holy water for blessing scrolls?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Topi Linkala wrote:
> e is irrational and ln(2) is irrational e^ln(2) is 2 which is rational.
> Both e and ln(2) can be calculated through infinite power series.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply it was an open problem. Just giving an
example of an existence proof which does not produce an example of the
thing proven to exist.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Topi Linkala wrote:
> Once again somebody tells what he knows about what he doesn't know. You
> told that there is something you don't know but you failed to tell what
> it is. You told the structure of the information but not the
> information. And I say that you cannot as you don't know.

Ahh, but now you're saying something different from what you originally
said, which was:

> It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.

and you rephrased in the message I responded to as:

> Tell me what do you know that you don't know?

I'm not sure if there's an actual language barrier here or not...

Neither of these (as English language statements) has the tautological
meaning that you're attempting to use here. And the fact that everyone
who's responding to you is arguing from the same position is pretty
clear evidence that your use of the language is not standard English.

The second statement means (in English)
Tell me what do you (know that you don't know).
Or, "Identify for me the information that you don't know, where you
possess the knowledge that you don't know said information."

So, assuming that I know that Bob's mom has a name, but I don't know
her name, then Statement A: "Bob's mom's name is information that I
know that I don't know" is a true statement meaning "I don't know Bob's
mom's name, and I know that I do not know Bob's mom's name".

It doesn't mean:
Tell me (what do you know) (that you don't know).
Or, "Tell me, what is the information that you don't know, that you
know.".

No English speaker would interpret Statement A as meaning "Bob's mom's
name is information that I don't know, and Bob's mom's name is
information that I know."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

sjdevnull@yahoo.com wrote:
> Topi Linkala wrote:
>
>>Tell me what do you know that you don't know?
>
>
> Anything which can be proven nonconstructively.
>
> For instance, the theorem: there are irrational numbers a and b such
> that a to the power of b is rational.
>
> Let q = sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2)
> (that is, the square root of 2 raised to the power of the square root
> of two).
> sqrt(2) is proveably irrational.
>
> Lemma 1: If q is rational, then a=sqrt(2), b=sqrt(2) (both are
> irrational).
> a^b = q, which is rational, which proves the Theorem.
>
> Lemma 2: If q is irrational, then a=q, b=sqrt(2) (both are irrational)
> a^b = (sqrt(2)^sqrt(2))^(sqrt(2)) = 2
> which is rational, which proves the Theorem.
>
> Since q must be either rational or irrational, there is some pair of
> numbers a,b that prove the theorem. So we know (and it's logically and
> mathematically proven) that such numbers exist. However, we don't know
> what they are.

Once again somebody tells what he knows about what he doesn't know. You
told that there is something you don't know but you failed to tell what
it is. You told the structure of the information but not the
information. And I say that you cannot as you don't know.

This is my last post on this subject as I'm, stating the same thing
everytime and always get the response on the the same way.

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

sjdevnull@yahoo.com wrote:

> Topi Linkala wrote:
>
>>Tell me what do you know that you don't know?
>
>
> Anything which can be proven nonconstructively.
>
> For instance, the theorem: there are irrational numbers a and b such
> that a to the power of b is rational.
>
> Let q = sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2)
> (that is, the square root of 2 raised to the power of the square root
> of two).
> sqrt(2) is proveably irrational.
>
> Lemma 1: If q is rational, then a=sqrt(2), b=sqrt(2) (both are
> irrational).
> a^b = q, which is rational, which proves the Theorem.
>
> Lemma 2: If q is irrational, then a=q, b=sqrt(2) (both are irrational)
> a^b = (sqrt(2)^sqrt(2))^(sqrt(2)) = 2
> which is rational, which proves the Theorem.
>
> Since q must be either rational or irrational, there is some pair of
> numbers a,b that prove the theorem. So we know (and it's logically and
> mathematically proven) that such numbers exist. However, we don't know
> what they are.

e is irrational and ln(2) is irrational e^ln(2) is 2 which is rational.
Both e and ln(2) can be calculated through infinite power series.

Topi

--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

sjdevnull@yahoo.com <sjdevnull@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Topi Linkala wrote:
>> Once again somebody tells what he knows about what he doesn't know. You
>> told that there is something you don't know but you failed to tell what
>> it is. You told the structure of the information but not the
>> information. And I say that you cannot as you don't know.
>
> Ahh, but now you're saying something different from what you originally
> said, which was:
>
>> It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.
>
> and you rephrased in the message I responded to as:
>
>> Tell me what do you know that you don't know?
>
> I'm not sure if there's an actual language barrier here or not...

I think that's what it is.

I do not know a fact that I do not know. I may know *what fact* I do
not know, but I do not know the piece of information itself.

For instance, I suspect 'sjdevnull' is only slightly related to your
name ('SJ' are probably your initials, I'm pretty sure 'Devnull' is not
your last name). If this is true, I do not know your name. I do know
that I do not know your name.

It's a meta-level confusion caused by the difference in language, I
suspect.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch