"Maths, in university, is useless bull..."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And a very narrow definition of rigorous.

Or, well, a very rigorous one

In fact, just with that you've conceded that mathematics is more rigorous than philosophy.

Seem to me better definitions that can apply not only to maths, but also to Philosophy. There are certain rules in philosophy that need to be followed, in order to establish a proof, similar to those in maths.

Look at all your logic, is that mathematical, or philosophical? Or what you consider a proof by induction? That can be done by both. It certainly is not the sole property of mathematics.

Unless you're doing propositional logic, your proof isn't going to be rigorous. Maybe a computer could do a rigorous proof with higher-order logic, but people can't (or at least do not).

[Ben Kenobi]

The original point was about making BETTER algorithm.
I can bet you have never done any of that, and your original point about that being close to number crunching being totally off.

All I know is that when I write a paper for English, the paper is still readable even if I miss a semicolon.

Not so with some of the compilers. So I find the two very different, with coding much less free than writing. Much more like number crunching. You have a process and you iterate the process to write the program.

Writing a better algorithm I guess is like editing, looking over the paper, and finding a better way to make things work. I can see an analogy between the two.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yeah, before you get to putting me down, consider that I was the top student in my HS before going to UBC, and that I finished the IB diploma program.

So if that counts for anything, it says that I have a little bit of a broader education than someone who has devoted himself to compsci.

I may have a broader education than you think in no way are my courses "devoted to comp sci" - it's one out of four or five areas I'm specializing in.

[Ben Kenobi]

So why don't we both give each other a little credit, eh?

I don't think you are stupid, and I've never put down any aspect of your education.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
All I know is that when I write a paper for English, the paper is still readable even if I miss a semicolon. Not so with some of the compilers.

Which is why CS, and by extention math, is FAR more rigorous than philosophy... an equation or expression has exactly one interpretation. Language is intentionally vague.

So I find the two very different, with coding much less free than writing. Much more like number crunching. You have a process and you iterate the process to write the program.

The computer iterates the process. You just write it so the computer can understand it. And that's coding, not designing the algorithm.

[Ben Kenobi]

In fact, just with that you've conceded that mathematics is more rigorous than philosophy.

Nothing of the sort. Your definition doesn't really work for most of the proofs in maths which is why you need a better standard.

For example, how would your definition apply to proofs in maths through induction?

Unless you're doing propositional logic, your proof isn't going to be rigorous. Maybe a computer could do a rigorous proof with higher-order logic, but people can't (or at least do not).

Like I said, your definition doesn't apply to maths, but just one small aspect of maths.

[Jon Miller]

some mathematicians don't consider induction proofs valid

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is why CS, and by extention math, is FAR more rigorous than philosophy... an equation or expression has exactly one interpretation. Language is intentionally vague.

I'm not arguing that an English paper is anything like Philosophy. The two are different disciplines.

However, you seem to be having your cake and eating too.

Either compsci is a rigorous process, or it is a creative one.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course, you're going to come back with something like "but I was talking about judgements of moral value"

Indeed, that was what I was doing. But still, even a sentence like the one you gave about the car can trace back to some sort qualitative principles who most probably have necessary moral implications.

BTW, using monetary worth was a bad example because there are relatively scientific ways to determine the value of an object.

There's plenty of reason to do so. For instance, if I know a girl is a lesbian, I wouldn't hit on her.

Why not? it's her problem

When did I say he is?

You seem to be basing your relativism on the premice that a priori knowledge is impossible. Many moral theories stem from empirical knowledge that has been through an epistemological filter.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for the rest, it just shows how you don't know what you are talking about. Jeez.. we've got the ****ing pope on our side.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the people cannot support their religions, then why do they have them?

Why should I pay for somebody's religious beliefs?

Perhaps because religion provides a benefit to society far beyond their compensation by the state.

And they do not recieve direct funding, but rather, exemptations from tax which allow them to take on missions that would cost the government far more to do themselves.

You'd be amazed, if you ever went, just how much time people put into these things, on a volunteer basis just because it is sponsored by their religion, or organised by their church.

If you want to see all the charities vanish, then I assure you the state having to pick up the tab would increase your taxes. So if you like having a small government, and smaller taxes, you should be thankful for the churches.

[Ben Kenobi]

If it was truly beneficial, would this not reflect in their salaries afterwards?

So the market ! = benefit to society?

Obviously then, the lawyers which make way more money then you are providing more of a benefit to society.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not arguing that an English paper is anything like Philosophy. The two are different disciplines.

However, you seem to be having your cake and eating too.

Either compsci is a rigorous process, or it is a creative one.

It can be both.

It takes incredible creative ability to be able to think up new mathematical problems, let alone the solutions... ascertaining whether something is true may be straightforward (and yet look at things like Fermat's last theorem...), but coming up with a true thing, or a solution to a true relation, is not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Indeed, that was what I was doing. But still, even a sentence like the one you gave about the car can trace back to some sort qualitative principles who most probably have necessary moral implications.

How does money necessarily have moral implications?

How does having moral implications imply a moral value?

That someone may use an objective, true value such as monetary worth, or even mass and velocity, in the consideration of their morals, is not an indictment on the value.

BTW, using monetary worth was a bad example because there are relatively scientific ways to determine the value of an object.

You can scientifically determine the monetary worth of something, too, basing it on the value placed in it by the owner. However, that's beside the point, as you have conceded that there are objective, non-moral values.

Why not? it's her problem

Because I want some and she's not a likely source of it

You seem to be basing your relativism on the premice that a priori knowledge is impossible.

Not at all. Relativism is a priori knowledge. I'm denying that any morality can be reached without being assumed a priori.

Many moral theories stem from empirical knowledge that has been through an epistemological filter.

How, exactly, do you empirically observe morality?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
All I know is that when I write a paper for English, the paper is still readable even if I miss a semicolon.

Not so with some of the compilers. So I find the two very different, with coding much less free than writing. Much more like number crunching. You have a process and you iterate the process to write the program.

It depends. Syntatically, computer languages are much stricter than natural languages, because of technological limitations. However, you can write the same program a gazillion ways to produce the same results.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Writing a better algorithm I guess is like editing, looking over the paper, and finding a better way to make things work. I can see an analogy between the two.

Creating an algorithm is higher level still. It's a bit like inventing a new style of writing.