From: Han de Bruijn on
Randy Poe wrote about the Balls in a Vase problem:

> Specifically, that for each particular ball (whatever you
> want to label it), there is a time when it comes out.

Yes. And, at the same time, 10 others come in. So what?

Han de Bruijn

From: Han de Bruijn on
Mike Kelly wrote about the Balls in a Vase problem:

> Ah, but noon is not a part of the sequence of iterations. No more than
> 0 is an element of the sequence 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ....

Thus the question is whether the sequence (number of balls) converges.

> The question asks how many balls are in the vase at noon. Not at some
> iteration.

Well, it does not converge. So this question of yours is meaningless.

Han de Bruijn

From: Han de Bruijn on
Ross A. Finlayson wrote about the Balls in a Vase problem:

> I describe some conditions on the ball and vase problem that can help
> make it more realistic.
>
> The golem with the marker in the vase, where you can't reach into the
> vase, if you want one ball out for putting ten in, there would need to
> be infinitely many golems if each can only hold one ball.
>
> Recently in this discussion about infinite sets and so on one of the
> talking points about Cantor that has emerged is that he counts
> backwards from infinity.
>
> The empty-vasers construct the argument that for any ball labelled n,
> where each ball has some factory serial, they can denote some time
> 1/2^n where that number has been retrieved from the vase. By the same
> token, at time 1/2^n, ten balls were just placed in the vase. For each
> of those, the various times they are retrieved from the vase are
> exactly specified, and, at each of those ten more new ones are added to
> the vase. At each constructed time, for n many iterations, the count
> of balls in the vase is 9n.
>
> The count of balls in the vase is the difference of two divergent
> series.

That wouldn't be bad if the difference would be a convergent sequence.
But the difference is divergent as well.

Han de Bruijn

From: Han de Bruijn on
Michael Stemper wrote:

> In article <1160613324.049353.270480(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ross A. Finlayson writes:
>
>>David Marcus wrote:
>>
>>>Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Marcus wrote:
>
>>>>>So, you aren't saying that ZF is inconsistent. You are saying that you
>>>>>prefer to use a different system of axioms. Is that correct?
>
>>>>No, David, Dave, I say ZF is inconsistent. That doesn't mean all its
>>>>results are false. It just lets me say whatever I want about a less
>>>>inconsistent set of "axioms".
>
>>>So, you are saying that ZF is inconsistent. By "inconsistent", do you
>>>mean that ZF proves both P and not P, for some statement P? If so,
>>>please be explicit: what is the statement and what is the proof in ZF of
>>>it?
>
>>Build a set: {x: true}, it's a set,
>
> No, "{x: true}" is gibberish. Just putting down a couple of braces and
> throwing random text inside them does not generate a set. At least, no
> according to the axioms of ZF that you're trying to refute.

No more glibberish than defining the ordinals by putting ever more curly
braces around the empty set:

0 = {} , 1 = {{}} , 2 = {{},{{}}} , 3 = {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}} ...

http://www.jboden.demon.co.uk/SetTheory/ordinals.html

Han de Bruijn

From: Han de Bruijn on
Virgil wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFC
> Axiom of infinity: There exists a set x such that the empty set is a
> member of x and whenever y is in x, so is S(y).

Which is actually the construction of the ordinals. Right?

Suppose we write 0 = { }
then 1 = { { } } = { 0 }
and 2 = { { } , { { } } } = { 0, 1 }
and 3 = { { }, { { } }, { { }, { { } } } } = { 0, 1, 2 }

http://www.jboden.demon.co.uk/SetTheory/ordinals.html

So the axiom of infinity says that you can get everything from nothing.
This is contradictory to all laws of physics, where it is said that you
pay a price for everything. E.g. mass and energy are conserved.

Han de Bruijn