tell me what the sum of 1484257 and 6447855 is only by analyzing the concepts 'sum', '1484257', and '6447855' and you can't count since counting is a synthetic activity and according to you you should be able to find the sum just by analysis of the concepts since it's already contained in those concepts. I'll wait.
I don’t think that fag who denounces synthetic a priori judgements is awake right now.
Why is counting synthetic isn't it analtyic that 3 is 2 + 1 and 3 1s.
>>25204691typical of syntheticapriorijudgmentdenouncers
>>25204697the act of adding is a synthesis that requires intuition as an aid. it's more obvious with big numbers like in the OP. try to do what the OP says.
>>25204697If you’re a logician, sure. But if we’re to go by what Kant says, no. Mathematics is a priori, it’s a condition necessary for us to make any analytic judgements in experience.Let’s take that old one “a bachelor is an unmarried man”. This is true by it being contained in the meaning of the word “bachelor”. So it’s analytic; something that’s true by the definition of the word. Now take 2 + 1, 3 is not contained in that, you need to add the new information that is the sum synthetically because it adds to your knowledge while being independent from your experience. It doesn’t matter if you don’t call 3 “three”, it’s always going to be the numeral, whatever you call 3.Sorry, I’m an awful writer, if it makes no sense to you, I’ll try again or maybe a more adequate writer will be able to explain better lol
>>25204727>Sorry, I'm an awful writer...ayooo so like add 2 + 1 = 3 and its likee.. its liiiiekkk... you gotta.. uhh. you gots to do the numbers first or som shiet befohand because its a priori so likee.. if it was analytic a priori woulda been sum'n like "crips wear blue" and "bloods wear red" type shieet but synthetic a priori would be like 1700+38=1738 type shieet (im like hay whats up hello)... and analytic a posteriori would be "bru 6ix9ine a snitch" u feel me
>>25204743KEK
>>252046667932112, even a retard can use a calculator.
>>25204697you've reversed the judgement, he isn't talking about starting with 3 and then breaking it down into parts, which would be analytic yes. He's talking about bringing two numbers together. A synthetic judgement is one which involves some sort of comparison or unification of two or more concepts. So looking at it from that direction, it is impossible to conclude 3 just by examining 2 on its own, or 1 on it's own, the two need to be brought into some sort of contact, 2 and 1 held together allow us to think of 3, which is what Kant calls Synthetic.Also the guy from the other Kant thread, who this thread is clearly designed to bait out, isn't going to say anything interesting here either. He just says Kant is wrong full stop. I've been here a while now and I still don't understand why so many people are like that, other than retardation of course.
>>25204751>uses counting machineread the OP again brainlet
>>25204727>Let’s take that old one “a bachelor is an unmarried man”. This is true by it being contained in the meaning of the word “bachelor”. So it’s analytic; something that’s true by the definition of the word.ok> the sum of 1484257 and 6447855this is a definition
>>25204953>this is a definitionmy nuts + your mouth. the sum? the number youremylittlebitch. theres a definition for ya big guy
>>25204953It's not. It's an identity, which is analytic, but that is not what is at question here.A + B = A + B is a tautology, i.e., analytic.That A + B = C is synthetic because a new connection has been made to a new concept, C.But that A + B = C must be discovered because none of the concepts A, +, or B alone yield C. To obtain C, another thing besides analysis has to be done, namely the actual performance of the act indicated by the synthetic significance of the three concepts together, i.e., actually counting from 1 to 1484257 and then counting 6447855 from 1484257. This, however can only be done by the aid of intuition, empirical in the case of physical objects, like beans or beads, or physical marks on paper, and even the algorithms of arithmetic, which is just a shorthand form of counting, i.e., using symbols to represent non-unit quantities (quantities more than one). Using a calculator is just the exporting of that synthetic activity to a machine. In any case, if you've never added two numbers before (as most of you have probably never added the two specific numbers in the OP before) then you don't know before the fact what the number will be. People are so familiar with sums of small numbers they forget there was a time when they first discovered the sum of any two given numbers. They only think a definition is analytic because through repetition and over time they've forgetten the original act of synthesis. And the reason it is a priori is the because of the universality of a mathematical definition. It is not even necessary to use physical symbols to represent the quantities—with enough brain power, the symbols can be represented in the theatre of your mind independent of the use of any aid in the world of sense; you can add in your mind and find the sum, and once the identity is made, you can know, without ever having to count the physical units of any two quantities A and B, that any and all addition of A to B, or B to A, will equal C.
