- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,674
- Reaction score
- 3,102
- Location
- Philly, or thereabouts
- Guild Total
- 11
Mundane Thoughts or Comments
- Thread starter Opsimath
- Start date
Opsimath
Senior Member
I'm hungry. Sure wish someone else around here knew how to make French Fries. I guess I'll have to do it.
RBSinTo
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2021
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 1,534
- Guild Total
- 1
Cynthia,
How does that old adage go?
" Make a man French Fries, and you feed him for one afternoon of watching football, but teach him to make French Fries, and pretty soon his butt will be wide enough to accomodate tractor-trailer mud flaps."
Be careful what you wish for.
Better only you know the secret of Frenchfryerie.
RBSinTo
JohnW63
Enlightened Member
Uh oh...I have found you can get french fries with no salt at most drive by eateries. Now I have to worry about mud flaps!
RBSinTo
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2021
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 1,534
- Guild Total
- 1
John,
Best you not visit "most drive by eateries" lest you require a fitting for a set of Fruehauf Anti-sails, if you catch my drift.
RBSinTo
Guildedagain
Enlightened Member
Winter's about to make a comeback.
Opsimath
Senior Member
It's planting season here. Well, I guess it usually is for one thing or another.
JohnW63
Enlightened Member
Yeah, but that moon is tricksy. Sometimes it only does half the job and sometimes none at all.
Nuuska
Enlightened Member
But fairly predictable at the job.
JohnW63
Enlightened Member
Maybe so, but sometimes it even gets in the way of the sun doing it's job.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,674
- Reaction score
- 3,102
- Location
- Philly, or thereabouts
- Guild Total
- 11
Ben Vaughn has a podcast.
z1077fm.com
The Many Moods of Ben Vaughn - Z107.7 FM Joshua Tree
The Many Moods of Ben Vaughn Ben Vaughn is a man of many moods -- and many hats. He produces and hosts The Many Moods of Ben Vaughn, a weekly, hour-long
z1077fm.com
Guildedagain
Enlightened Member
Does set theory explain and even validate guitar collecting?
Rule #1 You can make any set you want. Go ahead and mix old jazz boxes with death metal shredders. This is the Axiom of Unrestricted Composition.
Rule #2 Set identity is determined by membership, in this case here LTG. This is the Axiom of Extensionality, it's all about growing your collection.
Rule #4 If you repeat a number or a member of a set, it doesn't change the set, because set identity is set by membership. Just make sure not to stray to the dark side ;[]
Rule #5 The description of the items in a set doesn't matter.
Rule #6 The union of any two or more sets is a set "because rule #1 says you can make any set you want".
Rule #7, especially applicable to advanced collectors like GROT, "A subset is a set".
Then you start delving into the paradoxical.
Rule #8 A set can have just one member.
Rule #9 "A set can have no numbers" which sounds more like a wish list, called "the empty set". Refer back to rule #1, Unrestricted Composition "You can have a set with nothing in it". These would be your air guitars.
"Now things get juicy."
Rule #10 You can have sets of sets. This is good news for folks like GROT, Richardp69 and others. "Just follows from rule #1", but the bottom line is that "Sets can have sets in them".
Trouble starts with Rule #11 Sets can contain themselves. "The set of all sets contains itself", and now "Let's make a set of sets that contain themselves" but then you also have "A set of sets that do not contain themselves" (Maybe something to do with guitars that don't have cases) but what blew it all wide open was "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves, does it contain itself?".
And if it does contain itself, then it doesn't.
Which means it contains itself.
Rule #1 You can make any set you want. Go ahead and mix old jazz boxes with death metal shredders. This is the Axiom of Unrestricted Composition.
Rule #2 Set identity is determined by membership, in this case here LTG. This is the Axiom of Extensionality, it's all about growing your collection.
Rule #4 If you repeat a number or a member of a set, it doesn't change the set, because set identity is set by membership. Just make sure not to stray to the dark side ;[]
Rule #5 The description of the items in a set doesn't matter.
Rule #6 The union of any two or more sets is a set "because rule #1 says you can make any set you want".
Rule #7, especially applicable to advanced collectors like GROT, "A subset is a set".
Then you start delving into the paradoxical.
Rule #8 A set can have just one member.
Rule #9 "A set can have no numbers" which sounds more like a wish list, called "the empty set". Refer back to rule #1, Unrestricted Composition "You can have a set with nothing in it". These would be your air guitars.
