Book 2 – Page 65

[drachefly]

If A = B, then C. If A != B, then {D, E, F, ...}. If none of the above, put on your parachute and make your way to the egress; it's time to vamoose.

That would fall somewhere under the given set, since one does not stop at "does A = B", but instead continues asking questions. Often, when you do not get the desired answer to your question, the solution is another formula entirel.y

That's like saying:

1+1 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., infinity}

And then when someone points out 2 is the only possibility, "I said that".

Nope, basically, he's right once, but wrong an infinite number of times. unless you identify the one correct answer from a set, you have solved nothing.

1+1 = 2

Not the entire non-negative integer set.

Well, not really. The original formula was not a valid statement of logic. By this I don't mean it was wrong, I mean it simply wasn't even a statement. Now, that doesn't sound good for Tachyon at first, but it sounds even worse for Kriestor. Why?

Because when you're faced with literally malformed statement of logic, you don't get to make up what it means. One proper response is, 'fix this until it means something.' Another is, 'That's not even wrong'. But you don't get to extrapolate from it. In that case you're willingly bringing in garbage.

You were complaining about straw men, no? Then CUT IT OUT.

All this interlinear and tangential nonsense. What are the core theses you're each trying to establish, again? Charlie is behind it? Could be? Probably isn't? Is not?

[Lamech]

All this interlinear and tangential nonsense. What are the core theses you're each trying to establish, again? Charlie is behind it? Could be? Probably isn't? Is not?

I agrue that Charlie was probably in some way behind it. Not sure about Kriestor.... I think something to the effect of "Charlie would have used a better plan." which I tried to respond to with "There may have not been a better plan." Tachyon thinks that Translovito would likely be the one behind it since the free casters of the MK would have objected to an outright attack on MK soil, and Charlie wouldn't be that stupid. Finally I disagree that this would be viewed as an outright hit on Parson, but, if for the sake of argument, it would be viewed as an attack that Charlie is not responsible, and furthermore TV sounds like a good culprit.

Except for the whole 'fanatical adoration of Wanda' thing. Free love is supposed to be spread around to all, not concentrated in a single direction (and thus completely unrequited).

But don't forget that the decrypted would really prefer that the units instead make happy peace with GK and everyone. So the fanaticism to Wanda only applies to units that rejected peace; it isn't great, but I would argue that its superior to the alternative of GK committing suicide or killing the attackers. (Janice may not think so, or may not break it down like that.)

[BLANDCorporatio]

I can see how Janis would be backpedaling, but in some ways this sounds a lot like a hippiemancer's dream.

Except for the whole 'fanatical adoration of Wanda' thing. Free love is supposed to be spread around to all, not concentrated in a single direction (and thus completely unrequited).

There was a campaign in some gameworld or other, where this dude decides that the way to world peace is lobotomizing everybody (well, using mind control magic, as was appropriate for the setting).

Needless to say, he was a bad guy, and one of the PCs makes a (reasonably compelling, for what must've been a hastily written story) case that peace at the cost of mindlessness is meaningless, because it cannot be appreciated.

Decrypted aren't exactly mindless, but all of them so far seem purposeless if Wanda were not there. Without an ability to choose their own actions and make of their lives what they will, a global peace of decrypted is hollow.

Then again, most Erfworlders are, internally, the playthings of their rulers, so yeah. Erfworld is a freaky place.

All this interlinear and tangential nonsense. What are the core theses you're each trying to establish, again? Charlie is behind it? Could be? Probably isn't? Is not?

Tangential nonsense indeed, but I must admit it was the only bit of those walls of text that I cared to notice. My reading of Tachyon's formula is a bit more generous than yours though: "if some condition (call it A=B) holds then some consequence C happens, whereas if the condition fails one of these possibilities (call them D, E and so on) must be true; otherwise logic has imploded and colourless green ideas are sleeping furiously".

[Kreistor]

If A = B, then C. If A != B, then {D, E, F, ...}. If none of the above, put on your parachute and make your way to the egress; it's time to vamoose.