>>25204743you have to speak English to post here.
>>25204752Isn't 3 just the word you give 3 1s. You have the defibition of 1 and the definition of 2 1s. You can't analytically deduce that there is an object wirh 3 1s and call it three?In other words it isn't A + B = CIt's A + AA = AAA
>>25205464but it doesn't matter if you look at it as a sum of 1s because he's just talking about the type of operation that you're performing. When you start talking about A and then add another A, again we're just comparing two examples of the same concept. Similarly if you multiply it by 3 then the concept of 3 is brought in to allow the multiplication.
OP is clearly a humbug with little formal training in mathematics or creative reasoning, otherwise she'd see the gaping flaw in her argument. What you call "counting" is contained in the concept "sum." We could define summation as a concatenation of numbers. For example "the sum of 3 and 5" could mean to concatenate the strings "|||" and "|||||"which means we have "||||||||"We call that eight (in case you didn't know). Of course my definition of numbers as a sequence of "|" characters is a simplification of the more commonly accepted{}, {{}}, {{{}}, {}}, {{{{}}, {}}, {{}}, {}}, ... (and so on).But it drives the point home more clearly for the untrained mind (however the set theoretic definition, that I've glossed over, allows for something closer to an a priori consideration of the natural numbers). |||, |||||, and |||||||| are all the same concept. The concept being that they are some repetition of the "|" character. The synthesis happens when, after completing the sum, you begin to bring in other definitions to allow you to categorise this number (e.g. whether it is prime, whether it is evil, whether it is perfect, and so on). This extends out to the larger numbers you've mentioned, and the process of adding them could be broken down by the powers of 10. I won't do the full number (character count), but I'll do 57+55.First add the "ones":7 + 5 corresponds with ||||||| + |||||Which gives |||||||||| ||We know to group the results in 10s because the way you've expressed the numbers is in base 10 - the expression itself is encoded in the problem.Then we add the "tens":5+5 corresponds with ||||| + |||||Which gives ||||||||||We know that this means "|||||||||| lots of ||||||||||" by the concept of base 10 encoded in the way you've expressed the number, which means that I can include the above lot of 10 from 7+5Now we haveOnes: ||Tens: |Hundreds: |This is equivalent to saying 57+55 = 112. You my retort that I've synthesised a "new" concept of hundreds, but the synthesis is in the language I've made to articulate that point. It's a kind of shorthand to save writing out "||||||||||" eleven times. I don't expect you to understand, because you are a humbug. I am honestly surprised and proud of you for solving the captcha.
>>25205545My friend, I don't think you even understood the question, never trying to give an answer.
>>25205547*never mind trying
>>25204828these new niggas use machines to wipe their own asses. it's over
>>25205547I understand the question, and it's flawed. You're asking the reader to construct a concept of summation without a concept of counting. This is like asking the reader to imagine a seven-sided triangle, then arguing that heptagons are synthetic. You've failed to understand my answer, which is predictable for a humbug. I've also thought of another argument against you. It goes as follows:Before you can even add two natural numbers, you need to know that it's possible to add them. Thus, the concept of summation must contain within it the concept of its possibility. In mathematics, we call this "closure under addition." It might seem pedantic, but think about adding two non-numbers. If I asked you "what's carpet + apple?" you'd be confused because the concepts "carpet" and "apple" are incompatible with the mathematical concept "summation." If not confused, you'd still require further definition on what is meant by "carpet," "apple," and "+". With numbers, you don't need to ask for such clarification, because you have a concept of what numbers are. Thoughever, we are phallusophers, so definitions are in order. I cannot have a concept of addition without having a concept of the numbers themselves. The natural numbers, under zfc, are defined recursively as0={}n+1 = n U {n}Addition is baked into the way numbers are defined. Even if I use primary school definitions, I know that 3 is the number after 2 but before 4. This isn't synthesis, there is an order to the numbers that is necessary to understand before we can operate on them.
