science. Your immediate reaction was to cry and throw a tantrum. Not a single counterargument was to be seen from your side. I'm sorry to hear that you are too immature to participate in intellectual discourse among adults.

[Anonymous No.4574699]

>>4574689
Or this one

[Anonymous No.4574701]

>>4574690
Then please tell me how philosophers are more qualified to talk about ethics. If all of ethics is just "muh feelings" and talking out of their ass, then how is someone with a degree in philosophy more qualified to do it than a random imbecile from the street?

[Anonymous No.4574702]

>>4574683
So you think science can decide whether it's objectively better to do A or B? Really?

Do you know the trolley problem?

Three people tied to track A. One person tied to track B. Train is headed for track A. You can flip the switch and it will be diverted to track B. If you don't touch it, three people will die. If you flip the switch one person will die, but you will have killed them.

What do you do?

[Anonymous No.4574704]

>>4574683
Who said about rationality and 'muh feelings'?
We can discuss ethics rationally, but based on our internal judge of what is right and wrong rather than with falsifiable hypothesis and experimentation

[Anonymous No.4574706]

>>4574689
Link for moar?

[Anonymous No.4574711]

>>4574702
>So you think science can decide whether it's objectively better to do A or B? Really?
Science can provide objective arguments while philosophy can only bring up subjective nonsense.

>Do you know the trolley problem?
Literally every problem in philosophy is "trolley" because philosophy is nothing but applied trolling.

>What do you do?
I'm doing science.

[Anonymous No.4574712]

>>4574701
Yeah the thing is not that philosophers can tell more accurately what is right or wrong, but they can ask the questions that make the everyday imbecile think about it. Such ad the trolley problem someone posted

[Anonymous No.4574714]

>>4574701
not all philosophers argue from feelings. some of them attempt to create axioms and develop principles grounded in those axioms.

personally i dont think philosophers are especially qualified to talk about ethics, but it so happens that philosophers/philosophy majors are more likely to have thought about and studied ethics.

[Anonymous No.4574720]

Weight training, steroids, muscle growth and related factors.

[Anonymous No.4574723]

>>4574695
I made the arguments, you chose to ignore and cherry-pick them.
Im going to continue to debate with the more intelligent and qualified people here, thanks a lot

[Anonymous No.4574724]

>>4574711
>Science can provide objective arguments
kek

[Anonymous No.4574725]

>>4574704
>We can discuss ethics rationally
Obviously not. If we could, it would be science and not philosophy.

>>4574712
Every toddler can ask stupid questions. Again no philosophy needed.

[Anonymous No.4574728]

>>4574277
History

[Anonymous No.4574730]

>>4574714
>some of them attempt to create axioms
And what's the basis for their axioms? Irrational belief, not justified by scientific evidence.

>>4574723
Show me one argument you made. I don't see them ITT.

>>4574724
Do you even science?

[Anonymous No.4574732]

>>4574711
>I'm doing science.
haha.
Please go to the philosophy department at you Uni -- which you probably go to a shit tier school --, gather up all the professors in the conference room, and say everything you said on here to them. See what happens.

>muh objectivity
>muh scientific method

[Anonymous No.4574735]

Romans. Palatine hill is a speciality. I could probably hold a literal patrician debate. Not past the republic though

[Anonymous No.4574738]

>>4574728
Me too. History at me. What tenets did the Ottoman empire establish as the basis of their 'A Great People' plan, and we're they, in your opinion, defensible in the time they were propounded?

[Anonymous No.4574741]

>>4574732
Why would you try to speak with retards who just appeal to ridicule and circlejerk?

Philosophy is a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.4574747]

>>4574732
Post an argument or GTFO. Your faux ridicule doesn't hide the fact that you can't refute my point rationally.

And btw: I go to an elite university.

[Anonymous No.4574755]

>>4574741
>Why would you try to speak with retards who just appeal to ridicule and circlejerk?
>Philosophy is a fucking joke.
Then you should have no difficulty refuting those "retards". Just wait until you see some professors walk into the department office and just tell them they're retards and science can prove ethics with "objectivity"

[Anonymous No.4574762]

>>4574755
Hah, refuting? Refuting a retard who thinks fucking fossil is just a thought?

There is no reason to lend credibility to their shenanigans by arguing with them.

[Anonymous No.4574763]

>>4574755
I have no problem refuting them. It's only them having an emotional problem with my superior arguments. When they flail their arms and start crying, there is not much to refute anymore.

[Anonymous No.4574764]

>>4574725
stupid questions? Look at the trolley problem. It is precisely designed to undermine the idea that ethics are measurable. Makes us question the value of life, how much the consequence of our acts can determine the ethicalness of them a posteriori (if you do nothing and the guy later kills someone or cures cancer, was it more right or wrong?). There are a lot of non-trivial questions here a toddler couldn't formulate, or condense in a single problem.
Also, again. Its not about questions simply, but the right questions. The ones that turn explicit everything we believe blindly without being aware of it, and question the validity of these beliefs

[Anonymous No.4574772]

>>4574763
>b-b-but its not le perfect information xDDD
>le how can you tell !

