Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 6 Sep 2006 18:38 On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:03:12 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <nbutf21mlpqn895jluk8vf2sd75m2pgdsm(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:31:35 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <rnvrf2dhbfd5d87ht13c238o53vnvmfvqk(a)4ax.com>, >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> > > >> >> Isn't >> >> there anyone else you can talk to? >> > >> >Zick seems to be the one determined to talk to me. >> >> Yeah really. Can't imagine why I'm determined to talk to someone who >> has nothing to say. > >Logorrhea? You mean you just run off at the mouth? Probably true. But it would help considerably if you could learn to say things which are true and not just miscellaneous word sequences you assume are true. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 6 Sep 2006 18:40 On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:00:00 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <p8utf2t0ae4d19nktl1ro8mnq9frqfjhkt(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:22:30 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <agvrf21km3cu96aq3sn94hb65mb1ttc8lj(a)4ax.com>, >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:51:32 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >Better than truth because Zick says so" >> >> >> >> Hardly better than truth, Virgil, just better than fantasy land. >> > >> >Zick would know better that I about what goes on in the latter. >> >> You would certainly know better what goes on in neomathematiker >> fantasy land. > >As I am totally unfamiliar with any such thing, Zick is, as usual, wrong. Another trivium of truth assumed true in lieu of any demonstration. >Must be one of Zick's own many fantasies. It's certainly another one of yours. ~v~~
From: Virgil on 6 Sep 2006 19:13 In article <cfjuf2l2jhb7kp275gif3gj054m77qh9ea(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:00:00 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <p8utf2t0ae4d19nktl1ro8mnq9frqfjhkt(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:22:30 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <agvrf21km3cu96aq3sn94hb65mb1ttc8lj(a)4ax.com>, > >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:51:32 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> >Better than truth because Zick says so" > >> >> > >> >> Hardly better than truth, Virgil, just better than fantasy land. > >> > > >> >Zick would know better that I about what goes on in the latter. > >> > >> You would certainly know better what goes on in neomathematiker > >> fantasy land. > > > >As I am totally unfamiliar with any such thing, Zick is, as usual, wrong. > > Another trivium of truth assumed true in lieu of any demonstration. Zick is the one whose trivia is founded in the trivium. Math is a part of the quadrivium.
From: Dik T. Winter on 6 Sep 2006 19:45 In article <%ZpLg.5265$%t1.3057(a)reader1.news.jippii.net> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi> writes: > Dik T. Winter wrote: .... > > > So you would balk at asserting that it's true that whatever mathematical > > > property P is we have that > > > > > > if P(0) and for every natural n, P(n) implies P(n+1), then for every > > > natural n, P(n) > > > > > > is true, for example? .... > > There is no *a priori* reason to either accept or > > reject it. > > Sure there is. It follows immediately from our mathematical picture of > the naturals. That is not an *a priori* reason. You have already a mathematical picture. And I think the above statement is part of that picture. The statement follows from Peano's induction axioma, or from PA's induction schema. But what I missed was the "natural" in your statement. Of course, using that word already implies (in a sense) acceptance of the induction axiom/schema. And (I think) implicitly the existence of the set of all natural numbers. So the truth of the above statement depends on the presence of some axiom (schemata), that can not be proven from the other axiom (schemata). And as such, I would state that it is not true a priory, but only due to the "model" in which we want to work. It is quite similar to the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry. For centuries it was thought to be true. But that was only due to the model of geometry in which one wanted to talk. Rejection of that postulate lead to quite interesting other geometries. So currently we can no longer state that it is either true or false. In the same way, rejection of the induction axiom/scheme, or whatever, also may lead to interesting arithmetic. Different, obviously, but not to be rejected out of hand. (I do not think it will lead to interesting things, but I keep my mind open.) Look also at synthetic differential geometry where the axiom of the excluded middle is rejected. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
From: Han de Bruijn on 7 Sep 2006 03:20
John Schutkeker wrote: > "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in > news:87pseakne6.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org: > >>John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: >> >>>Isn't Arxiv peer-reviewed? >> >>No. > > How do they keep the cranks from posting garbage? There is no such guarantee in peer reviewed journals as well IMHO. Han de Bruijn |