I will not discuss it further, to avoid who knows who, who does not permit a shadow of a doubt in “settled topics” like Goedel’s theorems or Climate change or anything and downvotes accordingly.
If you do challenge the mainstream position in a “settled topic” your post should be longer than one sentence.
I have personally never read the proof of Gödel’s theorem. I believe that it works because I trust in the authority of the mathematical community.
I don’t know to which extend the property of finitness is important for the proof. If you make such a claim in a “settled topics”, it’s your burden to explain to me why it’s important.
If I read that discussion I come away with thinking that JoshuaZ knows what he’s talking about. I don’t know whether you understand the math that’s involved on deep level.
A lot of people without deep mathematical understanding can make a claim to challenge Gödel the way you did.
Although note that in that case, although Will did find a coherent way of getting that sort of probability, if anything it underscores that Thomas’s essential point there was correct: My probability estimate in that context was at best weird and more likely just poorly thought out, probably because of overcorrecting my overconfidence.
I didn’t say JushuaZ downvoted me. But having a discussion with him is bad for my karma points when we don’t completely agree.
Why is that? I don’t know, but I have a crazy (somewhat weak and wild) theory about that.
Long ago he provided a link to a real story from his life, how he gave a bitter lesson to some math teachers about 22⁄7 is NOT equal to Pi.
It’s hilarious, I mean really hilarious. But people here were intimidated by this and since think he must be always right and downvote anybody who dares to oppose him even slightly.
I think it is much, much more likely that the topics on which you argue with JoshuaZ happen to be ones on which your opinions, or patterns of thought, or modes of expression, are not highly regarded by other LW participants.
(FWIW, I’ve downvoted several of your comments, none of them in this thread so far, and I haven’t the faintest recollection of whether any of them were replies to JoshuaZ. I basically cannot imagine downvoting someone for disagreeing with someone who once upon a time posted an intimidatingly funny anecdote about showing up a foolish mathematics teacher.)
I wasn’t saying that you were saying he downvoted you, I was just saying that from context it seems to me that there’s an apparent reason why you might have been downvoted which merely coincided with the fact that you were responding to JoshuaZ, rather than having a causal relation to that fact.
Here, for example.
I will not discuss it further, to avoid who knows who, who does not permit a shadow of a doubt in “settled topics” like Goedel’s theorems or Climate change or anything and downvotes accordingly.
If you do challenge the mainstream position in a “settled topic” your post should be longer than one sentence.
I have personally never read the proof of Gödel’s theorem. I believe that it works because I trust in the authority of the mathematical community. I don’t know to which extend the property of finitness is important for the proof. If you make such a claim in a “settled topics”, it’s your burden to explain to me why it’s important.
If I read that discussion I come away with thinking that JoshuaZ knows what he’s talking about. I don’t know whether you understand the math that’s involved on deep level. A lot of people without deep mathematical understanding can make a claim to challenge Gödel the way you did.
You should read more carefully.
I am not saying that Goedel’s theorem does not hold. I am saying it is irrelevant for the finite sets.
I’m a bit confused that you chose this as an example, because he’s clearly responding to you there rather than the other way around.
I’ve found this, too.
In that case, I would guess you were downvoted either by Will Sawin, or (more likely,) one of the people who upvoted him for correcting you.
Although note that in that case, although Will did find a coherent way of getting that sort of probability, if anything it underscores that Thomas’s essential point there was correct: My probability estimate in that context was at best weird and more likely just poorly thought out, probably because of overcorrecting my overconfidence.
I didn’t say JushuaZ downvoted me. But having a discussion with him is bad for my karma points when we don’t completely agree.
Why is that? I don’t know, but I have a crazy (somewhat weak and wild) theory about that.
Long ago he provided a link to a real story from his life, how he gave a bitter lesson to some math teachers about 22⁄7 is NOT equal to Pi.
It’s hilarious, I mean really hilarious. But people here were intimidated by this and since think he must be always right and downvote anybody who dares to oppose him even slightly.
I think it is much, much more likely that the topics on which you argue with JoshuaZ happen to be ones on which your opinions, or patterns of thought, or modes of expression, are not highly regarded by other LW participants.
(FWIW, I’ve downvoted several of your comments, none of them in this thread so far, and I haven’t the faintest recollection of whether any of them were replies to JoshuaZ. I basically cannot imagine downvoting someone for disagreeing with someone who once upon a time posted an intimidatingly funny anecdote about showing up a foolish mathematics teacher.)
You make a lot of ridiculous, badly argued comments. This and each of your linked responses to JoshuaZ were worth downvoting.
I wasn’t saying that you were saying he downvoted you, I was just saying that from context it seems to me that there’s an apparent reason why you might have been downvoted which merely coincided with the fact that you were responding to JoshuaZ, rather than having a causal relation to that fact.