War for Peace

arjun writes << Comrade masadi: You aren`t dealing with your hometown hicks..some of us actually know this shit.. >>>

Actually you two are worse than village hicks, any damn fool among them knows that when their mullah asks them for one roti plus one roti he means two rotis and in other ways you are identical to them because when they seek info they go after their peer, just like you are asking me to but I am relying on the scientific system instead. The mullah said so, so this rat dung must cure my scabies. That is what your reasoning comes down to.

Ballukhan writes <<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics >>>

Masha`Allah!

As you all can see these Hindu bigots are more worried about me, my personality and what others think of my work than dealing with what is presented. They have not been able to deal with one point in the article and when they have, they have been adequately answered, which has forced them to default to their parrot like repetition of ``peer review``.

ballukhan writes <<< Asadi do some some reading and get yourself peer reviewed before you start bombarding the public space with your conspiratorial rant.................go back to your university and stop wasting your time here............ >>>

You are afraid that my logically sound connections of well known historical and empirical facts will convince people and they might do something to change the status quo? Very good, I expect AHs like yourself to be afraid, be very afraid because once the people gain consciousness they will take care of people like you by assigning you to the loony asylum where you belong.

Now, keep bluriting your nonsense, it will be ignored unless relevant to this article. And, I will keep writing regardless of what any peer reviews might say or not say and I would rather jump off Niagra Falls than accept your dumb advice. Comprendey?

#133 ballukhan, I was talking about the ``real`` world and I did not ask you to copy paste pages worth of other people`s work, I asked you simply to PROVE that in the real world 1+1 is not equal to 2, and to give me a verifiable ref where Russell says that. You have failed to do that and it shows how dispicable a position a person, like yourself, can fall down to when he cannot accept a simple truth like 1+1=2 because it comes from someone he is prejudiced against and he terms it Islamist.

Arjun writes in #131 <<< Einstein`s work has been peer reviewed.. >>>

When Einstein first presented his work, his peers over 40 of them all wrote against it. In fact Einstein himself was against the idea of Quantum physics saying that ``God does not play dice with the universe``, even though Quantum physics is well established now. Einstein had to wait for empirical evidence to verify his predictions, I use evidence that has already been seen and verifying what I write in this article does not need laboratory experimentation.

Your friend ballukhan wants to use logic to refute a basic logical truth like 1+1=2. He wants to prove that logic is a construction of the mind, how will he explain that to us? Using logic ofcourse, so why should we accept his explanation if all logic is made up? Explain that to me, use logic to explain to me why all logic is just bs. Can you do that?

You both are the worst kind of bigots imaginable where your thinking is totally circumscribed by hate. You read this article and instead of refuting its points which shouldn`t be very hard to try, you can atleast try, you invoke the authority of god, ``peers`` or ``documentation``. I challenge you to find me any peer reviewed article, that is documented that claims that peer reviews and documentation is the meat of the scientific methodology. You wont find anyone claiming to be a scientist that will say that and not be laughed out of his shoes for claiming that. Shame on you both, damn fools.

Once upon a time my professor told me that a church parished accepted the proposition that ``-1-1 =-2`` was `self evident` to him because he believed in a negative real worlds........................so how come another simple proposition such as ``-1*-1=1`` not a `self evident` truth ..............we remember the ``irrational`` numbers ,don`t we? and the ``imaginery numbers`` ?............OMG.....how come they are not `self evident` ???......and how come the proposition ``Any number multiplied by zero is zero`` not a `self evident` truth???

Ask any illiterate mullah.....at least he knows all the `self-evident` truths from his books. He should be able to recognize these self-evident truths of mathematics!!!

Asadi do some some reading and get yourself peer reviewed before you start bombarding the public space with your conspiratorial rant.................go back to your university and stop wasting your time here............

#122 by masadi on July 11, 2006 4:01am PT



If peer-review were the criteria than no research out of the establishment box, or the pet theories of the peers would ever find the light of day, if peer review were the criteria, Einstein would have ended up in the trash bin of history


Einstein`s work has been peer reviewed..There are more than enough experiments that prove his theories...

Darwin`s ToE has been peer reviewed...All research points to the ToE being a fact..

Comrade masadi: You aren`t dealing with your hometown hicks..some of us actually know this shit..

AGAIN: Before we accept your scolarship, lets see some peere reviewed research...without that, your research is just a rant that is evident only to you..

Re: # 128

Now Mr. Know All Asadi..........you talk about `self evident` truths about American Power Elites screwing up the Middle East when the facts point towards the failure of the ``Islamist`` project that has been going on since a long time in these centres..........the failure is not of the US Foreign Policy but its inability to recognize the inherent evilness of the political Islam and its proponent Islamists..........now the US is tightening the screws of these Islamist regimes and all for the good of the modern world...............that makes Islamists like you squirm and spew propaganda and hatred against it............

