TakenItSeriously

I wonder if anyone has created a set of patterns with known solutions that can be used to check a method? It’s almost like any potential method would never be able to get beyond conjecture.

Assume that you have discovered a method that can determine a very efficient route for any given set of cities every time, but your not sure if its the most efficient route. How can we know if the resulting route is the most efficient? i.e. how can we test the method we have discovered to be the solution without actually solving all permutations for every problem? Is their some formula that produces the minimum distance without giving the route?

Assume that you have discovered a method that can determine a very efficient route for any given set of cities every time, but your not sure if its the most efficient route. How can we know if the resulting route is the most efficient? i.e. how can we test the method we have discovered to be the solution without actually solving all permutations for every problem? Is their some formula that produces the minimum distance without giving the route?

Ok, I’ll bite, what’s your definition for justice?

I’m not a scientist but I do believe in science, but just not absolutely which I think is a mistake from any point of view. It’s probably due to their being trained to believe only in the evidence that they can record which sounds good in theory but can cause them to sometimes overlook the obvious, but that’s just a guess on my part. I tend to hear absurd expectations from many in these forums like I’m supposed to run out and buy some satelite time which I thought was a scientist being facetious until I realized most aren’t scientists but kind of avid followers of science like myself, though I never liked the term follower. That’s because I have a thing about objective logic which is just the way my mind works. So I have to logically attack a problrm based on the evidence thats available and rethink my possible solutions until I can finally see a reasonable solution that doesnt just fit the evidence, but makse a lot of sense given the evidence. So as to be clear, this is just my opinion based on my own experimental experiences of closing my eyes and walking around and my use of objective logic to find a reaason that fits with the evidence and my experience. But in my opinion, I would agree with the OP and say that our senses don’t suddenly become more acute as if we are experiencing evolution in realtime. But it’s far more likely that we are adjusting the acuteness of our focus on the remaining senses.in order to hear far more then we could with say when wearing earbuds playing music. I would even speculate that our brain becomes better at interpreting what our senses are telling us in order to adapt to our situation. But thats just a laypersons point of view.

There is some profound misunderstanding about the significance of the roll that validity or more importantly invalidity plays in logic. Aside from the laws of logic or the roles that axioms play, You can think of validity/invalidity as the only rule in logic. The consequence of it being the only rule and the fact that logic basically represents all thinking outside of math, then its fair to say that the scope of invalidity covers every type of error mankind has ever made since the dawn of consciousness. so it needs to be taken a little more seriously than just the proper usage of English. If you think rigor is important in math, then think of invalidity at least with the same importance as the rigor you apply to math. because the lack of respect for invalidity is literally just plain ignorance. and every thing that comes from ignorance. I’ll try to write something up on logic later but for now there is an easy trick that we can use when dealing with paradoxical problems. The source of every paradoxical problem is an intuitive error. Thats what makes them seem so paradoxical. Its the conflict between logic and intuitiive error. So you can start by mulling over how that applies to these problems

.I still cant see anywhere stating if those problems have discovered solutions or not. Other than the millet problem which Aristotle had successfully refuted back in the same era it was proposed. Which suggests that they should have all been solved.by now. Does anyone know for certain the state of those problems? I used to think that there wer no more unsolved paradoxes until I discovered the balance paradox still had no solution so I dont make that assumption anymore, and I’m not going to keep posting known solutions. That would be like posting solutions that prove the earth is round.or something.

It still makes no sense to me, sorry. It looks like a self conflicting statement I guess Id describe it like a statement that 2+2=5 which I understand, isn’t the best analogy, maybe divide by zero is closer. Better still, it’s an infinite recursive loop maybe?

I see, that makes more sense. Thanks.

How do you mean? As in someone redirecting my google results?

I guess we cross posted. see three posts up. I’ll try and find the link Something is wrong with my browser I got to that page and everything froze

ok, I guess you see meaning where I don’t. if someone told me “I am lying” Id ask him ”about what?” but if someone said “I’m happy”, Id say “good for you” To me one makes sense the other doesn’t.but thats not the point Either could have validity as a statement of logic or not depending on the context, but not making sense is a valid point of invalidity. Otherwise it’s like trying to make sense out of nothing.

