Category errors

91 views
Skip to first unread message

Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 7:50:28 AMAug 13
to
Why do people such as Olcott insist that it is OK to map a category
error to a true/false value? You can't, all you can map a category
error to in the domain of computable functions is signal(exception).

/Flibble

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 8:28:39 AMAug 13
to
Because there is nothing special about signals/exceptions. They can be incorporated into the type-signature of any pure function just like return values.
And the signals themselves can be Boolean or Numeric values.

Languages based on algebraic effect handlers do that already.
https://www.eff-lang.org/

Such programming languages are generally known as "effect systems" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_system ).
The moment you specify the side-effects of your function it becomes a pure function again.

To say it otherwise... why do you think there's something magical/special about signals/exceptions?
They are just another output of the function.

Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 9:05:23 AMAug 13
to
Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.

/Flibble

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 9:19:41 AMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:05:23 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.

Only in your model. Not in mine.

Exceptions are just an implementation detail. They don't change the semantics of the function.

In the program below the function f(x) and g(x) are equivalent.

In [1]: # %load pointless-exceptions.py
...: def f(x): return True if x == 1 else False
...:
...: def g(x):
...: class T(Exception): pass
...: class F(Exception): pass
...: try:
...: if x == 1: raise(T) #
...: raise(F)
...: except T:
...: return True
...: except F:
...: return False
...:

In [2]: f(1) == g(1)
Out[2]: True

In [3]: f(2) == g(2)
Out[3]: True

In [4]: f(3) == g(3)
Out[4]: True


Richard Damon

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 9:26:58 AMAug 13
to
On 8/13/22 9:19 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:05:23 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.
>
> Only in your model. Not in mine.
>
> Exceptions are just an implementation detail. They don't change the semantics of the function.

Doesn't he get to define the model he is using?

You are being inconsistent here.

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 9:34:13 AMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:26:58 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are being inconsistent here.
Define "inconsistent"

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 9:39:37 AMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:26:58 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/13/22 9:19 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:05:23 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.
> >
> > Only in your model. Not in mine.
> >
> > Exceptions are just an implementation detail. They don't change the semantics of the function.
> Doesn't he get to define the model he is using?
>
> You are being inconsistent here.
Let me make my point even clearer. For the intellectual infant trapped in Richard's aging body.

This moron don't actually understand the halting problem; or the liar's paradox (and the implications thereof) any more than Olcott does.

The point in a question: If I am being consistently inconsistent. Am I consistent; or inconsistent?

You can CHOOSE to interpret my being either way. But which interpretation is true?


Richard Damon

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 9:48:14 AMAug 13
to
You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point that out.

You won't indicate what system you are talking about and complain when
people interprete you words based on the system THEY chose to be using.

You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.

Note, you may want to look at https://www.skepdick.org as you aren't
being a skepdick, just a dick.

If this site is yours, then you have just revealed that you don't
actually believe in it.

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "Polite"

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 9:55:08 AMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point that out.
So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!

You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define "broken".

> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and complain when
> people interprete you words based on the system THEY chose to be using.
>
> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
Look in the mirror.

You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!

> Note, you may want to look at https://www.skepdick.org as you aren't
> being a skepdick, just a dick.
I know I am being a dick. And I told you about it.

The difference is that YOU don't know that YOU are being a dick.

By making me follow rules that you don't follow.

> You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "Polite"
You are 100% correct! I don't know how to define "polite". But I do know how to BE polite.

But people who keep over-stating the importance the definitions (while refusing to practice what they preach) don't deserve any politeness.

Richard Damon

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 10:10:38 AMAug 13
to

On 8/13/22 9:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point that out.
> So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!
>
> You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define "broken".

I don't NEED to define broken as I accept the standard definition.

From Merrian Webster:

Definition of broken
1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
// broken windows
2 : damaged or altered by or as if by breaking (see BREAK entry 1): such as
a : having undergone or been subjected to fracture
// a broken leg
b : not working properly
//a broken camera
c of land surfaces : being irregular, interrupted, or full of obstacles
// a long broken ridge
d : violated by transgression : not kept or honored
// a broken promise
e : DISCONTINUOUS, INTERRUPTED
// a broken sleep
f : disrupted by change
g of a tulip flower : having an irregular, streaked, or blotched
pattern especially from virus infection
3
a : made weak or infirm
// his old, broken body
b : subdued completely : CRUSHED, SORROWFUL
// a broken heart
// a broken spirit
c : BANKRUPT
d : reduced in rank
//was broken from sergeant to private
4
a : cut off : DISCONNECTED
//spoke a few broken words
b : imperfectly spoken or written
// broken English
5 : not complete or full
//a broken bale of hay
6 : disunited by divorce, separation, or desertion of one parent
// children from broken homes
// a broken family

2b, seems apt and fits the context.