>>25205568My analogy is a bit off. I should've said it's like asking one to imagine a triangle but you can't use the concept of 3 because 3 is a synthetic activity.
>>25205464You only know 3 contains 3 1s because it is a small number you are extremely familiar with and have synthesized a thousand times you now think 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 is analytic because it is now obvious to you what the concept of three consists of. Again, like in the OP, try that with a large number without actually counting from 1 to that number and you will realize that is not the case. A number is an emptiless symbol until the synthesis is performed. For small numbers the synthesis is easy and so common it is assumed to be an analysis, forgetting that all analysis first requires a synthesis. In big numbers, you forced to perform the sythesis. How many ones are in 13678964? Don't say 13678964 since that is just an identity, actually list the ones like in the equation 1+1+1=3 and you'll quickly realize you cannot just immediately physically write the exact number of ones of the top of your head—you have to actually add the ones, either one by one or shorthand by means of already familiar sums and the algorithms of arithmetic.
>>25205608Retard. You perform synthesis when you write the number like that, because 13678964 = 10000000 + 3000000 + 600000 + 70000 + 8000 + 900 + 60 + 4. It doesn't need to be written like that, you just choose to because it supports your argument (which is wrong).
>>25205545no one uses peano arithmetic or set theory. there are two nontrivial results in set theory, cantors first diagonalization and cantors second diagonalization
>>25205611You completely missed the main issue again brainlet.
>>25205608I would just do long addition, turn it into a bunch of single digit problems in each digit place. The fact that you don't literally turn every number into individual units of 1 + 1 ... + 1 is irrelevant because all of the higher order techniques you use are derived from that analytic truth. Compressing 1 + 1 ... +1 into 1345857 is efficient but I don't see why that makes jt synthetic.
>>25204691Synthetic is by definition a Posteriori, they're literally synonyms. Interchangeable.
Do some people in this thread think analytic means natural judgement, and synthetic means special magical judgement? Briefly: Analytic is pulling concepts apart, Synthetic is merging concepts together. Analytic: A dog is an animal which naturally has four legs and woofsSynthetic: The dog is on the tableAnalytic: 3 can be broken down into 2 and 1Synthetic: 2 and 1 can be merged to form 3 The first example I gave, of the dog on the table, is what Kant calls a Synthetic a posteriori judgement; the merging/comparing of two concepts with reference to experience. That is, if someone were to ask you where your dog was, you couldn't possibly answer just by closing your eyes and thinking really hard about your dog, you'd need to appeal to the world, to go and check. Then once you see the dog, and the table, and the relationship between them, you would finally be able to say 'the dog is on the table.' That is, in short, what Kant would call the unification of the concept of dog with the concept of table in one judgement. This sort of Synthetic judgement, nobody debates. Perhaps you find the particular phrasing a little weird, but whatever.The analytic examples I gave are both the same, Analytic a priori, the only type of analytic judgements there can be according to Kant. They are judgements which don't have to appeal to the world of experience (a priori) or to any other concepts. In short, they are judgements which can be made only by examining the given concept. If somebody asks 'how many sides on a triangle' you know the answer just by knowing the definition of a triangle, or 'how many legs on a dog' or 'how many 2s are contained in 6.' A judgement being analytic has nothing to do with it being easy or obvious, it might be very difficult to perform or take a long time to do. Some synthetic judgements are easy like seeing that the dog is on the table, some analytic judgements are hard, like defining a very difficult concept or determining how many 8s there are in 93846938476983476. Analytic a priori are also generally universally accepted and aren't debated.