Philosophers are like failed fucking scientist. Got best grades out of my university philosophy classes and I didn't even open up a fucking course book let alone bought one.

just fucking ridiculed the teacher with whatever inane rambling i could gather from my mind and he was awed.

what a joke of a fucking 'science'

[Anonymous No.4574773]

>>4574747
>Post an argument or GTFO.
Your disposition is puerile, and you are easily angered. Do you scream at your microscope when the scientific method fails you while that chinese biologist --TA-- sodomizes you? Are your friends just as big of man-childs as you are?

[Anonymous No.4574778]

>>4574764
There is nothing deep in the trolley problem. It's an exercise in futile sophistry for children who want to waste their time with "hurr durr I can hold the edgy position if I try hard enough". How about you grow up and pay attention to the really important questions, i.e. science?

[Anonymous No.4574785]

>>4574711
You never actually answered how science would solve the problem, and whether the scientific answer is to pull the lever or not to pull it.

[Anonymous No.4574786]

>>4574773
>you are easily angered

I am rightfully annoyed by your infantile antics. This is an 18+ forum. Please be more mature.

[Anonymous No.4574791]

>>4574786
>infantile antics
Stop projecting, m8.

[Anonymous No.4574793]

>>4574778
Wait, which position is the edgy one?

I can see someone holding either position earnestly.

"I don't want to be a murderer" vs. "I want to save lives."

[Anonymous No.4574795]

>>4574702
What is exactly the problem here.

I will use my SCIENCE MADE GPS PHONE AND TELL RETARDS TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE FUCKING RAILROAD

HOW IS THIS FUCKING PROBLEM

ARE PHILOPSHERS THIS FUCKING STUPID

OH GOD

[Anonymous No.4574799]

>>4574785
Why don't you tell me how philosophy answers the question? What is the objective philosophical answer? If you use the trolley problem as an argument in favor of philosophy, then please demonstrate how philosophy can solve it. Show me where philosophy is needed in answering it. If the trolley problem literally just means every idiot can talk out of his ass about ethics and morality, then all you proved is how useless philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.4574803]

>>4574795
They're tied to it.

Unless you're not that anon, but someone parodying him, in which case, try harder because it's hard to tell.

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.4574808]

>>4574795

> i don't understand thought experiments
> and get a little colon chagrined about it

[Anonymous No.4574809]

>>4574803
then I just fucking call the fucking train driver and tell him to stop the fuck up with my phone.

Fucking retards

[Anonymous No.4574810]

>>4574778
I just showed it was. You just said it wasn't. This is not how a debate works.
I got that nagging feeling Im being trolled again, or you are all really stupid teens who get angry for nothing and cant hold a real discussion without resorting to infantile name-calling and lazy namedroping

[Anonymous No.4574814]

>>4574785
>Call the state rail road company
>Ask them to stop the train

GEE WAS THAT SO HARD FUCKING IMBECILE?

>>4574810
>>4574810
>Deep
>hurr i cant make phone call too deep
Science solved it, make a fucking phone call retard.

[Anonymous No.4574812]

>>4574799
You're dodging the question. You said science could solve problems like that. I asked you to support your claim. Now you're asking me to show proof of what philosophy can do. That's irrelevant. If neither science nor philosophy can do it, neither one can.

Can science? You said it could. So why aren't you solving it with the power of science?

[Anonymous No.4574818]

>>4574809
Trains can't stop on a dime. Wait, where'd you get the train driver's phone number?

Oh, God... It was you all along! You put them there in the first place, didn't you? YOU MONSTER!

[Anonymous No.4574819]

>>4574795
>>4574809
>>4574772
>>4574763
Is Russell correct in rejecting Frege's sense/reference distinction, on the grounds that, if reference is mediated by sense, we lose the idea of direct acquaintance and succumb to Descriptivism?

>hur hur Philosophy is stoopid
>science

[Anonymous No.4574820]

>>4574810
>infantile name-calling
>you are all really stupid teens who get angry for nothing and cant hold a real discussion

oh the irony

[Anonymous No.4574821]

>>4574812
>Pick up a phone.
>Call the railroad network and tell them to shut the train from remote.

Not hard.

Science solved your shitty ass fucking dilemma but I guess you are too fucking stupid and will continue to ridicule people even more.

If you cant LE TELLL NO CANT TELL then fucking kill yourself and see if you die.

[Anonymous No.4574825]

>>4574814
There's the matter of the time it takes to do that, and whether or not it's possible in the time you have.

Or did science make a time machine for you too?

[Anonymous No.4574826]

bird law

[Anonymous No.4574827]

>>4574818
>Where do you get the phone number
By fuckign calling the railroad company.

[Anonymous No.4574828]

>>4574799
For the third time.
The philosophical work is not on the answer, but in the question

[Anonymous No.4574829]

>>4574812
>You said science could solve problems like that.

