The frustration is real

T^T How do I even do this!??!?!?!

Not even getting to the last two arguments and this is horrible!

:-/

@amWhy You could try making a Discord account

No need, @SimplyBeautifulArt

Ok. I went ahead and ordered an Abstract Algebra text and a Complex Analysis text through Dover Books

@SimplyBeautifulArt P.A.K. success

@BrevanEllefsen why not just download a pdf

@Starfall I like having a book. Idk, wasn't too expensive.

fair enough

@amWhy Probably

Unless @S.C.B. or @user21820 pull off something crazy

@SimplyBeautifulArt hey

@SkeletonBow Hey

As you may notice, the function I programmed is pretty insane

@SimplyBeautifulArt Not sure what you mean. There's already enough Discord in the world, as it is.

@amWhy discordapp.com

For chatting and stuff

@AkivaWeinberger I am assuming you looked at my question and have no clue?

Yep

R.I.P.

What you think of it XD

I don't know how BEAF works

and I also need to work on something else now, sorry

But you can read off what my function is doing?

I'll look at it again later

No problem. Be busy and productive :-)

@ThePortakal Need the contest rules?

@amWhy What notification? I saw the contest notice, have not submitted. Still need to try to get my head to intuitively compare growth rates. And I don't want to use anything that goes beyond predicative mathematics. Specifically, I have no issue with anything provable in ACA, but I do not automatically trust any program to terminate if it cannot be proven in ACA; I've to see the proof. =)

@SimplyBeautifulArt I answered the exam question I gave you in an different chat room, if you just want to check.

@SimplyBeautifulArt: By the way, can I submit two entries? I have two different ideas but don't know which function grows faster...

@user21820 Of course you can

@user21820 If you check my updated post, you will find a number you can compare to.

@user42912 Hello and welcome to my realm!

@HagenvonEitzen :-) I updated my post if you didn't notice. Ugh, numbers so big XD

googology.wikia.com/wiki/Hypercal

I'm trying to decide if my number is bigger

And I'm very certain that f(9,9,9,9,0)>>Hypercal

@SimplyBeautifulArt: Great. Time to start coding my second idea. I am 70% confident I have milked the first idea sufficiently. Unusually low confidence for me heheh...

Oh I'm so scared of your number! =D

XD I'm scared of it too

Wait till you see mine.. =D

lol

It's a pity logicians like @amWhy aren't participating. If you invite them I will be much less likely to win.

Good morning @SimplyBeautifulArt from where are you learning= math now?

lol

@Fawad Nowhere?

@SimplyBeautifulArt yes

I'm staring at Hypercal and my number

trying to grasp what even are large numbers

@SimplyBeautifulArt is it only called hypercal or some full name?

It's just called hypercal

@Fawad Do you know Graham's number?

I think it's far better to compare against the fast growing hierarchy, though I don't know how to do so in general.

@user21820 Yeah

My number is well made to compare 'easily' to forcals

which is what I'm trying to do

@SimplyBeautifulArt I only know that it is larger than googleplex,it is in astronomically large

:P

@Fawad I shall explain it on Discord

OK,as you prefer

@S.C.B. No offense, but I don't think Conway's chain arrow is going to beat me

@S.C.B. Actually, I have no idea. Maybe it will pull through XD Jesus, it's hard to understand all this

I think I have no time to give it at this point.

@SimplyBeautifulArt

@amWhy: Woah there. Who's offended you now?

Was just going to say something about the contest a minute ago but saw your message. Lol...

@amWhy I hope you're not talking about me..

@user21820 Oh, no worries! I'm rooting for you in this contest, seriously. You're not in any way implicated by my last comment.

So are you talking about me?

@S.C.B. No worries there! I think you have your priorities straight. What I meant after my reply (Good for you!), has nothing to do with you!

Oh, I don't understand then. Well.

@amWhy: I was a little concerned that you sounded offended by someone here. But you should participate and climb all the way up! Do you know programming?

