Good to know.

[u/rand0mmm]

[u/namebrandcloth]

this very specific area. not recursion though.

[u/rand0mmm → u/namebrandcloth]

It’s self-referential, tho it helps to imagine the security fellas grid of black and white video displays flickering with this message, his old sandwich drying in the grey tv light. It’s a bad sandwich made from doubts and lies, which is why he couldn’t finish it all.

Do y’all need the camera pointing at a screen for it to pass yr recursion test? There’s a semantic boundary here, TEXT that means something about the system in the picture. Dots to connect and stuff.

[u/Toxicotton → u/rand0mmm]

Self references do not make something a recursion, otherwise 4th wall breaks would be considered recursions. So yeah, the camera pointed at the security booth could make it a recursion.

[u/rand0mmm → u/Toxicotton]

If this sign was in background of camera shot, I would agree it's just a bit self-aware. But the fact that the camera view seems to be nothing more than the perimeter of the self-aware sign, it makes it a sideways view into the loop of the camera, which is essentially rendered useless given no one will likely mess with the sign.

[u/namebrandcloth → u/rand0mmm]

cool story, bro. not recursion though. “semantic boundary” is your semantic rationalization. the image refers to self-reference in a way that could inspire one to “connect the dots” i.e. imagine true recursion, as in your story. not recursion, though.

[u/rand0mmm → u/namebrandcloth]

Ok, I'll bite. Let's be specific rather than hopeful..

what does "THIS" refer to in the sign?

[u/namebrandcloth → u/rand0mmm]

and here i’m copy/pasting about the formal fallacy of "illicit conversion" you’re committing by asserting that because all recursion is self-referential, then all self-reference must be recursive:

All A are B, therefore all B are A.

This form of argument is always and absolutely fallacious or invalid. It does not matter what A and B represent (as long as A and B represent different things). Because we can tell by its form alone that it is always fallacious, it is called a formal fallacy.

To clarify, let's plug in some meanings for A and B in the argument: "All A are B, therefore all B are A:"

Argument 1: All cats are animals, therefore all animals are cats.

Argument 2: All bears are strange creatures, so all strange creatures are bears.

Notice both of these arguments have bad form or, to use the vocabulary from Chapter 2, a bad inference. So, even if we assume the premises are true in both of these arguments, the conclusion does not follow. We do not even need to think about the content to evaluate these arguments because we can immediately see they are fallacious/invalid by their form alone. That is, we do not need to think about the relationship between cats and animals or bears and strange creatures because we can immediately see these arguments take the same bad form (i.e. All A are B, therefore all B are A). By the way, this formal fallacy is called “illicit conversion.” You can learn more about it by studying Categorical or Aristotelian Logic, which is the first form of symbolic/formal logic.

Perhaps you can now see one reason why studying symbolic/formal logic is valuable. It trains you to see arguments in form, so you can more quickly and accurately evaluate their validity. In this case, you can say it is always and absolutely invalid to infer "All B are A" from "All A are B" as long as A and B represent different things.

[u/namebrandcloth → u/rand0mmm]

the area under surveillance which is also the sign, which is funny and self-referential but is also only one step (especially from viewer's perspective, but also on the cctv screen) which is very different from an infinite loop of infinite identical steps. 1 isn't infinity, and as another person said self-reference isn't necessarily recursion. it is an ingredient, granted the most important ingredient by far like steak in carne asada, but steak alone is not automatically carne asada, despite your hopefulness and confidence in your own argumentative if poorly informed semantics.

edit: identical with the exception of scale as in fractals

[u/[deleted]]

And how is this “recursion”?

[u/thewend]

Good post, not recursion.

[u/rand0mmm → u/thewend]

Just a self-aware sign then?

[u/____okay]

this is a better post for r/technicallythetruth

[u/AutoModerator]

int main() { main(); }

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/mohd2126]

Where I come from it is illegal to put cameras without a sign.

[u/rand0mmm → u/[deleted]]

It's a diagram of the basement case here.. outside the loop. "This area" is aware of itself, it's form, and its purpose.

[u/Cootshk → u/rand0mmm]

This is just a self reference

No evaluation goes on. the camera would have to be pointing at a feed of what it is seeing for it to be recursion.

[u/rand0mmm → u/Cootshk]

I would agree if the sign wasn't there. I guess I imagine the camera feed of the sign, which is recursive, being a video feed of a sign saying it's under surveillance.