ConwayLife.com

If someone assumes that someone assumes something, what is the chance that they assume that they assume what they assume?

Also, if you're trying to prove (x), you're supposed to assume (NOT x), not (x). http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/pm2.18.html

If a function's property:

(1) contradicts the welldefinedness of the function, OR
(2) causes the welldefinedness of the contradictiveness of the welldefinedness of the function or property to be illdefined, OR
(3) causes the illdefinedness of the welldefinedness of the contradictiveness of the welldefinedness of the function or property, to be illdefined, or causes this statement itself to be contradictory or illdefined;

the function is not a function under the scope of this question.

This is at least at epsilon_0.

testitemqlstudop wrote:If a function's property:

[Arbitrary Exclusions]

the function is not a function under the scope of this question.

This is at least at epsilon_0.

Did you not read what fluffykitty said. (Yes, this a parody of your response to me)

What if a function satisfies the first 2 conditions and the first part of the 3rd condition but makes the welldefinedness of condition 3 illdefined, whilst keeping it noncontradictive? That satisfies all 3 of you conditions!

You do realize that one can continue finding loopholes in your definition, right?

. = 0 => 0.

I'm purposely trying to forsake language as far as possible so you can't continue.

testitemqlstudop wrote:. = 0 => 0.

I'm purposely trying to forsake language as far as possible so you can't continue.

I'll submit to that iff anyone can figure out what the heck that statement means and I can't find a loophole.

That is a special case of the identity axiom, namely "if statement . is false, then it is false".

Consider why that would be important:

Function f is contradictory against property p.
Consider the statement "property p is ill-defined under the scope of this question". Since the question is under the presumption of NO ill-definedness and NO contradictiveness (here's where you can't say ill-definedness of contradictiveness: because there's no ill-definedness) it is false.
Hence the function is not a function under the scope of this question.

TL;DR: No ill-definedness or contradictiveness of a function.

testitemqlstudop wrote:That is a special case of the identity axiom, namely "if statement . is false, then it is false".

Consider why that would be important:

Function f is contradictory against property p.
Consider the statement "property p is ill-defined under the scope of this question". Since the question is under the presumption of NO ill-definedness and NO contradictiveness (here's where you can't say ill-definedness of contradictiveness: because there's no ill-definedness) it is false.
Hence the function is not a function under the scope of this question.

TL;DR: No ill-definedness or contradictiveness of a function.

But what if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is impossible to find?
You keep modifying your function to exclude arbitrary things I come up with-- can we just agree that your whole thing is rather arbitrary and you are attempting to make a rayo-ish number where every threatening thing is excluded-- no doubt a Sisyphean task.

But what if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is impossible to find?

I beg pardon? How is that possible?

If the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is contradictive against something it's illegal;
if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is ill-defined against something it's also illegal.

testitemqlstudop wrote:

But what if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is impossible to find?

I beg pardon? How is that possible?

If the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is contradictive against something it's illegal;
if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is ill-defined against something it's also illegal.

Yes, but it may be impossible to find, in which case it wouldn't be ill-defined or contradictive.

How would it be impossible to find?

testitemqlstudop wrote:How would it be impossible to find?

It would be unprovable whether it is illdefined or not, like how godel's (I forget whether this is the first or second) incompleteness theorem demonstrates that no system of math can show that it's consistent.

All right then, I will make a case that encompasses all your nitpicks:
If the statement "Function F works under the scope of this question" is RESOLUTE (i.e. not ill-defined, contradictory, impossible to resolve, etc.) and is TRUE (i.e. not false) then the function is eligible.

testitemqlstudop wrote:All right then, I will make a case that encompasses all your nitpicks:
If the statement "Function F works under the scope of this question" is RESOLUTE (i.e. not ill-defined, contradictory, impossible to resolve, etc.) and is TRUE (i.e. not false) then the function is eligible.

What if we cannot determine whether it's resolute?

That's impossible.
Is it impossible to determine ill-definedness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine contradictiveness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine if it's impossible to resolve? No, since it violates it's own restriction.

testitemqlstudop wrote:That's impossible.
Is it impossible to determine ill-definedness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine contradictiveness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine if it's impossible to resolve? No, since it violates it's own restriction.