@S.C.B. Not in any way whatsoever! You are very sharp, absolutely, but you are also humble (as am I), in the sense that you aren't anything like the braggart I'm thinking of at the moment. Keep doing exactly what you're doing. @user21820 You too.

Good luck, folks!

@amWhy: Thanks! I'll tell you my entry when I've finalized it.

@user21820 Great!!

@amWhy i wonder if that's talking about me

i suppose not

@Starfall Aren't you in college?

yes

So that can't be you.

ah, i missed that

:)

@S.C.B. why do you people capitalize things like "Number Theory" when writing, say, a quora answer

it looks very funny

Ah, I capitalize Basically Everywhere.

It's just that way because I ended up pressing the Shift Button A lot.

@Starfall No way!! You're a great user, and be assured I would never describe you like I described another user above! Being young, in high-school, or as an undergrad, doesn't imply immaturity.

I had a lot of trouble with shift buttons when I was first typing.

So I practiced

@amWhy i have my own circle of people who hate me on IRC

What is IRC?

@S.C.B. a bunch of chatrooms thrown together, sort of

Hmm.

Don't worry.

Everyone hates everyone, no matter where on the internet.

What does the I...R...C stand for?

@S.C.B. that's a strange way of consoling a person

@Starfall I am stange, then.

I don't console a lot.

"oh, people hate you? don't worry, everyone hates everyone anyway"

@amWhy IRC stands for Internet Relay Chatting.

I don't hate anyone here, at MSE, in any real sense of the word. Some users may disappoint me, but that doesn't mean I hate them.

@Starfall Oh, that doesn't make any logical sense now that I think about it.

@S.C.B. Thanks!

That's like saying, your father died? Don't wory, everyone dies anyway.

Sorry if that came off as inconsiderate.

yeah, more or less

i don't care about people being considerate

it came off as more funny than inconsiderate

like, "this is how bad our situation is right now"

@Starfall I guess so. It did make me laugh too.

@S.C.B. True.

@amWhy why is being considerate making you more like a human being

Even without anonymity, people are not afraid to drop semblance of being a human being @amWhy

@Starfall I think in this case being like a human being means being humane.

Thought the word "humane" is one I don't like.

i think that we should aspire towards some standard of mutual respect in any sort of interaction, online or otherwise

but i don't really think we should aspire towards being considerate in a discussion

Hmm really.

@Starfall Well, there are social sanctions that keep a lot of humans in-check. Some folks need no such sanctions, because it never occurs to them to denigrate another person. The vast majority, "the herd", need shepherds to keep them in line.

that's a rather condescending way of thinking

i don't quite think that you are being considerate towards all of those people when you say something like that

but maybe you are, in your own way, idk

@Starfall Perhaps... apologies, because that's not what I intended to say.

I think that all people can be nice when given the chance, but also all people are cruel when given the chance.

@amWhy my point is that you shouldn't be tentative about the prospect of saying this, if this is really what you think, simply because it comes across as inconsiderate

@Starfall So you think that we should be forthright about our opinions, even though they might be inconsiderate?

i don't think opinions can be inconsiderate

you can act inconsiderately towards other people because of your opinions

but if you are merely stating what you think, that should not be considered "inconsiderate" towards anyone

@Starfall For example, if you would call a person ugly, or generally unhelpful deregatory term, because you believe it, isn't that inconsiderate?

Well, I clearly have not expressed my thoughts very clearly. When I used the word "considerate" I meant nothing more, and nothing less, then "respect." People can disagree, and be respectul in doing so. People can disagree, and disrespect the person with whom they disagree.

@amWhy then sure, i agree with you

@S.C.B. generally speaking, no

Oh, so you don't think that calling a person ugly is inconsiderate?

rather, i don't think it should be

nope

i don't think calling a person anything is inconsiderate

Okay, folks, I need to go now. Until later!

or, rather, if you think "inconsiderate" just means "hurting other people's feelings", then yes, it could be inconsiderate

Well, can't calling a person a deregatory term inconsiderate? (ignore my earlier example, right now)

but it shouldn't be

Well, if you hurt other people's feelings intentionally during your actions, isn't that not showing respect toward that person's feelings?

no

in addition, i never said you should respect a person's feelings, what would that even mean?

if i think that a person is ugly, and they ask me if i think they are ugly or not

i find it highly disrespectful to say that they are not, when i think that they are

Well, isn't it more socially beneficial if you try to pass it off? (though this is mainly Eastern culture style; never say anything bad, don't be direct,)

of course it is

if what you are looking for is to get by while experiencing the minimum amount of social tension, it's probably a lot smarter to tell these kinds of white lies all the time

Although, if you know that person well

Or think that that person could improve how he/she looks

Then it is fine to say that he/she is ugly

But if there is no possibility at all

that the person could become less ugly

then wouldn't it be more respectful to tell a white lie?

no

Hmm.

How do you define respect then?

the moment you tell a white lie to a person, you are making a choice on their behalf

they are asking you a question, either about your opinion, or about something you know, they don't, and they want to know

and you choose, on their behalf, whether they should know this or not

@Starfall What makes you think they actually want to know?

because they ask the question

Sometimes people ask if they look ugly because they merely want to be told they are beautiful.

yes

and that's too bad for them

because i don't have any respect for that kind of person

If you know that's the case (and it is normally so)

When people ask you are ugly.

Oh, sorry typo.

ask if "I am ugly"

I find that is normally the case, though there are certainly exceptions

let me lay it out this way:

there are two options, they either want to know the truth, or they don't

if they want to know the truth, then you're disrespecting them when you choose to lie to them

If they want to know the truth, tell them the truth.

Is what I recommend as well.

if they don't want to know the truth, then they don't deserve your respect anyway

If they don't want to know the truth, then they still deserve your respect.

in that case, just do whatever

they don't deserve my respect

maybe they deserve yours

Because if you don't show your respect (or at least seem to)

then such people

will

undoubtedly become angry and basically bother you.

Wasting both your energy and theirs.

yes, that doesn't mean they deserve your respect

that just means they want your respect

Well, I think that we should at least "seem" to respect a person.

and we come back to what i said earlier, if what you're looking for is to not get into any troublesome social situations

Unless you know they don't respect me.

then of course you should seem to respect people

and we all do this, i think

When would you want to get in a troublesome social situation?

@S.C.B. yes

@amWhy Could you clarify?

when your conviction that people should be told the truth is strong enough to override any sort of dislike for such situations

@Starfall OK, I can agree on that.

It could improve that person, if possible.

Or it could just make you feel better.

Thus making your expended energy worth it.

And thus benefiting both you and that person.

i think this is an important issue because i feel like this abstract ideal of "free speech" is being sabotaged de facto by the sensibilities of society, or even individuals

@Starfall: I have a slightly different criterion.

Not about truth but about harm.

legally you're free to say whatever you want in western countries

I think we are obliged to say or do things that prevent what we foresee to be harm.

@Starfall And why to you think telling another person that "x", because that's what you believe, but may not be the truth, is okay? "Telling the truth" in such cases is no more than declaring the truth according to lil' ole me.

Otherwise we are free to choose whichever way we like.

@user21820 Indeed we are.

@amWhy if you tell another person "x" when your certainty that "x" is not very strong, then that's a lie as well

if you tell them "i believe that x", that's not a lie

if you believe what you are saying, then it's not a lie, regardless of whether it is actually true or not

@Starfall Your belief in a statement does not have to be strong for that statement you say to not be a lie.

I support a person who lies to a person who seems to have murderous intent to protect an innocent person.

@S.C.B. it does

whether you are lying or not has nothing to do with the actual veracity of what you said

it has to do with perceived veracity

@Starfall: My above comment is why I do not agree with judging actions or words based merely on whether the doer/speaker believes it is correct/truthful.

