An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: David R Tribble on 17 Sep 2006 13:24 Tony Orlow wrote: >> Wolfgang's and my position is that N is unbounded but finite, > David R Tribble schrieb: >> "Unbounded but finite" is a contradiction, meaning "not finite but >> finite". I'm sure you and Wolfgang think this double-think makes >> sense, but the rest of us don't. > mueckenh wrote: > Your position only reflects the miseducation in mathematics during the > last decades. Thank you for pointing out my problem. I feel much better now. I assume that you don't suffer from the same problem, perhaps by avoiding education in mainstream mathematics? mueckenh wrote: > Actual or finished infinity is a contradicton. Surpassed infinity is a > contradiction. > > Unbounded but finite is mathematical reality. Think of the set of all > natural numbers which have been realized by writing down these numbers. > Think of the set of known prime numbers. Think of the set of written > novels. Think of the set of postings. > These sets are unbounded because they can be extended without end. > Nevertheless they are always finite. Yes, I can see now that these are all finite sets. And which are proper subsets of infinite sets. The set of all naturals that have been written now, for example. Obviously it's an ever growing set as time goes on, and will never contain the entire set of naturals that are possible. So it's simply a finite subset of N, and always will be. Somehow you are using this fact to "prove" that N can't exist, perhaps employing some marvelous mathematical logic that has not been tainted by mainstream teachings. You show several finite sets. How do they prove anything about infinite sets?
From: Virgil on 17 Sep 2006 14:37 In article <1158489723.269348.27860(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > What's wrong with mathematics ?! > > Han de Bruijn Nothing!!
From: Virgil on 17 Sep 2006 14:39 In article <1158490581.204292.111610(a)d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, 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. > > Han de Bruijn As HdB has not been able to counter any of the mainstream arguments to the satisfaction of any but himself, they are sufficient.
From: Virgil on 17 Sep 2006 14:44 In article <1158491234.882804.124930(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 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. The impossibility of a uniform distribution over a countable set is a direct consequence of the relevant definitions. Does HdB wish to argue that there is sensible debate about whether 2 + 2 need equal 4 in standard decimal notaton?
From: Virgil on 17 Sep 2006 14:51
In article <1158492219.125170.245690(a)d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > Mike Kelly wrote: > > > I think Han demonstrated some gross ignorance of basic probability > > theory (along with limits, infinity, the difference between the > > physical sciences and math etc. etc.) and drew a very stupid analogy > > with calculus. > > The left hand of mainstream mathematics (Probability Theory) does not > know what the right hand (Calculus) is doing. It's impossible to have a > sensible debate with someone who is as brainwashed as you are, Mike. > And it's everywhere. You are seeing "differences" where there are none. > > About my supposed "ignorance". Read this: > > http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/QED/singular.pdf > > And tell me what the flaws are in the mathematics of this paper. I have > dozens of the kind. One major flaw occurs in the very first paragraph in which you claim that what is proper for physics governs "the very nature" of what is true in mathematics. > Han de Bruijn |