Hey, philosophy bros. Have you been brushing up on your math?

>>24467387 (OP)
This is definitely not true.

>>24467388
The second half is true

Yes

>>24467388
Μηδεὶς ἀγεωμέτρητος εἰσίτω.

>>24467395
i bet the first have is true also but only potentially

It used to be true but now machines can do math.

>>24467388
I'm sure you know more about these subjects than the guy who is considered to be one of the three greatest logicians of all time. Of course you shouldn't waste your time spelling out your reasoning here. It would probably just be a distraction from all the revolutionary mathematical work you're already doing.

>>24468144
Logic isn't even math, moderns are so dumb

>>24468171
It's the other way around, retard. Next time contribute something other than a falsehood.

>>24468189
>no u

>>24467387 (OP)
Yes

>>24468171
formal logic is a branch of mathematics, but I think you’re missing the point anyway.

>>24468171
that guy must be retarded, logic clearly isnt math since one is made up of words (logic is in talking) and the other is number symbols

so theyre clearly very different

ChatGPT and Grok both told me this is true

>>24467387 (OP)

>>24468171
Frege was a mathematician as well

>gets btfo by the set of all sets that don't contain themselves

>>24467387 (OP)

Math Chad here. Philosophy is trivial.

>>24468266
I hate this bullshit meme so much.

>>24468287
how is that bullshit, even Frege realised it BTFOd him and said his life's work is destroyed in a letter to russell

>>24468288
It's just pure nonsense. "Hurr durr, cyclic dependencies are le bad". Every non-retard knows this. It doesn't "btfo" anything. This isn't a problem of set theory but a problem of severe stupidity. Of course you cannot define something by referencing itself.

Philosophy virgin (volcel) here. Math is tautological.

>>24468290
>crying
>insults
This isn't how you do philosophy, btw.

>Of course you cannot define something by referencing itself.
How is it referencing itself? A is the set of all sets that DON'T contain themselves. If A doesn't contain itself, it should contain itself, as it fits the criteria for membership in A (ie, it is a set that doesn't contain itself). However if A does contain itself, well then it's a contradiction, because A shouldn't be in A if it contains itself. Simple.

>severe stupidity
So was Frege "severely stupid" when he said:
> "A scientist can hardly meet with anything more undesirable than to have the foundation give way just as the work is finished. I was put in this position by a letter from Mr. Bertrand Russell when the work was nearly through the press."

>>24468296
You are really stupid. The notion of a set containing itself is entirely nonsensical. A set is a container. No container can contain itself. It's not just false but garbage. And the negation of garbage is garbage as well.

>>24468309
No, sir, you are really stupid. The contradiction is conceiving a set A which contains all sets that don't contain themselves. If you say a set cannot contain itself, very good, then A is the set of all sets. But this is a contradiction, for if A is the set of all sets, then A is itself a set, yet A does not contain itself. But keep being brazenly arrogant in your misinformed stupidity, it's funny to watch.

>>24468318
You are retarded. I already told you the statement "the set X doesn't contain itself" is not a truth bearer. It cannot be assigned a value of true of false. It cannot be used to define a set. You cannot define a set on nonsense.

>>24467387 (OP)
This is definitely true, but it is true of more than just math.
Philosophy is the ultimate domain of interdisciplinary thought and investigation. Everything informs philosophy. Therefore the philosopher should be informed about everything. Given the practical impossibility, a philosopher must gather a wide general body of knowledge with significant penetration of depth in the key fields most relevant to their spectulation.

Also the dynamic between integration and differentiation in calculus is one expression of the metaphysical nature of change.

>>24468324
>You are retarded.
You start every post with an insult, you're clearly emotionally unhinged, and not a philosopher.

>I already told you the statement "the set X doesn't contain itself" is not a truth bearer.
No you didn't say that "the set X doesn't contain itself" is nonsense; you said the opposite, that "a set X DOES contain itself" is nonsense. I quote YOU:
>"The notion of a set containing itself is entirely nonsensical."
Therefore, according to you no set contains itself; or, in other words, every set X doesn't contain itself.

If you want to say that, fine. But then the contradictory set A is the set of all sets. But if A is the set of all sets, A should be in A, since A is also a set.

You used the example of containers before. If we had one large container A, that contained every other container, it still wouldn't contain itself, so the idea of a container that contains all containers is contradictory.

>>24468333
The negation of nonsense is still nonsense. Not false. Not true. Just garbage. You just don't get it. IQ too low.

>>24468355
You aren't reading my posts to the end so I'll say it quickly. Forget the idea of sets containing themselves. Can there be a set of all sets? No, it's a contradiction, just as the idea of a container of all containers is a contradiction. A container containing every container would have to contain itself, since it is itself a container. But it can't. Therefore it is impossible to conceive a container of all containers, or a set of all sets. However, we can intellectually think of the totality of sets as a collective, therefore our logic is not fully describable by set theory, but we must invent a new concept (some people call it "classes") that allows us to conceive the totality of all sets. Got it?