@user21820 well, do you have enough respect towards a person with murderous intent to tell them what they want to know?

Yes, but lying is a statement that goes against percieved veracity.

@S.C.B. yes

@Starfall: I have zero respect to intentionally murderous people. So I can tell the truth or lie according to however I think is best for innocent people.

But the fact that your belief in that veracity is not strong does not mean that you don't have that veracity.

@user21820 yep, so we don't disagree at all

@S.C.B. sure, but if you don't mention that you are not fully certain about what you said, that's another form of lying to me

@Starfall: Great. I was just a little worried that you focused on the perceived veracity alone and not on the contents and impact of a lie.

That shouldn't be called lying.

It should be called lying however,

it is morally equivalent in my opinion

when you add thinks like "I am sure.."

so i have no qualms with using the same word

That makes things a bit ambiguous.

well, when a person asserts something, you would normally assume that they are certain about what they are saying

Not necessarily.

that's the default position, if you say "x", i will not ask you "so are you really certain that x, or is there some room for uncertainty"

I don't think so.

If you say "x", that means that you believe "x" is true more than it is untrue.

@Starfall: For example lying about people not being ugly is often harmless but lying about homeopathy is almost always harmful.

@user21820 well, if there were some contrived scenario where a perfectly respectable individual wanted to know something, but the human species would go extinct in the event of them coming to know this information, say

then it's obviously morally correct to lie to them

the conviction that people should be told the truth is not something absolute, it can be overriden by other, more pressing concerns

i disagree with most people about what i consider to be "pressing concerns" here

I see. Strange, I had the initial impression that you might not agree on my last comment.

@Starfall What do you think these pressing concerns are?

@Starfall I defined pressing concerns to be

@S.C.B. it's not something you can define precisely, i think

@Starfall I defined pressing concerns to be something that derides the social benefit in general, or will deride the potential for social benefit more than it guarantees social benefit.

i am not sure what that means

you are replacing "pressing concern" with the equally vague word "social benefit"

i can tell you some things i don't consider to be pressing concerns, and some things i do consider to be such

but i don't think i can draw a nice clean line between the trwo

two*

@Starfall "Social Benefit" is the net total

of the happiness of the society.

As well as indicating the mean.

With happiness being defined by

so you're being a utilitarian

The hormones secreted in our brains.

Not necessarily.

I think my definition of utilitarity is slightly different from utilitarians.

well, there are a couple of problems i think this has, first, it actually assumes we understand neurochemistry a lot better than we actually do

@Starfall

I think you should consider something.

I merely said that that was the definition, but we could work on it according to our neurochemistry-ignorant state.

second, i don't think just the mean of this distribution encodes enough data to make judgments

i am fairly certain you need to see the full distribution

@Starfall Yes, we need to see the full distribution.

@Starfall: Are you more of a Kantian?

Just wondering.

But I didn't remember the word distribution.

@user21820 not really

(I don't know how this became Realm of Simply Beautiful Ethics.)

@user21820 Ethics is wonderful.

But its not simple.

@S.C.B. aside from that, if you come up with a way of comparing distributions, then this is a solid position imo

So maybe this is off topic, I still think that we should, as this is the Room for totally random people to hang.

@Starfall Yes.

@S.C.B.: Couldn't you tell I was joking? =P

Yeah, I was joking as well.

Because I said it was not simple

But I have a bad sense of humor.

Eh so you think it's simple?

:(

No.

I was joking on the name of this room.

Ethics is not simple.

If it were, than ethics as a subject wouldn't probably exist.

Haha.. I think my ethical framework is simpler than most of those silly frameworks I see in various philosophies (I'm not going to lie and say they are wise (in my opinion of course)...) but it's still quite involved.

Yes, can you share yours?

I thought on this stuff for the past three years.

