10:59 AM
hi
Here?

hello

Whats the ambiguity?

Well well well
let's back off a bit

okay!
To where?

Honestly, I think I don't understand the premise of your question.
You are interested in divergent numbers?
Am I correct to say this?

11:01 AM
No not really

okay

only in that property
and that property is what im trying to define
but its not the same one in mathematics

So you are interested in what makes a number divergent?

No , that is mathematical concept
Numbers dont diverge
they are fixed values
What I mean is that for some numbers like pi, I can give the digits
a property of this divergence
You here?

yes

11:04 AM
Am I getting through?

surely you are not saying it is evidence of divergence that you can give the digits?
so I do not understand

No, I am saying as the digits grow
due to say memory limitation in the universe
you cannot compute farther values
and they become unpredictable
with respect to you

Okay, sure.
Then what is the question?

So i can give them a property of diergence
*Diergence
V

haha yeah I understand

11:06 AM
This compared to say 0.00000

okay great

It has a property of convergence

you can do that

So I just wanted to ask , are the rules of maths defined precisely enough
to compute this

Hm, okay

11:07 AM
Or if there is any formula for digits of 2*pi
which I can refer to or algorithm

Well, obviously not
At least!

hmm

In the sense that there is no formula for the digits of $pi$
If you accept that is true, then clearly there is none for $2\pi$.

No but you can obtain them correctly
using algorithms

okay, but not all of them
that is what you were saying

11:08 AM
yeah , that too
I mean to say that if you can refer me to one for 2*n
I will understand the whole thing

where $n$ is….?

pi

as I said before, obviously not

sorry pi
but then , how can you be sure... that you can perform perfect addition on the two pi's

Ah!
That is the heart of the question, I think

11:10 AM
Yes

Well, the truth is that it depends on how you define addition

exactly!!!!
what i was trying to say

If addition is an operation performed on lists of digits, then no
um okay, I'm backing out of this explanation for a moment

haha, okay

If you were trying to say that, then what was the question?
I am still not seeing a quesiton.

11:11 AM
The whole argument
is the question

An argument is not a question, unfortunately.

Are the rules of arithmetic defined strictly enough
For us to perform that addition
Let that be the question

Yeah

The thing to do now is ask what you mean by "that addition"

11:13 AM
What to do with it please?
2+5 is easily defined
No problem there ......

(no, it isn't, but okay)

but pi plus pi gets a bit problematic ....

Why?

Yeah I meant little problems ......

Because you don't know all the digits?

11:14 AM
Because of carry over

Okay, sure
So
You are using a different definition of addition than is standard in mathematics
This, I think, is the source of the confusion.

Hmm, If i use the one in mathematics
even then, how do add them both perfectly

To answer this, you will have to learn some serious mathematics
Enough to know why I said that 2+5 is not easy

yeah , you need to define certain rules
but they can be done

They can be done up to the consistency of ZFC.
Of course you must have axioms somewhere

11:16 AM
ah I see..
I dont need an axiom in logic though

that's not true.
But,

I dont mean mathematical logic
Here is the blog, i got the question for
*from
You here?

Logic: That element in decision making process which deals with premises, inferences, and optimisations in sorting order(made through comparisons)

Yes
make that Thought process

how do you not need axioms for this?
How do you make inferences without background assumptions?

11:19 AM
You need to define Logic: I am making it dependent on Thought, and say that part of the Thought process which deals with assumptions, conclusions and priortising. Why do I need an axiom for this
Assumption making process is part of logic
So is inference making process, I dont get your question

Okay, so an implication of this is that logic is inherently human? Or at least, is the domain of sapient beings?

Hmm, I would not draw it, but since you have said I can think upon it
I have said exactly what I said right, and you are the one drawing conclusions

Yes, but you must admit this is a fairly short leap.
To get away from it, you would need to define Thought in a way that was free from sapience.

Yeah, its in the domain of sapient beings

okay

11:22 AM
As i said i was thinking about it.......

That makes me a little uneasy, but I'll go with it

good

Can you give me an example of Logic? I'm having a hard time picturing it.

The sun rises from the East w.r.t Earth - decide on this being true
this decision making process is logic

Okay, so let me be naive about this and assume we don't have a lot of scientific explanation for this.

11:24 AM
Could you please read the whole blog? Itll make the discussion much easier ?
You do actually
explanation for what?
Could you be in touch with me
My email id is gupta.nishank.k@gmail.com

Unfortunately no.
Perhaps I have overstepped my bounds

Oh....

Give me a moment

Please Put the question back on? You must see its not a dumb question

11:26 AM
sure

Okay, let me say this.
Mathematics, to the extent that practitioners use it, is based on axioms.

okay...

If you wish to discuss axiomless logic, you are free to do so.

not really
I just wanted to know about Pi plus Pi
and what goes on behind it

But, we have wandered this way.
So have we gone astray, in your mind?

