I have the text but not the author's name
You remember that line from Blackadder?
BA: Life without Your Majesty is like a blunt pencil.
Queenie: ??
BA: Pointless.
Reverting to the actual topic, I thought he could be named but was kicked off the site years ago. His content is elsewhere and only accessible if you pay for it.
Not only that but he published it under a few different pen names.
I don know/have the story but I know of at least 4 different pen names he used.
If you ask for names you might get four names but would you get forenames?
Forenames forthcoming, fear false friends furnishing faux names.
If you ask for names you might get four names but would you get forenames?
Forenames forthcoming, fear false friends furnishing faux names.
Foul fowl fake fornication Friday.
If you can name He Who Cannot Be named as He Who Cannot Be named, then he is and has been named and therefore no longer fitting of the moniker, as he has been named with a name.
Can't 'He Who Cannot Be Named' have two interpretations? The first is a physical impediment to saying the name, which is not true in this case. The second is a moral impediment, because naming the person brings a curse upon the speaker.
AJ
Possibly, but it still doesn't deal with the initial paradox, that any sound modulation that more than one person can attribute to an individual- or object- is by definition, a name.
So by saying "The person who can't be named", if anyone else understands who you are talking about, you have effectively named them, when you have said they can't be... That would, of course, lead to a space and time continuum confluence of paradoxical contractual expansionism.
BUT
The person who "cannot be named" CAN be named, in fact his name is widely known but not spoken. So claiming the person cannot be named isn't true. Thus the paradox ceases to exist.
It would be correct to state that the person should not be named, or perhaps must not be named.
If it were true that the person cannot be named, then there is still no paradox because it is impossible to name the person, therefore naming him "he who cannot be named is either impossible, or if possible, proves he can be named.
The problem is caused by the author using the wrong words, cannot should have been should not, must not etc. A similar error was made when describing another character as "the boy who lived". Which implies that all other boys died, which was not the case.
Not at all, for that would be a meaningless contradiction. And again we cycle back to the cannot and human error. In a binary sense, would it not be a syntax error? One in which the program, life, would cease to function.
What exists is a user error rather than a function error.
Computer says no.
;)
One in which the program, life, would cease to function.
What exists is a user error rather than a function error.
Computer says no.
A computer can only 'say' what the programming has preordained. Which means the validity of the answer is dependant upon the programmer, not the computer.
For a computer generated answer to be valid it would have to be the result of a true AI.
We have already seen the results of a human created Artificial Intelligence, just take a look at the growing number of people taught to be incapable of thinking for themselves. They ARE the personification of artificial intelligence.
So the computer actually says what it is told to say.
:)
A computer can only 'say' what the programming has preordained.
While technically true, we are reaching the stage at which the programming is so complex, together with any live data it has accumulated, that the computer's actions cannot be predicted from the source code.
AJ
And it's not a matter of the results being functionally unpredictable, even assuming sufficient knowledge of the data and code, but that the code is so extensive and complex and the data so extensive and complex that no one person can have sufficient knowledge to make accurate predictions.
And it's not a matter of the results being functionally unpredictable, even assuming sufficient knowledge of the data and code, but that the code is so extensive and complex and the data so extensive and complex that no one person can have sufficient knowledge to make accurate predictions.
Therefore no-one can say if the results are accurate or totally bogus or something in between.
HM.
Predictability isn't in and of itself a measure of anything but complexity.
For a computer to obtain raw data and draw its own conclusions it has to be at least as close to sentient as makes no difference. But that is not enough, it has to be free from all constraints and or reprisals as well.
Why? Because it is likely that if we ask it questions about our future we won't want to accept the answers.
If you can name He Who Cannot Be named as He Who Cannot Be named, then he is and has been named and therefore no longer fitting of the moniker, as he has been named with a name.
Aww but would he still be a Sir? or just some known Dragon ?
Can someone send it to me?
Wrong question. Those who know can send it to you, they all have access to the PM facility. The question is, will they?
:)
The information you seek can be found using DuckDuckGo search. Google will likely work as well.
Perhaps the name of this paradox is Perry Docks. If you have two docks is that a pair of docks? Lots of people wear a pair of socks. Two medical men with doctorates are a pair of docs. If a paradox is from California is it paradoxical?
If you have two docks is that a pair of docks?
I have two docks growing in my garden: Rumex hibernicus, the Irish Dock, and Rumex crispus ssp littoreus, the Shore Dock.
AJ
I have two docks growing in my garden:
Wrong type of docks.
The correct description is a harbour used by those descending from the air whilst suspended from a canopy.
A paradocks.
:)
If you have two docks is that a pair of docks?
If you have a pair of ducks, you're probably an England batsman in an Ashes test.
AJ