"Now things get juicy."
Rule #10 You can have sets of sets. This is good news for folks like GROT, Richardp69 and others. "Just follows from rule #1", but the bottom line is that "Sets can have sets in them".
Trouble starts with Rule #11 Sets can contain themselves. "The set of all sets contains itself", and now "Let's make a set of sets that contain themselves" but then you also have "A set of sets that do not contain themselves" (Maybe something to do with guitars that don't have cases) but what blew it all wide open was "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves, does it contain itself?".
And if it does contain itself, then it doesn't.
Which means it contains itself.
Last edited:
Opsimath
Senior Member
Does set theory explain and even validate guitar collecting?
Rule #1 You can make any set you want. Go ahead and mix old jazz boxes with death metal shredders. This is the Axiom of Unrestricted Composition.
Rule #2 Set identity is determined by membership, in this case here LTG. This is the Axiom of Extensionality, it's all about growing your collection.
Rule #4 If you repeat a number or a member of a set, it doesn't change the set, because set identity is set by membership. Just make sure not to stray to the dark side ;[]
Rule #5 The description of the items in a set doesn't matter.
Rule #6 The union of any two or more sets is a set "because rule #1 says you can make any set you want".
Rule #7, especially applicable to advanced collectors like GROT, "A subset is a set".
Then you start delving into the paradoxical.
Rule #8 A set can have just one member.
Rule #9 "A set can have no numbers" which sounds more like a wish list, called "the empty set". Refer back to rule #1, Unrestricted Composition "You can have a set with nothing in it". These would be your air guitars.
"Now things get juicy."
Rule #10 You can have sets of sets. This is good news for folks like GROT, Richardp69 and others. "Just follows from rule #1", but the bottom line is that "Sets can have sets in them".
Trouble starts with Rule #11 Sets can contain themselves. "The set of all sets contains itself", and now "Let's make a set of sets that contain themselves" but then you also have "A set of sets that do not contain themselves" (Maybe something to do with guitars that don't have cases) but what blew it all wide open was "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves, does it contain itself?".
And if it does contain itself, then it doesn't.
What was Rule #3?
Guildedagain
Enlightened Member
I'm still hanging up on the "If it doesn't, then it does" part*, but Rule #2-3 don't really do anything because of Rule #1, and even Rule #4 is "because #1", it seems the Axiom of Unrestricted Composition is pretty broad as well as very powerful ;[]
*Right here.
So what you have there is the answer to pretty much all of your questions, leading to terms like "damned if you do, damned if you don't" but also casts serious doubt on the need to choose since everything is the same.
But then it turns out "this was just some made up rules anyway, that's how math is, we just make things up, the axioms are just stipulated, we just made up all these rules"... "but the real problem is rule #11" since that one screws everything up because "Sets can contain themselves", which is obviously wrong, different styles of guitars should be kept away from each other, but we probably didn't need this guy to tell us that.
But then there's a huge problem, as Russell "re wrote the rules to make it work" now Rule #1 doesn't work anymore, so you get rid of it too, but does that work, can you change all the rules?"
I think we already have the AI Chatbot's view on this, but actually we can't change the rules.
Lives to be an impressive 99 years old.
It turns out you can't change the rules because they govern the perhaps most fundamental part of our existence.
The ability of knowing what guitar, amp or pedal you're going to get next.
Weather forecasts are handy too, so you know when is a good time to have a guitar shipped.
But it gets better.
This was never a paradox just for set theory, it's a paradox for all of language and thought itself.
Somewhere in the BGUF thread there must be a pair of Docs?
It's all being revealed now.
Garfield is a cat. But is he?
So we now have to assume that Garfield is real to make this work.
This just in.
"Predication is just saying things about things."
And it is UBIQUITOUS "It is utterly widespread, we do this constantly, and almost every thought we have predicates something of something."
This is when even before you pull the plug on a new one, you're already shopping for or buying custom accessories for it, you're two steps ahead of yourself, of the time space continuum even.
But Rule #1, always go back to Rule #1.
I like this one.
Bad Rule #11 is out, but two # 10 rules now, one from Mom, and one from Dad. Dad has the edge on the new rule says you can think of stuff you're gonna think about later, buy tires for a car you don't have yet, etc. Double, or compound predication. Who needs a seer?
