PhilGoetz comments on The dangers of zero and one - Less Wrong

27 Post author: PhilGoetz 21 November 2013 12:21PM

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

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jockocampbell 16 November 2013 01:31:35AM *  2 points [-]

One example in classical logic is the syllogism where if the premises are true then the conclusion is by necessity true:

Socrates is a man

All men are mortal

therefore it is true that Socrates is mortal

Another example is mathematical proofs. Here is the Wikipedia presentation of Euclids proof from 300 BC that there is an infinite number of prime numbers. Perhaps In your terms this proof provides 0% confidence that we will observe the largest prime number.

Take any finite list of prime numbers p1, p2, ..., pn. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let P be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: P = p1p2...pn. Let q = P + 1. Then, q is either prime or not:

1) If q is prime then there is at least one more prime than is listed.

2) If q is not prime then some prime factor p divides q. If this factor p were on our list, then it would divide P (since P is the product of every number on the list); but as we know, p divides P + 1 = q. If p divides P and q then p would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is (P + 1) − P or just 1. But no prime number divides 1 so there would be a contradiction, and therefore p cannot be on the list. This means at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list.

This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers, there is a prime number not on the list. Therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 17 November 2013 07:44:28PM 3 points [-]

The "Socrates is mortal" one is a good example because nowadays its conclusion has a probability of less than one.

Comment author: jockocampbell 17 November 2013 08:04:29PM 0 points [-]

I would be interested if you would care to elaborate a little.Syllogisms have been a mainstay of philosophy for over two millennium and undoubtedly I have a lot to learn about them.

In my admittedly limited understanding of syllogisms the conclusion is true given the premises being true. Truth is more in the structure of the argument than in its conclusion. If Socrates is not mortal than either he is not a man or not all men are mortal.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 21 November 2013 12:49:28AM 1 point [-]

It is the "all men are mortal" proposition that is in danger of being rendered false by sufficiently advanced technology (at least, depending on what you mean by "mortal").

Comment author: Xenocles 21 November 2013 06:37:52PM 2 points [-]

Or by "man."