An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Virgil on 1 Oct 2006 17:57 In article <45203320(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > If you want to do math, you might want to stick to quantities. It's much > easier. Very little of mathematics is limited only to "quantities". It is one of TO's many limitations that he does not see any further into mathematics than that little, and does not even see that little clearly.
From: Tony Orlow on 1 Oct 2006 17:58 Virgil wrote: > In article <4520254e(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > >> You do realize that my statements involve a considerable amount of >> personal reflection, don't you? There is more to the number circle than >> "proven". In the binary number circle, "100...000" is both positive and >> negative infinity. > > What about "100...0001"? That is the actual greatest negative integer, given any range of bit positions, in perfect balance with its 2's complement inverse, the greatest positive natural. Remember, bit positions extend infinitely to the right as well. They all add up to 1.
From: Tony Orlow on 1 Oct 2006 18:20 Virgil wrote: > In article <452032b9(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Virgil wrote: >>> In article <45201554(a)news2.lightlink.com>, >>> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Virgil wrote: >>>>> In article <451df41c(a)news2.lightlink.com>, >>>>> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Virgil wrote: >>>>>>> In article <451dd1f2(a)news2.lightlink.com>, >>>>>>> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Virgil wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that aleph_0 naturals only require >>>>>>>>>> ln(aleph_0+1)/ln(2) >>>>>>>>>> bit positions? >>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am talking about indvidual natural numbers as members >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> N, ,not N itself, which is not a member of N. >>>>>>>> And also for every set of contiguous naturals starting at 0 EXCEPT for >>>>>>>> N. Why EXCEPT for N? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the same reason that a paper sack holding oranges is not an orange. >>>>>>> >>>>>> A set is a sack? It is nothing besides the elements it includes. >>>>> A set is a container, and is not one of the objects that it contains. >>>> It is nothing more or less than its contents. >>> It is determined uniquely and entirely by its contents, as stated in the >>> axiom of extentionality. >> So we agree. There is nothing besides the members. > > To say that it is completely determined by its members is not to say > that it "is nothing besides its members". If it were nothing besides its > members we cold not give it a name as a thing of its own. So, it is completely determined by its members, but that's not all there is to its determination. Uh huh.
From: Tony Orlow on 1 Oct 2006 18:24 Virgil wrote: > In article <45202ef3(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Virgil wrote: >> Hi Virgil. You look nice tonight. Did you get your hair done? > > Nice of you to notice what I have so little of. Like I said, eat eggs. Birds have a lot of practice growing really large hairlike things. > >> Can I make the balls disappear or not? How long does it take to get >> permission to speak from your superiors? What is YOUR judgment? >>> If one is given a certain set of rules which produce a certain outcome >>> then any alteration of those rules will produce an outcome irrelevant to >>> the consequences from the original set of rules. >> If one changes a rule in a specific way, it will have a specific >> consequence. > > But not necessarily relevant to what would occur without the change. You mean the specifics of the change have no relation to the changes of the specifics? I rather doubt anyone in their right mind agrees.
From: MoeBlee on 1 Oct 2006 19:25
mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > This is an extremely good example that shows that set theory is at > least for physics and, more generally, for any science, completely > meaningless. Except that set theory axiomatizes the portions of standard mathematics used by physics and the sciences. You say that set theory is meaningless as you work on a computer that depends on the advent of technology hastened from the theoretical contexts of mathematical logic and set theory. MoeBlee |