>>25205803The entire debate centres around the last type of judgement which I gave an example of, Synthetic a priori. That is a judgement which doesn't appeal to experience (being a priori) but which does appeal to other concepts. Kant's main interest in talking about these sorts of judgements is to explain how experience is constituted and that's difficult to discuss without getting into a lot of Kantian jargon, but the addition example really is probably the clearest one. OP did phrase the original question badly though unfortunately. when he mentioned the '+' in the question that sort of muddled Kant's original point, because what the plus is, is basically a synthesis, a merging together of two concepts, really the plus sign is just how we represent this sort of synthesis in maths. Kant's point in the maths example is this: if analysis is the addressing of one single instance of one concept, then no amount of analysing the number 3 will allow you to conclude with a larger number. If you say 'I break the 3 into 1s then add on of the 1s to the 3' or 'I have a 3 and then another 3' then you're still bringing together multiple concepts, even if you're bringing together multiple instances of the same concept, which is what Kant calls Synthesis. But if you're thinking 'well now breaking down the 3 into 1s then adding a 1 to the 3 to make 4 is a perfectly valid mode of reasoning, why are you complaining about it?' Then you're right, it is a perfectly normal mode of reasoning, it's just that's what Kant calls Synthesis. In that particular example, it would be first an analysis (breaking the 3 into 1s) then a synthesis (adding a 1 to the 3). Addition is therefore a synthetic judgement because it involves bringing together multiple concepts in one judgement, and it is also a priori because it doesn't require you to examine the world to perform this sort of judgement. The point I want to make then, is that Synthetic a priori judgements are a perfectly normal type of reasoning that we do all the time, it shouldn't be mistaken as something arcane just because it isn't often discussed.
i mean, it's really quine you want to respond, isn't it? i think he was the first to make this criticism of kant
>>25205464Everyone's retarded.It's Analytical that 3 is the same as 1 + 1 + 1I.e by truly knowing 1 you can deduce all numbers. If it wasn't analytic then you wouldn't be able to synthesize anything since everything has it as given that it is 'one thing' otherwise you wouldn't even see it or know it since there wouldn't be an 'it' there before you.
>>25205805That adding small numbers makes larger numbers is an analytic intuition. You already know a priori all numbers otherwise it wouldn't be possible to recognize that addition has occurred. You find them as if they have always existed—they have.
>>25205793because the concept of decimal representation is an additional concept beyond the raw cardinality
>>25205845Base ten is just a way of compressing 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 tho 10 analytically means ten 1s in decimal
>>25205845Also decimal representation is analytic itself so you are just adding analytic to analytic nothing about decimal is synthetic
>>25205545Good post. But, why isn’t the act of concatenation synthetic itself? You still need to carry out this process to get your result.
>>25204751Why did you even post in this thread?
Just because something has parts/steps/system doesn't make it synthetic.Synthetic means it couldn't exist independently of a subject synthesizing it. A cake is synthetic. Bodies are synthetic. Anger rising and boiling over and dissipating in three acts is analytic.
>>25205974An island doesn't come into existence because you find it.
>>25205998Arithmetic results are not related to discovery though. Since the island was already there. 12 isn’t.With AAAAA + AAAAAAA, you still need to synthesise with the act of unification for it to be a singular quantity. Even though it looks analytic, that doesn’t mean it necessarily is, because the unity doesn’t exist until you synthesise it.
IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THIS BOOK LEAVE THIS THREAD NOW. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>>25206050Who are you accusing?
>>25206036Divide ANY number by 5 and you'll discover an analytic principle.>all of them?Yes. All of them are like that.
>>25205908right, and in the geistesgeschichte, cardinalities are expressed first as tallies, then as dclxvi, then as decimals, then as mantissa and exponent, then as fractional exponent. this analyticitism vs syntheticaesia this seems ill defined, and to beg the question of the knowledge of God versus mans computation, whereas computer science is well defined and its result is that God knows chaitins constant and you dont
>>25206050Sorry, I don’t read woman repellent books.
>>25206056the retards who cannot grasp that the concept of summation and the act of summation are not the same thing even though I already explained it twice in this thread.
>>25206142brainlet hands typed this
>""""""""a priori""""""" """"""knowledge""""""mental illnessyou should be locked up for this nonsense
>>25206164midwit cope
>>25206185Meds. NOW.
