|
0
|
1 2006-05-28.txt:19:22:22: <jix> that's the way that gödel used to prove that every axiomatic system that is powerfull enough (i think this is the wrong term) is either incomplete OR has a contradiction...
|
|
|
2 2006-09-17.txt:16:16:41: <kipple_> according to the wikipedia " mathematical axiomatic systems with the property -1 × -1 = -1 have been derived" . I wonder what they would look like...
|
|
|
3 2007-01-10.txt:23:08:36: <CakeProphet> what's a costum enviornment... and how does it change the axiomatic grand law of python's print statement?
|
|
|
4 2007-01-18.txt:02:06:00: <CakeProphet> and maybe "traits"... for simple axiomatic shit.
|
|
|
5 2007-03-22.txt:23:25:38: <bsmntbombdood> because axiomatic systems are equivalent to turing machines, and humans can derive results not possible from axiomatic systesm
|
|
|
6 2007-03-23.txt:00:33:46: <RodgerTheGreat> I don't think humans function in a non-axiomatic way, we're just orders of magnitude more complex than any AI ever constructed
|
|
|
7 2007-03-23.txt:00:43:32: <lament> humans function in a non-axiomatic way, unless you consider the laws of physics to be axioms.
|
|
|
8 2007-03-23.txt:01:39:36: <RodgerTheGreat> I don't see anything particularly problematic with saying that humans are axiomatic machines- we're complicated enough to make reliable modeling difficult, but it doesn't make us magical.
|
|
|
9 2007-11-17.txt:03:27:11: <pikhq> (hmm. . . Axiomatic system that allows for f(x)=x^2 and f'(x)=x^2? Tempting.)
|
|
|
10 2008-06-24.txt:00:27:07: <lament> by using a simple axiomatic foundation
|
|
|
11 2008-06-24.txt:00:27:37: <Slereah> But, what if we find a way to express auto-referential statements within that axiomatic base!
|
|
|
12 2008-10-08.txt:16:43:08: <oklocod> those are clearly axiomatic opinions
|
|
|
13 2008-10-08.txt:16:44:00: <oklocod> which is what i mean by an axiomatic opinion
|
|
|
14 2009-03-28.txt:17:21:32: <oklowob> AnMaster: it's an axiomatic need
|
|
|
15 2009-04-27.txt:21:50:48: <fizzie> You might take a more axiomatic view instead of a constructivistic one. At least when it comes to relative amounts of emphasis on things.
|
|
|
16 2009-05-30.txt:05:40:23: <pikhq> Alphabetic arithmetic is a bit of a unique axiomatic system.
|
|
|
17 2009-07-06.txt:01:23:03: <pikhq> I wonder what sort of screwy axiomatic system he's using, and how much LSD was involved.
|
|
|
18 2009-07-21.txt:01:25:57: <ehird> FLOTSAM, JETSAM AND THE AXIOMATIC SYSTEM
|
|
|
19 2009-08-08.txt:23:33:46: <ehird> taking everything you said as axiomatic, because I can't be arsed to argue: then we run everything under ring 0
|
|
|
20 2009-08-09.txt:18:48:12: <ehird> if you take it as axiomatic that bad things happen to people because they deserve it, the republican platform makes perfect sense
|
|
|
21 2009-08-09.txt:18:49:03: <ehird> and as we all know, the bible is axiomatic because it says so!
|
|
|
22 2009-08-09.txt:18:49:08: <pikhq> There's very few things that are axiomatic in the Bible. ;)
|
|
|
23 2009-08-21.txt:00:40:44: <kwertii> pikhq: axiomatic knowledge is by definition faith-based
|
|
|
24 2009-08-21.txt:00:44:00: <pikhq> Math is not at all internally consistent. It has been proven impossible for any nontrivial axiomatic system to be consistent. ;)
|
|
|
25 2009-10-19.txt:22:41:51: <oklopol> we had values and variables, are sentences another axiomatic sorta set of things we have
|
|
|
26 2010-01-18.txt:02:59:17: <ehird> "And then, Jesus did this thing! AXIOMATICALLY!"
