two sides to every piece of paper.

Two 1s to every 2.

Two eggs to every 1 omlette.

Two balls to every knob.

Two pages to every knodding off...

sssshhhheeeiiiitttt....

I knew this seemed familiar and then I finally got it.

well played

Aaron I like you. But man... I just bubbled an FT cos I min 3b clicked AJo vs an active big stack CO and was gnna call a 4b jam cos id just 3b the SB and got a fold from the same villain... so when you start listing the claim/non claims I've been making, u think about that... just for one second.... think about whether I could've just 3b 2.6x and then you sir, would need to re-evaluate what the point of trying to prove that you are a clever cloggs? do you know why you are? look at the dude that just spoke from the heart, he's probably got a chilled jam on, and is happy to be the neutral. like i said, i like you, but give a bro a chill... regards, your bud, the rungood gid...


oh and btw... if your in denial about anything I've said (because I've disproven everything you've attempted to propose) you'll respond with an attempt at logic - especially if it's a gramatical or spelling correction.

again, i like you, so it's fine.

You should be careful here, as actually you are advancing a controversial theory about the foundation of mathematics known as logicism. This was a common view among leading mathematicians and logicians in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century but, especially as a result of Godel's second incompleteness theorem, was largely rejected by mid-century (although has been making a comeback lately).

Before Frege and Dedekind, people typically thought of mathematics as an investigation into the fundamental structure of the universe. For instance, Kant used Euclidean geometry as a paradigmatic example of synthetic a priori knowledge (synthetic, so a claim about the world rather than just a concept). Then along came Frege, who invented mathematical logic and argued that the basic principles of mathematics are all reducible to logical principles (Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica is the most complete attempt to prove this rigorously). Then, when Godel proved that it was impossible to develop a logical system that is robust enough to justify arithmetic without including claims that are themselves not provably consistent, most people took this to mean that the logicist theory of mathematics, at least in the versions put forward by Frege and Russell, was a failure. Godel himself ended up arguing for a version of mathematical Platonism and other attempts to understand the foundation of math became more popular.

OrP: thanks I didn't realize that. I'm familiar with Principia mathematica and Godel but I didn't know he was considered to have refuted the entire project, just the goal of completeness and consistency.

I guess with the Comp Sci background I get more of the logicist view than the platonist in what I've read. I didn't know it was controversial

I use three eggs. This is interesting, but I don't know what it means.

But what's interesting is how the three egg omelette is left out of the school curriculum.

whats really ****ed up is theres like one omelette right??

halve the omlette and what do you get? 1
now halve that? 1
and so on:

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

apparently this pattern will continue onto infinite. not a nutjob just that i find this interesting but am almost unsure what relevance it has to anything but demand that it is relevant.

there are a lot of documentaries & books on how ancient civilisations where aware of patterns an sacred geometry.

Where? And why?

.

Eggsactly...

I think this probably confirms Neeel's initial suspicions.

I think it's a neat number, but it's not in nautilus shells or galaxies, nor most of the common claims. Those things have logarithmic spirals but not golden spirals. Here is a lecture that confirms / mythbusts various claims about the golden ratio.

One cool thing you might not have known about the golden ratio is its relationship to the mandelbrot set.
http://www.fabulousfibonacci.com/por...&id=6&Itemid=4
http://donlehmanjr.com/Science/24%20Leftovers/243.htm

As of yet, no one knows why that fibonacci bulb pattern occurs.

My understanding (and philosophy of maths is not a strong suit for me) is that the strong version of logicism--the idea that all math can be reduced to purely logical principles--is still thought to be hopeless, but that the project of reducing various important bits of math to logic was revived in the early 80's by Crispin Wright, who observed that while Frege's Basic Law V is wrong (as shown by Russell's paradox), that the basic axioms of second-order Peano arithmetic can still be derived from second-order logic and the principle (known as Hume's principle) that Frege derived from Basic Law V. So, if you take Hume's Principle as a basic logical principle, then you have demonstrated that Peano arithmetic is ultimately derived from logic, and hence that the natural numbers are logical objects.

But really you would do better to read SEP on the topic.

In answer to the second question, as with all philosophers and mathematicians, for the sex.

thanks.... I will be watching this.