Re: # 127

Asadi ...........you illiterate `scholar` .....you need to read more before you open up your stupid mouth. Read this summary of the issues in Mathematics about the `self evident` truths like ``1+1=2``:


Formalism
Formalism holds that mathematical statements may be thought of as statements about the consequences of certain string manipulation rules. For example, in the ``game`` of Euclidean geometry (which is seen as consisting of some strings called ``axioms``, and some ``rules of inference`` to generate new strings from given ones), one can prove that the Pythagorean theorem holds (that is, you can generate the string corresponding to the Pythagorean theorem). Mathematical truths are not about numbers and sets and triangles and the like — in fact, they aren`t ``about`` anything at all!

Another version of formalism is often known as deductivism. In deductivism, the Pythagorean theorem is not an absolute truth, but a relative one: if you assign meaning to the strings in such a way that the rules of the game become true (ie, true statements are assigned to the axioms and the rules of inference are truth-preserving), then you have to accept the theorem, or, rather, the interpretation you have given it must be a true statement. The same is held to be true for all other mathematical statements. Thus, formalism need not mean that mathematics is nothing more than a meaningless symbolic game. It is usually hoped that there exists some interpretation in which the rules of the game hold. (Compare this position to structuralism.) But it does allow the working mathematician to continue in his or her work and leave such problems to the philosopher or scientist. Many formalists would say that in practice, the axiom systems to be studied will be suggested by the demands of science or other areas of mathematics.


David HilbertA major early proponent of formalism was David Hilbert, whose program was a complete and consistent axiomatization of all of mathematics. (``Consistent`` here means that no contradictions can be derived from the system.) Hilbert aimed to show the consistency of mathematical systems from the assumption that the ``finitary arithmetic`` (a subsystem of the usual arithmetic of the positive integers, chosen to be philosophically uncontroversial) was consistent. Hilbert`s goals of creating a system of mathematics that is both complete and consistent was dealt a fatal blow by the second of Gödel`s incompleteness theorems, which states that sufficiently expressive consistent axiom systems can never prove their own consistency. Since any such axiom system would contain the finitary arithmetic as a subsystem, Gödel`s theorem implied that it would be impossible to prove the system`s consistency relative to that (since it would then prove its own consistency, which Gödel had shown was impossible). Thus, in order to show that any axiomatic system of mathematics is in fact consistent, one needs to first assume the consistency of a system of mathematics that is in a sense stronger than the system to be proven consistent.

Hilbert was initially a deductivist, but, as may be clear from above, he considered certain metamathematical methods to yield intrinsically meaningful results and was a realist with respect to the finitary arithmetic. Later, he held the opinion that there was no other meaningful mathematics whatsoever, regardless of interpretation.

Other formalists, such as Rudolf Carnap, Alfred Tarski and Haskell Curry, considered mathematics to be the investigation of formal axiom systems. Mathematical logicians study formal systems but are just as often realists as they are formalists.

Formalists are usually very tolerant and inviting to new approaches to logic, non-standard number systems, new set theories etc. The more games we study, the better. However, in all three of these examples, motivation is drawn from existing mathematical or philosophical concerns. The ``games`` are usually not arbitrary.

The main critique of formalism is that the actual mathematical ideas that occupy mathematicians are far removed from the minute string manipulation games mentioned above. While published proofs (if correct) could in principle be formulated in terms of these games, the effort required in space and time would be prohibitive (witness Principia Mathematica.) In addition, the rules are certainly not substantial to the initial creation of those proofs. Formalism is also silent to the question of which axiom systems ought to be studied.

[edit]
Intuitionism
Main article: Mathematical intuitionism
In mathematics, intuitionism is a program of methodological reform whose motto is that ``there are no non-experienced mathematical truths`` (L.E.J. Brouwer). From this springboard, intuitionists seek to reconstruct what they consider to be the corrigible portion of mathematics in accordance with Kantian concepts of being, becoming, intuition, and knowledge. Brouwer, the founder of the movement, held that mathematical objects arise from the a priori forms of the volitions that inform the perception of empirical objects. (CDP, 542)

Leopold Kronecker said: ``The natural numbers come from God, everything else is man`s work.`` A major force behind Intuitionism was L.E.J. Brouwer, who rejected the usefulness of formalized logic of any sort for mathematics. His student Arend Heyting, postulated an intuitionistic logic, different from the classical Aristotelian logic; this logic does not contain the law of the excluded middle and therefore frowns upon proofs by contradiction. The axiom of choice is also rejected in most intuitionistic set theories, though in some versions it is accepted. Important work was later done by Errett Bishop, who managed to prove versions of the most important theorems in real analysis within this framework.