No, I didn't. Are you reading impaired? I said philosophy is obsolete and your post is confirming it. Science answers all questions which can be answered. Everything left to philosophy is meaningless masturbatory pseudo-intellecutalism without basis in reality and without effects on our life.

[Anonymous No.4574834]

>>4574277
postwar western literature

[Anonymous No.4574832]

>>4574825
wow I was right, he is continuing his case of just ridiculing without any arguments when he has completely lost the argument to a fucking cellphone.

Another fucking coffin to the dead fucking shitty branch of literature named philospjhy

[Anonymous No.4574833]

>>4574821
>>4574810
>>4574809
>>4574795

How do we distinguish negative from irrelevant evidence, if both match the hypothesis?

>muh scientific method

[Anonymous No.4574835]

>>4574828
There is no merit in making up stupid questions. It requires no qualifications. I already told you any toddler can do it and does it.

[Anonymous No.4574837]

>>4574829
>Everything left to philosophy is meaningless masturbatory pseudo-intellecutalism without basis in reality and without effects on our life.

This right here.

[Anonymous No.4574838]

>>4574820
how is it ironic? Your side was the one who started screaming and shouting.

[Anonymous No.4574842]

>>4574838
Nope. Read the thread and then go see a doctor. Eviently your short term memory is defective.

[Anonymous No.4574844]

>>4574837
>>4574838
>>4574772
>>4574763
How can you investigate without some preconception of your object?

>muh objective reasoning

[Anonymous No.4574845]

>>4574828
>Work.
>implying it takes work to ridicule people with stupid situations.
gj lol m8

[Anonymous No.4574846]

>>4574844
by investigating it with common sense.

I dont need to ridicule like a retard.

[Anonymous No.4574847]

>>4574837
>>4574835
Mathematically expressed propositions are true of the world, but how to interpret them?

>muh science can explain the world

[Anonymous No.4574849]

>>4574847
How has it not explained the world?

Time to stop posting when you have no arguments.

[Anonymous No.4574852]

>>4574846
The inference to observables and unobservables is almost the same, so why distinguish them?

>muh common sense

[Anonymous No.4574853]

>>4574847
Mathematically modelling reality in order to gain testable predictions is the quintessence of science. You shot yourself in the foot, dimwit.

[Anonymous No.4574854]

>>4574832
No, you tried to cheat an answer that would allow you to avoid making an ethical choice which is the purpose of the thought experiment. The train is right there, it takes about a mile for the train to come to a stop and it is less than a mile away. How does science solve this problem?

[Anonymous No.4574859]

>>4574854
>Cheat an answer
>how owuld science solve it: by phone.

Oh, I was right again, ignoring every answer and just more appeal to ridicule fallacies.

>>4574852
Yes, that works there too. Common sense of scientist. No retarded shitfling like you are doing. No need to get upset.

[Anonymous No.4574860]

>>4574849
>>4574853

>Idk how to use my brain
>Idk what the word Interpret means

[Anonymous No.4574861]

If you are all too dense to understand a simple problem and its ethical implications its not my fault.
Its A or B, you cant invent a new alternative ad hoc. By doing so you are just avoiding the question

[Anonymous No.4574865]

>>4574861
>ASK HOW COULD SCIENCE SOLVE THIS
>BUT PLEASE DONT USE ANYTHING THAT SCIENCE HAS DONE TO SOLVE IT

Tom Cruise laughs at your shitty baits.

Continue to ridicule and do nothing else. Because thats what philosophy is.

Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.4574866]

>>4574859
lol yeah you could just use a phone to call schrodingers cat too "hello are u alive"

[Anonymous No.4574867]

>>4574860
It is you who is incapable of using his/her brain. You are mentally stuck in the 19th century and you mindlessly recite your pseudo-intellectual philosphical thought experiments you memorized as a child. You can't think for yourself. That's why you can't into science.

[Anonymous No.4574868]

>>4574827
You've confused science with technology. An easy mistake to make.

[Anonymous No.4574869]

>>4574859
>common sense
wow, very scientific of you.

[Anonymous No.4574874]

>>4574347
>putonghua

Does it just make people feel smart to transliterate this? Just call it mandarin for fuck's sake, it's needlessly confusing.

[Anonymous No.4574875]

>>4574866
APPEAL TO RIDICULE CONTINUES
MY FUCKING SIDES.

Dont even respond anymore if you cant do nothing but make up retarded rules and situations.

>>4574868
Yeah because science did not invent the little parts phone is made of retad.

[Anonymous No.4574877]

>>4574861
>philosopher
>can't think outside the box
Why am I not surprised?

>>4574869
>philospher
>too autistic for common sense
Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous No.4574879]

>>4574875
Scientists didn't invent those. Engineers did.

[Anonymous No.4574880]

>>4574877
>>4574875
>>4574867
Should axiomatic truth be 'conservative' - not proving anything apart from implications of the axioms?

