10 ms·

„Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen“ but if the thing can be interacted with, it can usually be mapped and defined and then named. But

by ngvrnd 20d ago

„Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen“ but if the thing can be interacted with, it can usually be mapped and defined and then named. But there will always be things which do not have names, at least in mathematics -- think of the real numbers.

deleted 20d ago
[deleted]
abnry 20d ago
I suppose if the number of nameable things is countable (because humans can only enumerate, and it is humans who name), then it trivially follows that some real numbers are unnameable. Which proves the existence of such entities. This reminds me of a YouTube video I watched this week titled "A counting argument for why mind comes before matter": https://youtu.be/AtduNjJV-6E?is=nBZ9ztZsyeoVhCj1 https://youtu.be/AtduNjJV-6E?is=nBZ9ztZsyeoVhCj1 The argument is something like the set of possible thoughts about physical objects is larger than the physical objects themselves. It feels similar in flavor to the idea of unameable objects. There's something special about a name. The name of the God of the Bible is special. Christians are to call upon _the name_ of the Lord. We pray, hallowed by _thy name_. It is somehow denotes the summary essence of the thing being named, even if it doesn't give specific details of its characteristics.
- conmod278 19d ago
  The Beauty of Bézier Curves https://youtu.be/aVwxzDHniEw?si=tPPRId1y5L7U2_5L https://youtu.be/aVwxzDHniEw?si=tPPRId1y5L7U2_5L Name_I = a*lambda + b (1-lambda) lamda is a real number.
bryanlarsen 20d ago
"Unnameable" and "unnamed" are two different things, in my opinion. Are there real numbers that are unnameable or are those just unnamed? There are some that unnameable with my mathematical understanding, but that's not saying much.
- amavect 20d ago
  No surjective function exists from names to real numbers (diagonalization). With any naming scheme, some unnamed real numbers always remain. On the other hand, given any real number, I can name it. I'll run out of unique names, since no injective function exists from real numbers to names. So, some unnamed real numbers will always remain (non-constructively), I can make real numbers that escape a naming scheme (constructively), and no unnameable real numbers exist.
  - ithkuil 20d ago
    What does "naming" mean? Assigning a symbol? But who said that the set of symbols must be countable?
    - amavect 20d ago
      My hidden assumption: I said the set of names must be countable! I assumed you would know that naming means assigning a finite string (in the Ithkuil writing system of course). and don't nitpick further or else I'll have to write a proof in Agda or Rocq lol

by ngvrnd 20d ago

deleted 20d ago

[deleted]

abnry 20d ago

I suppose if the number of nameable things is countable (because humans can only enumerate, and it is humans who name), then it trivially follows that some real numbers are unnameable. Which proves the existence of such entities. This reminds me of a YouTube video I watched this week titled "A counting argument for why mind comes before matter": https://youtu.be/AtduNjJV-6E?is=nBZ9ztZsyeoVhCj1 https://youtu.be/AtduNjJV-6E?is=nBZ9ztZsyeoVhCj1 The argument is something like the set of possible thoughts about physical objects is larger than the physical objects themselves. It feels similar in flavor to the idea of unameable objects. There's something special about a name. The name of the God of the Bible is special. Christians are to call upon _the name_ of the Lord. We pray, hallowed by _thy name_. It is somehow denotes the summary essence of the thing being named, even if it doesn't give specific details of its characteristics.

conmod278 19d ago
The Beauty of Bézier Curves https://youtu.be/aVwxzDHniEw?si=tPPRId1y5L7U2_5L https://youtu.be/aVwxzDHniEw?si=tPPRId1y5L7U2_5L Name_I = a*lambda + b (1-lambda) lamda is a real number.

bryanlarsen 20d ago

"Unnameable" and "unnamed" are two different things, in my opinion. Are there real numbers that are unnameable or are those just unnamed? There are some that unnameable with my mathematical understanding, but that's not saying much.

amavect 20d ago
No surjective function exists from names to real numbers (diagonalization). With any naming scheme, some unnamed real numbers always remain. On the other hand, given any real number, I can name it. I'll run out of unique names, since no injective function exists from real numbers to names. So, some unnamed real numbers will always remain (non-constructively), I can make real numbers that escape a naming scheme (constructively), and no unnameable real numbers exist.
- ithkuil 20d ago
  What does "naming" mean? Assigning a symbol? But who said that the set of symbols must be countable?
  - amavect 20d ago
    My hidden assumption: I said the set of names must be countable! I assumed you would know that naming means assigning a finite string (in the Ithkuil writing system of course). and don't nitpick further or else I'll have to write a proof in Agda or Rocq lol