if you tried to dig yourself out of an infinite pile of crayons, it might not take as long as an infinite pile of bowling balls, because some infinite sets are larger. There's hope.
Singer seems to be assuming a zero sum game, which isn't actually how humans operate. By alleviating famine, one directly supports overpopulation, allows excess population to procreate, thus worsening the problem considerably. If you can deny famine relief to one, is that not better than finding yourself forced to deny it to the one's four children in the future?
Hey Jeffery, I was reminded of the video on the link below when going through this lesson. I wanted to know if you think it is similar. Hope I'm not asking too much ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4N6y6LEwsKc.htmlsi=8bFqyCsUnji--a1m
This is great advice unfortunately most classes now are either online or have online portions. A lot of my lectures are posted on RU-vid. So I literally have to go to my biggest distraction to work lol
@4:51 "Objects" that cannot be imagined cannot be in a set bc they cannot BE (imho). You can take a contrary view, but that is a contentious view, so idk why you'd add this confusion to the video. @6:23 Cantor's defn of a set excludes 'objects that cannot be imagined', as he says, "...definite, distinct objects of our perception or of our thought..." .
I'm going to propose a crazy theory, I think all the cats in the world, and all the cats in the universe, might be the same number. I know, it sounds like witchcraft but I happen to have a good source for these sorts of things.
Fun video but isn't Rule #1 invalid? In most (if not all) computer coding languages, set inclusion requires uniqueness. Your Rule #1 says that there are no restrictions to inclusion. As an example, Java the coding language, imposes this restriction to inclusion.
Okay Mr. Professor person, okay. You're very smart with all the naming stuff and things but I had to stop the video at 4:44 or something because you're wrong about Harry Potter, who doesn't kill Voldemort at the end of the books- it's Voldemort's own rebounded avada kadavra killing curse from the end of book 7 that bounces off Harry's good old defensive protego charm(?) and kills 'im. I mean, what kind of book series for children would end with the protagonist killing the big bad evil person as if that's the ultimate act of problem-solving? A bad children's book, that's what. One you wouldn't show your kids. One with a lesson you would not teach, or want them to learn. If you are going to cite the big works, you have got, to come, correct.
Thank you so much, Dr. Kaplan! Also, your Korean handwriting is really good haha I wanted to participate in the quiz, but it's a pity that I already know Korean in this situation
Professor Kaplan, it’s people like you who share rich experience that benefits massively students like me. Words cannot express my gratitude for your free access lectures. Thank you ❤
Professor Kaplan, I heard multiple eminent jurists argue that relative to the UK and the countries under the auspices the British Commonwealth Realm, et al, that King Charles III, in the capacity of Head of State for the respective [nations] is recognized under law as disparate entities. Can an argument not be made that the Crown (referent and abstract reference) and the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth Realm, Crown Dependencies, and British Overseas Territories (all senses of the Crown), with the use of an identity statement, wherein [multiple] things are one, as you have posited, merely amounts to disparate entities being one entity?
This is a seriously great video. In terms of the grass is green bit. It's an excellent analogy. While I dont think one could objectively prove that grass is green or that the words "grass," "is," or "green" objectively represent elements of reality that have that precise meaning, one could make that argument about any statement that us humans generally agree is true and we'd never get anywhere. Socrates (and I guess this channel) must really get me thinking in order for me to leave a comment as annoying as this one though...
The difference is learning. A person can learn, and if the person in the Chinese room wanted to deviate from their rulebook, it is conceivable that from the rules and the given information they could learn some kind of semantics. Humans, if we are drawing a comparison to AI are constantly rewriting their own program which is analogous to learning. AI capable of learning very well may in some way “understand” semantics. I think we are still a ways off from true AGI, but it seems more achievable than ever.
Russell's Paradox has an awfully similar feel to an old bit of simple-minded theological humor I recall from my childhood. I've been an atheist for as long as I've understood what the word meant... from earliest childhood. A popular ditty I heard when a very young child (close to 70 years ago) and repeated to children I knew who were "believers" in the malignant superstition that is Abrahamic religion (Judaism and its two bastard children, Christianity and Islam) : If god can do anything, can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?
this is where theoretical and applied math diverge. can we translate this paradox to an empirical example? my understanding has been that the need to distinguish the parent set from all child subsets is a way to protect against the discontinuity at the limits in discrete mathematics. if S_n ~ is a set of 'n' distinct real numbers. and S_omega ~ is such that it contains all subsets S_n. then we can say that S_omega is the union of all such sets of distinct Real numbers. in practice cant we stop here and conlude the identify of S_omega is the 'union of all subsets S_n' therefore avoiding the need to consider the approaching of thee limit of [-inf,inf]
Great video! But a small comment on your mic, it seems to only record right channel for some reason, as an audiophile i didn't like the fact I was hearing your voice through the right speaker only xD. But awesome explanation nonetheless!
I almost didn’t click on this video because I was tired and annoyed of all those study tips that, as you said, sounded fancy but didn’t work the magic. And now, at the end of this video, I can say I finally found legit advice and one of my favourite RU-vidrs. Thank you for sharing