In intuitionism, the term ``explicit construction`` is not cleanly defined, and that has led to criticisms. Attempts have been made to use the concepts of Turing machine or recursive function to fill this gap, leading to the claim that only questions regarding the behavior of finite algorithms are meaningful and should be investigated in mathematics. This has led to the study of the computable numbers, first introduced by Alan Turing. Not surprisingly, then, this approach to mathematics is sometimes associated with theoretical computer science.

[edit]
Constructivism
Main article: Mathematical constructivism
Template:Sectsub

Like intuitionism, constructivism involves the regulative principle that only mathematical entities which can be explicitly constructed in a certain sense should be admitted to mathematical discourse. In this view, mathematics is an exercise of the human intuition, not a game played with meaningless symbols. Instead, it is about entities that we can create directly through mental activity. In addition, some adherents of these schools reject non-constructive proofs, such as a proof by contradiction.

[edit]
Fictionalism
Fictionalism was introduced in 1980 when Hartry Field published Science Without Numbers, which rejected and in fact reversed Quine`s indispensability argument. Where Quine suggested that mathematics was indispensable for our best scientific theories, and therefore should be accepted as true, Field suggested that mathematics was dispensable, and therefore should be rejected as false. He did this by giving a complete axiomatization of Newtonian mechanics that didn`t reference numbers or functions at all. He started with the ``betweenness`` axioms of Hilbert geometry to characterize space without coordinatizing it, and then added extra relations between points to do the work formerly done by vector fields.

Having shown how to do science without using mathematics, he proceeded to rehabilitate mathematics as a kind of useful fiction. He showed that mathematical physics is a conservative extension of his non-mathematical physics (that is, every physical fact provable in mathematical physics is already provable from his system), so that the mathematics is a reliable process whose physical applications are all true, even though its own statements are false. Thus, when doing mathematics, we can see ourselves as telling a sort of story, talking as if numbers existed.

By this account, there are no metaphysical or epistemological problems special to mathematics. The only worries left are the general worries about non-mathematical physics, and about fiction in general. Although intriguing, Field`s approach has not been very influential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Trapped in your own BS aren`t you Ballukhan, I dare you to prove that in the real world 1+1=3 and I dare you to quote me any book that is verifiable where Russell claims that 1+1 is not 2. I challenge you.

#128 ballukhan writes <<< ou are indeed an illiterate Mr. Asadi.....you need to read Russell and the entire school of Mathematical Formalism, Intuitionism and Constructivism to understand that propositions like ``1+1= 2`` are certainly not as `self-evident` as you have understood from your Islamists perspective!!! >>>

Firstly 1+1=2 is not the Islamist perspective it is the ``real`` perspective. Please explain to us how in the REAL world 1+1=3 and not 2. Otherwise shut up and don`t hide behind words like ``Intuitionism`` when you have no clue about them. This is a new trick you have learned, when stumped by logical arguments, ask for documentation and peer reviews. You appear to be quite pathetic your attempts at refutation.

``......you know that these people deserve to be called what they are miserable SOBs....``

Instead of name calling PROVE that your theses are right!!!

``........asking for documentation to prove that 1+1=2.``

The more you open your mouth the more you expose your ignorance.

You are indeed an illiterate Mr. Asadi.....you need to read Russell and the entire school of Mathematical Formalism, Intuitionism and Constructivism to understand that propositions like ``1+1= 2`` are certainly not as `self-evident` as you have understood from your Islamists perspective!!!

You need to do more reading before you write for the Chowk as a self proclaimed `scholar` and start quoting form half baked secondary sources in order to fool the gullible ummah.

Feroz writes in #121 <<< Sir, with all due respect, it seems that you publish articles on Chowk not to engage in any intellectual debate, but to seek some sort of intellectual adulation from the Chowk readership, which you feel your ``intellectual credentials`` should entitle you. >>>

Once again this was your bias against my pov speaking. I have never offered either my publications or my credentials as proof of what I write and I have gone out of my way to address the questions both relevant and irrelevant of people.

Now when the same irrelevancy shrouded by hate is repeated 101 times like ballukhan is doing in #123 calling it ``islamist conspiritorial world view`` when this artilcle has absolutely nothing even remotely to do with either Islam or conspiracy, you know that these people deserve to be called what they are miserable SOBs.

Re: # 122

``if peer review were the criteria, Einstein would have ended up in the trash bin of history, and not the position that he occupies........``

That is nonsense........you want everybody to take your thesis as `self-evident` truths because they support the Islamist conspiritorial world view.......... Einstein`s theories were only accepted only after the corroborating predictions which were empirically verifiable by the peers................. you want the Ummah to accept your theories blindly and how you crawl all over the chowk trying to gain acceptance here........... if you have any academic honesty then you should be getting your thesis debated by your peers than trying to force it upon the unsuspecting and gullible ummah in the name of `self-evident` truths........