PhilGoetz comments on Supernatural Math - Less Wrong

1 Post author: saturn 19 May 2009 11:31AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (56)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 19 May 2009 10:45:28PM *  1 point [-]

I would say

  • 4 = 3 + 1 by definition
  • 3 = 2 + 1 by definition
  • 2 = 1 + 1 by definition
  • 4 = (2+1) + 1 by substitution
  • 4 = 2 + (1 + 1) by association
  • 4 = 2 + 2 by substitution

2, 2, 4, +, and = are things that we define. Given those definitions, 2 + 2 = 4. Problem solved. Don't want to define them that way? Then you're talking about something else.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 19 May 2009 11:05:07PM 1 point [-]

substitution, association, etc work? Amazing!

Stuff is consistent, we never have a true contradiction, never have A AND NOT A? incredible!

That's the sense in which I'd say math is "real"... the reality is tied to the fact that stuff sure seems to actually be consistent. I can't really conceive of what it would mean for that not to be so, but still, it seems like there's something I'm confused about here.

Comment author: Jack 19 May 2009 11:46:50PM 1 point [-]

Yeah, I'm beginning to think this discussion could use a domain expert, not to tell us the answer but to clarify the issues. Anyone know someone who works in Philosophy of Math?