Free will versus determinism

karrie
#601
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post



Just because you don't like Lessans' conclusions based on his observations does not entitle you to use foul language. I'm not your girlfriend and I am not taking it.


So should he exercise some free will and take a more responsible path?

And why does foul language apparently rank worse than lying about who you are?
 
peacegirl
#602
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

So should he exercise some free will and take a more responsible path?

And why does foul language apparently rank worse than lying about who you are?

I did not degrade anyone, but having someone degrade me by throwing foul language around is hurtful. He would have never hurt me if we were in the new world knowing that I would be compelled to turn the other cheek. No, he does not have free will karrie, and neither do you or I. Because s_lone was frustrated he got greater satisfaction out of saying what he did. I am really not blaming him even though I struck back (we're still in this world and therefore we can't use these principles 100%) because I know he couldn't help himself at that moment. I am just hurt. I hope he regrets what he said.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

If the entire chain has to remain in alphabetical order then it is not possible to get 35 distinct 3 letter combinations with no letter being in a grouping with another letter twice.

I don't think I was clear. It starts out in alphabetical order and then you have to figure out how to get 35 distinct 3 letter combinations so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter, just like he stated. In other words, it doesn't matter what combination the letters are in, just so they aren't with the same letter twice.
Last edited by peacegirl; Sep 16th, 2010 at 02:39 PM..
 
karrie
#603
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

I did not degrade anyone, but having someone degrade me by throwing foul language around is hurtful.



I don't think I was clear. It starts out in alphabetical order and then you have to figure out how to get 35 distinct 3 letter combinations so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter, just like he stated. In other words, it doesn't matter what combination the letters are in, just so they aren't with the same letter twice.

Well that's a simple logic problem, not mathematical at all.
 
peacegirl
#604
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

What are you going to do about it? Blame me?

Yes, I am retaliating. Do you think I'm going to turn the other cheek? We're not in the new world because if we were you would not have used this demeaning language toward me and therefore I would not need to strike back. I hope you realize that you did strike the first blow s_lone, and now you want to be excused. And you actually think you understand this knowledge?

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Well that's a simple logic problem, not mathematical at all.

I just looked at the answer and it doesn't look easy to me. So be my guest and try to figure it out. Kudos to you if you can. I am routing for you.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#605
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

Yes, I am retaliating. Do you think I'm going to turn the other cheek? We're not in the new world because if we were you would not have used this demeaning language toward me and therefore I would not need to strike back. I hope you realize that you did strike the first blow s_lone, and now you want to be excused. And you actually think you understand this knowledge?

 
Dexter Sinister
#606
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

...having someone degrade me by throwing foul language around is hurtful. He would have never hurt me if we were in the new world knowing that I would be compelled to turn the other cheek. No, he does not have free will...

You might try to set the example. You claim to have this knowledge, why doesn't it NOW compel you to turn the other cheek? You've claimed from the beginning that once people have this knowledge that's how they'll behave, but it's not how you behave. Do you not see that this shows Lessans' view of human nature is hopelessly naive? It's simply not reasonable to believe that in the new world people will never get frustrated or exasperated or angry or hurt enough to lash out at anyone, you can't even do it in this virtual world.

There's no way to resolve this discussion. All we can do is stop, no other resolution is possible. A key part of Lessan's thesis is that anyone who understands it will be compelled to agree with it. Peacegirl thinks that's true. Nobody else does, so according to the book--and peacegirl of course--that means we don't understand it. If we did, we'd agree. Either we accept his thesis, or we don't understand it, there are no other options, and in particular there's no possibility he could be wrong. Once we do understand it, all our criticisms of it will go away. That's what the book says, and that's really all peacegirl keeps saying. Over and over and over and over... No defence or further explanation is necessary, all that's required is repetition, until we finally get it.
 