You may fit in definition 4b or 5 though.

>
>> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and complain when
>> people interprete you words based on the system THEY chose to be using.
>>
>> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
> Look in the mirror.
>
> You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!

I just quoted it,.

>
>> Note, you may want to look at https://www.skepdick.org as you aren't
>> being a skepdick, just a dick.
> I know I am being a dick. And I told you about it.
>
> The difference is that YOU don't know that YOU are being a dick.
>
> By making me follow rules that you don't follow.

Good that you admit what you are.
>
>> You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "Polite"
> You are 100% correct! I don't know how to define "polite". But I do know how to BE polite.

Maybe you should try it then.

Note, I start polite with people until the prove to me that they don't
deserve the treatment.

>
> But people who keep over-stating the importance the definitions (while refusing to practice what they preach) don't deserve any politeness.

Your problem seems to be that you reject the standards, and thus have
LOST all actual meaning of things.

I won't just quote a definition if it isn't important, as the definition
is just available, since I am using the word in the "standard" meaning.

You, on the other hand explicitily reject the notion of standard
definitions, and complain if people apply them to your words. Thus, YOU
have put yourself in the place of needing to provide definition, because
you reject the defaults, so you can't rely on them.

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 10:25:53 AMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 16:10:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/13/22 9:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point that out.
> > So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!
> >
> > You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define "broken".
> I don't NEED to define broken as I accept the standard definition.
OK great! So then I don't need to define my system because I accept the standard definition!

> >> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and complain when
> >> people interprete you words based on the system THEY chose to be using.
What a lying Dick! I have stated it (over and over). that I am talking about infinitesimals. From which you can (trivially) infer that I am talking about the ONLY system in which they are defined.
And if you didn't know which system that was you could've asked.

And if you had missed me saying that I am talking about 1/ε = ω/1 and the Hyperreal numbers; or if you missed the links to Wikipedia I posted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number )

Quit being a spoiled brat and do some legwork, you lazy twat.

> >> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
> > Look in the mirror.
> >
> > You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!
> I just quoted it,.

Oh, so you could google the definition of "broken" but you couldn't google the definition of *ℝ, infinitesimals or hyperreal numbers ?!?

What a Dick!

> Good that you admit what you are.
I know it's Good. That's why I admit it.

Not so good that you don't admit that you are a Dick.

> Maybe you should try it then.
I don't think it's worth being polite to Dicks who are in denial.

> Note, I start polite with people until the prove to me that they don't
> deserve the treatment.
Which is EXACTLY what I did!

I was polite, then I realised you don't admit (even to yourself) that you are a Dick. So I stopped being polite to self-deceiver.

> Your problem seems to be that you reject the standards, and thus have
> LOST all actual meaning of things.
There is no such thing as the ACTUAL meaning. Meaning is subjective, not objective.

There is your meaning.
There is my meaning.

Don't you know that? Or are you just a dick who tries to impose their meaning onto other people?

> I won't just quote a definition if it isn't important, as the definition
> is just available, since I am using the word in the "standard" meaning.
I am also using my words in their standard meaning.

I guess we are just using different standards?

> You, on the other hand explicitily reject the notion of standard
> definitions, and complain if people apply them to your words.
Bullshit. I don't reject the notion of standard definitions. I am perfectly aware that there are standard definitions - PLURAL.

There is YOUR standard definition.
There is MY standard definition.
There are many standard definitions.

> have put yourself in the place of needing to provide definition, because
> you reject the defaults, so you can't rely on them.
What I DO reject is the notion of a "default" definition!

There are many standards in Mathematics. NONE of them are defaults.

Mathematics is relative!


Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 11:11:45 AMAug 13
to
Infinitesimals don't actually exist as 1/infinity = 0.

/Flibble

wij

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 11:45:42 AMAug 13
to
lim(x->c) f(x): x approaching c does not mean |x-c| is infinitesimal?
The same to infinity: lim(x->∞) f(x), what eventually x is?
(not particularly to you, I know you are not good in what you talk about)

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 11:58:26 AMAug 13
to
Yeah but functions, and function inverses exist.