[Anonymous No.4574882]

>ANY COMMON MAN
>PICKS UP A PHONE
>CALLS TO STOP THE TRAIN TO RAILROAD COMPANY

>lit version
>b--b-bbut you cant call in my retard scenario!!! please dont use anythign science can do to solve this problem with sceince

[Anonymous No.4574883]

>>4574868
That's true, but don't give his shitty answer anymore validation. A train, even after the brake is applied, can take a mile (or more) to stop. If the train were any further away, obviously you could just untie everybody. The point is that it's RIGHT THERE and you have to make a choice. The train stopping isn't an option.

[Anonymous No.4574884]

>>4574865
im asking how science can solve an ethical problem, not a technological one
also this
>>4574866

[Anonymous No.4574887]

>>4574880
Ever heard of soundness and completeness? Please take a class on formal logic. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.4574889]

>>4574879
Yeah because engineers surely did not use any sort of science :,)

>>4574884
There is no ethical problem when you save both.

>>4574883
>Stopping train isnt an option
Oh lord these goal posts keep on moving and moving on

[Anonymous No.4574890]

>>4574866
Most people seem to forget that the cat can observe itself.

[Anonymous No.4574891]

>>4574877
yeah because common sense was always right throughout history, right?

[Anonymous No.4574893]

>>4574882
>train is barreling down the tracks straight ahead
>take out phone and call railroad company
>essentially made the choice to kill the four people straight ahead

yeah you didnt accomplish shit

[Anonymous No.4574894]

>>4574884
>also this
>its more ridiculing

This is why nobody with self-esteem respects philosophers

[Anonymous No.4574895]

>>4574887
>Ever heard of soundness and completeness? Please take a class on formal logic. You're embarrassing yourself.
You're an idiot. However, I am curious why you said this. Explain this in relation to axiomatic truth?

[Anonymous No.4574898]

>>4574891
Show me when it wasn't right.

[Anonymous No.4574900]

>>4574893
Wow if the train was already on them why do you keep nagging about your situation

>>4574891
because your appeal to ridicule is right? TOP KEK

[Anonymous No.4574902]

>>4574889
>Oh lord these goal posts keep on moving and moving on

It's part of the original thought experiment that the train is right there. If you knew anything about trains (or science, funnily enough), you would know how fucking long they take to stop.

[Anonymous No.4574904]

>>4574889
>There is no ethical problem when you save both
Exactly!
You said science can solve ethical problems, but didn't prove that. Instead, you showed how science would eliminate it
What are you going to do when science cant simply eliminate the problem and you have to deal with it?

[Anonymous No.4574905]

itt: how to defeat philosophists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Now stop posting if you cant do nothing more but throwaway retarded scenarios.

>>4574902
if its right there they are dead, so why do you keep ridiculing with useless scenario which you set up for yourself to win?

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

And learn to argue.

>>4574904
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

[Anonymous No.4574906]

>>4574887
We can use truth instead of ontologically loaded second-order comprehension assumptions about properties

[Anonymous No.4574914]

>>4574898
well im just going to sit there in the center of the universe watching heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones

[Anonymous No.4574915]

>>4574906
>if I concatenate many meaningless buzzwords in one sentence, they will believe I'm smart

[Anonymous No.4574916]

>>4574905
>if its right there they are dead

did you already forget the experiment? you can pull a switch and change the track that the train is on to kill one person instead of four. if you were the man, would you pull the lever to kill one and save four or would you let four die?

[Anonymous No.4574919]

>>4574905
Which are prior - thin concepts like right, good, ought; or thick concepts like kindness, equity etc.?

[Anonymous No.4574921]

>>4574914
Because that is what scientist have come up with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

You lost.

>>4574916
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
and fuck off with your loaded questions which are rigged for your own good with train already on top of the dead people.

[Anonymous No.4574923]

>>4574915
>being this vapid

[Anonymous No.4574924]

>>4574919
>Which are prior

The scientific laws of nature.

[Anonymous No.4574928]

>>4574924
>The scientific laws of nature.
>2014 avoiding questions like retards.
Cool.

[Anonymous No.4574929]

>>4574921
>and fuck off with your loaded questions which are rigged for your own good with train already on top of the dead people.

stop ridiculing me. check your privilege.

but also, how does science answer the question: is it right to kill one person in order to save more than one person's life? that's the whole point, sweetheart.

[Anonymous No.4574931]

>>4574905
Fallacy fallacy
Also I didn't make an appeal to ridicule there.
Can we agree that science cant give an objective answer to what is more ethical, only, if we are lucky, eliminate the problem of what is more ethical?

[Anonymous No.4574935]

>>4574924
It is not clear how the emotivist can accommodate the amoralist - one who recognizes moral requirements but is indifferent to them. Thus, How can emotivists explain someone who recognises morality but is indifferent to it?

[Anonymous No.4574940]

>>4574931
Can we agree that philosophy cannot answer ethical questions and is therefore useless?

[Anonymous No.4574941]

>>4574924
Is it true that to say an act is wrong makes no further statement about it, but merely expresses disapproval?