That would fall somewhere under the given set, since one does not stop at "does A = B", but instead continues asking questions. Often, when you do not get the desired answer to your question, the solution is another formula entirel.y

That's like saying:

1+1 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., infinity}

And then when someone points out 2 is the only possibility, "I said that".

Nope, basically, he's right once, but wrong an infinite number of times. unless you identify the one correct answer from a set, you have solved nothing.

1+1 = 2

Not the entire non-negative integer set.

Well, not really. The original formula was not a valid statement of logic. By this I don't mean it was wrong, I mean it simply wasn't even a statement.

Not correct. A statement was made. It is either true or false, or indeterminate. All I did was demonstrate that it was false. Godel demonstrated that no mathematical system can be complete, that there is a statement of the form "This statement is false" inside math, but this statement was not of that form. It is, then, true or false. I demonstrated it was false.

Because when you're faced with literally malformed statement of logic

Statements can be false because they are malformed. But that is not true in this case.

With his statement, Tachyon was implying that because two statements do not follow, a thousand conclusions can be drawn based on that inequality. That was false, because only equivalent statements can lead to new conclusions. Falsehoods eliminate only themselves.

You were complaining about straw men, no? Then CUT IT OUT.

It is not a Straw Man to analyze someone else's statement and demonstrate it is flawed. It is a Straw Man to put a counter-argument against your own case in another person's mouth, trying to force them to defend something that they never intended.

In this, I am not forcing the opponent into defending something I created: he created it, and I am only presenting the interpretation that I felt he intended, not creating his case for him to tear it down. He is welcome to expound on "If A != B, then [D, E, F]" and tell me what he intended, if I misinterpreted his intent.

[Housellama]

No, Ansom is removed from the field and no longer influencing the battle. That plan did succeed in having the desired effect, though not using the expected vector (Jillian instead of Sammy).

This seems to pretty heavily imply that he wanted Ansom dead.

Because Ansom was GK's Chief Warlord; he provides a part of an insane leadership bonus to GK's units when he's in the hex alongside Wanda and the 'pliers. It was a decapitation plan, similar to when Parson first tried to kill Ansom in Book 1. Ultimately, Jillian cooperated in her own way, granted it was not acceptable to Charlie, but as far as we can see, they haven't broken their "alliance" over it. Vanna, as far as we know, is still in Jillian's employ, and on Charlie's paycheck.

*facepalm* No. Charlie wanted Ansom dead because he was a distraction to Jillian. Jillian loved Ansom. Charlie invested a lot of money in Jillian, and had a lot riding on her in his current plan. Ansom was a major distraction to Jillian. His existence was preventing Charlie from being able to manipulate her. She was acting out of love, which is completely irrational. Therefore, Charlie was acting to remove the object of her love. He was banking on being able to get him before Jillian found out. If he did that, then Jillian would only have one person left to love. She'd have a new target to hate, but that's a different story. Charlie can use hate. Hate is predictable. Love isn't.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Not correct. A statement was made. It is either true or false, or indeterminate. All I did was demonstrate that it was false. Godel demonstrated that no mathematical system can be complete, that there is a statement of the form "This statement is false" inside math, but this statement was not of that form. It is, then, true or false. I demonstrated it was false.

I get what you're trying to say, but the Godel example is poorly chosen. To be more accurate, let's say Godel demonstrated that a formal language is either incapable to express sentences of the form "this sentence cannot be proven", or incomplete. "This sentence is false" statements in formal languages are a different kettle of fish to GT.

Also, sentence indeterminacy has nothing to do with logic, or paradoxes, or whatever else beyond mere practicality. A sentence may be, in an objective sense, true or not; nonetheless, you still don't know which it is. If the fashion around here suddenly became to give clever-sounding examples in math, then it's worth pointing out that once you specify a few axioms all theorems of geometry necessarily follow. That doesn't mean you know all of them, or could recognize one at a glance.

PS: another nitpick, a formal language doesn't deal in malformed sentences. If it's malformed, it's not in the language. Debating whether this makes it false kinda misses this important point about formal languages. Syntax first. Also, you don't need "equivalent sentences" to form new conclusions; plenty of theorems in math go "if A, then B; the converse (if B, then A) is in general not true".