But I have yet to reach a perfectly rational sound solution.

My current position is what I'm retaining

But as @Starfall pointed out,, the problem is determing the distribution.

I think this distribution can be determined by unspoken rules.

Such as not killing

But "unspoken rules" is not a well defined term.

For example, it was an unspoken rule that women were treated lesser compared to men in the past.

there are lots of problems practically

But we know consider the opposite to be true.

Yes.

I'm working on the practicallity part.

@Starfall

The problem is determining these unspoken rules.

clearly, if we had infinite resources and infinite time and infinite everything, we would want everyone to be happy, but if we don't, the finiteness forces us to make choices, and these choices are largely about the distribution

every big decision a country makes probably makes a whole lot of people happy, and a whole lot of people unhappy, say

so how do you judge the merit of such a decision

@Starfall Yes.

Our society thinks a democracy can determine the happiness, but I think democracy is ineffective.

though it is the most effective thing we ahve.

The problem is that people sometimes don't know what they want.

to be happy.

that's the least of the problems in most democracies

most democracies currently have 2 or maybe 3 big parties

so, like a good first past the post system, this forces people to vote against the guy they don't like

rather than vote for the guy they like

I think this chat should be migrated to philosophy mse.

Yeah, but can we migrate a part of a chat?

@S.C.B. the recent US presidential election had very good examples on this from both sides

Hmm.

people voting for the candidate that they hated less

Yes.

instead of voting for the candidate they liked

@amWhy: I actually dislike Philosophy SE lol...

Anyway I'll summarize my current ethical framework (subject to change if people show me a better way).

Well, that, or else return to what you all love most: mathematics, or logic. Because whatever "ethics" is or has to offer, isn't to be found among mathematicians, unless one can prove some quantified definition of happiness, or utility, that pasts muster outside of math, as well.

@amWhy like how we have quantified definitions of "set" and "is an element of" in ZF, right

Basically, we talk about conscious beings here. Don't ask me to define "conscious"; use your 'common sense'. We define a being to be moral iff it does not intentionally cause harm to moral beings, and minimizes harm to immoral beings.

@amWhy (Question: I read all mathematicians were essentialists. Is this true?)

This is a recursive and not obviously well-founded definition, so it gives us conclusions in some cases and is inconclusive in others.

Now "harm" is defined slightly differently in the two contexts.

i think we can carry this discussion to discord if need be

"harm to moral beings" is defined to be what those moral beings perceive to be harm to themselves.

@user21820 i don't like the golden rule very much

"harm to immoral beings" is defined to be what the being in question perceives to be harm to them. Namely, moral beings decide what is harm to them but immoral beings don't have that right.

Okay.

ah, fair enough

@Starfall: Well I think in practice it seems to work well enough when defined the way I do.

@user21820 what you said is more subtle than the golden rule

I don't think the golden rule as commonly stated works well at all.

so yes, this works

Great; I think we think much alike.

This is merely a summary though. There are finer details but I need to go off soon.

=)

@Starfall,@S.C.B.,@amWhy,others: I welcome any probing or critique of my ethical framework, as I apply it in real life and wouldn't want to make ethical errors. If this room isn't suitable I also don't mind if you wish to come to the logic chat-room to continue. Though rather tangential, I believe to a certain extent logical reasoning helps to dissect ethical frameworks for possible inconsistencies. =)

But until next time, see you!

Good bye?

Good bye!

@amWhy lol, you can't be causing trouble in my chat room :-)

@SimplyBeautifulArt Trouble? What trouble?

Lol

Your removed comment seemed to spur you out of your normal place

But I can't be having buffoons taking over my dear AmWhy

@SimplyBeautifulArt What are you referring to?

@SimplyBeautifulArt I voluntarily asked to have the comment removed (flagged it and asked if any one of the network wide mods to remove it.) So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Lol, ok

@amWhy do how's your day been?

@kingW3 hello and welcome to my realm

Glad to be here :D