# HG changeset patch # User HackBot # Date 1371751178 0 # Node ID 58decd17dd2c2283eadb7ff9bf00e2275516c0ef # Parent 269bf6b8f4d9cbe2397f5a6c83be7a8d25b9450b paste diff -r 269bf6b8f4d9 -r 58decd17dd2c paste/paste.26644 --- a/paste/paste.26644 Thu Jun 20 08:52:43 2013 +0000 +++ b/paste/paste.26644 Thu Jun 20 17:59:38 2013 +0000 @@ -1,77 +0,0 @@ -2006-05-28.txt:19:22:22: 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... -2006-09-17.txt:16:16:41: according to the wikipedia " mathematical axiomatic systems with the property -1 × -1 = -1 have been derived" . I wonder what they would look like... -2007-01-10.txt:23:08:36: what's a costum enviornment... and how does it change the axiomatic grand law of python's print statement? -2007-01-18.txt:02:06:00: and maybe "traits"... for simple axiomatic shit. -2007-03-22.txt:23:25:38: because axiomatic systems are equivalent to turing machines, and humans can derive results not possible from axiomatic systesm -2007-03-23.txt:00:33:46: I don't think humans function in a non-axiomatic way, we're just orders of magnitude more complex than any AI ever constructed -2007-03-23.txt:00:43:32: humans function in a non-axiomatic way, unless you consider the laws of physics to be axioms. -2007-03-23.txt:01:39:36: 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. -2007-11-17.txt:03:27:11: (hmm. . . Axiomatic system that allows for f(x)=x^2 and f'(x)=x^2? Tempting.) -2008-06-24.txt:00:27:07: by using a simple axiomatic foundation -2008-06-24.txt:00:27:37: But, what if we find a way to express auto-referential statements within that axiomatic base! -2008-10-08.txt:16:43:08: those are clearly axiomatic opinions -2008-10-08.txt:16:44:00: which is what i mean by an axiomatic opinion -2009-03-28.txt:17:21:32: AnMaster: it's an axiomatic need -2009-04-27.txt:21:50:48: You might take a more axiomatic view instead of a constructivistic one. At least when it comes to relative amounts of emphasis on things. -2009-05-30.txt:05:40:23: Alphabetic arithmetic is a bit of a unique axiomatic system. -2009-07-06.txt:01:23:03: I wonder what sort of screwy axiomatic system he's using, and how much LSD was involved. -2009-07-21.txt:01:25:57: FLOTSAM, JETSAM AND THE AXIOMATIC SYSTEM -2009-08-08.txt:23:33:46: taking everything you said as axiomatic, because I can't be arsed to argue: then we run everything under ring 0 -2009-08-09.txt:18:48:12: if you take it as axiomatic that bad things happen to people because they deserve it, the republican platform makes perfect sense -2009-08-09.txt:18:49:03: and as we all know, the bible is axiomatic because it says so! -2009-08-09.txt:18:49:08: There's very few things that are axiomatic in the Bible. ;) -2009-08-21.txt:00:40:44: pikhq: axiomatic knowledge is by definition faith-based -2009-08-21.txt:00:44:00: Math is not at all internally consistent. It has been proven impossible for any nontrivial axiomatic system to be consistent. ;) -2009-10-19.txt:22:41:51: we had values and variables, are sentences another axiomatic sorta set of things we have -2010-01-18.txt:02:59:17: "And then, Jesus did this thing! AXIOMATICALLY!" -2010-01-18.txt:03:52:58: what are the axiomatic desires -2010-02-07.txt:00:26:20: axiomatic :: a; axiomatic = error "Axioms are unquestionable" -2010-02-07.txt:00:26:39: excludedMiddle = axiomatic -2010-02-20.txt:18:18:01: except you can make non-axiomatic foo/bar pairs with it -2010-02-20.txt:18:18:09: so clearly we need some way to determine whether something is axiomatic :P -2010-02-20.txt:18:18:37: Axiom : *; Axiom = { prop : *, axiomatic : isAxiomatic prop } -2010-02-20.txt:22:17:10: i don't think that's axiomatic though -2010-02-20.txt:22:17:44: I took it axiomatic rather -2010-03-02.txt:18:35:50: Hey, "nullity" can be defined in an axiomatic system. -2010-03-02.txt:22:04:54: I think it's safe to just assume that for anything even remotely in this vicinity, "AnMaster doesn't get it" is pretty axiomatic -2010-03-07.txt:16:14:41: of course i'd have the definition of the 'in' relation be axiomatic but even that doesn't work :) -2010-03-07.txt:22:40:20: In my system I was going to have mu be axiomatic to solve this, like the Epigram people. -2010-03-27.txt:23:44:40: Erm. Could not within the axiomatic system, wasn't it? -2010-03-28.txt:00:34:34: alise: Is'nt the law of the excluded middle about statements that can be derived from the axiomatic system in question? -2010-03-28.txt:00:52:01: 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." -2010-05-15.txt:16:56:01: Anyway, seriously, adding axiomatic >c travellers to Life. -2010-05-15.txt:17:04:04: Phantom_Hoover: Axiomatically. -2010-05-15.txt:17:29:38: OK, so how do we define speed axiomatically? -2010-06-01.txt:17:04:12: Also, is logic an axiomatic system? -2010-06-25.txt:17:27:48: are sets an axiomatic notion in the philosophy of mathematics? -2010-07-29.txt:22:43:49: AnMaster: Maybe in the retard axiomatic system. -2010-08-29.txt:02:55:32: It is axiomatic that well-encrypted text is indistinguishable from Lojban. -2010-09-05.txt:04:05:47: Is there an uncountable infinite discreet space? A countably infinite continuous space? Or are these axiomatically tied in, or is there a theorem? -2010-10-02.txt:04:18:37: 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. -2010-10-13.txt:20:40:37: Axiomatic Axolotl -2010-10-20.txt:17:36:11: usually the libc would be considered axiomatic there... -2010-10-21.txt:16:29:06: wtf is this encoding: ./share/libc/__fc_string_axiomatic.h: Non-ISO extended-ASCII C program text -2010-11-11.txt:00:35:41: 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. -2010-11-11.txt:00:37:51: pikhq: If only the Bible contained an axiomatic system -- a good proportion of the population wouldn't have to argue :P -2010-11-11.txt:00:38:06: (extra points for demonstration of the bible's inconsistency in that axiomatic system) -2010-11-11.txt:00:38:26: The Bible's axiomatic system is complete! -2010-11-11.txt:00:39:04: pikhq: Infinite points for proving that the axiomatic system is inconsistent and thus contradicting the Bible's infallibility. -2010-12-10.txt:22:32:54: zzo38, well, saying "not in nonstandard analysis" is like saying "2+2 /= 4 in Z_4"; it's an axiomatic thing. -2011-01-04.txt:15:28:10: 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 :) -2011-01-26.txt:14:53:46: (Where Th is an axiomatic theory) -2011-01-26.txt:16:56:12: Th being the axiomatic theory S is provable in -2011-01-26.txt:16:59:40: (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) -2011-03-09.txt:15:21:52: because relations are properties that have to be taken, fundamentally, as axiomatic -2011-03-09.txt:15:23:15: if we define the set {(0, 1)}, then 0 and 1 are axiomatically in a relation -2011-03-09.txt:15:27:46: i've always taken sets as axiomatic -2011-04-19.txt:17:17:29: 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 -2011-04-21.txt:18:16:18: yeah anti-axiomatics is kind of a cool view -2011-05-31.txt:06:55:43: pikhq_, ah, but you're using AXIOMATICS which you DON'T UNDERSTAND. -2011-05-31.txt:07:05:56: Sgeo, because when confronted with the reasons he was wrong he dismissed them as BASELESS AXIOMATICS WHICH MOST MATHEMATICS NEITHER UNDERSTAND NOR USE -2011-06-09.txt:22:22:24: 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? -2011-06-09.txt:22:24:57: ais523: And you still affirm your answer to my question about axiomatic systems, yes? -2011-06-09.txt:22:50:31: 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 -2011-07-26.txt:04:07:46: and true & false applies to _models_, not axiomatic theories. -2011-07-26.txt:04:21:55: Much like scientific theories, one can only disprove the consistency of an axiomatic system. -2011-07-31.txt:06:34:38: Presumably those things which can only be defined in terms of themselves are axiomatic. -2011-12-05.txt:21:17:57: `pastelogs axiomatic