[effataigus]

If this makes sense to you, then you've probably spent too long on the forums.

I am living proof that the converse of this statement is false.

[Kreistor]

I get what you're trying to say, but the Godel example is poorly chosen. To be more accurate, let's say Godel demonstrated that a formal language is either incapable to express sentences of the form "this sentence cannot be proven", or incomplete. "This sentence is false" statements in formal languages are a different kettle of fish to GT.

No, it isn't. The statement was presented as a logical rule, not a linguistic puzzle. As a logical rule, it must be true or false, or fit in that limited set of indeterminate statements identified by Godel. Since the poster was proclaiming something as true, it is entirely reasonable to apply logic to its analysis.

I mention Godel only to identify that there is a third possibility in logical systems (which before Godel were thought to contain only true and false statements... I'm just covering all the bases), but I'll point out that should you prove that the orignal statement was indeterminate, it still isn't true as the original poster presented. (That's a Straw man, BTW, but I'm using it only to let you know where that line of thinking goes, not trying to force someone to defend what I think is impossible anyway. I would *love* to see that proof, though. You'd get kudos from me, for sure, if it succeeded.)

[BLANDCorporatio]

If this makes sense to you, then you've probably spent too long on the forums.

I am living proof that the converse of this statement is false.

Hmm, that is a bit ambiguous. Do you mean to say that, despite spending too much time on the forum, "this" (whatever "this" is) still doesn't make sense to you?

No, it isn't. The statement was presented as a logical rule, not a linguistic puzzle.

Emphasis mine. If you think "formal language" means linguistic puzzle, that would explain a lot about misquoting Godel's theorem.

And as an addition to that, not only "this is unprovable" statements turned out to be unprovable. Why, there's even a Godel's Theorem number 2, about a different, and rather more interesting, kind.

EDIT, the umpteenth: and as an addendum, I really don't see the point in dragging Mr. K. in this. "Logical systems" may have at one time been thought to contain only sentences which were either true or false, but that was ignoring the speaker's knowledge of that status. For practical purposes, reasoning has always admitted door number 3, "unknown (at this time)", which is a different thing from "unknowable", or "undefined", or "mathematically unprovable even in principle". Aristotle's "no third option" be damned.

[effataigus]

Do you mean to say that, despite spending too much time on the forum, "this" (whatever "this" is) still doesn't make sense to you?

Why, you even added (a statement that could be interpreted as) an exasperated parenthetical for me! I approve of these words put in my mouth. *nomnomnom*

[drachefly]

Anyway, Lamech is wrong. Wrong wrong


wrong.


It's spelled Transylvito.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Do you mean to say that, despite spending too much time on the forum, "this" (whatever "this" is) still doesn't make sense to you?

Why, you even added (a statement that could be interpreted as) an exasperated parenthetical for me! I approve of these words put in my mouth. *nomnomnom*

The BLAND Corporatio. Builders of Straw Persons for the new millenium.

Now with eco-friendly hay!

Anyway, Lamech is wrong. Wrong wrong


wrong.


It's spelled Transylvito.

As they say in sitcoms, that's appropriate on several levels.

[Lamech]

Anyway, Lamech is wrong. Wrong wrong


wrong.


It's spelled Transylvito.

Really I messed up the spelling? And we shall see, we shall see... Will it be Charlie, someone else or no one behind Jojo?

[MarbitChow]

And we shall see, we shall see... Will it be Charlie, someone else or no one behind Jojo?

Right now, Parson, Marie, Sizemore and Janis are behind Jojo. Formal proof: Parson can see Jojo's back side. QED.

[Tachyon]

If A = B, then C. If A != B, then {D, E, F, ...}. If none of the above, put on your parachute and make your way to the egress; it's time to vamoose.

That would fall somewhere under the given set, since one does not stop at "does A = B", but instead continues asking questions. Often, when you do not get the desired answer to your question, the solution is another formula entirel.y

That's like saying:

1+1 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., infinity}

And then when someone points out 2 is the only possibility, "I said that".