mentalfloss
#607
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

You might try to set the example. You claim to have this knowledge, why doesn't it NOW compel you to turn the other cheek? You've claimed from the beginning that once people have this knowledge that's how they'll behave, but it's not how you behave. Do you not see that this shows Lessans' view of human nature is hopelessly naive? It's simply not reasonable to believe that in the new world people will never get frustrated or exasperated or angry or hurt enough to lash out at anyone, you can't even do it in this virtual world.
There's no way to resolve this discussion. All we can do is stop, no other resolution is possible. A key part of Lessan's thesis is that anyone who understands it will be compelled to agree with it. Peacegirl thinks that's true. Nobody else does, so according to the book--and peacegirl of course--that means we don't understand it. If we did, we'd agree. Either we accept his thesis, or we don't understand it, there are no other options, and in particular there's no possibility he could be wrong. Once we do understand it, all our criticisms of it will go away. That's what the book says, and that's really all peacegirl keeps saying. Over and over and over and over... No defence or further explanation is necessary, all that's required is repetition, until we finally get it.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
So, basically, it's Roman Catholicism.
 
Dexter Sinister
#608
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

So, basically, it's Roman Catholicism.

No, different book...
 
peacegirl
#609
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

You might try to set the example. You claim to have this knowledge, why doesn't it NOW compel you to turn the other cheek? You've claimed from the beginning that once people have this knowledge that's how they'll behave, but it's not how you behave. Do you not see that this shows Lessans' view of human nature is hopelessly naive? It's simply not reasonable to believe that in the new world people will never get frustrated or exasperated or angry or hurt enough to lash out at anyone, you can't even do it in this virtual world.

I give up. These principles prevent the first blow. But we're not in the new world, so if I get hurt by someone, I will probably retaliate. I'm not going to sit there and take abuse. Most people find it hard to turn the other cheek because it's our nature to strike back when hurt.

Quote: Originally Posted by dexter

There's no way to resolve this discussion. All we can do is stop, no other resolution is possible. A key part of Lessan's thesis is that anyone who understands it will be compelled to agree with it. Peacegirl thinks that's true. Nobody else does, so according to the book--and peacegirl of course--that means we don't understand it. If we did, we'd agree. Either we accept his thesis, or we don't understand it, there are no other options, and in particular there's no possibility he could be wrong. Once we do understand it, all our criticisms of it will go away. That's what the book says, and that's really all peacegirl keeps saying. Over and over and over and over... No defence or further explanation is necessary, all that's required is repetition, until we finally get it.

This thread is going down the tube fast. I don't think at this point there is anything that is going to change that.
 
karrie
#610
you've been saying that for 20 pages. lol.

You said it yourself, it is in our nature to strike back when hurt. It is also in human nature to have expectations of others, and to be hurt when people don't meet those expectations. That is why his theory goes COMPLETELY against human nature, and would never happen. Because for it to take effect, someone would have to first turn their cheek and accept the blow without blame, without anger, without frustration, without resentment. And if you can buy into his theory so 100%, and still not see that, not live that, then why would people who don't agree with it EVER end up living it?
 
peacegirl
#611
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

you've been saying that for 20 pages. lol.

You said it yourself, it is in our nature to strike back when hurt. It is also in human nature to have expectations of others, and to be hurt when people don't meet those expectations. That is why his theory goes COMPLETELY against human nature, and would never happen. Because for it to take effect, someone would have to first turn their cheek and accept the blow without blame, without anger, without frustration, without resentment. And if you can buy into his theory so 100%, and still not see that, not live that, then why would people who don't agree with it EVER end up living it?

If people read the first two chapters as they claim, why have they forgotten everything that was written?

"Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite principle of Ďan eye for an eyeí by refusing to defend himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because the one was willing to cheat to get what she wanted while he was willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction.

Spinozaís sister had no understanding of this knowledge nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that manís will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for being an atheist but not for being a God-intoxicated man. The fact that I know God is a reality doesnít intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. He refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and believed she couldnít help herself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me Iíd fight him tooth and nail.

Turning the other cheek under these conditions could make matters worse, which is why many people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of Ďan eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.í I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family. Iím not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind is compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that manís will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us; something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule.

The fact that manís will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you sock me I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will, otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves."
 
karrie
#612
Uh-huh.... this is my point. Until you could convince EVERYONE (which will never happen, humanity is too diverse for that), that his baseless plan would bring about peace, it would be unworkable.