Hey, just making sure you clarified
I guess doing this isn't worth my time anymore-- someone else can figure out how to thwart you or demonstrate that you finally created a function whose arbitrary exclusions work

What if we attached a massive light sail, say the diameter of the moon, to the equator? Assume the light sail and the supports and attachments etc. are indestructible and ignore the logistics and things to actually make said light sail (Lets say it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.). Would it affect the spin of the Earth? What if we make it the diameter of Mars? How about as large as the Earth itself?

Saka wrote:What if we attached a massive light sail, say the diameter of the moon, to the equator? Assume the light sail and the supports and attachments etc. are indestructible and ignore the logistics and things to actually make said light sail (Lets say it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.). Would it affect the spin of the Earth? What if we make it the diameter of Mars? How about as large as the Earth itself?

The mass of a body is proportional to the cube of its radius, whereas the surface area is proportional to its square. Hence the effectiveness of a light sail is inversely proportional to the radius. So although I haven't done any calculations I'm reasonably sure that an Earth sized light sail would have only a negligible effect.

If I collected cubes of particles from the standard model, assuming I can confine the quarks (presumably in an x-antix meson), what cube of particles would be the worst problem?

Macbi wrote:

Saka wrote:What if we attached a massive light sail, say the diameter of the moon, to the equator? Assume the light sail and the supports and attachments etc. are indestructible and ignore the logistics and things to actually make said light sail (Lets say it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.). Would it affect the spin of the Earth? What if we make it the diameter of Mars? How about as large as the Earth itself?

The mass of a body is proportional to the cube of its radius, whereas the surface area is proportional to its square. Hence the effectiveness of a light sail is inversely proportional to the radius. So although I haven't done any calculations I'm reasonably sure that an Earth sized light sail would have only a negligible effect.

Given an indestructible material to make the light sail out of, it can be made arbitrarily big without increasing its thickness. Therefore it's mass would also be proportional to it's radius. Even so, and also without doing any calculations, I'm inclined to agree with Macbi that the effect would be negligible -because the angular momentum of the Earth is enormous compared to the light pressure exerted on the whole Earth by sunlight incident on it.

Then what would be the best way to affect the spin of the Earth that we can do currently? Say the entire human race's goal is to affect the Earth's spin as much as possible. What's the most effective way with today's technology?

Saka wrote:Then what would be the best way to affect the spin of the Earth that we can do currently? Say the entire human race's goal is to affect the Earth's spin as much as possible. What's the most effective way with today's technology?

Perhaps adjust the orbit of an asteroid so that it falls out of the belt and hits the Earth's surface obliquely?

According to xkcd, anything with more than a negligible effect would probably kill all life on the planet
https://what-if.xkcd.com/26/

Edit: and I'm guessing anything even close to that is well beyond humanities capability. Sorry for not actually answering your question, but I have no idea.

Macbi wrote: October 1st, 2019, 10:54 am

Saka wrote:Then what would be the best way to affect the spin of the Earth that we can do currently? Say the entire human race's goal is to affect the Earth's spin as much as possible. What's the most effective way with today's technology?

Perhaps adjust the orbit of an asteroid so that it falls out of the belt and hits the Earth's surface obliquely?

Im the movie "The Wandering Earth" many engines (which apparently fuses rocks for fuel) are installed in the equator to slow down the Earth's rotation to a halt.

(This actually works because the engines are installed at an angle opposite of the Earth's spin.)

testitemqlstudop wrote: Im the movie "The Wandering Earth" many engines (which apparently fuses rocks for fuel) are installed in the equator to slow down the Earth's rotation to a halt.

(This actually works because the engines are installed at an angle opposite of the Earth's spin.)

Unless those engines eject material into orbit (or preferably at > escape velocity) the effect will be to cause enormous equatorial winds, temporarily dumping enormous amounts of energy into the atmosphere, and after some time much of that energy will be transferred back into the Earth's spin due to drag, the rest being lost to catastrophic global heating