this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)

programming

155 readers
2 users here now

  1. Post about programming, interesting repos, learning to program, etc. Let's try to keep free software posts in the c/libre comm unless the post is about the programming/is to the repo.

  2. Do not doxx yourself by posting a repo that is yours and in any way leads to your personally identifying information. Use reports if necessary to alert mods to a potential doxxing.

  3. Be kind, keep struggle sessions focused on the topic of programming.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 

A refutation of Cantor’s idealist diagonal argument using Turing’s materialist theory of computation.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'll leave this up I suppose, but I think this is very silly. It's essentially non-experts trying to do philosophical reasoning about other fields, badly.

Paul Cockshot is a (relatively good) materialist economist, but this is a pure mathematics topic of consideration. This isn't exactly the first time Cockshot has gotten away from his field of expertise and said some heinously ignorant shit. The paper he cites is this one https://www.scirp.org/pdf/OJPP_2016083016514850.pdf, written by a person credited as being part of Department of Psychiatry, NTT West Osaka Hospital, Osaka, Japan, which is awfully strange for a paper attempting to disprove a core argument in real analysis. Looking further and reading the paper, while the attempt to think in terms of the materialist interaction of the brain with the concept of infinite decimal expansions of numbers and limits is in some ways valiant, the mathematical conclusions that are drawn from it are nonsensical. The lack of citations is also telling; there's no engagement with any modern mathematics, or even a textbook on real analysis. Instead there are primarily references to Aristotle, Cantor's original papers, and a few other plucked articles that aren't particularly helpful. The posting from the journal at the end of the paper is also...concerning.

Submit or recommend next manuscript to SCIRP and we will provide best service for you

This is not suggestive of academic due diligence.

There's nothing wrong or Idealist about the diagonal argument.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Also, this seems obvious, but a Turing complete machine doesn't have to have programs that halt, so clearly Turing was alright with reasoning about things that couldn't be concretely computed outright to completion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

My engineering-level math education and my longstanding intuitive skepticism for the diagonal argument made me a sucker for this one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: