Davin said:
Johannes, I am going to try this once, as a once-upon-a-time mathematician and logician, and most importantly as a former teacher to school you. I don't expect it will do any good. I expect you and your 'ilk' will take it as arrogance. But one must try their best to contribute to this community where possible to try to keep it healthy.

I thank you for answering my post. With your experience as a former teacher, mathematician and logician, I am sure that you will be able to correct my errors. Although, the word former raises some questions in my mind. Are you implying that you have lost your abilities to calculate, to be logical, and to teach?

Putting words like Constant and Zero in scare quotes belies how little you understand about mathematics and logic, and formal notions of truth.

I'm sorry if those quotes "scare" you, I will try to limit my use of them. Perhaps you can point out other ways in which I can emphasize the word and at the same time isolate it as a very meaningful part of the idea that I am trying to convey. I suppose that my understanding of English grammar eint so good.

Would you please explain how my use of the "scare quotes" belies how little I understand about mathematics and logic, and formal notions of truth. Perhaps it is my fault, but I can not understand your logic in this regard, further explanation from you may help to clarify your point.

" I am trying to 'translate' some mathematical concepts into common words that anyone can understand. Many people do not understand statements such as: "If function f is a constant c; f(x) = c then f' (x) = 0." I would like to clarify it to them in the language that they DO understand. Perhaps by stating that the word "constant" is a reference or a starting point for calculation with formulas, same as the number "zero" is a starting or reference point for calculation with numbers. I would continue from that to the explanation of how these references relate to the 'real world'. "
Zero is not a starting or reference point for 'calculation with numbers'. Zero is an arbitrary symbol that means different things entirely for different groups of orderings.

You are right in the larger context of the meaning that has been placed on it. My description was intended for the fundamental meaning involved in arithmetic. For example; zero is the mid or reference point between minus - and plus +. Also it is the starting point from where number values will increase or decrease.

ze·ro (zîr¹o, zê¹ro) noun
plural ze·ros or ze·roes
Abbr. z.
1. The numerical symbol 0; a cipher.
2. Mathematics. a. An element of a set that when added to any other element in the set produces a sum identical with the element to which it is added. b. A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration. c. An ordinal number indicating an initial point or origin. d. An argument at which the value of a function vanishes.
3. The temperature indicated by the numeral 0 on a thermometer.
4. A sight setting that enables a firearm to shoot on target.
5. Informal. One having no influence or importance; a nonentity: a manager who was a total zero.
6. The lowest point: His prospects were approaching zero.
7. A zero-coupon bond.
8. Informal. Nothing; nil: Today I accomplished zero.

adjective
1. Of, relating to, or being zero.
2. a. Having no measurable or otherwise determinable value. b. Informal. Absent, inoperative, or irrelevant in specified circumstances: "The town has . . . practically no opportunities for amusement, zero culture" (Robert M. Adams).
3. Meteorology. a. Designating a ceiling not more than 16 meters (52 feet) high. b. Limited in horizontal visibility to no more than 55 meters (180 feet).

verb, transitive
ze·roed, ze·ro·ing, ze·roes
To adjust (an instrument or a device) to zero value.

— phrasal verb.
zero in
1. a. To aim or concentrate firepower on an exact target location. b. To adjust the aim or sight of by repeated firings.
2. To converge intently; close in: The children zeroed in on the display of toys in the store window.

[Italian, from alteration of Medieval Latin zephirum, from Arabic sifr, nothing, cipher.]1

Microsoft Bookself Reference Library

A Constant is not a reference or a starting point for calculation with formulas. In fact, it makes absolutely no sense to say that you calculate with formulas (its like saying you *mean* with letters). Formulas are simply sets of strings closed under a (or any arbitrary) grammar. L(X)X,X is a well-formed formula of Lamda Calculus, but not of 'Squonky computation'. and what you mean by a formula is determined by grammar.

Here again my intention was very narrowly focused on the *fundamental* caracter of the specific formula. (Thank you, I will use * instead of ' from now on.)
Perhaps one can not *mean* with letters but without letters or some type of symbols it would be difficult to express anything in writing.
By "Lamda Calculus" I assume you mean a form of computer programming logic or language.
The only comment I can make to your 'Squonky computation' is that sinä yrität kävelyttää minua ympäri puuta.
Yes there are many types of formulas, many chemicals can be combined according to and be considered as formulas, but as stated above, the intention was to give a specific explanation to a specific *problem*.

You simply do not know what you are talking about here, and it oozes out of the screen. I state no judgments about the quality of your person. But you simply are wrong or right in matters of truth. You are wrong, or if you are right it is simple luck in the face of the absurdly long odds that all mathematics and logic is incorrect. Your statements make no sense in the context of mathematics. None whatsoever.

Perhaps I fail in my communication abilities, I certainly hope that logic and mathematics will stay intact after I explain my (simplified) view of one Einstein's formula.
Thank you for not using an Ad hominem, it seems to indicate that your Intelligence Quotient is higher than some others who post on this board.

"My point is that if you can not express the 'truth' in simple or non mathematical terminology, then perhaps you do not understand the 'truth'. "
Johannes, this is a really naive thing to say that begs an infinite set of questions.

I apologize again, I should have stated in the beginning that I am expressing my opinions on the one and only one formula that is attributed to Einstein. It should be possible to express the *truth* contained within this formula, either by using simple wording or by using mathematical symbols. If you can only explain it by using mathematical symbols and are not able to explain what the fundamental premise of those symbols represents, then I suspect that you do not understand the *truth* that is contained within.