>>24467387 (OP)

>>24468364
I agree. You don't need to convince me that formalizing set theory in first order logic is doomed to fail. Gödel already made this obvious. That doesn't make Russell's bullshit less retarded though.

>>24467387 (OP)
yeah

It definitely used to be true when it was written but not anymore, at least the first part.
Great mathematicians have no need for philosophy, but great philosophers still need math.
>t. mediocre mathematician who read some plato and wittgenstein

>>24467762
lol, lmao even

>>24468309
>The notion of a set containing itself is entirely nonsensical.
Bruh.

>A set is a container.
Anon are you aware of what "ZFC" stands for?

>>24467387 (OP)
Yes, as I know 7+5=12.

>>24471368
Are you trying to shift the goalposts or are you mathematically illiterate? In what sense do you irrationally hallucinate my criticism of Russell's retardation having anything to do with ZFC? ZFC happened later on the historical timeline of set theory.

>>24468376
Your idea that it's bullshit is not based on anything. You said a set can't contain, but the paradox is about sets that don't contain themselves.

>>24471431
I explained it several times ITT. If your IQ is too low that's not my problem.

>>24471443
You didn't explain anything because you don't know what you're talking about. Your objection simply doesn't work.

>>24467387 (OP)
frege and his retarded notation is NOT philosophy. fuck off you russelite piece of filth.

>>24471551
You can say what is not but can you say what is philosophic and mathematical?

>>24471557
philosophy-arguments relating to political and social life
mathematical-gay shit for spergs and bazaar traders

>>24467387 (OP)

>>24471548
Nice projection, moron. You clearly don't know shit about math. "X does not contain itself" is a nonsensical statement. It does not allow a valuation as true or false. Hence it is not qualified to define a set. What are you too dumb to understand?

I have a math background and I'm returning to my first love (literature and philosophy). so yeah I'm starting with the greeks.

>>24471562
You just did pic related, you took an idea and laid it over another to see if it fit in order to prove mathematics isn't philosophical, you are crazy

>>24471780
nigga mathematics didn't invent telling if things are different or the same. back to your cowrie shells and baskets of yams or whatever

>>24471790
I'm not a nigger and establishing congruence is in fact math

>>24471797
you're like a christcuck saying god invented the universe. math did not invent the basic human ability to spot patterns

>>24471806
Did the the basic raven ability to spot patterns invent math?

>>24471874
nah humans invented it to count yams and sell them in marketplaces

>>24471562
Math established epistemological and metaphysical facts. You can't do epistemology without knowing math. For example if you assume that everything must be decidable or that first order logic is sufficient to describe everything then you are simply wrong and suck at philosophy. A good philosopher is expected to know the halting problem or Gödel's theorems. Same with physics and metaphysics. If your metaphysics assumes absolute time or determinism you are just retarded and wrong. Learn quantum mechanics and relativity or shut up. Political and social drivel isn't philosophy btw. Keep that trash to your tiktok channel.

>>24471993
the study of epistemology and metaphysics are misapplications of reasoning skills intended to be used for political debate
>Political and social drivel isn't philosophy btw. Keep that trash to your tiktok channel.
nigga thinks the trivium was taught to little greek boys so they could go "WOAH HOW DO WE KNOW IF WE'RE REAL OR NOT!?!?!" you go back to your aristotelian slop you subversive faggot
>For example if you assume that everything must be decidable or that first order logic is sufficient to describe everything then you are simply wrong and suck at philosophy. A good philosopher is expected to know the halting problem or Gödel's theorems. Same with physics and metaphysics. If your metaphysics assumes absolute time or determinism you are just retarded and wrong. Learn quantum mechanics and relativity or shut up.
you presume that our beliefs about reality are supposed to be "true" first and not useful first. who gives a shit about your gay sperg nonsense other than other gay spergs like popper and frege

bros it seems like common sense that there is no set of all sets

>>24468250
Real mathematicians don't study logic anymore. You don't need to answer deep philosophical questions to do math.

>>24472221
So real mathematicians used to into logic but now they don't into logic? What if time happens again and in time real mathematicians into logic again?

>>24472245
>So real mathematicians used to into logic but now they don't into logic?
Essentially, yes. You will find hardly any mathematics department at university has people either seriously researching or teaching it anymore.
>What if time happens again and in time real mathematicians into logic again?
That might actually be kinda cool.

>>24472256
>>24472221
My alma mater's math department had one class on mathematical logic (covers the basics all the way up to lowenheim-skolem) and one class on set theory (didn't take it). the philosophy department had more courses (into to logic, i.e. first order predicate logic, intermediate logic, i.e. fun with the tableaux method, and inductive logic (basic bayesian probabilities). I took most of them for the easy A's, but I wish there was a course offered on classical aristotelian syllogistic logic. there's so much in that kind of logic that's incapable of being captured by formal logic, especially when aristotelian logic allows for straightforward analogical predication, which is a pain to do in formal logic since you have to introduce isomorphisms and such.

