Gurus who give overly simplistic advice

Post Reply New Topic

Going back to the professor's original problem Fnord posted I think there was an inherent instruction to the problem that the student and I missed. I don't understand how Fnord gets his answer but I think I can reverse engineer Fnord's answer to the inherent or implied instruction.

To start off with, I'm going to define what I call an atomic set. This is a set that has only the null set and only one other member of that set.

And, Null sets are members of all sets.



A = (1). 1 and the null set are members of A but since the null set belongs to all sets we don't display it or count it for our purposes. So, A would have one member which is 1.

A is an atomic set. It has only 1 and an implied null set. This can't be broken down into further subsets.

B = (2, 3)

B has 2, 3 and the null set has members. It can be broken down into further subsets.

It is not an atomic set since there is more then one member besides the null set that exists.

B has 2 and 3 which makes it a non-atomic set.

What the professor was really implying was to define the set based upon the atomic sets that were members of that set which means Fnord and the professor were right in their answers.

So, if we have the set Z = (2, 4, 6) and are asked to define it.

The answer would be all consecutive even integers that are greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to 6.

I'm good. That may be possible. Here is my question. Is it that we have to much Input or does the normal brain get to little input.

In other words, did the chicken cross the road or did the road cross the chicken?

Another example without numbers.

Z = (Kraftie, Cube, Fnord)

If we have A which is a subset of Z and A has the members (Kraftie, Fnord) this is not an atomic subset.

If we have B which is a subset of Z and B has the members (Fnord) this is an atomic subset.

The professor wanted the set to be defined by atomic subsets. So, we defined Set Z as have Kraftie, Cube and Fnord.

"Normal brain" has powerful filters that subconciously pre-select information reaching concious levels, discarding the vast majority of the information reaching senses.
It's the source of many cognitive biases but it makes functioning easier.

You either like the advice or you don't. That's how it goes. Even if someone brings up things you haven't thought of and never will, or the advice is actually what will work if you followed it; if you don't like it, you won't like it. People almost all of the time want reaffirmation when it comes to an opinion, which advice is. I'm fully guilty of this too, of course.

Which is why I like the idea of listen therapy. Getting it out often works better than keeping it in, hence, listening. Just saying that they can get it out to you and give them a, "that sucks and here's hoping it gets better", seems like it can't hurt in the least. But, that's the advice I like, so again, reaffirmation.

Psychologists and psychiatrists will mostly do this too after asking questions (I've seen more than I remember), though they have to observe many other things that point to conditions and such, and they have advice that generally has a pretty good track record for a swath of people. This is their job, and they're generally the ones you want to seek out for these things if you can.

I was hoping that Magz would be part of the set, too

She deserves it. She was a great mediator between the commonplace and the theoretical.

She can be a part of the set.

Do you know where I'm coming from.

Even scientists and mathematicians can have cognitive biases and assumptions as well.

Of course they can.....

Definitely!
If they do their job well, they do their best to have as little bias as possible - but no one, including science noblists, is completely bias-free.

If we have set A that contains five null sets as members then is set A empty or not empty?

It's not empty, its members are the null sets.
BTW, mind the difference between null set and empty set, those are two different constructs.

What is the difference between both?

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/null-set

I don't get it.

Okay, I didn't learn Mathematics in English so I used Wikipedia as a dictionary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_set

I gather "null set" is also used for empty set.

But in this case, a set containing five null (empty) sets, contains only one null set.
{∅,∅,∅,∅,∅} = {∅}
because in general repeated elements count only once in sets.
{a,a,a,a,a} = {a}

This guy acts like the typical conservative and others when called to task. I've heard the exact, same line "the problem is with you" from others before. But, when called to task and asked exactly what I did wrong not just with this math problem but any other issues in my life.

Conservatives believe that one's circumstances are based upon one's choices. There are no extenuating circumstances or exceptions to this. Personal responsibility or Individual Responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions. A corollary idea is that because we cause our actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable.

This is a lot of what conservative minded folks believe. But, whenever I ask them exactly and specifically what did I do wrong for situation x they avoid this question. If I describe my circumstances to conservatives and state the choices I made that led to my circumstances then they should be able to analyze what I say and state exactly a. what choices I made were faulty b. what better choices I could've made and how at the time I could have done so with the knowledge and understanding I had?

Same with this math problem. Fnord should (as in should be possible) be able to analyze my thought process and show logically, concretely and step by step where my thinking was skewed. Telling me I'm overthinking says nothing. Telling me that I have a over complexity bias says nothing. He should be able to explain this problem to me and the math professor should be able to explain the problem to his student.

If conservatives can't do so and it is not possible for them to do so then Fnord then has to accept that my answer and the student's answers are just as valid and conservatives would have to accept that I couldn't make any other choices other then the choices I made.

The thing is, I am not a "Conservative", thus negating all of your anti-conservative arguments against me.Did you ever stop to think that maybe -- just maybe -- the majority is right and you are wrong?Oh, never mind ... you'll never get it.  You seem to want only to argue your opinions while deconstructing known facts.

I'm sorry moderators but I really got to vent this out and I hope you all forgive me.

I said you act like one. Not that you are one. In other words, from my observations you have some conservative thought.




You're a broken record, you know that!

Fnord, like I said, if I'm wrong on anything then you and the majority should be able to explain where I'm wrong on anything. If I poke a whole in "established facts" then you and the majority should be able to refute what I say. If I say 1 + 1 = 1 and I explain my reasoning then you and others should be able to show where I'm off.

And, I can show you how this is true. If one has one metal rod and one has another metal rod and one heats it up for the end on both rods to be more liquid and malleable and shape both ends a certain way and put both rods together you have one rod but bigger.

Or 1 + 1 = 11 if one defines + as concatenation instead of summation.

Established facts don't hold up outside of the parameters they're considered facts in.







Again, explain it then. But if your explanation makes no sense I'm going to question you.

And, you sir will never get it either because you are the most stubborn, rigid, myopic, narrow-minded man I've ever met.

And, as for majority are we talking about the same majority who says be yourself while expected people to conform in but so many ways especially to employers who in the end care only for their bottom line? The same majority who says life is unfair and nothing is guaranteed yet at the same time say that if I'm in negative circumstances it is due to my choices. The same majority who tells their kids and encourages them to go to college with the school system saying the same thing and are encouraged to take out loans yet when the degree doesn't lead to a job in their field we blame the kid. WTF?

Are you this myopic? Can't you think outside of your constructed box?

Fnord, you get off on seeing yourself as superior to others but you sir are not. You don't give advice at all you give the same BS bumper sticker slogans that mean s**t. And, when challenged and questioned you run away. Get your head out of your ass!