I am numbered among the former members of CrackSuite, PearIntoPeachesSuite, FunBallSuite (I believe I'm still a FunBallPeople, for very small values of ...) and AngbandAndPuritySuite. I don't maintain anything. (except this wiki node, occasionally ;-)
Current interests include:
(Andrew is sometimes also known as NeonElephant?) (Andrew is appararently also known as RealAndrew? on another Wiki (which may or may not exist anymore (and is also found several times in the story itself (isn't LISP grand? ;-))))
Misc. anagrams of name, divided by type:
FunFact: Apparently, mu X.mu Y.(X -> X) is equivalent to mu X.mu Y.(X -> (mu Z.Y)) in the, ah, limit, even when you use weak unfolding.
Ask him about the cat and dog / dog and cat joke -- BenZeckel (warning: it's tasteless)
Not sure if I follow: why can't 4'33" be its own remix, since the point is that it's different every time? (though the logic is cute :-)
If it's different, then it's not the same song. Its remix may sound just like it, but... (4'33" was selected for a reason, though it's not the only song that would fit there)
I think you need to define remix then, because loosely I'd say a remix is a song that carries the basic concept of the original song, though may sound nothing like it. And I think saying "if it sounds different, it's a different song" doesn't work if you're calling 4'33" a song...
Note that the fifth statement is in fact a separate hypothesis, and doesn't follow from the first four. Maybe I've just been too much of a math major for too long... Things like this show some of the inherent drawbacks of using words that already possess colloquial meanings as teriminology. That said, I like the idea of a musical arithmetic. -- AlexWilkins
In fact, the fifth statement follows from the first four if and only if every song is an nth remix of 4'33" for some n. This is possible only when the songs are countably infinite, although that condition is not sufficient. If there are uncountably many songs, the fifth statement is false, and if there are finitely many songs, the first four are inconsistent. -- AriNieh
As Alex (sort of) notes, I'm not defining remix here; any meaning you attach to it not implied by the statements may not be true. The fifth statement isn't a hypothesis, it's an axiom. Only the current adaptation is (as far as I know) due to me. I'm surprised they aren't more recognizable. --AndrewSchoonmaker
Well, not everyone has taken a class in logic (not that I blame them) -- AlexWilkins
Yeah, true. They should've all read GEB, though (more or less by definition) ;-> --AndrewSchoonmaker
How about this problem: If there exists a song that is not a remix of any song, then it is not within the collection, violating your fifth statement. What would be the effects of a song being its own remix? (Doesn't make any sense in the real definition of the word, but an interesting possibility.) -- BenjAzose
The statements are axioms, and not theora; since a song (other than 4'33") that is not the remix of any song would violate the fifth, it cannot exist. For similar reasons, a song cannot be its own remix in this system. (It doesn't make much sense in the real world, but it's neat to think about anyway, IMO -- if you want to get especially fallacious, there's also the Brouwer Fixed-Point Theorem :-)
THWAAACK! Bad pundit! --ArielBarton
Excuse me? Are you giving me credit for a pun I didn't make?
Hope you weren't expecting any *useful* information...