tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post7700325209880448775..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 468: This comic contains all the jokes contained in the empty setCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-9889961086619475862009-08-30T21:02:33.386-07:002009-08-30T21:02:33.386-07:00no it's not. It has nothing to do with the &qu...no it's not. It has nothing to do with the "historical search for completeness" though it really only makes sense if you know about that. It's about jamming sex into a discussion of math. The end. That's basically xkcd in a nutshell. "Hey, there, math people...do any of you want to talk about....<i>sex</i>???"Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-4431311483451167372009-08-28T21:48:47.964-07:002009-08-28T21:48:47.964-07:00this comic isn't about contradictions it's...this comic isn't about contradictions it's about the historic search for completeness (later it was proven that no mathematical axium could be completely listed and said search was abandoned). Carl next time either get a guest speaker that knows what he's talking about or that admits he doesn't know what he's talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-67015089562078778922008-09-22T21:47:00.000-07:002008-09-22T21:47:00.000-07:00Great post Mr Guest Blogger. This goes to show wha...Great post Mr Guest Blogger. This goes to show what I suspected... <BR/><BR/>Randall makes these stupid over-intellectual jokes about maths, but he actually knows much less than he thinks. It's this kind of pretentious wanker that gives maths and science students a bad name. Fuck Randall!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-77745242027159114592008-08-31T14:56:00.000-07:002008-08-31T14:56:00.000-07:00Wow I am clearly in over my head here. I will just...Wow I am clearly in over my head here. I will just say this - Thomas: you win. That's awesome.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-70882815216487776562008-08-30T09:10:00.000-07:002008-08-30T09:10:00.000-07:00As an aside, quantum pornodynamics suggests that t...As an aside, quantum pornodynamics suggests that the list of all fetishes is finite if and only if the list of all possible human ideas is finite. Any idea <I>will</I> have a a corresponding fetish once it is thought of, even if such a fetish does not exist now.<BR/><BR/>This axiom would also doom the fetish listing project, of course. Although they would be able to get considerable help from people turned on by lists of fetishes.Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456796465979923295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-3481608506471828402008-08-30T00:42:00.000-07:002008-08-30T00:42:00.000-07:00Man, I look at your comment and see stars. I read ...Man, I look at your comment and see stars. I read the original post straight through and <I>thought</I> I understood it, but I think that was just the buzz from my brain hemorrhaging. I'm not reading one more word of this shit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-7179735442601476912008-08-29T22:28:00.000-07:002008-08-29T22:28:00.000-07:00I'm the original author (although I have no wa...I'm the original author (although I have no way of proving that) so I'll try to explain why it is not actually a paradox more clearly.<BR/><BR/>What Carl has pointed out is one valid objection. It is an objection that arises for many situations that we try to capture formally with logic. Formal logic has no sense of time. A statement is either true or false, it cannot go from being true to being false. But, in the situation we are trying to formalize what is on the list is changing, which clashes with any attempt to capture the situation formally.<BR/><BR/>But there are other objections that can be made. Here's the one I had in mind. Suppose we take R&W's list to be a set, containing items a, b, c, ... . We also make the assertion (A) if a fetish is possesed by "Gödel" then it is on the list (capturing the idea that R&W add every fetish they encounter to the list). And finally we assert that (B) "Gödel" has a fetish if and only if it is not on the list. From these two assertions follow the following: (1) "Gödel" has no fetishes. and (2) The list contains every fetish. There is no contradiction. (1) can be demonstrated as follows: suppose G had a fetish X. Thus X must not be on the list, by (B). However X must be on the list, by (A). Therefore there is no such X (G has no fetishes). (2) can be demonstrated by contradiction. Suppose the list lacks some fetish, Y. Them, by (B) G has it. This contradicts (1). Therefore there are no fetishes that are missing from the list.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-67437588575161774292008-08-29T22:09:00.000-07:002008-08-29T22:09:00.000-07:00Fourth line of dialogue: "We have 'arousal through...Fourth line of dialogue: <BR/><BR/>"We have 'arousal through being a jackass' already, that makes one more then."<BR/><BR/>I had glossed over the name Godel, but that doesn't make this one any funnier!thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03123852112758346209noreply@blogger.com