dudeguy3301

sure, what was written was sensible but has no bearing on the proof. speculation isn't critical thinking, as adastra22 says, be careful to what you are responding to. my point is the lack of rigor and understanding because the proof isnt being discussed, hand waving about an unread and very important mathematical work is irresponsible. thats MY point

still doesn't sound like you have ever read the proof, nor about it. so aren't you engaged in this discussion strictly by speculation? logical fallacy? just because you have some point to make has no bearing on the work you are adjacent to and not actually discussing. making your own points and arguments about logical gotchas is great, has nothing to do with critically understanding a work you haven't read. asking for giving the 'benefit of the doubt' to speculation informed only by a comment section is ridiculous. do your homework before asking for generous responses to your internet quibbling

wait, so you are casually dismissing Gödel's work as a logical "gotcha"? don't premise opinions about complex proofs on other peoples woefully impoverished and misrepresented explanations of said proofs

that is disrespectful and very very very short sighted.

also, go read up (...on Gödel, Cantor, Turing, Tarski, etc...)

also, that his proof exists within an axiomatic system but IS ONE of its provable statements, is wildly crazy genius weird 'serendipitous' math...?! shows that at least for the boundary beyond the provably meaningful, we can still 'talk' about or 'point' at the unknown and say things like 'hey, over there is something we cannot really know nor talk about

lol, some people just 'think' different, like the old macintosh adds...

sorry, i was implying that when another company or group of people do their own version of censoring. the creators agree with brodcast tv laws and parameters to edit down their work because they want it to be available in that form. vidangel seemed to be doing whatever they wanted as a third party.

so, censoring a film is editing the intended form. this seems damaging to creators. also, if a movie has a bunch of sex and violence that gets censored out, what remains is still the intended context for the sex and violence, so why would a concerned person even watch it in the first place? absurd! like, for example, pulp fiction...how the fuck would a censored version make any sense, and who in gods fucking name would watch it!? i think selling edited material via censorship and providing censorship as a service is criminal. if you dont like porn, dont watch edited porn ;(

how did this article miss heilung's version?!?!

what!?!? thinking thoughts to a point of clarity so that one has achieved a cohesion and clarity of meaning comes well before writing. writing allows for the recordation of thoughts, so that we may revisit older thoughts with newer thinking. writing allows 'editing thoughts' not 'thinking' in its primary order. if anything writing is second order (meta) thinking. if you havent been able to structure thoughts to some completion before you understand them, perhaps writing will help, but usually, it isnt untill that lightbulb mental moment wherein understanding and meaning are conclusive enough to establish thought.

also, think the french started this. a name for the animal in the field, a different name for the animal on your plate.

yesyes, both good responses. i suppose i was focusing on a type of art prevalent in classism. many types of art have existed for all peoples through out history. we call cave paintings 'art' but did those peoples who painted them have that conception? most likely not. although a deep generalization has threaded every human culture's expressions of art, there is always variation. indeed art has been for the people in many cultures and for a very very long time. i suppose i was more focused on the whole 20th century, 21st century, computer part of the article, which in fact i didnt really dive into at all.

lets not forget not too long ago art was a available only to the rich. the social elements were confined to the whim and contingency of the lords, aristocratics and nobles who deemed art to be so. as we may glean from walter benjamin, the reproducibility of art in a capitalist industry brought art to the 'people'. we now live in an age where 'art' and 'artists' are ubiquitous and available for 'everyone'. these social parameters are beguiling and precarious. machine learning as a factor of human creativity is almost somewhat a meta statement on art as 'art'. a second order logic to this 'social' element. an 'algorithmic' tendencay to achive some 'objective' (german idealist) sensitivity to what art is, within the confines of a subjugate classism. think insta, the labor of some is proliferate to the consumption of many. even the doom scroll is an installation by which we socially engage to pronounce the illusion of an agreement to an objective beauty.