* is an inverse to /

IF x/y = z ( 1/ ∞ = 0 )
THEN z*y = x ( 0 * ∞ = 1)

Python

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:11:25 PMAug 13
to
Skep Dick wrote:
> [snip various bs]
This thread is utterly silly... All of you (Skep Dick, wij, Flibble) are
spouting nonsense. All of you should start to forgot all you idiotic
prejudices and start study math.

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:15:28 PMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:11:25 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> All of you should start to forgot all you idiotic
> prejudices and start study math.
You don't understand a damn thing about Mathematics!

What did the first Mathematician study? Mathematics is invented!

To "study Mathematics" is to study other people's inventions.
You'll learn far more about any particular invention if you bother to ask the question WHY was it invented?
WHY were these particular definitions/axioms/semantic properties chosen?

Python

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:17:50 PMAug 13
to
Right, so do that instead of pretending.

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:21:52 PMAug 13
to
Do what? Study other people's prejudices?

To what end?

Python

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:24:41 PMAug 13
to
Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.

> To what end?

To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
valuable what he put out of his a**.



Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:28:47 PMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:24:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
> or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.
I have already done that. Which part of "Mathematics is relative" went over your head?

> To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
> valuable what he put out of his a**.
Are you projecting?

My claim that functions have inverses is not my own claim. It's obvious that I consider it valuable.

Which part of me pointing out the inverse of 1/ ∞ = 0 is 0 * ∞ = 1 do you consider to be "pulled out of my ass"?

Python

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:31:12 PMAug 13
to
"Skep Dick" you've produced so much bullshit (and your fellows too) in
this thread that it would take a life to fix it. This is your duty, not
mine.


Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:37:47 PMAug 13
to
So you aren't actually going to be more specific about my "bullshit"?
It would "take a life" to fix it? Are you running for the hyperbole mountain becaue you've figured out that you are actually out of your technical depth?

Which part of my pointing out that functions have inverses ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function ) is bullshit?
Which part of my pointing out that since the Real numbers form a field ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics) ) the function * is an inverse of the function /

I bet you aren't going to address my questions.





Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:40:45 PMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:31:12 UTC+2, Python wrote:
Here... Let me help you with the "bullshit" called "Standard inverse functions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function#Standard_inverse_functions

Python

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:41:55 PMAug 13
to
Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:31:12 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:24:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
>>>> or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.
>>> I have already done that. Which part of "Mathematics is relative" went over your head?
>>>
>>>> To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
>>>> valuable what he put out of his a**.
>>> Are you projecting?
>>>
>>> My claim that functions have inverses is not my own claim. It's obvious that I consider it valuable.
>>>
>>> Which part of me pointing out the inverse of 1/ ∞ = 0 is 0 * ∞ = 1 do you consider to be "pulled out of my ass"?
>> "Skep Dick" you've produced so much bullshit (and your fellows too) in
>> this thread that it would take a life to fix it. This is your duty, not
>> mine.
> So you aren't actually going to be more specific about my "bullshit"?

99% of what you wrote, if not 100%.

> It would "take a life" to fix it? Are you running for the hyperbole mountain becaue you've figured out that you are actually out of your technical depth?
>
> Which part of my pointing out that functions have inverses ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function ) is bullshit?
> Which part of my pointing out that since the Real numbers form a field ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics) ) the function * is an inverse of the function /
>
> I bet you aren't going to address my questions.

Not all functions have inverses. This is trivial.

* is indeed a function of RxR to R (of for any field F, from FxF to F),
so is /, but in no way / matches the definition of an inverse function
of * (it would be a function from F to FxF then).

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:46:17 PMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:41:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Not all functions have inverses. This is trivial.
Who is talking about ALL functions here?

We are talking about division and multiplication. Look! It's in the list of standard inverse functions!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function#Standard_inverse_functions

> * is indeed a function of RxR to R (of for any field F, from FxF to F),
> so is /, but in no way / matches the definition of an inverse function
> of * (it would be a function from F to FxF then).
The type of the function is irrelevant!

If 1/infinity = 0 type-checks then 0* infinity=1 typechecks!

Python

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 12:55:19 PMAug 13
to
Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:41:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Not all functions have inverses. This is trivial.
> Who is talking about ALL functions here?
>
> We are talking about division and multiplication. Look! It's in the list of standard inverse functions!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function#Standard_inverse_functions

Stating that x -> x - a is the inverse function of x -> x + a (a
triviality btw) is definitely NOT the same as stating that / is the
inverse function of *.

