tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1452891279789489253.post7579381102917235316..comments2023-03-25T02:35:15.367-06:00Comments on Hyperthetically: IndescribableAmorphous Trapezoidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848496983638628005noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1452891279789489253.post-84310393115997110372010-01-11T07:48:49.767-07:002010-01-11T07:48:49.767-07:00Leroy here.
It is much easier to think of a word...Leroy here.<br /><br /> It is much easier to think of a word with an unknown definition this way: Have a computer with a truly random number generator randomly pick a word out of the dictionary, but not tell you what it is. Define, oh, say, "ovsoss" as being a synonym of the random word. Then this word, in a way, has an unknown definition. But in a way, its definition is "the synonym of the word randomly picked on such and such a date by such and such computer from the such and such dictionary. So, like all words, we know something about its meaning and we don't know something about its meaning. It is in essence like a foreign word we don't know the translation of. But in this case, NO ONE (but the computer) knows the definition. And the computer doesn't know it knows the definition. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1452891279789489253.post-61464635775280492142010-01-10T11:51:26.815-07:002010-01-10T11:51:26.815-07:00More:PS: So I guess there are at least words that ...More:PS: So I guess there are at least words that we will never know the complete definitions of. (I guess all words are like this.) We could even "define" a word by saying: Randomly pick letters of the alphabet and place them in a string arbitrarily long. Continue doing this until an English phase appears, preceded by nonsense, that defines our word. Now, let us say that we won't generate our random definition. But WE COULD HAVE. IF WE HAD generated our random definition, then our word does have the definition we would have gotten. We could even use this word in conversation as a place-holder. So, our word isn't undefined in the sense that the definition is too complicated for human beings to understand. But the definition is UNKNOWN, and could potentially (but not necessarily) remain unknown forever. Hmmmm...Amorphous Trapezoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13848496983638628005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1452891279789489253.post-69254788187631302012010-01-10T10:44:46.561-07:002010-01-10T10:44:46.561-07:00Hmmm. Just thought about what I wrote.
NO ONE know...Hmmm. Just thought about what I wrote.<br />NO ONE knows more about yujix than I do at this point. But aren't ALL words not known in their entirety? Sticking with mathematics, the number 1 is known to infinite accuracy. But not EVERY mathematical theorem about 1 is now known or will ever be known by humanity.<br /><br />Same goes for cats. Human beings, especially vets, know a lot about cats. But not EVERY little thing about them will ever be known by humanity.<br /><br />Back to yujix: Let us say that I don't know ANY of its digits, and I never care to generate them. But what if I still use the variable yujix in conversation? Yujix could simply be an undefined word. But I could define it as that SPECIFIC number which would be generated if I had chosen to do so.<br /><br />Hmmm...<br /><br />By the way, yujix brings up more than 3000 hits on Google. I guess it is a homonym.Amorphous Trapezoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13848496983638628005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1452891279789489253.post-8871177357944541082010-01-10T10:31:41.490-07:002010-01-10T10:31:41.490-07:00I agree completely with you as far as points 2 and...I agree completely with you as far as points 2 and 3.<br />As far as point 1, I wonder if this is a counterexample. (I may be on the wrong path here.)<br />Let yujix = 1.375408..... Now I will say that yujix is a SPECIFIC uncomputable number, yet I -- the definer of the variable/word yujix -- do not yet know any more decimal digits, let alone all infinity of them. I could at a later date refine my definition by adding more and more decimal digits based on some completely truly random number-picking process. But I will never completely define yujix.<br />In the meantime, I could use mathematical phrases like 'yujix+1' and 'yujix/2'. These too are uncomputable reals. But they are yet to be defined and cannot ever be defined exactly, although their definitions can become more and more precise as the random-number generator picks more and more digits.<br /><br />So, we have a linguistic/mathematic universe, separate from what we are usually familiar with, of all phrases (not necessarily mathematical) involving yujix in a significant way.<br />"I thought of the number yujix today," for example.<br /><br />Note: I DID think of the number yujix today -- just now, in fact. So, this phrase is definitely true. But I certainly didn't think of ALL aspects of yujix today, since I don't know its, say, 100th digit at this point.Amorphous Trapezoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13848496983638628005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1452891279789489253.post-67249852477389640382010-01-10T08:20:26.203-07:002010-01-10T08:20:26.203-07:00I don't want to dissect your post in its entir...I don't want to dissect your post in its entirety, just a few observations:<br /><br />1. There is no such thing as a word that cannot be defined, unless you're talking about concatenations of letters of infinite length, which aren't really words. Real words are created because there is a need; they don't simply spring out of nowhere.<br /><br />2. I think Godel's incompleteness theorem is applicable outside mathematics.<br /><br />3. I didn't read far past the update, but transcendental numbers like pi and <i>e</i>, despite being of infinite length, are definable without invoking infinity.Dennis Hodgsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409579380626581592noreply@blogger.com