|
|
|
27 2010-01-18.txt:03:52:58: <ehird> what are the axiomatic desires
|
|
|
28 2010-02-07.txt:00:26:20: <ehird> axiomatic :: a; axiomatic = error "Axioms are unquestionable"
|
|
|
29 2010-02-07.txt:00:26:39: <ehird> excludedMiddle = axiomatic
|
|
|
30 2010-02-20.txt:18:18:01: <alise> except you can make non-axiomatic foo/bar pairs with it
|
|
|
31 2010-02-20.txt:18:18:09: <alise> so clearly we need some way to determine whether something is axiomatic :P
|
|
|
32 2010-02-20.txt:18:18:37: <alise> Axiom : *; Axiom = { prop : *, axiomatic : isAxiomatic prop }
|
|
|
33 2010-02-20.txt:22:17:10: <alise> i don't think that's axiomatic though
|
|
|
34 2010-02-20.txt:22:17:44: <AnMaster> I took it axiomatic rather
|
|
|
35 2010-03-02.txt:18:35:50: <pikhq> Hey, "nullity" can be defined in an axiomatic system.
|
|
|
36 2010-03-02.txt:22:04:54: <alise> I think it's safe to just assume that for anything even remotely in this vicinity, "AnMaster doesn't get it" is pretty axiomatic
|
|
|
37 2010-03-07.txt:16:14:41: <alise_> of course i'd have the definition of the 'in' relation be axiomatic but even that doesn't work :)
|
|
|
38 2010-03-07.txt:22:40:20: <alise_> In my system I was going to have mu be axiomatic to solve this, like the Epigram people.
|
|
|
39 2010-03-27.txt:23:44:40: <pikhq> Erm. Could not within the axiomatic system, wasn't it?
|
|
|
40 2010-03-28.txt:00:34:34: <pikhq> alise: Is'nt the law of the excluded middle about statements that can be derived from the axiomatic system in question?
|
|
|
41 2010-03-28.txt:00:52:01: <pikhq> alise: Fine. I shall start using a form of limited law of excluded middle. "Any proposition which can be reasoned about in an axiomatic system must be either true or false in that axiomatic system."
|
|
|
42 2010-05-15.txt:16:56:01: <alise> Anyway, seriously, adding axiomatic >c travellers to Life.
|
|
|
43 2010-05-15.txt:17:04:04: <alise> Phantom_Hoover: Axiomatically.
|
|
|
44 2010-05-15.txt:17:29:38: <Phantom_Hoover> OK, so how do we define speed axiomatically?
|
|
|
45 2010-06-01.txt:17:04:12: <Phantom_Hoover> Also, is logic an axiomatic system?
|
|
|
46 2010-06-25.txt:17:27:48: <CakeProphet> are sets an axiomatic notion in the philosophy of mathematics?
|
|
|
47 2010-07-29.txt:22:43:49: <pikhq> AnMaster: Maybe in the retard axiomatic system.
|
|
|
48 2010-08-29.txt:02:55:32: <Gregor> It is axiomatic that well-encrypted text is indistinguishable from Lojban.
|
|
|
49 2010-09-05.txt:04:05:47: <Sgeo> Is there an uncountable infinite discreet space? A countably infinite continuous space? Or are these axiomatically tied in, or is there a theorem?
|
|
|
50 2010-10-02.txt:04:18:37: <alise> oerjan: I created your being; post hoc ergo propter hoc axiomatic, fallacies embedded into the velvet that defines you, it; machinery whirrs and purrs and ASCII saucepans confers.
|
|
|
51 2010-10-13.txt:20:40:37: <oerjan> Axiomatic Axolotl
|
|
|
52 2010-10-20.txt:17:36:11: <elliott> usually the libc would be considered axiomatic there...
|
|
|
53 2010-10-21.txt:16:29:06: <Vorpal> wtf is this encoding: ./share/libc/__fc_string_axiomatic.h: Non-ISO extended-ASCII C program text
|
|
|
54 2010-11-11.txt:00:35:41: <pikhq> elliott: No, I'm just asking why it was chosen as an axiom in the ZFC axiomatic system. I know that it's a god-damned axiom.
