An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: MoeBlee on 27 Oct 2006 21:38 Tony Orlow wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > If TO were to support someone reasonably in touch with mathematical > > reality, I should not have regarded it as a "last straw" situation. > > Like Robinson? Oy vey. Orlow mistakes letting his eyes roam over the pages of an advanced text in mathematics for understanding that mathematics and giving it his moral support. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 27 Oct 2006 21:42 Tony Orlow wrote: > 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... :) Ah, sweet. > Actually, I named my last cat Lester, before I met Lester here online. I > had to scrape his pieces off the road.... Ouch, not so sweet. MoeBlee
From: Virgil on 27 Oct 2006 23:12 In article <4542a79a$1(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > In article <4542201a(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > > >> cbrown(a)cbrownsystems.com wrote: > > > >>> When you say "noon doesn't occur"; I think "he doesn't accept (1): by a > >>> time t, we mean a real number t" > >> That doesn't mean t has to be able to assume ALL real numbers. The times > >> in [-1,0) are all real numbers. > > > > By what mechanism does TO propose to stop time? > > By the mechanism of unfinishablility. That TO cannot finish something, does not mean that it is unfinishable. It just means that TO is incompetent, which we already knew. > > >>> When you say "if we always add more balls than we remove, the number of > >>> balls in the vase at time 0 is not 0", I think "he doesn't accept (8): > >>> if the numbers of balls in the vase is not 0, then there is a ball in > >>> the vase." > >> No, I accept that. There is no time after t=-1 where there is no ball in > >> the vase. > > > > That is not the same thing at all, as it requires that some ball remain > > in the vase after it has been removed. > > No it requires that some ball e=remain after some other ball is removed. That requires that some ball remains when all balls, including it, have been removed. > > > > >> I didn't say that exactly. If 0 occurs, then all finite balls are gone, > > > > As those are the only balls that the gedankenexperiment allows, that > > means the vase is then empty. > > > > And so, nothing can happen at noon. > > >> but infinite balls have been inserted > > > > Where in the original gedankenexperiment is there any provision made for > > those alleged "infinite" balls? > > At noon. Where does it say so? > > > > > What TO does is decide what result he wants and then tries to bend the > > facts to fit. > > Does anything happen at noon? The vase "becomes" empty. > > > > > But it does not work. > > Does the vase empty before, or at, noon? Since it is empty AT noon, "becoming empty" is of no importance. > > > > > The only relevant question is "According to the rules of the > > gedankenexperiment , is each ball which is inserted into the vase before > > noon also removed from the vase before noon?" > > > > An affirmative answer confirms that the vase is empty at noon. > > A negative answer directly violates the conditions of the > > gedankenexperiment. > > > > So TO keeps violating the conditions of the gedankenexperiment. > > Nope. I keep obeying them. TO is obeying rules that he assumes out of nowhere but which are no part of the original statement of the gedankenexperiment. In the original, each ball inserted before noon is removed at a time before noon. So where do the mythical balls that TO claims are in the vase at noon to come from? No source for them is justifiable from any part of the original gedankenexperiment.
From: Virgil on 27 Oct 2006 23:21 In article <4542a9c6(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > You claim no balls are added at noon, because nothing can be, but then, > nothing can be removed at noon, either. Either it grows or stays un-zero. How un-zero when every ball is removed before noon? The only relevant question is "According to the rules set up in the problem, is each ball which is inserted into the vase before noon also removed from the vase before noon?" An affirmative answer confirms that the vase is empty at noon. A negative answer directly violates the conditions of the problem. > yes, an > infinite number of balls are added at t=0. Where do these infinitely many balls come from? As all the numbered balls have been removed by noon and there is no provision in the gedankenexperiment for the existence, much less the insertion, of any others, from what twilight zone does TO produce his phantom unnumbered balls? Whatever TO is smoking must be powerful stuff to create something out of nothing. > We can just stay dumb. TO certainly can. > What exactly is the contradiction, specifically? Can you formulate that? There is no contradiction involved in the vase being empty at noon, but many for it not being empty at noon.
From: Virgil on 27 Oct 2006 23:23
In article <4542aa5c(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Stop confusing me with facts, Lester. TO is easily confused by facts. But Lester rarely provides any. A marriage made in Heaven? Or Hell? |