>>25206146They may not agree with Kant, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re misinterpreting him. They’re honing in on a controversial subject to begin with
>>25206209They're not even understanding the issue
>>25206164Go back
>>25206164not necessarily mental illness, it's more like writing fan fiction of the concept of logic>this is my OC, its name is New Copernican Revolution, it has the powers of synthetic judgment but it's also a priori and it can be used to deduce an objectively correct moral system that's better than all the old ones, and it didn't even need a posteriori knowledge to do it, please do not steal
>>25205803Actually when you merge 2 and 1 it makes 21.>>25205974The process itself is not synthetic. Addition is a binary operation that acts on two numbers and returns another number. The return of another number is contained within the definition of "addition," and so to merely carry out the sum is not synthetic. |||+||||| --> ||||||||It becomes synthetic only after we interpret the sum, after we think about what |||||||| is.
>>25206555Synthetic has nothing to do with a particular person having to go through a process to realize that X is true.Just because it is analytic doesn't mean it is grasped without having to think about it, it only means you only have to think about it to know it.
>>25206142>>25206142
>>25205803>Analytic: A dog is an animal which naturally has four legs and woofsBut dogs are only known about synthetically...
>>25207291Not quite, though by saying “it woofs” and “four legs” this anon has made a synthetic judgement of dogs, and an analytic one with “animal”.
>>25206555>It becomes synthetic only after we interpret the sum, after we think about what |||||||| is.Trips and true, unless you argue it has nothing to do with numbers until you apply arithmetic to it.>Synthetic has nothing to do with a particular person having to go through a process to realize that X is true.Also true, but look at was he’s saying. A + B = AB, but it’s not until synthesis that it becomes C. The predicate is not contained in the subject but it is connected to it through synthesis.
>>25205011the one reply to end all replies and no one replies to it. bravo /lit/ you've dissapointed me once again.
>>25207835He knows i appreciate his post.
>>25204666correct me if iam wrong but doesn't the whole synthetic a priori thing only work if space and time are a priori ?-----> there is no synthetic apriori
>>25208359partially yes
>>25205011>the actual performance of the actyou're done kid. absolutely bodied yourself right here.>truly the activity of the activans is to activate the actual in the act of acting, vis-a-vis an active, actuating, and above all actual relationship to, from, for, and with the activarum; notwithstanding any non-actual (i.e., potential) variances, accidents, or defects obtaining in the actual state of actuality, proximally and for the most part activated in by and as the activity of an active actor.
>kant is just an incipient pragmatist, you can just do thingsis this really how far we've fallen, "esoteric kantians" ?
>>25208623i accept your confession of defeat
>>25208633I mean, it is a common interpretation of him.
>>25208633how the hell do you get an incipient pragmatist kant from this thread?
>>25208359Why aren’t they synthetic a priori then?
>>25208644>>25208653>>25208670three respondents...thou shalt count to 33 shall be the number of the counting, and the number thou shalt count, shall be 32 shalt thou not count, excepting that thou dost then proceedest, to 34 thou shalt not count .5 is right out.
>all this STEMfag retardation ittGrim. To the OP first you have to understand why Kant makes this analytic/synthetic distinction - because synthetic propositions are going beyond one concept and joining it to another, separate concept. It was important for him to make this distinction and to point out that even math is ‘synthetic’ in this way because this is the kind of thinking he thinks needs a second-order, transcendental justification. So far so good, math is synthetic. The issue is that ALL concepts, and so all judgments, are also synthetic. Even the classic ‘unmarried men are bachelors’ rests on a synthetic concept, ‘bachelors’. So Kant is perhaps right that these concepts and judgments need to be explained, but his dichotomy is not rational, even if it is illustrative. That’s Fichte’s take and he is right. Meanwhile analytic/synthetic has another meaning as well in philosophical writing - analytic propositions do not go beyond the subject, while synthetics do. In this sense, math is analytic because it proceeds by equality. That’s Hegel’s take and he is also right.
>>25208906I really gotta get round to Fichte.But you’re right. These failed logicians ITT seem to misunderstand also, that ||||| + ||||||| = |||||||||||| is synthetic by simply combining them. Just because they’re both there, and can easily be joined together, doesn’t make it analytic because there’s nothing in the subject alone that gives you the predicate. Also, for all we know, these symbols used can’t be said to be strictly mathematical at all. If you’re to make them so, you’re still constructing synthesis by making |||||||||||| what we call 12. Their logical axioms in which they derive their rules don’t account for the synthetic nature of time.