|
|
|
55 2010-11-11.txt:00:37:51: <elliott> pikhq: If only the Bible contained an axiomatic system -- a good proportion of the population wouldn't have to argue :P
|
|
|
56 2010-11-11.txt:00:38:06: <elliott> (extra points for demonstration of the bible's inconsistency in that axiomatic system)
|
|
|
57 2010-11-11.txt:00:38:26: <Sgeo> The Bible's axiomatic system is complete!
|
|
|
58 2010-11-11.txt:00:39:04: <elliott> pikhq: Infinite points for proving that the axiomatic system is inconsistent and thus contradicting the Bible's infallibility.
|
|
|
59 2010-12-10.txt:22:32:54: <Phantom_Hoover> zzo38, well, saying "not in nonstandard analysis" is like saying "2+2 /= 4 in Z_4"; it's an axiomatic thing.
|
|
|
60 2011-01-04.txt:15:28:10: <elliott> j-invariant: either he considers the stdlib axiomatic, or he thinks that people run around with different incompatible stdlibs. well ok you do but nobody else does :)
|
|
|
61 2011-01-26.txt:14:53:46: <j-invariant> (Where Th is an axiomatic theory)
|
|
|
62 2011-01-26.txt:16:56:12: <j-invariant> Th being the axiomatic theory S is provable in
|
|
|
63 2011-01-26.txt:16:59:40: <coppro> (note that the completeness<->satisfiable equivalence, in an axiomatic logic system, follows from the principle of explosion and one other statement that I need to dig out of my notes)
|
|
|
64 2011-03-09.txt:15:21:52: <coppro> because relations are properties that have to be taken, fundamentally, as axiomatic
|
|
|
65 2011-03-09.txt:15:23:15: <oklopol> if we define the set {(0, 1)}, then 0 and 1 are axiomatically in a relation
|
|
|
66 2011-03-09.txt:15:27:46: <oklopol> i've always taken sets as axiomatic
|
|
|
67 2011-04-19.txt:17:17:29: <enki-[quit]> they are clearly capable of formulating a proof, and working one out. but, they have taken it as axiomatic that the earth is flat and then continue on from there, discarding results that don't confirm their axioms
|
|
|
68 2011-04-21.txt:18:16:18: <crystal-cola> yeah anti-axiomatics is kind of a cool view
|
|
|
69 2011-05-31.txt:06:55:43: <Phantom_Hoover> pikhq_, ah, but you're using AXIOMATICS which you DON'T UNDERSTAND.
|
|
|
70 2011-05-31.txt:07:05:56: <Phantom_Hoover> Sgeo, because when confronted with the reasons he was wrong he dismissed them as BASELESS AXIOMATICS WHICH MOST MATHEMATICS NEITHER UNDERSTAND NOR USE
|
|
|
71 2011-06-09.txt:22:22:24: <elliott> In your estimation, is there a logically consistent axiomatic system in which there are a group of statements which comprise a complete description of how our universe operates?
|
|
|
72 2011-06-09.txt:22:24:57: <elliott> ais523: And you still affirm your answer to my question about axiomatic systems, yes?
|
|
|
73 2011-06-09.txt:22:50:31: <CakeProphet> I believe that any set of non-trivial axiomatic laws for the universe will be inconsistent or unable to prove its own completeness. Thus, while we can certainly make pretty good approximations of how the universe works, I don't think we can ever be certain that we have discovered everything that can be known about it. This doesn't disprove that a complete system might exist, but it makes unlikely that we'll ever know wha
|
|
|
74 2011-07-26.txt:04:07:46: <oerjan> and true & false applies to _models_, not axiomatic theories.
|
|
|
75 2011-07-26.txt:04:21:55: <pikhq_> Much like scientific theories, one can only disprove the consistency of an axiomatic system.
|
|
|
76 2011-07-31.txt:06:34:38: <evincar> Presumably those things which can only be defined in terms of themselves are axiomatic.
|
|
|
77 2011-12-05.txt:21:17:57: <elliott> `pastelogs axiomatic
|