[Anonymous No.4574943]

>>4574921
No, you lost.
scientists shouldn't use common sense as a tool to understanding the world, because scientists themselves proved it to be wrong repeatedly

[Anonymous No.4574948]

>>4574943
"The whole of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking."
-- Albert Einstein

[Anonymous No.4574950]

>>4574941
The mistake is to think we can prove what can only be seen directly in moral thinking

[Anonymous No.4574954]

>>4574940
Almost there.
Philosophy can't answer them, but can make you think about it. Isn't this what we have been doing in this thread? ;)

[Anonymous No.4574956]

>>4574954
Every toddler can make up pointless questions and frequently does so. No philosophy is needed to do that.

[Anonymous No.4574957]

None, and I'm not even close in any to my knowledge.

I read to be better prepared, but it's taking a long time.

[Anonymous No.4574959]

>>4574943
Common sense of scientist differs from retards.

>>4574929
It's like making up a mathetmical equation with too little information and cant be solved. It's retarded.

>>4574931
>I didnt make up.
You practically shit up a board and asked someone to clean after you. See above.

Not even philfags cant answer it because they gave up too little knowledge of it.

[Anonymous No.4574960]

The effects of jerking off, smoking weed, and sitting around the house all day browsing the internet.

[Anonymous No.4574961]

>>4574956
You forget these are manchilden ITT who needs people to tell them that smoking cigarettes dont make you gay.

[Anonymous No.4574962]

>>4574948
Yeah, but to refine it you have to step away from it. Deny it. Contradict it.
That's what philosophy and science do. Show to us that our everyday thinking is not perfect, but fails in some places, and therefore can be improved.

[Anonymous No.4574966]

>>4574962
Philosophy does nothing but >>4574956
this.

[Anonymous No.4574968]

>>4574960
i'd debate you on that as it is my specialist subject too.

[Anonymous No.4574973]

>>4574956
But its not because a toddler can that you can do it too.
He can do it because he is not yet fully inserted in the symbolic reality. But you are too deep in it, so some ideas sound obvious and natural when they aren't.

[Anonymous No.4574976]

>>4574973
Yes, I'm a mature adult. I don't need to engage in infantilism anymore.

[Anonymous No.4574984]

>>4574976
to question common-sense is infantilism?
I thought we agreed that this was one of science's job

[Anonymous No.4574986]

>>4574973
No, the toddler can do it because he is retarded.
Same with philosopher.

[Anonymous No.4574988]

Video games, video games as art, philosophy of video games, etc.

[Anonymous No.4574989]

>>4574986
Of course, ideology (read as common-sense) makes it so that everyone that question it is considered a retard.
People called Galileo retarded too.

[Anonymous No.4574990]

>>4574277

Wittgensteinian aesthetics/ethics

[Anonymous No.4574992]

>>4574956
If you really think that's what philosophy consists of then you're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.4574997]

>>4574992
>if u disagree, I'll call u stoooooopid

Thanks for confirming the infantile mentality of they typical philosopher.

[Anonymous No.4574998]

>>4574962
You are so correct, I don't understand why everyone is getting so worked up about it.

[Anonymous No.4575010]

>>4574576
It's easier to see this way:
x = 1/9 = 0.111...
9x = 9 * 0.111... = 0.999...
but 9x = 9/9 = 1
so 0.999... = 1

[Anonymous No.4575016]

>>4575010
>circular reasoning

The first line cannot be proven to be true without already assuming 0.999... = 1.

[Anonymous No.4575019]

>>4575016
divide 1 by 9 by long division. You will see 0.11111111111111............

[Anonymous No.4575025]

Give samples of your expertise, guys.

>>4574339
Who are the best lolis? Thoughts on 3d lolis?

[Anonymous No.4575028]

>>4575019
We are talking math here, not elementary school level "do what your teacher told you without questioning it". In math we PROVE things. The fact that long division works needs to be proven and the proof requires 0.999... = 1 as an assumption.

[Anonymous No.4575032]

>>4575019
>long division

How old are you? 6?

[Anonymous No.4575033]

>>4574381
Please share with us your secret techniques and how long each session should take.

[Anonymous No.4575034]

>>4575016
That's a feature, not a bug.

To put your statement in another way: to deny that 0.999... = 1, you have to deny that 1/9=.111... which is something that's ridiculous to deny (what other representation does 1/9 have? what else does it equal?).

[Anonymous No.4575038]

>>4575028
Long division does not require 0.999... = 1 as an assumption.
>>4575032
I was drawing attention to how simple it is to see 1/9 = 0.111...

[Anonymous No.4575041]

>>4574992
This thread has shown no othe rpurpose for philosophy

[Anonymous No.4575043]

>>4575034
>which is something that's ridiculous to deny
Math doesn't care about your fallacies. Either you can prove your statement or you can't.

>what other representation does 1/9 have?
1/9 is a good representation and absolutely nothing in the axioms of the real numbers necessitates decimal representations. Decimals are an additional feature and their validity requires proof.

