Comments for Sound and Fury

Comment on On the attribution of witty aphorisms by Bill Reed

Bill Reed — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:08:47 +0000

“Everything of importance has been said before by somebody who did not discover it.” — Alfred North Whitehead

Comment on Amusing headlines by Seamus

Seamus — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:02:08 +0000

It could well be of local concern. But that doesn’t explain how a small electrical fire in Germany makes it into a national newspaper in the UK…

Comment on Amusing headlines by Tally Bane

Tally Bane — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:38:51 +0000

Surely the last one is newsworthy. Anything that explodes in a residence is of local and wtf concern. Although wtf issues are not in themselves newsworthy (not a sufficient condition).

Comment on Data as a mass noun by Pianetavivo

Pianetavivo — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:39:26 +0000

I remember in ancient Greek language you could say a verb in singular for a plural subject, if they are like a mass: TA’ ZOA TRECHEI = the animals runs, for example.
I am not sure which is better, considering that people change(s) language without thinking about it, and think by language, and I am lazy too. Maybe a gloobish well shared from English would be the best.

Comment on Majority logic I by Pianetavivo

Pianetavivo — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:29:05 +0000

I advice to symbolize MOST with a B (like BIG) with the below belly bigger, and MINORITY with a B with the upper belly bigger, or with both bellies backward.

Comment on yotta, zetta, exa, peta, tera, giga, mega… kilo? by Pianetavivo

Pianetavivo — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:12:01 +0000

Some one, for instance Fabio Marchesi, a light expert engineer (who’s site is http://www.fabiomarchesi.com/lang1/), believe that light speed can change…
Whenever it should happen, what would do the Institute of Measurements? Have they considered this hypotesis?

Comment on yotta, zetta, exa, peta, tera, giga, mega… kilo? by Pianetavivo

Pianetavivo — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:30:35 +0000

Could you explain better? Maybe a same temperature could implicate a different radiation spectrum, and that is why it could implicate a different molecular asset hence a different specific volume?
Cannot we ask directly that damned Institute of Weights? I suspect it is just a matter of French grandeur!
Thanks for this interesting matter.

Comment on Majority logic I by Seamus

Seamus — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:20:34 +0000

You’re right about the uninterpreted Qx. Though since I didn’t think it was a viable analysis I didn’t think too hard about it. This I think mitigates my oversight.

As for the empty domain etc, since questions of a (non-trivial) majority only really make sense when you have at least three objects, I was kind of ignoring details like that.

And I kept (x) and (Ex) because it gives a certain uniformity or consistency to the symbolism.

Thanks for the comments!

Comment on Majority logic I by Brunellus

Brunellus — Wed, 27 May 2009 09:29:48 +0000

Your “first stab” at an analysis surprises – not only because it contains “(Mx)”, as you point out, but also because it contains an uninterpreted “Qx”. If Q is meant to be any old predicate, you need to go second-order and preface the second conjunct with “(Q)”.

It’s also worth noting that your remarks on the relationship between (Mx), (x) and (Ex) entail that universally-quantified statements are false on the empty domain, which is controversial.

On the symbolism, why not go with the standard existential and universal quantifiers and leave “(Mx)” as it is? You are introducing it, after all.

Comment on Data as a mass noun by Seamus

Seamus — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:39:35 +0000

Hi Chris. Yes I intermittently post things on this here blog thing. Let me know how your blog goes!