plutooo

"There is no such thing as absolute truth."

Isn't that an absolute truth?

No, but why is that a problem?

Exactly. What are axioms and what are rules of inference ends up being a distinction without a difference.

Still, "axiom of choice is a theorem in intuitionistic logic" is absolutely true whether or not you accept intuitionistic logic.

No, I'm saying the meaning behind statements are different. On some architectures, an int is 16-bit, on others 32-bit.

Anyway, this analogy was pushed too far a long time ago.

But I'm saying if you evaluate the axiom symbols two different ways, it's two different axioms.

If you have different rules, you have a different object and the meaning of the axiom is different. Even if it is written using the same symbols.

To continue the compiler analogy..

Just because the ASCII sequence "int c=0;" means different things in C and Java, doesn't imply "int c=0;" is meaningless when specifically talking about only C.

You can't have the same axioms with different rules of inference. The rules of inference are axioms.

By the axioms being the same, you mean the ink-shapes making up the symbols on a piece of paper being the same.

Not the actual meaning behind them.

Edit: Since you added more content to this reply later on, let me respond. In this case I was talking about specifically a formal system where a=0 makes sense and is expressible, but to keep it short and concise I didn't choose to write out all the details. So the rebuttal is moot.

"Formal mathematics has no concept of absolute truth"

This is false. The axioms don't have to be true. You can still talk about their implications in absolute terms.

"Assuming a=0 implies a=0" is absolutely true. Regardless of whether a actually is 0.

Omega is an amazing number. We know it has a digit in its binary expansion that is 0 or 1, yet it is impossible to formulate why. It is impossible to come up with a train of thought that explains it. There is no explanation that can be written down on a piece of paper.

So we are left with the weird conclusion:

1. It has the value it has for no reason.

2. It has the value it has for a reason that is impossible to formulate.

Where is this social contract? What are its terms and where is my signature?

From http://taler.net/governments

> Thus, Taler will enable competition and avoid the monopolization of payment systems that threatens global political and financial stability today.

The irony.

But what is capital but investment in the long term?

So, the problem is not enough capitalism? ;)

Remember that capitalism works in favor of big numbers. 1 person has to earn as much as 1000 people in order to have the same power as them.

So while your point still stands, if you have a decent middle-class then it will be much more powerful than any billionaire will ever be.

It's a faulty analogy. In fact, a paperclip maximizer goes against every single principle of capitalism out there.

The paperclip maximizer is bad exactly because it isn't based on capitalism; it will maximize paperclips regardless of whether someone values them or not! At _any cost_, it will maximize paperclips.

Markets, on the other hand, have the goal of providing products/services that people are willing to pay for. It adapts. The more people value it, the more capital it will attract, and the more resources will be allocated to it.

tox does not attempt to hide your ip. Every single friend you have added has your ip. This is by design.