You cranks are soooo sloppy.

http://www.superfrink.net/athenaeum/www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Incompetent-People-Really-Have-No-Clue-Studies-2783375.php
https://www.behavenet.com/narcissistic-personality-disorder

(thx to DVdM: https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html)

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 1:04:44 PMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:55:19 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Stating that x -> x - a is the inverse function of x -> x + a (a
> triviality btw) is definitely NOT the same as stating that / is the
> inverse function of *.
I didn't start with anything other than my theorems.

Algebraic fields are closed under division and multiplication.
So IF 1, ∞ and 0 are in the domain of / then they are also in the domain of *

You know - because that is what "closed" means.

> You cranks are soooo sloppy.
The irony is epic beyond proportion. Your inability to see your own sloppyness.

You damn crank!


Andy Walker

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:21:55 PMAug 13
to
On 13/08/2022 15:25, Skep Dick wrote:
[To Richard:]
> What a lying Dick! I have stated it (over and over). that I am
> talking about infinitesimals. From which you can (trivially) infer
> that I am talking about the ONLY system in which they are defined.

Not exactly "trivially", as there are [at least] two major
systems in which infinitesimals are defined, the hyperreals and the
surreals [qv]. Of the two, personally I think the surreals are much
more interesting, as they link very directly into games, and there
are [hierarchies of] infinitesimal games that can be constructed in
a finite and playable way that makes sense to non-mathematicians.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bendel

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:29:32 PMAug 13
to
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:21:55 UTC+2, Andy Walker wrote:
> Not exactly "trivially", as there are [at least] two major
> systems
Holy shit! You've reduced the search space to TWO possible members
and you are trying to convince me that the choice between Hyperreals and Surreals is what tripped you up?

Lets pretend (for a second) that you couldn't figure out which system I am talking about (given my use of epsilon and omega) - you could've just asked something like "Are you operating in the Hyperreals or Surreals?"

And then I choose one of the options you've given me and information transfer happens!

Quit being such a pedant.

>in which infinitesimals are defined, the hyperreals and the
> surreals [qv]. Of the two, personally I think the surreals are much
> more interesting, as they link very directly into games, and there
> are [hierarchies of] infinitesimal games that can be constructed in
> a finite and playable way that makes sense to non-mathematicians.
They may be interesting, but there is a whole bunch of useful stuff you can't do with them.

Like calculus.

Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:45:07 PMAug 13
to
Why don't you fuck off, cunt? 1/infinity = 0.

/Flibble

Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:48:40 PMAug 13
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
No. This not correct when using infinity as opposed to a *variable*

1/inf = 0
0*inf = undefined.

/Flibble

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:54:03 PMAug 13
to
Why don't you fuck off, cunt?

IF divide_by_∞(x) = y is defined for x=1, y=0
THEN multiply_by_∞(y) = x is defined for x=1, y=0





Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 2:56:46 PMAug 13
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Again, stupid fuck, infinity cannot be treated the same as a variable
in mathematical formula as it has special properties as it is not a
number.

Again, stupid fuck:

1/inf = 0
0*inf = undefined.

/Flibble

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 3:08:31 PMAug 13
to
I am not treating it as a variable, you stupid fuck. I am using it explicitly!

def divide_by_∞(x):
return x/∞

def multiply_by_∞(x):
return x*∞

> Again, stupid fuck:
> 1/inf = 0
> 0*inf = undefined.
> /Flibble

IF divide_by_∞(1) = 0
THEN multiply_by_∞(0) = 1

Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 3:11:51 PMAug 13
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
You really are a stupid fuck.

1/inf = 0
0*inf = undefined

/Flibble

Skep Dick

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 3:13:43 PMAug 13
to
Which part of IF and THEN is confusing you?


Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 3:20:12 PMAug 13
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Trying to prove your point by created some fucktarded pseudocode that
you *think* is equivalent to the mathematics doesn't prove shit, dear.

Again: mathematics and programming languages are different domains.

Again:

dklei...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 3:37:22 PMAug 13
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> 1/infinity = 0.
>
There are different kinds of infinity and what 1/infinity
might be depends on how infinity is approached. I
suggest you take a look at projective geometry.

Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 4:04:32 PMAug 13
to
1/infinity = 0.

/Flibble

Jeff Barnett

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 4:57:30 PMAug 13
to
That was a really quick look and you were able to absorb all of
projective geometry in about a half hour! I'm very impressed. Perhaps
you could afford the same amount of time to absorb some of the more
elementary topics including logic. See you in a couple of hours for a
magnificent display of math learning.
--
Jeff Barnett

Mr Flibble

unread,
Aug 13, 2022, 5:19:19 PMAug 13
to
1/infinity = 0.

/Flibble

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages