What is the definition of definition?
\thread
>>7929560
In mathematical logic, definability is undefinable.
It can be defined in the meta-language, but is undefinable within the language.
This can be shown by an analogue of the proof of Tarski's theorem on the undefinability of truth.
"Definability is undefinable" is a theorem.
>>7929587
Define meaning
#Charred
>>7929617
Define theoreom
>>7929560
Derivement of conditional awareness of a premise
Derivement being reduction
Conditional being that there be a wider subject frame applicable
Awareness being the limit of the depth of perspective- care to make a crater and not a hole lest you try to escape and find yourself without an exit
And premise, in slight relation to the previous construct frame, being the impact of the construction of the definitions applicability or derivement point or a cross reference of both which is the conditions
>>7929642
Define derivment
It's a false problem. In physics of you say
>let's assume we have are in space
You don't need to define what assuming we are in space means. You either are in space or you are not
In the way of you say
>let's assume A is true
You don't need to define what assuming means, either A is true or not, and the statements that derive from that assumption will be true or false as consequence
>>7929649
Define truth.
x | x ∈ y | f(x) -->∂ ~ d/dx f(x) ∀x == \mathbb E
you are welcome for this protip
>>7929660
Define the equals operator.
>>7929659
A is either assumed to be true, or either is true because it reflects something that exists in nature
>>7929664
But define the nature of the very truth in its self.
>>7929660
Sorry, define the double use of the equals operator.
>>7929661
Yout are a massive faggot
>>7929667
There is no such thing, either it rappresent reality well enough, or it does not
>>7929672
Define "massive".
>>7929675
Define "represent" or "something being false"c.
>>7929681
*"something being false".
sorry for improper grammar.
>>7929661
that would require too many laplacians
> inb4 muh godel's theorem
>>7929688
Define Laplacians.
>>7929684
Something is false if it does not exist in the model examinated
>>7929707
Define the model without defining things to be true or false.
>>7929711
It's completely arbitrary. It's whether you want
>>7929723
So it caneven contradict itself about wether it can contradict itself? So you are saying no matter how much mathematicans say no, 1/0=ifinity?
>>7929726
Depend on the model
>>7929726
*can even
Sorry for wrong grammar, again.
>>7929731
But any model is anything, therefore all models are equal by infinity meta model, which allows itself to exist. Therefore, in every model, there is no definition to definiton by infinity meta model.
>>7929736
Depend if your model allows metamodels.
>>7929739
The meta model says all models are allowed to be contradicted by only the meta model saying it is allowed to exist.
>>7929634
Hilbert-style formal proof etc.
Ultimately you ask, "What is a number" and "What is a set".
These are the questions with no non-circular answer. These are the undefinable primitives preceding logical thought.
>>7929739
I stop playing on your turf now. DEFINE THE SELF, FOOL,
you know, you can just set model = 0, and then solve.
solving it is not dependent on the model itself
>>7929745
Define logical thought.
>>7929751
You cannot define the model without defining the self, and you cannit define the self without a model. Cirular is the term.
>>7929751
*cannot
>>7929748
The self as a=a?
>>7929755
Define term.
>>7929794
Define the equal operator.
>>7929560
You're mom
>>7929829
That wasn't the point. I was asking you what do you mean by the self.
Can you give an example?
I'm not sure what you are talking about
>>7929836
Define about.
>>7929755
why would you practice zen while defining a model?
>>7929836
I was asking you what you meant by "Its whatever you want".
>>7929856
You must pick the model you want to work with, then a statement has the property of being true if that statement reflect something that exists in the model you are considering
>>7929862
>Still saying "You" without defining it
>>7929911
Define "you".
>>7929919
Ah, now I understood what you were asking. "you" is the observer of the model
>>7929925
"You" is the creator of said model, but give a good definition.
You are all wrong because you start off with the premise that your narrative of the world is real, and the world it reflects is not. This is Platonism.
All of the paradox goes away when you realize the world is; the narrative isn't. It is a picture in your head.
As for logic, it is not in the world; it is in the narrative. The meta-narrative of Logic comes from making narratives in the world that reflect the world. So deduction comes from big things not fitting in small things. Induction comes from order of time and space. Semantics comes from object permanence.
You train the feeling of inference to balk at big things fitting in small things.
A narrative of the brains would create a model that says the brain is a sense organ that can sense itself; can filter what it senses; and can communciate the product of those senses to others.
Mostly you just sense the narrative, with a few corrections from your sense.
All of it is narrative.
What really bakes your noodle is that you cannot corroborate the world without the narrative. Everything you know is the narrative.
You can't escape; that is why Platonism is so seductive, but it makes you add things that aren't there just to appease the feeling of consistency your inference demands.
>>7929949
Define everything in the statement you made.
>>7929941
Nono, the observer picked the model. But the model exist somewhere already. That's why science is discovered and not invented. For the moment the observer must be a human.
>>7929951
Define existence.
