/sci/ - Science & Math

Im okay with this.

What does arbitrary mean in this context?

yup

prove chemistry is wrong

>>OP's pic
>>its a girl with animal like fur
>>implies Furries

this thread is now about how much I LUUUUUUUUUUUUVE furries

It's not defined arbitrarily, but defined in a context where it would be beneficial to humanity. Now go away.

>>1131053
>prove

>>1131054
>a context where it would be beneficial to humanity
And how is that any different from a context where it would be beneficial to bacteria or buckyballs?

>>1131053
>He doesn't recognise Korbo
>He hasn't seen Spice and Wolf
>He doesn't watch anime
>He gay

> Logic is arbitrarily defined.

>>1131063
And how would you define 'beneficial', pray tell? Conforming to your desires? To those of the population at-large?

>>1131069
And how would you measure the degree of which something is 'beneficial'? mL dopamine/person? BLTs/m^2? cocks/orifice?

>>1131069
Beneficial in the sense of technological advancement. Any problem can be put into a mathematical context and solved from there, and these gifts this system of numbers provides make it useful.

Postmodernism much?

>>1131077
That is completely irrelevant. Even prehistoric men saw that being able to count numerically and manipulate values would come in handy in numerous situations, something you fail to see. Logic is not arbitrarily defined however. It is based off of whether something can occur or can't occur, which is about as objective as reality can become.

Horo, go back to your economics.

OP's fagness is undefined

>>1131096
>as objective as reality can become
Which isn't very much, which is my point.

>>1131102
I don't think that means what you think it means.

>>1131099

Logic is pretty bad-ass. From there you'll have rationality and epistemology.

Knowledge is traditionally held to be when something is true, believed and justified to believe.

I don't know why you're spewing this shit.

>>1131102
The adjective form of faggot is faggotry, not fagness. lrn2internet5p34k

>>1131102
>He cant sage

OP isn't correct per se. There are only 16 possible different logical operations that can be performed using two truth values (true and false). Each of these operations has its own name and can be used as we wish. We just happen to use a couple of them in the majority of our proofs (AND, OR, and XOR).

So, there's really nothing arbitrary about it at all. We've covered every possible definition.

>>1131099
So... your rant amounts to nothing.

>>1131123
I'm speaking towards those operations.

>>1131131
In the end, yes. I'm just a nihilist passing the time.

Arbitrary is arbitrarily defined.

>>1131147
That it is. Your point?

>>1131147
MINDDDDDD EQQQQUUUUALS BLOOOOOOOOWN

>>1131140
>I'm speaking towards those operations.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There's nothing arbitrary about the definitions of operations because every one of the operations is named.

>>1131157
Using the truth table of true/false + bitwise is just as arbitrary as using a truth table of cheese/bacon/hamburger/smegma + condiments.

>>1131167
In the sense that the logic is arbitrary in neither, yes. You're talking about arbitrary language, not logic. The logic is universal. It doesn't matter what we call them as long as each one is distinct from the rest.

>>1131175
No, the logic is also arbitrary; you just either refuse to or cannot see it.

>>1131185
If I go through a system and change all of the "true" into "hamburger" and all of the "false" into "french fries", and all of the "and" and "or" into "eat" and "drink", it's still the same system except now I'm proving things "hamburger" instead of "true". It's the same goddamn thing. You just changed the names.

>>1131202
I didn't change the names. You did.

>>1131218
herp derp

How fucking dense are you? Are you going to actually say something worth responding to or are you completely out of material? For someone so quick to make claims about logic you certainly don't understand how argument works. I didn't mind your trolling when you were actually saying something interesting but this "nuh-uh" thing is just boring.

>>1131230
I could say the same to you. I never suggested in the slightest that I was simply renaming an already extant truth table and operations. Rather, I defined another set entirely.

>>1131238
>I defined another set entirely.
All you did was name the elements in a system of four-value logic. It already exists, bro.

>>1131243
I see that there's no hope for you.

>>1131274
Whatever, dude. I'm pretty disappointed. It's kind of sad that I'm over here already thinking up defenses to more interesting arguments than you're giving me. You really bummed me out dude. You didn't even try changing the axioms of logic on me.

>>1131285
And I think it's kind of sad that your defenses are irrelevant to any kind of point. I would have gone further but like most ADD-afflicted nihilists I'm quick to change my attentions.

IF(isDefinition(logicIsArbitrarilyDefined)) {
   scienceAndMathAreArbitrarilyDefined = true;
} else {
scienceAndMathAreArbitrarilyDefined = false;
//since everything is subjective
}

>>1131306
Man, you just burned yourself. Yeah, I know that I was three mental steps ahead of you but you didn't have to admit it. What's your deal, dude? I wanted you to be an intellectual.

>>1131323
You weren't any steps 'ahead' of me, rather you were thinking parallel or tangentially to me. You were not able to see where I was coming from, and frankly I don't feel like trying to gather my thoughts and spoonfeeding them to you via essay when at the end of the rant I'd still be dysthymic.

>>1131356
Haha, nice college word bro. You a philosophy major? Makes sense. You clearly have no understanding of mathematics. You think "using a truth table of cheese/bacon/hamburger/smegma + condiments" is a complete definition of a system of logic.

>>1131367

> You a philosophy major? Makes sense

You just went full retard; I'm double majoring, and one of them is in philosophy, and the guy is clearly NOT a philosophy major.

He even said himself he was a "nihilist".

>>1131367
Math major, actually. But I'm tired and bored and don't feel like trading any more smalltalk.

>>1131380
Yeah, I guess you're right. I've been kind of hard on philosophy majors. Maybe he's lit or something.

>>1131389

No prob

>>1131382
How do you become a math major without even taking any logic or discrete math courses? Come on dude. You should know better than to just play with semantics.

Oh, my, god. Actual mathfag here. Stop jerking off to high school philosophy and logic.

Something can only be defined using a logical system.
Logical systems can only be created by defining axioms.

Is this a contradiction? Only in the context of some logical system.

Stop fucking around.

>>1131422
nah man dictionaries define shit based on linguistics

linguistics ain't no logical system

so the "true" and "false" in logic is arbitrary in that sense; right from the outset you have one truth value as "more real" than the other

>>1131443

>linguistics ain't no logical system

Pls come back in 4 to 6 years when you've taken any classes in mathematics.

>>1131463
come on dude don't pull that shit you know what I'm talking about

I'm not talking about mathematical languages or anything I'm talking about English

The English words we picked for logic are arbitrary so logic is arbitrarily defined. Who says "true" gotta be "true" you know what I mean?

>>1131422
Like I said, OP is just baiting the Philosophyfags.

>>1131477

If you are not a troll or not in high school, pls kill yourself.

It doesn't matter what the fuck language logic is written in. You can use 1 for true and 0 for false; it doesn't matter. The fact that LOGIC is itself BASED ON LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS of some LOGICAL SYSTEM makes it completely ARBITRARY but WHAT DOES THIS MEAN WITHOUT APPEALING TO LOGIC.

why is this inb4 godel.

>>1131520
well you acknowledge that logic is arbitrary then, right

because the logical system which we are appealing to is not necessarily the same logical system which we use conventionally

So the logical system that we choose to use is arbitrary, QED

>>1131542

What are you using to prove that statement, sire.

OH RIGHT LOGIC.

>>1131556
right but it was an arbitrarily chosen system of logic

the answer to the question of "is logic arbitrary" is arbitrary based on which system of logic you use, therefore the answer is yes because once you become arbitrary you can't go back without looking at specific situations