>>24467387 (OP)
all mathematics beyond calculus is bullshit. imagine using "imaginary numbers" unironically.

>>24472700
>classical aristotelian syllogistic logic.
That's certainly something that the philosophy department would be likely to take up, but I wouldn't see a math department doing it.

>>24471619
Because I've told you multiple times now that if you say sets can't contain themselves, then Russell's paradoxical set just becomes equivalent to the "set of all sets". You can just drop the qualifier "that don't contain themselves" if you don't like it and Russell's Paradox still applies. You still haven't dealt with this.

Not that this matters but you're also just wrong that we can't define a set by a contradictory property. I can define the set X as the set of all real numbers x such that x^2 = -1. Now obviously no real numbers satisfying the condition exist, since the only number that squares to -1 is the imaginary number i. So X is just the empty set. But we can still talk this way in maths.

But like I said it doesn't even matter. If you want to be autistic about it we won't specify that the sets don't contain themselves. We'll just consider the set X which is the set of all sets. This is a contradiction though because X is itself a set, so either X is in X, and therefore contains itself, which we just said was impossible; or X is not in X, in which case X cannot be the set of all sets.

That's Russell's paradox. It's not "retarded" or "nonsense", you're just suffering from severe arrogance and dunning kruger. And that's proven by the fact that even Frege acknowledged the importance of this.

>>24467387 (OP)
Not an area of interest of mine unless we're talking about statistics

>>24473323
>Because I've told you multiple times now that if you say sets can't contain themselves, then Russell's paradoxical set just becomes equivalent to the "set of all sets".
No, you retard. How many times do I need to tell you? "X does not contain itself" is neither false nor true, it is not a bearer of truth. It cannot be evaluated due to its nonsensical nature.

>Not that this matters but you're also just wrong that we can't define a set by a contradictory property.
Again, this is not what I said. I didn't say it was false. I said it was nonsensical.

>I can define the set X as the set of all real numbers x such that x^2 = -1. Now obviously no real numbers satisfying the condition exist, since the only number that squares to -1 is the imaginary number i. So X is just the empty set. But we can still talk this way in maths.
So what? This has nothing to do with the topic at all.

>We'll just consider the set X which is the set of all sets.
There is no such thing as a set of all sets.

>This is a contradiction though because X is itself a set, so either X is in X, and therefore contains itself, which we just said was impossible; or X is not in X, in which case X cannot be the set of all sets.
And again: it's not an "either ... or" because the very question "Does X contain itself?" has no meaning. It is nonsense.

>And that's proven by the fact that even Frege
Appeal to authority has no place in math. You are disqualified from talking about math.

Here's another Russell style "paradox" for you:
Consider the set {X | bullshit} where bullshit is just meaningless bullshit and can neither be true nor false because it doesn't make sense in the first place. Hahaha, set theory is broken now!
This right here is your and Russell's reasoning.

>>24473339
Russell's paradox disproves the notion of the set of all sets. But we can think of the set of all sets. Therefore our intellectual mode of "grouping" is not described by set theory, for we are able to think of all sets as a collective.

>>24473493
Sorry I meant to say "but we can think of the collection of all sets"

>>24473493
>Russell's paradox disproves the notion of the set of all sets.
Wrong. Russell doesn't disprove shit because his "paradox" is intellectually worthless garbage as explained above.

>But we can think of the set of all sets.
The reason why the set of all sets doesn't exist is much simpler. If you weren't a redditor you'd realize this on your own. Unfortunately, you're merely a mindless parrot.

>Therefore our intellectual mode of "grouping" is not described by set theory, for we are able to think of all sets as a collective.
Naive set theory works perfectly fine. Nowhere in math do we need a "set of all sets".

>>24473508
Intellectually we can think of all sets as a collective. This ability grasp absolutes is interesting from my perspective.

>>24467387 (OP)
I think this is a myth... why should a philosopher need maths ? as Kant points out in his critique of pure reason math and philosophy are very different

>>24473528
Okay, but this has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Human intuition being more powerful than first order logic is better emphasized by Gödel and Turing in my opinion. Penrose wrote a lot about this but it remains controversial precisely because it can't be formalized. However, the topic right now is Russell's retardation and you're trying to shift the goalposts. But let's connect the dots. You and your fellow Russell NPCs being unable to understand my point is actually a nice example. NPCs only see syntax but not semantics. You see the statement "X does not contain itself" and immediately are caught in the fallacious trap of thinking it must be a meaningful statement which can be either true or false. Meanwhile with my superior intuition I see on a metalogical level that this is a categorical error. The statement itself is nonsense and so is assigning a truth value to it.

>>24473600
But Kant was stupid. The math Chads Plato and Descartes are mogging him.

>>24467387 (OP)
I have a be in math

>>24474722
What does that mean?

>>24470006
>Great mathematicians have no need for philosophy
why the fuck would that be true retard

>>24474922
so anyone can be in math, first of all. you might not get a good grade but they usually shill the slop that caters to people who have the same philosophy as what they learn