>>7929954
I think, therefore I am
>>7929956
Rather circular.
>>7929958
Not that I can see
Define 4chan
>>7929960
Using "yourself" without defining it again...
>>7929964
Define real.
>>7929963
I proved I exist, what else could you need
>>7929965
Define "define real."
>>7929967
"I think therefore I am", define thinking.
>>7929975
It's an physical phenomenon, does not require definition
>>7929970
Define "Define "define real." "
>>7929982
Define phenomenon.
>>7929950
All narrative deconstructs to paradox and constructs to incompleteness. There are three forms of paradox: the infinite loop; the bootstrap, and the contradiction of definition.
"Everything I say is a lie; I am lying." is an infinite loop.
"I think therefore I am." is a bootstrap.
There are four types of paradox: the deductive paradox (Russell's); the inductive paradox (chicken and egg); the perspective; and the semantic.
For the narrative to inspire confidence it has to be consistent, and it has to reflect the world.
Narratives that do neither inspire confidence all the time: this is called Sophistry, and why the Sophists thought the only thing in the world that was real was persuasion.
Pragmatists understand you cannot talk about the world without the narrative, but that the narrative is never the world. People make this mistake all the time because of what I call "being the bus." You have to be a bus to drive a bus, otherwise you will run over shit. But being a bus is impossible.
Yet being anything is impossible and possible. You can only be the narrative - the picture in your head. Hence the paradox.
SO to fix this paradox Socrates postulated that the picture in the head was real, and everything else was bullshit.
He was wrong. And that is why all definition is circular and starts with a paradox. And all acceptance of axioms constructs to incomplete narratives.
All because you cannot "see" that the seeing is the thing that is not real.
The way out of the Pragmatic Paradox is to find things "useful to be believed."
>>7929983
Well, I'm asking you to define the definiton of definition, so... how about you do all of my work for me, including this sentence?
>>7929983
Define "Define "Define "define real." ""
>>7929988
Something that exists
>>7929992
Define definition.
>>7929990
How can I believe anything if you haven't defined "believe"?
>>7929647
The process of reducing contraction in reason
>>7929659
A shared but merely relative position of depth in spiral conditions
>>7929661
A shoddy excuse for people trying to tell you that things are finite on the grounds of baring only like conditions
>>7929677
A scale of magnitude relevant to size in harmonious fractions with conditions of additives that imply the lacking sum of the grounds of their conditions of orientation; to say that in conditions of non-relative summations that size is merely what direction you're going
>>7929684
Representation is the sum of an idea coalescing with a relocatable picture; that these constructions outline the very potential of physical
>something being false
Outside of the bounds of perceived reason and inside the bounds of it's relevance to discerning a limitation of a currents limitation in regards to the binding of a reasons reserved function of that being in concurrence with eventual that false may be a condition of true and vice-versa as the construction of variance continues to stack
>>7929754
A fractal with no depth, just like every other way that society perceives fractals.
>
>>7929995
I was hoping you could do that.
>>7930000
I don't know what an "A" "The" or "Representation" is, can you fill me in please?
>>7930006
Give me your address
>>7930008
An adress is a type of duck right? But we haven't defined duck?
>>7930000
Also Noice post number, whatever that is defined to be.
>>7930012
You said you want me to fill you inside.
so give me your address so i could make that happen.
>>7930021
Define "fill".
>>7929751
You have yet to give me a non circular definition of the self.
>>7930054
what does the 'self' have to do with equations
pocket calculators exist outside of the 'self'
you can explain language as observed data correlated along an integrative level using mathematics.
those are two entirely separate systems that cannot inherently be circular because they have no derived truths. in most cases, they can't even be meta to one another.
you aren't thinking about this creatively enough.
>>7930094
Define language.
>>7930000
well deserved quads
It's how many pixels your screen has.
This thread is a perfect example of why philosophers are useless gobshites.
>>7930235
Define the word "deserved".
>>7930483
Define "screen".
>>7930522
Define "example".
>>7930541
Something I use to watch anime.
You'd like Wittgenstein, anon.
>>7929649
that are/that're derived from that assumption will be true or false as a consequence
>>7930608
Define "anime", fool.
>>7930770
Define "you", inchoerent person.
>>7930920
Chinese cartoons.
>>7930804
How can I assume something if I don't know the definiton of assuming?
>>7930925
Define "cartoons".
>>7930930
American anime.
10/10 thread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Meaning
read this one, plebs
>>7930933
Circular.
>>7930938
Define thread.
>>7930969
How does one define one self or another self, fool? You lose.
>>7929560
The fundamental axioms are 'truths' that are commonly agreed upon. There is no way to proof any of those axioms. It is in this truth which shows how science is based on intellectual subjectivity.
It might seem rational to do so, but its a subjective measurement nonetheless.
>>7933176
Then how do they agree if agreeing itself needs the acceptance of truth and acceptance can only be defined by truth? It is circualar, and therefore, you have failed to define definition.