It boils down to one simple thing... all utopian ideals require that everyone think the same, and humanity doesn't.
 
JLM
#613
[QUOTE=peacegirl;

This thread is going down the tube fast. I don't think at this point there is anything that is going to change that.[/QUOTE]

I for one sure as hell hope not.
 
Bcool
#614
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

I wouldn't be responding if you weren't posting.

Your pics don't make it plainer. One can be threatened by words. Words on a screen have meanings, and they affect people differently.

You're right, but if people are so antagonistic about this comment that they won't read the book, then I have to rethink if it is absolutely necessary to include it, especially when it doesn't take away from his observations regarding the eyes.


It was a rhetorical question. No, I don't need your comments because they add nothing to the debate.





Thanks for the entertainment. Your pics were great, but once is enough. Next time you're on ignore. I am not taking anymore abuse from you.


As she said: "
I wouldn't be responding if you weren't posting." and "Next time you're on ignore."

Seems like the lady is suggesting a way to end all this herself, no?
 
JLM
#615
I think this thread should be renamed "Much Ado about Nothing"- hopefully without being an afront to the Great Bard.
 
mentalfloss
#616

YouTube - Larks Tongues in Aspic King Crimson

 
s_lone
#617
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

Yes, I am retaliating. Do you think I'm going to turn the other cheek? We're not in the new world because if we were you would not have used this demeaning language toward me and therefore I would not need to strike back. I hope you realize that you did strike the first blow s_lone, and now you want to be excused. And you actually think you understand this knowledge?

I don't want to be excused. I don't regret saying what I honestly think.
 
Dexter Sinister
#618
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

... it's our nature to strike back when hurt.

That's right, and that simple statement gives the lie to Lessans' thesis. There's nothing in his utopian world that guarantees nobody will ever be hurt.
 
peacegirl
#619
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Uh-huh.... this is my point. Until you could convince EVERYONE (which will never happen, humanity is too diverse for that), that his baseless plan would bring about peace, it would be unworkable.

It boils down to one simple thing... all utopian ideals require that everyone think the same, and humanity doesn't.

All this discovery does is prevent the first blow; it does not prevent the range of diversity in human beings that makes life interesting.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

I don't want to be excused. I don't regret saying what I honestly think.

You don't have to regret what you said. I just want you to know that I did not come here to frustrate you, but that does not give you permission to talk to me in such a manner. I am not a dog to be treated like garbage just because you don't like something Lessans said. I thought these forums were about free expression. I came here to explain a discovery whether you believe it is genuine or not. For you to demand that I side with you on the issue of the eyes is wrong, but I do forgive you. I must be hitting a nerve and you are taking it out on me. I have respected you throughout this long discussion, and I would hope you would do the same.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

That's right, and that simple statement gives the lie to Lessans' thesis. There's nothing in his utopian world that guarantees nobody will ever be hurt.

No, there isn't a guarantee. Someone could accidentally knock into someone and they would have a knee jerk reaction and hit them back. But overall, this knowledge does prevent so much of the hurt (which you will see as you read how these principles work as they are extended into every area of human relation; that is, if you ever get that far). When the hurt is removed that is driving us to act out our anger (especially in the economic world), and then when this principle is put into effect, you will see that a peaceful world is actually very attainable, even though at first glance it sounds like a fairy tale. But that's only because your thinking is based on the world as it exists today.
 
mentalfloss
#620
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

When the hurt is removed that is driving us to act out our anger (especially in the economic world), and then when this principle is put into effect, you will see that a peaceful world is actually very attainable, even though at first glance it sounds like a fairy tale. But that's only because your thinking is based on the world as it exists today.

Let's forget the fallacies for now.. Rather, let's look at this practically in today's society and see what kind of solutions it can provide.

How do you think representative groups - like governments or religious entities - would act differently regarding these sorts of matters if they were acting in compliance with the ideology that you are proposing? For instance, foreign policy - terrorism and the mandate for war in the middle east. Or how about in the territory itself - the ground zero mosque and the tenacity between religious factions?

What could be done differently by these groups that one might deem more appropriate behaviour and in line with the deterministic principles you are suggesting?
 
peacegirl
#621
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Let's forget the fallacies for now.. Rather, let's look at this practically in today's society and see what kind of solutions it can provide.

How do you think representative groups - like governments or religious entities - would act differently regarding these sorts of matters if they were acting in compliance with the ideology that you are proposing? For instance, foreign policy - terrorism and the mandate for war in the middle east. Or how about in the territory itself - the ground zero mosque and the tenacity between religious factions?

I can see why no one believes this could ever work, because they have not read Chapter Six which deals with economics, and the major overhaul that will prevent so much insecurity. You have to take a broad view, and be patient, in order to envision all of the problems that won't even be an issue. For example, government will not be run in the same way. in fact, most government will be displaced. Religion (you need to think long term) will gradually disappear because the very reason religion came into being was to pray to God for our deliverance from all evil. Once we are delivered, the desire to keep these institutions alive will gradually disappear. As far as foreign policy, the entire tax structure will include everyone, therefore if one country is not meeting its standard of living, the world will pitch in to cover the remaining cost. But no one will take advantage of this, which will give the needed taxes to cover these costs. He gets into depth about how this will work, but if you don't read it, then you won't get an accurate picture of how this can take place.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss

What could be done differently by these groups that one might deem more appropriate behaviour and in line with the deterministic principles you are suggesting?

As I mentioned, these artificial divisions between people will gradually disappear when no one is hurt with a first blow. There is another form of hurt which is a first blow, and it is this critical judgment of others which, when removed, will prevent the justifiable anger that people feel when others judge them for how they look or what they wear, which hurts no one. Until now, we had to judge others because we were being judged. When all of this is removed from the environment, it will not be difficult to end hatred, war and crime, something never thought possible.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#622
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

...which you will see as you read how these principles work as they are extended into every area of human relation; that is, if you ever get that far...

If you could try arguing from a position other than "you'll agree once you understand" you might get a little more traction. Understanding does not imply agreement, and your comment about human nature demonstrates that you know one side of Lessans' equation doesn't work, whether you realize it or not. If you understood that, you'd see that Lessans has nothing to offer.
 
s_lone
#623
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

You don't have to regret what you said. I just want you to know that I did not come here to frustrate you, but that does not give you permission to talk to me in such a manner. I am not a dog to be treated like garbage just because you don't like something Lessans said. I thought these forums were about free expression. I came here to explain a discovery whether you believe it is genuine or not. For you to demand that I side with you on the issue of the eyes is wrong, but I do forgive you. I must be hitting a nerve and you are taking it out on me. I have respected you throughout this long discussion, and I would hope you would do the same.

As you say, these forums are about free expression. I do have the right to tell you honestly what I think and never did I suggest you don't have the right to post here. I did suggest you are wasting your time though. But you are free to do what you want (even though you disagree on being free).

If you are hurt about my opinion, that's your issue. I didn't treat you like a dog, (I don't treat dogs like garbage by the way), I treated you like a human being for this whole thread and I did show you respect all along by telling you my honest opinion. I told you in a very blunt way that I think you are mentally intoxicated by Lessans. You have lost your capacity to analyze his claims critically and you take every single thing he's written for cash, the ''sight'' example is just a very revealing example of how your critical mind has taken a very wrong turn. You're no better than creationists who insist on believing the world has been created 6000 years ago despite the overwhelming evidence that it hasn't.
 
Dexter Sinister
#624
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

...these artificial divisions between people will gradually disappear when no one is hurt with a first blow.

Perhaps, but it's not possible to prevent that first blow. An example: you've mentioned having children and your surname is not Lessans, from which I assume you are, or at least were at one time, married. If you're paying attention in an intimate relationship like that, you'll soon learn that it's very easy to hurt someone quite badly without being aware of it. That first blow does not need to be intentional, human nature being what it is it'll happen regardless. Lessans' utopian world assumes people have a great deal more information about and understanding of the choices before them than they can ever really have.
 