New Rule #11 Predicates can be true of themselves.
Unless they're not.
"Is a predicate, is a predicate" true of itself?"
Yes, it is.
But now we've generated a new paradox.
It's something to do with brand disillusionment, sometimes going back to our old ways, also grappling with falling out of love with artists, this can hit some people quite hard.
And the inevitable conclusion.
So in the end "It's if not true of itself, then it's true of itself, and if it's false of itself it's true of itself" meaning we're giant flip floppers who typically swing wildly from one extreme to another.
You can make the problem go away by eliminating Rule #11, at your own risk, and you shouldn't "because it's true".
Which is false too?
So the bottom line is that "We cannot escape the paradox".
Meet Olivia ;[]
*Right here.
So what you have there is the answer to pretty much all of your questions, leading to terms like "damned if you do, damned if you don't" but also casts serious doubt on the need to choose since everything is the same.
But then it turns out "this was just some made up rules anyway, that's how math is, we just make things up, the axioms are just stipulated, we just made up all these rules"... "but the real problem is rule #11" since that one screws everything up because "Sets can contain themselves", which is obviously wrong, different styles of guitars should be kept away from each other, but we probably didn't need this guy to tell us that.
But then there's a huge problem, as Russell "re wrote the rules to make it work" now Rule #1 doesn't work anymore, so you get rid of it too, but does that work, can you change all the rules?"
I think we already have the AI Chatbot's view on this, but actually we can't change the rules.
Lives to be an impressive 99 years old.
It turns out you can't change the rules because they govern the perhaps most fundamental part of our existence.
The ability of knowing what guitar, amp or pedal you're going to get next.
Weather forecasts are handy too, so you know when is a good time to have a guitar shipped.
But it gets better.
This was never a paradox just for set theory, it's a paradox for all of language and thought itself.
Somewhere in the BGUF thread there must be a pair of Docs?
It's all being revealed now.
Garfield is a cat. But is he?
So we now have to assume that Garfield is real to make this work.
This just in.
"Predication is just saying things about things."
And it is UBIQUITOUS "It is utterly widespread, we do this constantly, and almost every thought we have predicates something of something."
This is when even before you pull the plug on a new one, you're already shopping for or buying custom accessories for it, you're two steps ahead of yourself, of the time space continuum even.
But Rule #1, always go back to Rule #1.
I like this one.
Bad Rule #11 is out, but two # 10 rules now, one from Mom, and one from Dad. Dad has the edge on the new rule says you can think of stuff you're gonna think about later, buy tires for a car you don't have yet, etc. Double, or compound predication. Who needs a seer?
New Rule #11 Predicates can be true of themselves.
Unless they're not.
"Is a predicate, is a predicate" true of itself?"
Yes, it is.
But now we've generated a new paradox.
It's something to do with brand disillusionment, sometimes going back to our old ways, also grappling with falling out of love with artists, this can hit some people quite hard.
And the inevitable conclusion.
So in the end "It's if not true of itself, then it's true of itself, and if it's false of itself it's true of itself" meaning we're giant flip floppers who typically swing wildly from one extreme to another.
You can make the problem go away by eliminating Rule #11, at your own risk, and you shouldn't "because it's true".
Which is false too?
So the bottom line is that "We cannot escape the paradox".
Meet Olivia ;[]
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,674
- Reaction score
- 3,102
- Location
- Philly, or thereabouts
- Guild Total
- 11
And now I want KFC.
Canard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2020
- Messages
- 2,021
- Reaction score
- 2,749
- Guild Total
- 4
In the drug store yesterday, the pretty young cashier asked, "How are you today, Sir?"
I replied, "Well ... I could complain, but no one would listen, so I might as well be cheerful."
She flashed a big smile, and with a mischievous twinkle in her eyes, she said, "What? Sorry. I wasn't listening."
I replied, "Well ... I could complain, but no one would listen, so I might as well be cheerful."
She flashed a big smile, and with a mischievous twinkle in her eyes, she said, "What? Sorry. I wasn't listening."
Westerly Wood
Venerated Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 13,522
- Reaction score
- 6,812
- Guild Total
- 2
that is perfect, lol
davidbeinct
Member
I have passed through the age where I cannot get a twinkle from a pretty young cashier. I’m pretty sure the twinkles I get now though are because I remind them of their grampa.