Its probably a UK thing but we are getting a lot of his films this weekend because he died including 2 of my favourites, Robin and Marion and The Man Who Would Be King.
Random Thoughts X: Impromptu Interpretations
- Thread starter aimeeandbeatles
- Start date
- Status
Its probably a UK thing but we are getting a lot of his films this weekend because he died including 2 of my favourites, Robin and Marion and The Man Who Would Be King.
The mental image of Sean Connery, stomping and dancing in the barn ("If I Were a Rich Man") or the tavern ("L'Chiam"), singing in a Scottish accent... is bizarre.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
Is it even....possible to write a book in sign language?
As in pictographs, or an actual language for the deaf?
Is it even....possible to write a book in sign language?
Either should be possible.
BenitoChavez
What business is it of yours?
Braille is a thing, though I don't know how that would work on a computer.
There are braille display devices for computers. Text only I'd think.
When I volunteered for RNIB Cymru several of their Welsh-English translators were blind or partially sighted and worked at PCs.
I don't see why some kind of basic gadget couldn't be used to form braille symbols for the blind person to touch.
That said, for computer use, it obviously makes far more sense to just have the text turned into sound.
Braille isn't common for all languages either.
(books written in braille do exist, of course. There are iirc several thousands in greek. Naturally they will virtually all be translations into braille).
That said, for computer use, it obviously makes far more sense to just have the text turned into sound.
Braille isn't common for all languages either.
(books written in braille do exist, of course. There are iirc several thousands in greek. Naturally they will virtually all be translations into braille).
You made me giggle.
I'll have a package delivered later today. I got a text now with a security code to give to the delivery driver.
My thought right now:
a) do so many packages get stolen here that this is necessary? OR
b) is this just a measure so that you don't have to get close to the driver to sign anything?
My thought right now:
a) do so many packages get stolen here that this is necessary? OR
b) is this just a measure so that you don't have to get close to the driver to sign anything?
Now imagine him doing it while wearing a kilt.
(normally I'm in favor of men in kilts, but not in that musical)
I had a chat with the regular Canada Post driver and she made a note for my address that if a parcel comes for me and it's too big for the locker, they're to buzz me so I can come and get it.
That was fine, until the building manager scared her by mentioning that I tend to place very large, very heavy orders for cat litter.
She was relieved, though, when I told her I wouldn't be ordering any until spring, since I have enough to get through the winter. I'm also planning to tell London Drugs to stop packing boxes too heavy, or too large and filling them 1/3 with packing paper. It makes sense if there's something breakable in it, but nothing in my last parcel was breakable.
Ferocitus
Deity
Of course it is!
Is it even....possible to write a book in sign language?
But you need to appropriate some appropriate signs.
I've heard of Bourbaki. Iirc it is a collective of mathematicians and not a person? 
Meanwhile, I am making serious progress with the Gödel stuff. Last time it was a real issue that the main (greek) uni paper I was focusing on is written in a way which isn't at all directed to people not in university math (I am only a philosophy degree holder :/ ), since it was presenting the logic behind the theorem in a very roundabout way. But now I got to the point and am at the Tarski alternative proof, without being stopped by the use of base 13 instead of the more intuitive for me base 10 (the author uses base 13 so as to make use of 13 being prime, but for obvious reasons this isn't good with myself as the reader when I am focusing on the logic and not some side-practicality in the proofs).
Of course my OCD won't let me shy away from reading Gödel's original proof, but for the time being I am looking at Tarski.
I like everything
Edit: As I mentioned once before, there was one chance I could have gotten into formal logic in my first year in university. I did come across the infamous Tractatus book - but due to Wittgenstein being a jerk I didn't feel like reading much past the first pages.
I think that if I had instead come across the Principia Mathematica, or Turing, or Gödel, it could have gone very differently - though tbh at the time I was roughly one month away from a major mental breakdown, so I wouldn't bet on it.
Meanwhile, I am making serious progress with the Gödel stuff. Last time it was a real issue that the main (greek) uni paper I was focusing on is written in a way which isn't at all directed to people not in university math (I am only a philosophy degree holder :/ ), since it was presenting the logic behind the theorem in a very roundabout way. But now I got to the point and am at the Tarski alternative proof, without being stopped by the use of base 13 instead of the more intuitive for me base 10 (the author uses base 13 so as to make use of 13 being prime, but for obvious reasons this isn't good with myself as the reader when I am focusing on the logic and not some side-practicality in the proofs).