JLM
#625
Peacegirl- Why do you keep saying the same things over and over and over and over? You sound like a child in grocery store asking for a lolly pop.
 
mentalfloss
#626
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

For example, government will not be run in the same way. in fact, most government will be displaced. Religion (you need to think long term) will gradually disappear because the very reason religion came into being was to pray to God for our deliverance from all evil. Once we are delivered, the desire to keep these institutions alive will gradually disappear. As far as foreign policy, the entire tax structure will include everyone, therefore if one country is not meeting its standard of living, the world will pitch in to cover the remaining cost. But no one will take advantage of this, which will give the needed taxes to cover these costs. He gets into depth about how this will work, but if you don't read it, then you won't get an accurate picture of how this can take place.

Can you give me the coles notes version please? I think it would be interesting how these principles would apply specifically to these issues at present.
 
peacegirl
#627
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

If you could try arguing from a position other than "you'll agree once you understand" you might get a little more traction. Understanding does not imply agreement, and your comment about human nature demonstrates that you know one side of Lessans' equation doesn't work, whether you realize it or not. If you understood that, you'd see that Lessans has nothing to offer.

Dexter, you need to at least give Lessans a chance, even if you don't believe he is right. I know how difficult it is to believe that peace is possible. It sounds not only impossible, but absolutely insane. If someone would say that to me, I would think he was a quack, so I know where you are coming from. But please give this knowledge a chance, and if you still think he has nothing to offer, you will have all the time in the world to reject his findings.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

As you say, these forums are about free expression. I do have the right to tell you honestly what I think and never did I suggest you don't have the right to post here. I did suggest you are wasting your time though. But you are free to do what you want (even though you disagree on being free).

Your very last comment made me realize that you don't quite yet understand this knowledge. I am not putting you down; I'm just indicating that you don't quite get it yet. I never said I was not free to choose; I have always said I have options; but I am not free once the choice is made.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

If you are hurt about my opinion, that's your issue. I didn't treat you like a dog, (I don't treat dogs like garbage by the way), I treated you like a human being for this whole thread and I did show you respect all along by telling you my honest opinion.

I don't disagree with this.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I told you in a very blunt way that I think you are mentally intoxicated by Lessans.

That is your opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

You have lost your capacity to analyze his claims critically and you take every single thing he's written for cash, the ''sight'' example is just a very revealing example of how your critical mind has taken a very wrong turn.

I still say that is your opinion s_lone.

Quote: Originally Posted by "s_lone

You're no better than creationists who insist on believing the world has been created 6000 years ago despite the overwhelming evidence that it hasn't.

Until we can decipher what is true and what is not, you cannot use the fact that this has been established by science. I'm sorry that this disrupts your entire worldview. I really am. I did not come here to upset anyone. I hope you know this.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Perhaps, but it's not possible to prevent that first blow. An example: you've mentioned having children and your surname is not Lessans, from which I assume you are, or at least were at one time, married. If you're paying attention in an intimate relationship like that, you'll soon learn that it's very easy to hurt someone quite badly without being aware of it. That first blow does not need to be intentional, human nature being what it is it'll happen regardless. Lessans' utopian world assumes people have a great deal more information about and understanding of the choices before them than they can ever really have.

You are right about this. That is why there will be lawmakers who will look at all of those human relationships where people are not sure who is right and who is wrong, to let everyone [in the world] know who is striking the first blow. Once people realize that they are the ones who must yield because they would be striking the first blow, they will desire to yield so as not to be responsible for hurting someone or ruining a relationship.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Can you give me the coles notes version please? I think it would be interesting how these principles would apply specifically to these issues at present.

I'm sorry, I don't have coles notes yet. But in time they will be available.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Peacegirl- Why do you keep saying the same things over and over and over and over? You sound like a child in grocery store asking for a lolly pop.

JLM, I don't know what to say. I'm laughing and I'm crying at the same time.
 
Dexter Sinister
#628
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

Dexter, you need to at least give Lessans a chance, even if you don't believe he is right. I know how difficult it is to believe that peace is possible. It sounds not only impossible, but absolutely insane. If someone would say that to me, I would think he was a quack, so I know where you are coming from. But please give this knowledge a chance, and if you still think he has nothing to offer, you will have all the time in the world to reject his findings.

