An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Tony Orlow on 27 Oct 2006 20:59 Virgil wrote: > In article <45422a2f(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: >>> David Marcus wrote: >>>> imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: >>>>> Virgil wrote: >>>>>> In article <45417528$1(a)news2.lightlink.com>, >>>>>> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> For what it's worth, and I know this doesn't add a lot of credibility to >>>>>>> Ross in your eyes, coming from me, but I think Ross has a genuine >>>>>>> intuition that isn't far off with respect to what's controversial in >>>>>>> modern math. Sure, he gets repetitive and I don't agree with everything >>>>>>> he says, but his cryptic "Well order the reals", which I actually >>>>>>> haven't seen too much of lately, is a direct reference to his EF >>>>>>> (Equivalence Function, yes?) between the naturals and the reals in >>>>>>> [0,1). The reals viewed as discrete infinitesimals map to the >>>>>>> hypernaturals, anyway, and his EF is a special case of my IFR. So, to >>>>>>> answer your question, I think Ross makes some sense. But, of course, >>>>>>> coming from me, that probably doesn't mean much. :) >>>>>> Coming from TO it damns Ross. >>>>> Even by your standards, Virgil, this is egregiously silly. TO skips the >>>>> basic exposition in Robinson's book, but finds a sentence he likes. So >>>>> this "damns" Robinson's non-standard analysis, does it? >>>> Virgil said "Ross", not "Robinson", I believe. >>> Yes, of course. But Virgil's implication is that "TO says person P is >>> right about something" implies P is wrong. This may, contingently, be >>> true about Ross, but the argument could equally be applied to Robinson, >>> in which case the conclusion is obviously not true. >>> >>> Brian Chandler >>> http://imaginatorium.org >>> >> And, what about those rare occasions when I agree with Virgil? Uh oh. > > It actually has happened that TO and I agree on something. > > It does not happen boringly often but it does happen. Does that mean that my assent discredits anything that you have to say? I don't think you see it that way. You sometimes make some very good points, although usually there are an almost uncountably many slights and poobars interspersed.
From: Tony Orlow on 27 Oct 2006 21:01 Virgil wrote: > In article <45423853(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> David Marcus wrote: >>> Tony Orlow wrote: >>>> stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >>>>> What are you talking about? I defined two sets. There are no >>>>> balls or vases. There are simply the two sets >>>>> >>>>> IN = { n | -1/(2^floor(n/10)) < 0 } >>>>> OUT = { n | -1/(2^n) < 0 } >>>> For each n e N, IN(n)=10*OUT(n). >>> Stephen defined sets IN and OUT. He didn't define sets "IN(n)" and "OUT >>> (n)". So, you seem to be answering a question he didn't ask. Given >>> Stephen's definitions of IN and OUT, is IN = OUT? >>> >> Yes, all elements are the same n, which are finite n. There is a simple >> bijection. But, as in all infinite bijections, the formulaic >> relationship between the sets is lost. > > What never existed cannor be lost. Well, it's good to know that there is no mapping from the naturals to the evens by the formulaic relation f(x)=2x. That clears up a lot of problems....
From: Tony Orlow on 27 Oct 2006 21:01 Virgil wrote: > In article <454238e4(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > >>> I think it is an answer. Just to be sure, please confirm that you agree >>> that, with the definitions above, V(0) = 0. Is that correct? >>> >> Sure, all finite balls are gone at noon. > > And in any system compatible with ZF or NBG there aren't any others. When did I claim my ideas were consistent with those "theories"?
From: Tony Orlow on 27 Oct 2006 21:04 MoeBlee wrote: > Lester Zick wrote: >> Ah, Moe, truth is often a nuisance. > > Then you're as much of a nuisance as is a cool breeze on a sunny spring > day, as a cleansing and quenching rain that ends a drought, as a > magnificent symphony orchestra heard in an amphitheatre of impeccable > acoustics. > > Moe Blee > As a kitty cat on your lap, on a chilly night... :) Lesterrrrrrrr...... Actually, I named my last cat Lester, before I met Lester here online. I had to scrape his pieces off the road....
From: MoeBlee on 27 Oct 2006 21:35
Tony Orlow wrote: > Yes, Lester, your retorts ar very witty, and sometimes quite to the > point, but not usually. But, always sharp. Not only is Orlow oblivious to logic and ignorant of mathematics, but he's also prone to mistake the dull grunts of the likes of Lester Zick for wit. MoeBlee |