Philosophy Discussion Forums

It is shown language is inconsistent.
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-conten ... ssible.pdf
The consequence,it is shown, with language being inconsistent logic shows then all philosophies nihilism, absurdism, existentialism, etc and their negation/opposite are equally valid. Also logic shows All opinions ie feminism and anti-feminism etc are equally valid. Each view contains within it its negation as all views end in meaninglessness

So 1 +1=2
And
1 + 1 = 1
Thus a contradiction in
mathematics

I read the article and I do not think your math analysis is correct.

Two opposing things can't be valid at the same time and in the same respect.

Two opposing things may both be valid, but in different circumstances, or at different times, or when both circumstances and times are different.

1 number [2] + 1 number[3] = 1 number[5]
ie 1+1=1

The reason why the above assertion (which has been argued for on several different threads) is obviously invalid is that if you remove some of the words/symbols from a statement and/or add some other words/symbols then you usually change its meaning. Pretty simple really. Changing the words changes the meaning. I don't think that's news.

For some reason gimal likes to just re-post the same thing over and over again. Perhaps to see how long the reaction goes on for. Pretty long, I guess.

-- Updated Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:25 pm to add the following --

It strangely reminds me of what Winnie the Pooh said about his spelling:

"My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places."

That article is a gross distortion of what really takes place in math, logic and science. It's a sloppy article. In logic and math, p implies q is only false in one instance, when p is true and q is false. In all other cases, it is true. So, if p is false and q is true, the statement is true, and it would also be true in the event q is false. This is nothing shocking here, since no one stated what q would be in the circumstance of p being false. For example, the statement: "If it rains, Mary will bring a rain coat," can be broken down into p being "It rains, " and q being "Mary will bring a rain coat." If it does rain, and Mary shows up with no raincoat, then the statement is false. However, if it rains, and she shows up with a raincoat, then the statement is true. In the event it does not rain? No one made any claim in that case whether Mary would or would not have a rain coat, so as long as it does not rain, the statement is considered to be true, in both logic and math, whether Mary shows up with a raincoat or not. The article simply over-reaches and is trying to claim that anything and everything goes, as long as p is false. It's taking things out of context.

gimal wrote:It is shown language is inconsistent.
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-conten ... ssible.pdf
The consequence,it is shown, with language being inconsistent logic shows then all philosophies nihilism, absurdism, existentialism, etc and their negation/opposite are equally valid.

Nope, you're mistaking the map for the territory. What that means is that language is inconsistent in portraying ideas, not that ideas themselves are inconsistent. It's entirely possible to use inconsistent language to portray consistent ideas, or else there would be no such thing as translation.

One may argue that:

If 1=1 then 1 + 1 = 1

If 1 is not = 1 then 1 + 1 = 2

In other words no two apples can be identical, if apples are identical in all dimensions then it's 1 + 1 = 1

The inconsistency of language is dependent on hermeneutical and ontological interpretation and with it dependent on two communicators. With it one knows that the same talk can have several meanings and is sometimes just seemingly inconsistent. Hegel wrote in his philosophy of logic , that the general flow of a debate has to be taken into account of the understanding of the dialectic content. With this understanding , Heidegger wrote his : "Sein und Zeit", beeing and time, where ontological interpretation made conversation as well as communication dependent on ontological and hermeneutical interpretation of language. Consistence is then dependent on these terms and even a metaphisical value for aristotle.

Sure. However, this specific interpretation offers an interesting mathematical proposition, where each number is unique and becomes its own infinity. Therefore, infinity can't equal infinity, where infinity + 1 becomes a different number. 0/1 is a different infinity than 0/2 or 2/0. In reality, there is no such thing as 0 because there is no such thing as nothingness.

Ranvier wrote: there is no such thing as 0 because there is no such thing as nothingness.

No but there is such a thing as the absence of the particular thing that a number represents.