# jpulgarin

Karma: 139
• Thanks Sam. I thought about this some more and re­al­ized where I went wrong—I was ap­ply­ing the de­duc­tion the­o­rem in­cor­rectly (as other com­ments in this thread have pointed out).

By the way, when you say that PA proves its own in­con­sis­tency, do you mean that or that ? From your rea­son­ing I agree that if we as­sume then we can ar­rive at and , from which we can con­clude that . If you meant that though, could you ex­plain how you ar­rived at that?

• I don’t think there’s a flaw in this ar­gu­ment. I’m pretty sure that is a the­o­rem of PA for any sen­tence . How­ever, even if we con­sider to be a sen­tence like , that does not mean that we can con­clude that is a the­o­rem of PA, since prov­ing that there doesn’t ex­ist a proof for a given sen­tence in PA is equiv­a­lent to prov­ing that PA is con­sis­tent, which is not pos­si­ble if we as­sume that PA is con­sis­tent.

# Meetup : First Medel­lin, Colom­bia Meetup

17 Apr 2017 23:03 UTC
0 points
• Sorry :/​, it was my fault for post­ing it at such short no­tice. No one else came.

There’s a chance I’ll be back in Bo­gota dur­ing the first week of March. If so, I’ll make sure to post it with a bit more no­tice.

Do you go to Medel­lin ev­ery once in a while? I’m think­ing of start­ing a reg­u­lar meetup here.

# Meetup : First Bo­gota, Colom­bia Meetup

22 Jan 2017 6:02 UTC
0 points
• Do ca­sual sex part­ners count un­der the “Num­ber of Cur­rent Part­ners” ques­tion?

The in­struc­tions tell me that higher num­bers are for “polyamorous re­la­tion­ships” which makes it seem like a monog­a­mous per­son who has mul­ti­ple ca­sual sex part­ners should an­swer 0 for that ques­tion.

• I gen­uinely do not un­der­stand how you were in­sulted by my com­ment. Could you please ex­plain it to me so I can avoid in the fu­ture.

Note, I am not pur­posely in­sult­ing you in this com­ment.

• I see in a re­ply of yours that you’re in­ter­ested in salsa danc­ing. By far the most im­por­tant fac­tor in get­ting bet­ter is to quickly achieve a level of com­pe­tency that makes salsa so­cials re­ally fun. I don’t think I’ve gone more than 7 days in the last 2.5 years with­out at­tend­ing a salsa so­cial, and this has been the biggest fac­tor in my im­prove­ment.

You may already be at this stage since you said you en­joy danc­ing, but if not I sug­gest you learn the ba­sics from a friend or a class (I would spend no more than 10 hours on this stage), and then force your­self to at­tend a bunch of salsa so­cials, un­til you start re­ally en­joy­ing the ex­pe­rience.

Once you’ve reached this stage, you’ve solved the mo­ti­va­tion prob­lem, and now you can op­ti­mize to­wards be­com­ing a re­ally good dancer (if you even want to at this point—it’s not nec­es­sary to reap the ma­jor­ity of the benefits).

• This is the best de­scrip­tion of a fairly strong chess player’s thought pro­cess that I’ve read. If it were worth the effort, I would link ev­ery per­son who asked me, “How many moves deep do you calcu­late in chess?”, to your com­ment.

• If the King’s Gam­bit was ac­tu­ally solved, it would be triv­ial to solve the rest of chess.

• Yo es­toy pen­sando es­tar en Bo­gota en los prox­i­mos meses, si quieres pode­mos ur­ga­ni­zar una meetup en ese en­tonces. Tam­bien po­dri­amos hacer algo atravez de Google hang­outs. Te man­dare un men­saje pri­vado para cuadrar.

# Meetup : First Cali, Colom­bia meetup

4 Jun 2012 13:49 UTC
3 points