If your math education stopped in 4th grade, then please don't have the audacity to shit up the thread by spreading anti-intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.4575047]

>>4574997
Listen here, nigger: philosophy is the art of the individual and the declaration of war between individual minds. The greatest philosophy of a civilization is the indication of its greatest individuals. A civilization without philosophy is like the United States, it has no self-awareness, no means of properly understanding its future (because it doesn't understand the past or the present), no truly great individuals, and is liable to grow too fast, become unmanageable, and collapse, like the States probably will.

Philosophy is NOT simply the questioning of ethical problems. That is philosophy of the third-rate brain. Only morons remain concerned about good and evil/right and wrong like this is a problem, like it hasn't been understood and "solved" already centuries ago. If you're still confused about morality and are looking for some kind of guidance like a religious tool then you're already tiers below the greatest philosophers.

[Anonymous No.4575048]

>>4575038
Can you prove why decimal representations work? Do it right now, asshole! Don't deflect by saying "google it". If you don't know how to prove it, then don't talk out of your ass. You are lacking the math education to talk about the subject.

[Anonymous No.4575049]

>>4574444
How to gain similar expertise as yours in psychology and neurology? Can you rec some insightful papers/books to read in these fields?

[Anonymous No.4575053]

>>4575049
He doesn't know shit about psychology or neurology. Just look at his picture. He's clearly a role playing underageb&.

[Anonymous No.4575056]

>>4575053
>2013+1
>getting mad at Hitler references

Go waste your crocodile tears to jews

[Anonymous No.4575057]

>>4574277
Holocaust denial. I wreck believers on a daily basis

[Anonymous No.4575060]

The progenitors of the OuLiPo literary movement, mainly Raymond Queneau and Georges Perec and specifically the works of the latter.

$30,000 education and my area of interest doesn't apply to jack shit.

[Anonymous No.4575076]

>>4575053
>Getting mad a hitler pics

[Anonymous No.4575077]

>>4575048
The merits of using decimal doesn't matter here. In decimals, we get 1/9 = 0.111..., and in this leads us to say 0.999... = 1 with decimals. This is just a quirk of how the system works. What more do you want? Why are you so hostile?

[Anonymous No.4575080]

>>4575077
>In decimals, we get 1/9 = 0.111...

Prove it. Prove it rigorously.

[Anonymous No.4575085]

>>4575057

Present to us your chops then, enlightened one.

[Anonymous No.4575087]

>>4575077
>this leads us to say 0.999... = 1 with decimals.
And this is why decimals are flawed.

[Anonymous No.4575096]

>>4575057
I would love to hear this, not because I don't believe you, but because I'd really like to see some concrete reasoning/evidence that denies it.

[Anonymous No.4575098]

>>4575010
0.111... is not exactly = 1/9

only in approximation

[Anonymous No.4575100]

>>4575057
Go on. Explain. I'd love to see you burn these lies into your puny little brain, until some day you accidentally talk that bullshit offline IRL and you'll never ever get a job again.

[Anonymous No.4575115]

>>4575053
>Getting mad at Hitler pic on 4chan
>Such generalization from a single reaction picture
I'd rather just wait to find out if he knows his shit by looking at the recs he posts. It'd be more informative than your post too.

[Anonymous No.4575118]

>>4575100
It wouldn't be that surprising if at least some of the Holocaust turned out bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4575127]

>>4575118
Probably is considering the Holocaust laws at Europe.

Really fishy.

[Anonymous No.4575129]

>>4575098
>>4575080
I know it sounds childish, but you can do the long division. 0.111 is an approximation, not 0.111.... Literally all 1/9 = 0.111... is saying is that the 1s will repeatedly come out in decimal representation.
0.111...
9)1.0000...
-0
10
-9
10
-9
10
-9
... it is clear this goes on.

[Anonymous No.4575136]

>>4575129
I forgot leading spaces are removed. Anyway I'm done with this shit.

[Anonymous No.4575138]

>>4575080
I'm not that guy (this is my first post here), but it can be proven, given the definition of repeating decimals. Which none of you even mentioned.
Mathematicians do not use repeating decimals because they are childish. But if one should define them, the definition would be obvious, a repeating decimal number would be understood as a limit of infinite sequence. I mean,
1.232323... = 1.(23) = limit of sum 1 + 0.2 + 0.03 + 0.002 + 0.0003 + 0.00002 + 0.000003 + ...

This, of course, is not a rigorous definition, but the idea is obvious.

So in case of 0.1111... that would be
0.1111... = limit of sum (0.1/i) where i = 1 to infinity

The limit of this sum is 1/9.


Stop being stupid. Do you at least know how things in mathematics work? Do you know a definition of real numbers? Limit? Limit of infinite sum?

[▲̷̨̫̺̙͠͠- !ZEN/cgElFM No.4575152]

>>4575136
>I forgot leading spaces are removed.
>not being able to triforce

alt+255

[Anonymous No.4575154]

>>4575129 et al
>this math discussion.