Of course my OCD won't let me shy away from reading Gödel's original proof, but for the time being I am looking at Tarski.
I like everything
Edit: As I mentioned once before, there was one chance I could have gotten into formal logic in my first year in university. I did come across the infamous Tractatus book - but due to Wittgenstein being a jerk I didn't feel like reading much past the first pages.
I think that if I had instead come across the Principia Mathematica, or Turing, or Gödel, it could have gone very differently - though tbh at the time I was roughly one month away from a major mental breakdown, so I wouldn't bet on it.
Last edited:
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
British Columbia: Only 516 cases today! That's the lowest it's been in a while!
Nova Scotia: Eight new cases!!! Oh noes!!!!!!!
Nova Scotia: Eight new cases!!! Oh noes!!!!!!!
Ferocitus
Deity
I've heard of Bourbaki. Iirc it is a collective of mathematicians and not a person?
Meanwhile, I am making serious progress with the Gödel stuff. Last time it was a real issue that the main (greek) uni paper I was focusing on is written in a way which isn't at all directed to people not in university math (I am only a philosophy degree holder :/ ), since it was presenting the logic behind the theorem in a very roundabout way. But now I got to the point and am at the Tarski alternative proof, without being stopped by the use of base 13 instead of the more intuitive for me base 10 (the author uses base 13 so as to make use of 13 being prime, but for obvious reasons this isn't good with myself as the reader when I am focusing on the logic and not some side-practicality in the proofs).
Of course my OCD won't let me shy away from reading Gödel's original proof, but for the time being I am looking at Tarski.
I like everything
Edit: As I mentioned once before, there was one chance I could have gotten into formal logic in my first year in university. I did come across the infamous Tractatus book - but due to Wittgenstein being a jerk I didn't feel like reading much past the first pages.
I think that if I had instead come across the Principia Mathematica, or Turing, or Gödel, it could have gone very differently - though tbh at the time I was roughly one month away from a major mental breakdown, so I wouldn't bet on it.
Principia Mathematica is an awfully dense book. I'd try to find any reasonably readable alternative.
Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem Explained in Words of One Syllable
First of all, when I say "proved", what I will mean is "proved with the aid of
the whole of math". Now then: two plus two is four, as you well know. And,
of course, it can be proved that two plus two is four (proved, that is, with the
aid of the whole of math, as I said, though in the case of two plus two, of
course we do not need the whole of math to prove that it is four). And, as
may not be quite so clear, it can be proved that it can be proved that two plus
two is four, as well. And it can be proved that it can be proved that it can be
proved that two plus two is four. And so on. In fact, if a claim can be proved,
then it can be proved that the claim can be proved. And that too can be
proved.
Now, two plus two is not five. And it can be proved that two plus two is not
five. And it can be proved that it can be proved that two plus two is not five,
and so on.
Thus: it can be proved that two plus two is not five. Can it be proved as well
that two plus two is five? It would be a real blow to math, to say the least, if
it could. If it could be proved that two plus two is five, then it could be
proved that five is not five, and then there would be no claim that could not
be proved, and math would be a lot of bunk.
So, we now want to ask, can it be proved that it can't be proved that two plus
two is five? Here's the shock: no, it can't. Or, to hedge a bit: if it can be
proved that it can't be proved that two plus two is five, then it can be proved
as well that two plus two is five, and math is a lot of bunk. In fact, if math is
not a lot of bunk, then no claim of the form "claim X can't be proved" can be
proved.
So, if math is not a lot of bunk, then, though it can't be proved that two plus
two is five, it can't be proved that it can't be proved that two plus two is five.
By the way, in case you'd like to know: yes, it can be proved that if it can be
proved that it can't be proved that two plus two is five, then it can be proved
that two plus two is five.
George Boolos, Mind, Vol. 103, January 1994, pp. 1 - 3.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
More or less a book on “how to position your hands and fingers” to communicate an alphabet or a concept and idea for someone who can hear.
Is it even....possible to write a book in sign language?
I was actually looking for a Boolos article where (afaik) he showed the incompleteness with using a different logical paradox and (supposedly) a lot simpler.
- Status
Similar threads
