I am reading a fascinating book on AI called " the rationalist's guide to the galaxy" by Tom Chivers . A riveting read by the by.
Have you thought of re-engaging your AI about the same topic ( 1+1=2), to see whether your AI "evolved/learnt"? I am speaking particularly in light of the last answer and summary of the " conversation" with you.
as always Mr Baldwin , you choose great and interesting topics
Thank you for your considered reply. I agree with all you write ; as usual. I know this is off topic , BUTTTTTTT, I read a wonderful book by Mario Livia called " is God a mathematician" One phrase that struck was " if 2 dinosaurs wandered into a glade and joined another 2 dinosaurs , are there 4 dinosaurs if there is no one there to count them?"
it I also strikes me that maths involves patterns , or explains patterns .
I shall read the link you sent with great alacrity.
I am currently reading 'The atomic human" by Neil D. Lawrence
PS are you going to start up the Forum . I do so miss the Saturday afternoon lectures
the only thing I would add is , that as far as I know, we are the only species that counts. So I wonder if the dinosaurs say" wow, now there are 4 of us"
Thanks for that Simon. You are right that maths does not define the subject. It is not intended to define the subject. Counting is a procedure for determining the number of objects of a specified kind, or class. If you are counting men, you count men. If you are counting people, or primates, or mammals (all supersets of the class of men), then one man and one woman would sum to two. If you are counting couples, then one man and one woman equals one couple. The procedure of counting is meaningless unless you specify what is being counted.
However before I accuse you of pure sophistry, I should remind myself of the extraordinary row that erupted over a satirical tweet by the American mathematician and blogger James Lindsay in which he says "2 + 2 = 4: A perspective in white Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values." Check it out here https://newdiscourses.com/2020/08/2-plus-2-never-equals-5/
I am reading a fascinating book on AI called " the rationalist's guide to the galaxy" by Tom Chivers . A riveting read by the by.
Have you thought of re-engaging your AI about the same topic ( 1+1=2), to see whether your AI "evolved/learnt"? I am speaking particularly in light of the last answer and summary of the " conversation" with you.
as always Mr Baldwin , you choose great and interesting topics
thank you for your time and consideration
Happy 2025
simon
Thank you. You’ve made my Weekend. Cheers, Anthony Sheehan.
Hi Mr Baldwin,
Thank you for your considered reply. I agree with all you write ; as usual. I know this is off topic , BUTTTTTTT, I read a wonderful book by Mario Livia called " is God a mathematician" One phrase that struck was " if 2 dinosaurs wandered into a glade and joined another 2 dinosaurs , are there 4 dinosaurs if there is no one there to count them?"
it I also strikes me that maths involves patterns , or explains patterns .
I shall read the link you sent with great alacrity.
I am currently reading 'The atomic human" by Neil D. Lawrence
PS are you going to start up the Forum . I do so miss the Saturday afternoon lectures
I hope you stay well, war, and out of the wind.
with much gratitude and respect
simon
" if 2 dinosaurs wandered into a glade and joined another 2 dinosaurs , are there 4 dinosaurs if there is no one there to count them?"
Yes, unless they suddenly spring in and out of existence depending if people are counting them or not.
With respect to the forum, it may restart in some form, though I think it had pretty much run its course under the old format.
the only thing I would add is , that as far as I know, we are the only species that counts. So I wonder if the dinosaurs say" wow, now there are 4 of us"
Wonderful as usual Mr Baldwin. my thoughts are that 1+1 does not always equal 2. It depends upon what the 1 represents. EG
1 man + 1 man = 2 men
1 man + 1 woman =1 couple
1 gay man+ 1 heterosexual man = 1 gay man + 1 heterosexual man
to my mind , Maths does not necessarily define the subject .
OR is this notion pure sophistry?
Thanks for that Simon. You are right that maths does not define the subject. It is not intended to define the subject. Counting is a procedure for determining the number of objects of a specified kind, or class. If you are counting men, you count men. If you are counting people, or primates, or mammals (all supersets of the class of men), then one man and one woman would sum to two. If you are counting couples, then one man and one woman equals one couple. The procedure of counting is meaningless unless you specify what is being counted.
However before I accuse you of pure sophistry, I should remind myself of the extraordinary row that erupted over a satirical tweet by the American mathematician and blogger James Lindsay in which he says "2 + 2 = 4: A perspective in white Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values." Check it out here https://newdiscourses.com/2020/08/2-plus-2-never-equals-5/