An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Han.deBruijn on 17 Sep 2006 07:44 Mike Kelly wrote: > You claimed that you have a very much better understanding of > probability than me. Since you know nothing of my knowledge of > probability other than that I disagree that it is meaningful to discuss > the probability of "a natural" being divisible by 3, [ ... snip ... ] What more evidence do we need, huh? The good news is that you are doing wrong only _one_ thing: infinitary reasoning. You think that completed infinities do exist. Once you stop thinking this way, everything falls in its place and you will see that it is quite meaningful to discuss the probability of "a natural" being divisible by 3. Han de Bruijn
From: Mike Kelly on 17 Sep 2006 07:54 Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > > > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl> wrote: > > > Mike Kelly wrote: > > > > >> Han de Bruijn wrote: > > >> > > >> Plagiarism? I don't get it. Who is plagiarising what? > > > > > "Your" would-be arguments against mine are not really yours. They are > > > just a _plagiary_ of well-known "arguments" employed by the mainstream > > > mathematics community. > > > > That is pretty pathetic Han. So any mainstream argument is > > plagiarism? That is a convenient way to dismiss anyone who > > disagrees with you. > > No. It's a convenient way to avoid hearing again the arguments > that I have already heard. If you are not willing to defend your absurdly smug claims then do not make them. -- mike.
From: Han.deBruijn on 17 Sep 2006 07:54 Mike Kelly wrote: > [ ... snip ... ] It's not clear to me that providing finite examples then > saying "obviously this holds for infinite cases too" without any > justification whatsoever should be at all convincing to anyone. It may be not clear to any mathematician, but it is clear to any scientist. The reason is that infinities do not really exist. They only exist as an attempt to make the "very large" rigorous in some sense. The moment you forget this, you get into trouble. Han de Bruijn
From: Mike Kelly on 17 Sep 2006 08:02 Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > Mike Kelly wrote: > > > astounded that you are claiming that employing a mathematical argument > > that is not your own invention is plagiarism. Perhaps you are simply > > unaware of the meaning and connotations of the word. Plagiarism is > > dishonest and in many cases criminal. A fairly hefty accusation. > > I've been looking for a good English equivalent of the Dutch word > "meeloperij" and found "plagiarism" as my best match. I think that you > are right and that it's actuallty a mismatch. I apologize for this > fact but I don't know what shorthand expression to substitute instead. > > What I meant to express is that you are about to be parrotting > mainstream arguments, without adding to it much thoughts of > yourself. And that is quite senseless because we have gone > through all this already. Yes, and your position was utterly ripped apart in the very first response to you by David C. Ullrich, and then by several others. You were unable to defend your claim. So, why repeat it as though it were in any way valid? -- mike.
From: Mike Kelly on 17 Sep 2006 08:05
Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > Mike Kelly wrote: > > > Given that any second-year student of probability theory knows that > > there are no uniform distributions over countable sample spaces, [ ... ] > > This "given" is most disturbing. Mainstream mathematics is so certain > about its own right that no sensible debate is possible. Please stop snipping so much context. It is dishonest. -- mike. |