I've given him all the chances he needs. I've read four and a bit of the chapters in his book and read a lot of comments from others whose judgment I respect who've read more. I think that's enough to decide whether or not he's blowing smoke. And I *have* decided, he's blowing smoke. This has nothing to do with whether peace is possible or not. I believe it is, but he hasn't found the way to it. What he's got in his first four chapters is an excessively wordy, heavily redundant, badly written, error-prone, self-congratulatory analysis that goes nowhere and proves nothing. There's every reason to think the other chapters will be the same. He can't even state the terms of a simple logic puzzle with clarity and without redundancy, which is a bit hard to take from someone billed as an accomplished mathematician.

Consider, for instance: "...arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter." First, it takes a bit of thought to realize he wants them arranged in 7 rows of 5 triplets each, which is irrelevant to the problem. Second, the condition for "15 different letters on a line" is redundant, if it's true of all 35 triplets, it'll be true of any subset of them. Third, does "never be twice" mean exactly once or any number of times other than twice? A real mathematician would have expressed the problem much more succinctly.
 
peacegirl
#629
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

I've given him all the chances he needs. I've read four and a bit of the chapters in his book and read a lot of comments from others whose judgment I respect who've read more. I think that's enough to decide whether or not he's blowing smoke. And I *have* decided, he's blowing smoke. This has nothing to do with whether peace is possible or not. I believe it is, but he hasn't found the way to it. What he's got in his first four chapters is an excessively wordy, heavily redundant, badly written, error-prone, self-congratulatory analysis that goes nowhere and proves nothing. There's every reason to think the other chapters will be the same. He can't even state the terms of a simple logic puzzle with clarity and without redundancy, which is a bit hard to take from someone billed as an accomplished mathematician.

I don't know what to say. It's really up to you whether you want to stick with this thread or not. I am not going to try to convince you to stay. He is not blowing any smoke, and you can't blame the wordiness and redundancy on him because I was the compiler. And I don't see anything redundant with the way he described his math (logic) question. You have not given him a chance at all, but if you believe you did, then so be it. You are entitled to think what you want.

Quote: Originally Posted by dexter

Consider, for instance: "...arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter." First, it takes a bit of thought to realize he wants them arranged in 7 rows of 5 triplets each, which is irrelevant to the problem. Second, the condition for "15 different letters on a line" is redundant, if it's true of all 35 triplets, it'll be true of any subset of them. Third, does "never be twice" mean exactly once or any number of times other than twice? A real mathematician would have expressed the problem much more succinctly.

I'm really not sure why he was redundant unless he was repeating the problem the way it was given to him, or unless he was trying to make the problem more clear. I will repeat exactly what he wrote on an answer sheet I found when I was cleaning out his desk:

The author asks that you arrange 105 alphabetical blocks divided equally between A and O in groups of 3 and in 7 lines, so that no letter is ever twice with the same letter. And the answer is---
 
Dexter Sinister
#630
Quote: Originally Posted by peacegirlView Post

... I don't see anything redundant with the way he described his math (logic) question.

And there it is. Even when I give you a clear and unequivocal explanation of exactly what I mean and prove beyond any possible doubt that what I claimed is correct, you just deny it. Did you not notice that your restatement of the question does not include the condition about the 15 different letters in a line?

You don't even understand the puzzle, you've given incorrect information about it in response to questions. The order of the letters in the solution can't matter. Given any triplet of letters like ABC, there are six ways to arrange it: ABC, ACB, BCA, BAC, CAB, and CBA. Because each letter can appear with every other one only once, only one of those six arrangements can appear in the solution, they're all identical in terms of the puzzle's conditions. The real puzzle, assuming I've understood his rather vague statement of it, is this: given the set of all possible unordered triplets of the letters A through O (there are 455 of them BTW), is there a subset of 35 of them in which each letter occurs in a triplet with every other letter exactly once? All the other information given in both statements of the puzzle is superfluous. Once you have those 35 triplets, you can sort them into any order you like. The order of the letters in each triplet and the overall order of all the triplets doesn't matter to the solution.
 

Similar Threads

2
V3 versus V3i
by trepex | Feb 17th, 2006
no new posts