No listing, he just showed the riddle, and I found a solution. I thought it had already had been solved back then. In fact today was the first time I saw that it didnt have a solution. Oh I see what you meant, I googled unsolved logic problems and found it listed under Zihnos paradoxes. is said there were a series with 9 that still survived which I thought meant 9 had remained unsolved. then I saw that the millet problem had a solution given

Why? did I say something that was offensive. I certainly didn't mean to but if I did offend, I’m sorry.

I just fiund out this one had a solution already. Bummer, I thought they were all supposed to be unsolved.

or you could say, I annihilated it

Description of the paradox from the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy:

I solved this paradox in high school when the math teacher presented it in limit theory. Since its still listed in the unsolved problems, I guess it didnt take back then. Let me see if I can make it more transpareent. Paradox Achilles and the tortoise paradox In the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 meters, for example. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 meters. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles arrives somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has some distance to go before he can even reach the tortoise.[9] Solution: The falacy of the paradox is that the distances applied for Achilles to cover is provided in like some kind of rapid decay series governed by the pace of the tortoise, that looks like a 1/10th decay. d = 100m + 10m + 1m... The serries wil continue on forever, so I assume the paradoxical effect is that Achilies can never seem to be able to pass the tortoise? However they didnt provide the constant rate of speed or a series for time, so technically its an invalid data set, but to solve the series lets assume Achilies constent velocity is 10m/s. The logical falacy is that we are worried about an infinite series of distance but are forgetting that it’s a race of speed and both have a constant speed. That means an infinite series of time also must coexist with the series for distance: d = 100m + 10m + 1m... = 111.111111m t = 10s + 1s + 0.1s... = 11.1111111s Va =10m/s, Vt = 1m/s So the infinite series just disappears when including both terms and we end up with two linear slopes that cross where Achilies passes the tortoise. Edit to add: To clarify, the two serries each resolves down to infinitely repeating 1’s. where distance has one extra decimal place. to get the velocity we take v =d/t = 10 m/s Therefore the two infinite serries simply cancel out.

In math we try to prove a solution to a problem In logic we see if it can be disproven through invalidity. Once a statement is proven as being invalid its done. There’s no need to bring metalanguage into it. I think you may be thinking about a related problem with two characters: one that lies and one that tells the truth.

Yes, that was my point. The statement “I am lying” must refer to what they’re lying about to have meaning.. Otherwise it’s an invalid statement as in its not a meaningful statement. It may look kind of like a natural thing to say because such statements typically refer to something in the previous sentence but there’s nothing in the previous sentance to refer to. Maybe you can think of it like using reference frames If you dont provide an observer in their own reference frame and what their observing in the context of it’s reference frame. then the problem doesnt make sense. “I am lying” is implying a referal to something that isnt there. so it doesnt make sense.

I’m not sure what your getting at. Its a solution to a famous paradox with a few examples of problems that are similarly overlooked. Ok, I removed the example that might look like a rant, though it was intended to be a common example of the same type of oversite.

If we can assume a person is lying when he says: “I am lying”. Then it seems as if standard logic chains must yield an inconsistent result where his lie seems to also be provable to being the truth. e.g.: If he is lying, then by saying he is lying means he must be telling the truth. There is nothing wrong with the applied logic or even the postulate that assumes that the man is lying. nor is there any paradox. The problem is found in the statement of the problem itself which is not given in a valid form. The statement “I am lying” is a meaningless statement as its used which implies a reference to something that is not there. When making an observation, simply using a valid sentence in English does not necisarily mean that the statement is valid. In this case the observer is making an empty statement unless he includes what he is lying about such as: “I am lying when I say you don’t look fat in those jeans.” The error made in this problem is an error of misdirection where we are used to looking for an error in the premise, postulate, or in the applied logic. We may overlook the rest of the problem that we don’t often find error with and so we dont think to look there.

If you define DM as invisible non interactive matter, its true that we can only measure it indirectly through other matter. If you define DM as a magnetic field, then the effects of the field on matter is direct evidence of the field. So which would be real case?

Yes, but youre forgetting one thing, all of the examples you gave are detectable by means other than it’s mass. Can we say the same for DM? Matter we can detect directly.or at leas through it’s particle like evidence left behind. DM is only detectable indirectly through it’s effect on matter. Magnetic fields are also only detectable through their effect on matter

I’m so glad you understand. Not everyone does and then I guess I just seem like an a*****e to them so I rarely bring it up.