Prev: Towards avoiding paradoxes with set theory: Corrected.
Next: Set Theoretical Approach for Special Relativity
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 2 Nov 2009 00:48


A wrote:

>
>
> There are many nonpolynomial equations which are not solvable in the
> complex numbers, for example,
>
> 1 + x + x^2 / 2! + x^3 / 3! + x^4 / 4! + ... = 0
>
> has no solutions in the complex numbers, since the power series on the
> left is the Maclaurin series for e^x, and there is no complex number x
> such that e^x = 0.
>

Alright I concede on this issue that I should have looked into the
precision
meaning of equation versus polynomial and I should have only used
polynomial.

And this entire book is about precision definitions and how I even
need correcting on equation versus polynomial.

So add this to the list of corrections, that we have to even
straighten out
equation from polynomial.


(snipped)

> > And what is your definition of "finite-number"?
>
>
> It's the part below, that you didn't reply to.
>
> I was assuming that you actually knew some of the mathematics that
> you're constantly dismissive of, but now I see that this isn't the
> case. Have fun writing your posts--I won't post any further in your
> threads.
>
>
>
> >
> > > defined, and on passing to the isomorphism classes of finite sets, one
> > > gets a set of isomorphism classes together with two operations,
> > > addition and multiplication, coming from the union and Cartesian
> > > product of sets. This set of isomorphism classes, together with
> > > addition and multiplication operations, is what we usually identify as
> > > the nonnegative integers (we identify the integer n with the
> > > isomorphism class of finite sets with n elements). This definition is
> > > precise, rigorous, effective, and standard. To define the rest of the
> > > ring of integers (rather than just the nonnegative integers) one can
> > > simply apply the Grothendieck group completion (which turns
> > > commutative monoids to commutative groups, and commutative semirings
> > > to commutative rings) to the semiring of nonnegative integers.

So you mean to tell me "A" that you in a High School or University
class of
students would on the day you teach them the definition of a Finite
Number
versus an Infinite Number would stand to the front of the class and
start
spewing isomorphism , Grothendieck group completion, commutative
monoids, semirings, etc.

Don't you have a basic definition of Finite Number? One that even a
nonmath person would understand? Or are you just a wound up yarn
ball that Peirce talked about. No wonder you post anonymously, for
anyone that has such a poppycock definition of "Finite Number" would
be ashamed of themselves.

"A's" definition of Finite Number above is typically what mathematics
professors eschew as their definition of Finite Number. I doubt I ever
will have the time but that is a good basis for another book is the
convoluted corrupted definitions of Finite Number through the history
of mathematics. I doubt anyone in any textbook published a definition
of Finite Number as to what resembles A's above.

A whole entire book devoted to what the mathematics community formally
or informally defined Finite-Number to that of Infinite Number. And I
know
very well that I am the first to lay down the ruler at a specific
number which
is the boundary of Finite and beyond is Infinite. I am the first,
because I am
the first person to recognize in the history of science that Physics
is above
mathematics and math is just a tiny subset of physics. So that Physics
dictates where numbers have meaning and beyond a boundary are
meaningless.

And it is fitting that I discovered that since the only person who can
discover that
would have to have discovered an Atom Totality theory. Noone else
could say
that Planck Unit 10^500 is the upper bound of Finite Number because
noone
else could have reasoned and made sense of that idea without a Atom
Totality
theory which shows that mathematics is a result of atoms being
numerous
and thus creating Algebra and atoms have shape and size thus creating
Geometry.

And it looks as though "A" is dropping out of this discussion,
probably because
he realizes he has no definition of Finite Number and he hates to see
me win
a victory. But I thank him, because "A" demonstrates how the present
day
professors of mathematics have filled their science with ill-
definitions and never
want to admit they have lousy definitions and never want to do
anything about
it.

And whenever anyone points out to a mathematics professor of how lousy
their
definitions such as Finite Number are, they run away like "A" or they
try to
label the messenger as a crank. Mathematics is supposed to be the
science
of precision, but ironically by 2009 it is the most or one of the most
severely
corrupted sciences, which makes sense since the other sciences rely on
experiments for acceptance whereas mathematics relies only on a bench
of
old fogeys with their judgemental opinion.

When math defines Finite Number, then math will be occupied, more by
computational skills rather than old fogeys with their philosophical
opinions.

When Pons and Fleischmann circa late 1980s announced Cold Fusion in
test tubes, the truth or falsity would quickly be with experiments to
verify.
But if Pons and Fleischmann had been in mathematics with an
announcement
of a proof of FLT or Kepler Packing or 4 Color Mapping or Poincare C.
the
truth or falsity would have merely depended on a group of countryclub
old fogeys of mathematics and Pons and Fleischmann would have won
a Fields, a Nobel and a Wolf prize, thanks to the old fogeys.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Towards avoiding paradoxes with set theory: Corrected.
Next: Set Theoretical Approach for Special Relativity