People. The answer lies in using binary.
In binary, 1/1 = 0.111111... = 1
Pic most definitely related

[Anonymous No.4575164]

>>4575152
      as in I wasn't even thinking about it.
>>4575138
Thank you, jesus fucking christ.

Actually out now.

[Anonymous No.4575167]

>>4575129
Are you brain damaged or something? It has already been said ITT that long division doesn't mean shit unless you know why it works. If you don't understand where the validity of decimal representations comes from, then your argument is nothing other than "hurr durr I believe it because I was told to believe it". That's not how math works.

[Anonymous No.4575170]

the knowledge of >tfwngf

[Anonymous No.4575171]

>>4575138
The continuum hypothesis being untrue would make that assumption impossible.

[Anonymous No.4575172]

>>4575138
>implying the number is equal to its limit

0.999... will be 1 in the limit but never in reality. It comes close but it never actually touches 1. Just like 1/n will get small but never 0.

[Anonymous No.4575174]

>>4575138
>This, of course, is not a rigorous definition

Then why even post it? You contributed nothing but another shitpost.

[Anonymous No.4575177]

>>4575138
>0.1111... = limit of sum (0.1/i) where i = 1 to infinity
Ooops, a mistake. Should be:
>0.1111... = limit of sum (1/(10^i)) where i = 1 to infinity


Just remember, the real numbers themselves are defined as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences. Just look at repeating decimals as a way of representing as infinite sequence. And it will be obvious that 1 and 0.9999 is the same number.

I mean, c'mon. This is Mathematics 101. Are any of you even students in STEM?

[Anonymous No.4575185]

Unfortunately video games, though my interest in vidya has faded. I am decent with Computer, programming, and movies. Hopefully in a few years I will feel comfortable discussing literature

[Anonymous No.4575187]

>>4575171


You guys are worse than /sci/

for anyone who's taken beyond high school math, I just have to believe that people in these threads don't take anything seriously

Nobody's that stupid

But in case you were serious that's not what the continuum hypothesis says at all holy shit non-cantorian set theory has no bearing over any of this are you brain damaged or something

[Anonymous No.4575194]

>>4575177
Look at babby being proud of having taken his first semester analysis course.

[Anonymous No.4575215]

>>4575174
I did not give you a rigorous definition because anyone with half a brain and Mathematics 101 course from university would be able to recreate the rigorous definition from the example. It was just a more convenient way to state it.

I could continue this discussion, but I am not sure that I am speaking to a person who can understand me right now (and to explain all the mathematics involved here would take me too much time). So I will ask you:
>Do you know the definition of real numbers (preferably the definition of real numbers as Cauchy sequence equivalence classes, not the other equivalent definitions)?
>Do you know a definition of a limit and limit of an infinite sequence?

If you do, please tell me so and I will continue the discussion. If you do not, please also tell me, so that I wouldn't have to wait and expect your answer.
I'm sorry, but if the latter is the case, it would take me too much time to explain all the stuff needed to understand what is a number and why 0.9999... and 1 are two ways of representing the same number.

[Anonymous No.4575227]

>>4575215
What's your level of math education?

[Anonymous No.4575231]

>>4575194
>implying they were a babby once

[Anonymous No.4575234]

>>4575227
Not this guy bur I'm Ph.D student in pure math at University of Torronto and this guy is basically right.

[Anonymous No.4575238]

>>4575194
If you are one of those people who understand the idiocity of this discussion and remain silent just because it would be pointless to get involved, kudos for you.

I know I should do the same, but this is my itchy spot. People who have no understanding of the fundaments of mathematics and try to prove these kind of things annoy me with no end for some reason.
I feel incredibly stupid for involving in the discussion. I'm sorry, I should know better.

[Anonymous No.4575241]

>>4575234
What's your PhD thesis about?

[Anonymous No.4575244]

New school and golden age hip-hop
Most forms/eras techno (not that big of an expert on proto-techno/Detroit electro or the hardcore techno spin-offs, that is including the early Berlin scene and new beat)

[Anonymous No.4575250]

>>4575241
Up to PhD I was really mad about spectral graph theory now I'm rather working on knot theory.

[Anonymous No.4575278]

>>4575227
A second year student of Mathematics.

[Anonymous No.4575285]

>>4575234
Sup UofT buddy

You're one of those fuckers who gets to check books out for 200 years

[Anonymous No.4575288]

>>4575127
If it really happened, then why can't they speak anything against the 6 bazillion narrative? The truth shouldn't fear scruitiny

[Anonymous No.4575289]

>>4575250
What book would you recommend on these topics?

[Anonymous No.4575296]

>>4575288
Ya know, generally I hate pol shit, but this is a valid point

[Anonymous No.4575297]

>>4575278
Go back to undergrad pleb land and stay there.

[Anonymous No.4575299]

>>4575297

>tfw I struggle with undergrad math

Why am I so stupid ;_;

[Anonymous No.4575304]

>>4575297
Ok, I'll do just that.
But to be sure, you are not one of those guys who claim that 0.999... is not equal to 1, are you?