Nope, basically, he's right once, but wrong an infinite number of times. unless you identify the one correct answer from a set, you have solved nothing.

1+1 = 2

Not the entire non-negative integer set.

Well, not really. The original formula was not a valid statement of logic. By this I don't mean it was wrong, I mean it simply wasn't even a statement.

Not correct. A statement was made. It is either true or false, or indeterminate. All I did was demonstrate that it was false. Godel demonstrated that no mathematical system can be complete, that there is a statement of the form "This statement is false" inside math, but this statement was not of that form. It is, then, true or false. I demonstrated it was false.

Because when you're faced with literally malformed statement of logic

Statements can be false because they are malformed. But that is not true in this case.

With his statement, Tachyon was implying that because two statements do not follow, a thousand conclusions can be drawn based on that inequality. That was false, because only equivalent statements can lead to new conclusions. Falsehoods eliminate only themselves.

If I add my two cents to this argument and it spirals any further out of control I will be fighting the urge to forcibly remove someone's scalp with my bare hands. But I'm gonna do it anyway.

Actually, I was implying that a thousand new presuppositions can be tested, not the least of which include presuppositions about the mental veracity or perceptual acuity of the person who first came to the conclusion via false logic (which just happens to be the very last supposition in the set that can be tested as well as simultaneously the axiom to take in the case of any other presuppositions being wrong). New conclusions can be drawn by testing those presuppositions.

Valid logic, which doesn't speak to resolving the dispute over whether solution C was correct; and that was never my intent. I don't posit generic theses for the sake of disproving an argument when other means have not been exhausted.

[Lamech]

And we shall see, we shall see... Will it be Charlie, someone else or no one behind Jojo?

Right now, Parson, Marie, Sizemore and Janis are behind Jojo. Formal proof: Parson can see Jojo's back side. QED.

Damn! Foiled again.

[Dr Pepper]

Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.

[Freemage]

Marie is definitively evil. Maybe even the evil mastermind main antagonist of the series. She was essential in summoning Parson, and it's increasingly clear (also from signamancy: that hat of hers) that she did not do it for the reasons she told Janis Atlantis. She wants to burn the world alright, but not to save it.

Come on, can anyone tell me a single story where the "predictamancers" were the good guys? No. In fairy tales and modern tales alike, those who can see the future tend to do evil things - in vain - to avoid it.

(OK; I can think of one good predictamancer: Cassandra. But Marie is no Cassandra!)

On the other hand... I doubt Erfworld is eventually going to turn into a "you can't fight fate"-story a la Oedipus. Or at least I hope it won't. It could be that a lot of Marie's "predictions" are stuff she's trying hard to make happen. In which case, she's also absolutely evil (fall of Faq, rise of Wanda, summoning Parson).

I can think of one 'predictamancer' who was both an active character and the definitive protagonist, right off the top of my head--the main character of Stephen King's The Dead Zone, a pre-cognitive (among other psychic 'Lookamancy' talents) that realizes he needs to stop a man from leading the world to nuclear Armageddon.

[kouhoutek]

I can see how Janis would be backpedaling, but in some ways this sounds a lot like a hippiemancer's dream.

Except for the whole 'fanatical adoration of Wanda' thing. Free love is supposed to be spread around to all, not concentrated in a single direction (and thus completely unrequited).

Um, Marie is the once with the unhealthy appreciation for Wanda..Janis is the one who is concerned about it.

[Kreistor]

Actually, I was implying that a thousand new presuppositions can be tested [snip]

Okay, first, you used a symbol set with a known definition. If you're going to use a known standard, you have to use it properly, and not re-define it to your purpose without telling people how you're using it. {A, B, ..., Z} is a set, and by using it in that manner, you were suggesting all of A through Z were true, not possible truths.

Second, there are no "new" propositions. All of those propositions existed before you determined that A!=B: that you just hadn't considered them yet while focusing only on your chosen favorite only means you're missing the forest for the birch, not that they are new possibilities. While working on one proposition that you are seeking to prove, the others are not inherently untrue, because you have not yet proven or disproven the working theory.