Suppose a boolean algebra of a mundane sorth, then it is "true" that (1+0 = 0). Indeed, it is provably true. It is True, also, under the axioms of integer arithmetic that 1+0 = 1. Indeed, it is provably true. Obviously, the two true statements SEEM to articulate a contradiction, they dont. Gramatical truth, derivational truth is determined by a system a model of the/a universe... Think of this as a syntactic truth. Two models can cache out to two statements using the same set of symbols that seem to mean two different things in a contradictory manner- but in fact the apparent contradiction comes from your misunderstanding of these foundational issues. Both are in fact true statements, within their model. There is also semantic truth, which is the 'truth' of notions (that the squirrel is pretty or etc).

I agree with most of what you say here. I would point out though that in the case of the Boolean algebra example you have a model that contains an arbitrary *truth* that has a meaning only in the context that it was presented in. The semantic *truth* of notions is also arbitrary. Laws of nature (which I believe the formula E=MC^2 represents) can not be changed by our interpretation of those laws. What is *true* in nature is true regardless of how WE think that it should be.

I suggest to you that what you are doing is trying to 'crunch' syntactic truths using your local and bounded notion of what is semantically true- your common sense. Until you stop doing that, the point is whizzing by your head at the speed of light. You are fundamentally confused.

I suggest that you are wrong in your evaluation of my statements in this regard. Perhaps it is you that lacks Subjectivity

When you're in the muck you can only see muck. If you somehow manage to float above it, you still see the muck but you see it from a different perspective. And you see other things too. That's the consolation of philosophy.
David Cronenberg (b. 1943), Canadian filmmaker. Cronenberg On Cronenberg, ch. 3 (ed. by Chris Rodley, 1992).2

Microsoft Bookself Reference Library

Empirical science is about building a mathematic map of the universe, one aspect at a time (in fact nearly one entire map at a time). The aim is to construct a model of the universe through empirical observation. The shape and ink of that map, that model is a grammer that says precisely what has been observed, and hopefully nothing more and nothing less. The process of derivation upon that model (special and general relativity, for example) creates predictions about what will and won't hapen in the universe, thus extending or disproving the syntactic model.

I agree with most everything you say here.

E=MC^2 is not a statement that has 'meaning' outside a careful understanding of the scientific model and what these things symbols mean.

I agree with you here too. Question: Are you implying that I do not posses careful understanding of the scientific model and what these symbols mean. If so, then tell me how you *derived* such a conclusion?

You can't 'derive' based on the meaning of these symbols (as you stated you did in your earlier posts). You derive off the grammar that governs a model.

I had to understand (or derive) the meaning of the symbols first, once I understood the meaning of the symbols, the meaning of the formula and the model that the formula derived from became apparent. After all, as you stated above, the derivation (symbols of the formula in this case) result from the "grammer that says precisely what has been observed".

If you try to derive off of semantics, you are screwing the pooch. You are putting diesel in an unleaded engine, etc. Apples and oranges. Its not derivation, its akin to reading tea leaves.

I can not comprehend your assertion that it "can't" be done this way. Or the implication that if it is attempted then the result would be wrong. Could you give some clarification to the reasoning behind your statement?

se·man·tics (sî-mà n¹tîks) noun (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language forms.
2. Logic. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. In this sense, also called semasiology.3

Microsoft Bookself Reference Library

The human race spent 99.99% of its existence on earth dying in miserable ignorance, not knowing anything about the most basic truths of the world, and suffering because of it. We were in this state largely because we were unable to separate self from event, and mind from truth. We can end up back there as easily as we left. All it takes is a return to that mode of thinking.
I suppose you have a choice, as all of us do. Are you going to be a purveyor of demons and bullshit, or are you going to aspire to understand. NOT trying to put forth and argue pet theories obstinately, but really look at the universe and see what its trying to tell us.
If you continue what your doing, you are not doing yourself and hiumanity a favor. You are, in essence, part of the demon haunted world, draging humanity back into ignorance and short painful lives.

Good story.. Science? No.. Fiction? Yes... Lots of imagination, you should publish it.

Listen to what these folks tell you, they are simply right and you are simply (provably) wrong.

Sorry I missed the point where you *proved* that I am wrong. Could you pass that by me again.

Why they get pissy with you is that they have dedicated their lives to their fileds (and to pulling us out of the demon haunted world).

I applaud and admire anyone that dedicates their life to understanding their field of work, and especially those that, trough their understanding, bring better universal understanding of nature to humanity.

You piss them off. You piss me off.

Why??... Is it because you and they are AFRAID of new information and want to SUPPRESS it? If that is the case, then I suppose I must voluntarily put my self into *house arrest* so I can not spread such *heresy* against the religion of science, or at least exile myself to a corner of hyperspace where no scientist resides. (So much for freedom of speech, is this the beginning of the fall of the US empire)

Proof has no effect on you if you won't even think clearly enough to understand what the core notion of proof is.
Davin L

In my opinion, and concerning only the stated argument, the core notion of proof would become evident to anyone that truly understands *both* formulas. Both formulas are *derivatives* of the same *model*. Since I understand both formulas, I can say that both formulas are correct, yet one gives a better description of the laws of nature than the other.

Keep smiling
Johannes