[Anonymous No.4575312]

>>4575304
>But to be sure, you are not one of those guys who claim that 0.999... is not equal to 1, are you?

No, I'm not a guy.

[Anonymous No.4575319]

>>4575289
Idk whether you are really interested or just checking me but I'll answer
Firstly good to have a solid basis of algebraic topology. it is really fun to do all the basic surgery of manifolds like cutting, gluing and so on (if you are not really into math type topology or manifold youtube). I'd recommend classic Hatcher's "Algebraic Topology" for that. Now a good reference for the classical knot theory is Rolfsen's "Knot theory", there is also an introductory book by Kawauchi "Surveys in knot theory". A more difficult book is "Algebraic methods in knot theory" by J. Hillman. There is also an excellent book by N. Savieliev "Introduction to Casson invariants", which can be used as an introduction to knot theory from 3-dimensional point of view. Check at least last one/

[Anonymous No.4575324]

>>4575319
>studying useless shit about knots
enjoy unemployment

[Anonymous No.4575331]

Well, biopolitics, philosophy of history, law, feminism, post-colonial studies and race studies


I can argue on masters-level about existencialism and phenomenology but meh

[Anonymous No.4575334]

>>4575319
Thanks. I read Hatcher's book two years ago and I didn't really like it. Fortunately I found a more rigorous algebraic topology intro somewhere else. Will definitely check out the knot theory books.

Anything you can recommend on spectral graph theory?

[Anonymous No.4575336]

>>4575312
Oh, up till now I thought that the word 'guy' can be used to refer to people of either gender (though used more rarely for females)
I apologize.

[Anonymous No.4575341]

>>4575324
He could work at scout camps.

[Anonymous No.4575342]

>>4575336
(I've thought the same. You're not crazy)

[Anonymous No.4575346]

>>4575334
>I read Hatcher's book two years ago and I didn't really like it.
>I_See_What_You_Did_There.jpg

[Anonymous No.4575352]

>>4575346
What did I do there??

[Anonymous No.4575365]

>>4575285
Stop oppressing me!

[Anonymous No.4575371]

>>4574874

Sorry, I'm currently finishing up my thesis and I guess I've grown used to writing the former.

[Anonymous No.4575412]

>>4574586
Man, I need to watch Gattaca again.

[Anonymous No.4575437]

>>4574382
word. Starcraft (I and II) are probably the only things I could discuss knowledgeably.

Not LoL though, don't know shit about that babby game.

[Anonymous No.4575448]

Human culture to disprove the paranormal.

[Anonymous No.4575451]

Public adulteration via film from the 1940s to present
Theatre and its purpose in today's societies
Cannabis and its chemical physiological affects on brain function modern day misconception abuse and use and application to medicine
Symbolism in literature all literature as applicable to reflections of culture in which it was conceived
Electric universe theory string theory, quantum physics and sacred geometry
Culinary arts
Systems of delegation and management with supposed affluence based on implied contexts in which they are utilized

[Anonymous No.4575803]

.9999... can only symbolically be made into 1, which can be practically analogized to the way computation requires 0! = 1 for the gamma function and its ilk. this is an exercise in reconciling the mathematical framework, however, and is best suited for use with software engineers to remove susceptibility to breakdown for non-fuzzy-logic fluent machines, i.e. those who subscribe blindly to scientism.


also, the idea that .9999... = 1 is a perfect example of why math and science need philosophy.

this is because dogmatic (read: those who don't aspire to actually significantly contributing to their field rather than just using it as a means of self-validation and the propping up of existential certainty) mathers and sciencers have a hard time thinking outside their frameworks but philosophy is ipso facto sans framework because the refutation of its framework is the crux of its framework.

this lack of certainty in a materially-coercive time-constraint-laden world makes people uncomfortable, leading to attacks of philosophy in lieu of doing actual science.

also, dat tarski dat godel dat kripke dat feyerabend dat pragmatism masterrace

also, dat dis discussion is dumb in the first place and i hate myself for involving myself in it.

finally >>4575319
https://usosweb.uw.edu.pl/kontroler.php?_action=actionx:katalog2/przedmioty/pokazPrzedmiot%28prz_kod:1000-1M13WTW%29

kek. nice copypasta.


this caustically condescending and passive aggressive message was made possible by contributions to your resident actuality synthesizer (read: bullshit detector) by posters like you. thank you.

[Anonymous No.4575825]

>>4575803

also
>inb4 adhom
the inclusion of "ur a fuckhead" next to my ps and qs isnt inherent to my ps and qs

[Anonymous No.4575830]

>>4575803
>>4575825
>inb4 adhom was in my ps and qs
yes, actually, some of it was as i appealed to psychology in a sense. i'll concede to your point inb4!

i'm still right

[Anonymous No.4576072]

Star Wars and comics history. Did anyone else waste the earliest years of their youth studying a subject that wouldn't help them in the slightest once they came of age?

[Anonymous No.4576094]

>>4574699
>he really is a man of the people
every damn time.