Sunday, 21 June 2009

Wayback Playback

The Daniel and Carolyn functions

by Carolyn Ursabia on Sunday, June 21, 2009 at 11:09am

When Daniel and I were 19 or 20 or something, we used to argue online on his site. I believe it was the 13thFyre one. Anyway, one day Daniel posted something under the pseudonym "Einstein", and I got really frustrated and posted the following under "Neils Bohr". I suppose it doesn't matter now what the topic was. The outcome was always the same: we disagreed.  Admittedly, I knew then I had no real good basis for choosing the functions that I had to describe us, but I still had good fun posting this.
Let Carolyn be the Carolyn-function, and Daniel be the Daniel-function.

Historical posts show that Daniel always says that Carolyn is wrong.
i.e. for all x, Daniel=”Carolyn is wrong”
Therefore Daniel can be described as the constant function.

Also, saying that “Carolyn is wrong” is not a positive thing to say.
i.e. Carolyn is wrong” <= 0
Thus, we can also say that Daniel is a constant negative function.

Historical chats have shown that for any piece of information, Carolyn positively and creatively processes and applies it. That is, she rarely has a negative opinion.
Thus, if we reassign the values of x, Carolyn can map onto the exponential function.

Now then, if Daniel is a constant negative, Carolyn is exponential, and Carolyn and Daniel never meet, then…

Carolyn is always greater than Daniel.


Dennis: And that's what happens when you start with false assumptions.

(1) Daniel doesn't ALWAYS say Carolyn is wrong. The "always" qualifier is very strong, and if you're not absolutely sure it's true, you can't assume it--since everything that follows depends on it being absolutely true.

(2) Carolyn most definitely does not process every piece of information positively. (See any of her responses on mf :P). Definitely not an always-positive function.

Dave: Validity of the chosen axioms aside, if I was your prof I'd give the logical argument maybe a 1/4, where the 1 is a pity mark. "Carolyn positively and creatively processes and applies it." What? That doesn't mean anything. "That is, she rarely has a negative opinion." I'll give you your pity mark there. "Thus, if we reassign the values of x," Wtf? You can't just randomly reassign values of x in a function. "Carolyn can map onto the exponential function." You haven't shown, with even a hand-waving degree of evidence, that there's a bijection f (or even a 1-1 mapping that isn't onto) between Carolyn and the f(n)=k^n.

Dave: Always proof read your work before submitting.. obviously, f shouldn't be the name of both the bijection and the exponential function, and k should be fined. It should be "a bijection f:g->h where h(n)=k^n (for any constant k) and g is the Carolyn function." (You also never defined x before "reassigning their values")

Me: That's because there isn't a bijection or 1-1 mapping. It couldn't possibly be shown. I knew that then.

There were 3 important/amusing assumptions:
1. Daniel is a constant negative
2. I'm exponential
3. Daniel and I never meet.

On a separate matter, Daniel never responded to this post because ... he thought Dennis posted it. I didn't know if I should have been flattered or insulted.

>>You can't just randomly reassign values of x in a function.

Neither can I assume that we are "functions" that can be defined on a 2-dimensional space with "input" assigned at real values, but I did that anyway.

>>You also never defined x before "reassigning their values"

Vague terms, false assumptions.. Geez. Masking fallacies and poor argumentation is the fun in writing out an argument vs. symbolizing it, isn't it?

If I were you, I'd have remarked that the statement "Carolyn is wrong" is negative to me, and that since no method for the ordering of statements is given, we don't know what the value of that statement is.

I *am* sufficiently pleased, though, that Daniel was quite content in calling himself a "constant" anything.

Quite honestly, if I were arguing with myself, I'd be more at issue with the fact that I didn't define each axis, eliminating any potential ordering of ideas onto either. Also, I would remark that any definition I would or could give would be arbitrary and could easily be manipulated to serve my selfish purposes... Dave came closest when remarking on how I haven't defined what "x" is.

Honestly, again, if I were arguing with myself, I'd actually go farther.

There is no defined ordering on each axis, then we don't know what would be negative or positive.

We don't know if "Carolyn" is a "function". It could be some other relation. In fact, I'd argue that it is more likely some other relation where, if we do continue with the 2-dimensional picture we've drawn here, there are likely many y's for each x.

But, again, I appreciate that you have all decided to work within the framework of the problem, as given, picking out the errors in my assumptions, and holes in the logic. ;)

Someone Else: You lost me after the first sentence...

Me: Oh, it all just amounts to saying Daniel is a constant negative, and that I'm always greater than him (i.e. Carolyn > Daniel for all x).

There was an error in this gadget