11:28 AM
No, not really
you came to the heart of the question and doubt
But this axiomless logic seems to be powerful enough
But , you must admit my question was genuine

Sure, sure

and should be allowed.....

but I am starting to agree that it was not about mathematics, in the scope of MSE.

come on man, pi
and if you can add pi plus pi

$pi$ does not mathematics make :P

11:30 AM
Isnt that the core of mathematics
come on the holiest of the holies

So
"But this axiomless logic seems to be powerful enough to derive the rest? and ask questions about them?"

I know, we can argue a lot about it

This, I think, is a very interesting question.

But I think you should allow the question?
I want it to be read , thats all

(Okay, let's get one thing straight: I am not a gatekeeper of anything. I do not speak for the community. Even if I wanted the question back, which I'm not sure I do or I don't, I couldn't make that call. I could put it up to a vote, at best.)

11:33 AM
Thank You.!
Is there a discussion somewhere I can take this?

haha
yes, of course

Dont you find the blog and the discussion interesting

But I don't know where it is :P

Damn.!!!!!

Honestly, no, I don't.

11:34 AM
okay!

But it is clear you do
so I was trying to help out :)

yeah,I find it very interesting
Thank You!!!
Could you give it to someone who may find it interesting?
Along with putting it up for a vote.

(Actually, I can't put it to a vote; it seems to be deleted permanently.)

And I cant post it again

(I don't see why not)

11:36 AM
it was my first question...
rules banned me :P

that's not true?

yeah, ok maybe one earlier too
But I cant post more questions

ah, I see.

You can do me a huge favor and put reputation points on it or something?
I just want to get this discussed

I can, but I will not. It is not the place of MSE to foster open-ended discussion, unfortunately
That's why we're having this conversation in a chat room.

11:38 AM
What do you suggest I do with it then ? Please do guide me.

Well, I may be able to help a little, though it might not be what you want to hear. But first I need to know:
did you write that blog post?

Yeah I did

I was afraid of that :/

Np, I can take it...
I have been rejected everywhere

haha, I cannot comment on the blog post
enugh

11:41 AM
yeah, thats the problem, - no one seems to be reading it
when it makes a great deal of sense

Unfortunately, sense is not enough :P As a student of mathematics I learned this very slowly.

aha okay!
What to do with it then ?

Well, a community has to be interested in it. And that is no easy task, as you already know.

yeah.. true
But It was a legit question and you can just answer this is out of scope?
A lot of these type of questions here

Listen, you are not going to change my mind on this one. Yes, it is an real, honest question. Yes, it does not belong on MSE in the form you have presented it and discussed it with me.

11:44 AM
Yeah, okay no problem
But could you do me a favor and bring it to someone's attention?
If you could

Yes, and if anyone is interested I will pass along your email as well.
But!

Thank you.

Two things:

gupta.nishank.k@gmail.com
sure

1) Google 'philosophy forums' and see if you have any luck there. Philosophy is somewhat optional, although I think it is the best fit; it is really "forum" that is the keyword.

11:46 AM
Yeah, I did
that already, - no reponse.. :(
or little response...... too many rules though

2) You are going to have to put in much, much more work than you already have if you want your work to get read by academics, and even more if by mathematicians.

At the very least your work needs standard formatting. It also needs proofreading, but that is a waste of time at this early stage.

What is the standard format?
I am unaware of the rules sorry. I am not from academia

I don't know? Type it up in microsoft word or something, use paragraphs, drop the wierd things with the {}s.

11:49 AM
oh okay. That all I can do

Then, you're going to need to learn vocabulary.

okay

You are using the word logic to mean something that is very different from what either standard philosophy or mathematics means by logic.

I will do it, but I need some help

And capitalizing the letter is not enough

11:50 AM
oh ok
I will need help, to get farther than this though
Since I would have no idea about standard philosophy or mathematical logic

Help will help, that is true.

ok i do have an idea
but not a complete one ....
Its a huge subject

okay, let's hear it :)

I get the gist of godel's incompleteness theorem
but I dont know how he proved it exactly

OH NO
NO
NO NO

11:52 AM
and would like to know the details from someone who could guide me

This is a HUGE faux pas.

what?

Listen
I also want to know about GIT

okay

A lot of people don't really understand it; only have a working knowledge of how to use it

11:54 AM
same here im afraid ^^
maybe even less

You CANNOT CANNOT CANNOT talk about wanting to understand Godel in the same breath as saying you have some new ideas about the foundations of mathematics
This is 100% guaranteed way that you will never be taken seriously.

what the... why?

Yeah, it seems arbitrary
But

okay , if you say so I wont mention it to mathematicians

"foundations of mathematics" is a field of philsophy :P

11:55 AM
I know

okay :P

my topic covers everything :P

Okay, so after my freaking out
Godel is easy, honestly.

haha, okay

There are great books
which are self contained

11:57 AM
but I need to know exactly how he proved it...

and at this moment there are other things I want to read it
however , I need to progress on the blog too
It's not dependent on Godel's work

Fair enough. But I am telling you, the answer to understanding Godel is that you just read about it.

okay
But help me on the blog and question right
if someone in academia interested enough gets wind
I would love to work more, read more
I am 27 years, plenty of time

That's the spirit :)

11:59 AM
:)
Ok mate i gotta run ..

Sounds good
thanks for the patience