"It says that in any sufficiently complex axiom system there will be statements that it can neither prove nor refute,..."
...is absolutely correct.
Your claim...:
"...take all true statements of the model of the integers under the second order system. That forms an axiomatic system in which all true statements are provable."
...is patently false. You are abusing the term 'truth' and confusing yourself. What 'truth' means in logic is not the same as what it means in the colloquial sense. In logic, we speak of truth only in terms of interpretation. Hence, axiomatic truth is an equivalent notion to provability.
In light of this, what you are saying is that if we take all the provable theorems in an axiomatic system, and add those theorems as axioms, we will have captured all possible truths - Godel's theorem actually proves that this is untrue for any sufficiently powerful axiomatic theorems (and 'powerful' here means capable of expressing number-theoretic statements.)
My first thought was, "Holy Shit - this is awesome!" After the initial geek high wore off, I started to smell bullshit. After reading through his glossed over description of the D-to-A conversion ("...writing the decoder was very simple..", GMAB), I'm CALLING bullshit.
It speaks solely to your inherent level of buffoonery that you cannot take some product 'x' seriously on the basis of its name, rather than it's actual content. For shame.
A new interface != a new instrument. Typically, a new sound is the necessary condition for that label.
As someone who works with music on a daily basis, I would welcome with open arms a truly new instrument - but trends in popular music suggest we may not see one in our lifetimes.
A solemn reminder to shower our friends and family with love while we still have the chance...I am so very sorry for the loss of your friend...my condolences.
Thanks for asking for clarification; it seems many have totally missed the point of this.
For okcupid to employ such a method, they must then be making assumption #4. However, people do not know what they want generally - and this ignorance covers what type of person would be an ideal mate for themselves. So answering questions posed about how you would want your ideal mate to answer a question, is as I pointed out, as foolhardy an exercise as asking one to construct the mind of their ideal mate neuron by neuron.
Furthermore, the people who use dating sites are just as ignorant as the rest of us about what their ideal mate might be like, or they have rejected the notion of an "ideal mate" altogether due to frustrating past experiences.
Interestingly, the universal answer set of these questions, from all of the women I've seriously dated, would be full! That is, every possible answer would be in the set.
And I am certain I am not unique. Indeed, half of the enjoyment in getting to know someone is in the mutual effort expended in trying to understand how the other person was formed: thoughts, feelings, desires, etc - and this enjoyment is independent of the actual thoughts, feelings, etc themselves.
As relationships grow, both parties discover the thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. that were perhaps, formed irrationally - and then adjust accordingly. This is called personal discovery - and is evidence enough that most people are too inconsistent and too nearsighted for an approach such as the one okcupid employs.
Judging physical attractiveness on dating sites isn't even a partially solved problem - I invite you to name the sites that you have found that are close, as a counterexample.
How does one go about making an EDUCATED guess with NO knowledge?
To put it plainly - statistical information assimilated from meaningless data is also meaningless. I don't know what my perfect mate looks like - and no one does. If you accept that premise, you are then forced to accept that any data gathered from some person A about what their perfect mate P is like is MEANINGLESS. So statistical algorithms from any such information yield meaningless data as well; ergo okcupid cannot do what it hopes to do. QED
Uploading photos isn't what supposedly sets okcupid apart, right? They aren't using physical attractiveness in their matching algorithms and that is the point I was trying to make.
Your other point has been addressed above; people don't know what they want. Asking them what they want their "ideal match" to answer is as foolhardy as asking them to describe their "ideal mate" neuron by neuron.
While I love the number crunching ethos, and think these guys are giving it one hell of a go - I will go on the record and say that they will ultimately fail because they are operating under many false premises, a few being:
1. People do not change their minds.
By algorithmically matching based on answers to questions, you must assume that those answers are meaningful. And meaningful means CONSISTENT. And people are NOT consistent. Especially on complex issues; in fact there are whole professions (sales (insurance, real estate, car, etc) comes immediately to mind) where success is based on one's ability to get people to change their minds. (That example is offered as evidence, not proof - but proof probably isnt a complicated exercise)
2. Like Thinkers make Great Daters
Assuming you are even GETTING like thinkers, (which is tenuous at best) where is it written that like thinkers make great companions? You don't want to have absolutely nothing in common, (at least a common language is necessary) but it isn't linear and i would be surprised if there were any correlation let alone one that was non-asymptotic. Simply - more like thoughts does not entail more compatibility.
3. Looks aren't EVERYTHING
Just based on sheer observation - this is not the case. It is unfortunate, and it speaks badly about human nature, but most human beings make judgments based on appearances. And this "appearance crutch" is only exacerbated when it comes to looking for someone to lay with. How many single, male, bleeding heart liberals would take a swing at Sarah Palin if given an iota of an opportunity? Again - offered as evidence, not proof.
I've always thought that checkout speeds are negatively correlated with the amount of register localization. By de-localizing the registers, one could map a redistribution that makes the distance from each shopping section equidistant. This would effectively eliminate the need for "express" lines.
This can't be a novel suggestion, so why has it not been implemented? It shocks, to think that major companies would sacrifice efficiency so as to not disturb a consumer's sense of familiarity.
Yes, uniformity is assumed. Difference must be proven. Think for a moment - how could logic work the other way? Given a categorical set of entities, if we could assume prima facie that there were differences in an arbitrary subset of said set, our categorical heading would be meaningless! For you have derived a contradiction before you even started; Set of A properties, subset of set have not A property, wtf...
This is basic. I would hope that if someone offers up an explanation for some event, that they would have taken the time to be sure that their explanation is rational. If they haven't, I am well within my bounds to call that explanation what it is - stupid and illogical - regardless of how long I have had an account on this forum. And in that regard, how can you be sure I haven't been an avid reader of this forum since its inception? And what does it matter...?
As to the "" around idea; that was meant to convey the notion that this isn't HIS idea, nor is it a new one. You can google eugenics for an eye-opening history lesson on his "idea".
In hindsight, your question is far more stupid than his "idea". It's called the principle of insufficient reason; we aren't to suppose an a priori difference amongst type without proof - so the burden of proof is on the supposer. That you would ask me to explain why his idea is illogical, without first establishing that his claim is based in logic is justification enough for labeling your question stupid.
Stupid and illogical ideas usually do a great job of explaining complex and subtle phenomena - its too bad that they're stupid and illogical.
At least have the courage of your convictions and be brave enough in the truth of your pronouncements to say what you really mean: "White people are smarter than Black people on average, by their very nature".
Perhaps you don't say it because, as is often the case, utterance of foolishness is its own reminder.
"It says that in any sufficiently complex axiom system there will be statements that it can neither prove nor refute,..."
...is absolutely correct.
Your claim...:
"...take all true statements of the model of the integers under the second order system. That forms an axiomatic system in which all true statements are provable."
...is patently false. You are abusing the term 'truth' and confusing yourself. What 'truth' means in logic is not the same as what it means in the colloquial sense. In logic, we speak of truth only in terms of interpretation. Hence, axiomatic truth is an equivalent notion to provability.
In light of this, what you are saying is that if we take all the provable theorems in an axiomatic system, and add those theorems as axioms, we will have captured all possible truths - Godel's theorem actually proves that this is untrue for any sufficiently powerful axiomatic theorems (and 'powerful' here means capable of expressing number-theoretic statements.)