An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: David Marcus on 2 Nov 2006 11:40 cbrown(a)cbrownsystems.com wrote: > imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: > > You say f() correctly captures the "removal > > _at_ time 0", because f(0) is the value after the change. > > Right - because the event which we call "the vase becomes empty at 0" > must be "preceded" by some event which /causes/ that "becoming" > (regardless of rest frame). In this case, BTW, "a precedes b" means > "the time at which a occurs <= the time at which b occurs, for evey > rest frame". Although giving that away is really a form of cheating. > > Under these "obvious" constraints, f() describes a certain real world > situation; if the 'cause' of f(0) = 0 is that the indicator function > k(t) = 1 iff a ball is removed at time t=0 has k(0)=1 . The same, sadly > or happily, cannot be said of h(). What's with the empty parentheses? The names of the functions are "f" and "h", not "f()" and "h()". -- David Marcus
From: Lester Zick on 2 Nov 2006 12:53 On 1 Nov 2006 14:59:05 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> >That there are different kinds of numbers does not entail that set >> >theory cannot be a foundation. >> >> Nor does it entail that set theory can be. > >True. But so what? I don't know of anyone who claims that the mere fact >that there are different kinds of numbers is what enables set theory to >be a foundation. So why are you arguing about it then? Set "theory" is not a theory at all. It's just a group of set analytical techniques having nothing to recommend it but the fact that x many people use it and call it home. You don't even try to claim it's true. So whatever you think you have to recommend it as some kind of foundation is largely irrelevant. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Nov 2006 12:59 On 1 Nov 2006 16:18:41 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> >> Yeah, yeah, I tell you what Moe: why don't you just stop talking about >> >> it? I made reference to something you claimed which you can't justify >> >> according to the posts you've mangled (intentionally it seems) and now >> >> you're embarrassed about it. You're a big boy. Get over it already. >> > >> >I have not mangled any posts, intentionally or otherwise. >> >> Then(x)why(x)are(x)we(x)even(x)discussing(x)the(x)point(x)? > >Because(~v~~)you(~v~~)continue(~v~~)to(~v~~)make(~v~~)stupid(~v~~)comments(~v~~)related(~v~~)to(~v~~)it(~v~~). Ah well now, Moe, at least you're trying. Problem is that while "~v~~" does establish context and domain of discourse it is simply a symbolic rendering of the law of contradiction, stands on its own, and is quite a little more significant than (x) which is ambiguous. Now if you wish to use "~v~~" to establish context dependent mathematical discourse you might find some demonstrably true mathematics for a change. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Nov 2006 13:09 On 1 Nov 2006 17:08:05 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> I'm(x)just(x)interested(x)for(x)the(x)record(x)to(x)which(x)axiomatic(x) >> assumptions(x)of(x)truth(x)mathematikers(x)can(x)appeal(x)to(x)for(x) >> justification(x)of(x)their(x)otherwise(x)unjustifiable(x)speculations(x). > >Maybe if I have the time and inclination, I'll post some >axiomatizations. But I won't do so under the presumption that they are >as you describe "assumptions of truth" as YOU define 'truth'. So what are they then? Assumptions of truth as you define "truth"? Certainly I can't assume you assume they're false? Maybe you can. > And, as I >said, as far as any such posting being for your benefit - your >"interest" as you say - I don't see the point, since you are not >familiar with the basic mathematical notation in which the axioms are >stated with suitable precision (and I am wary of less precise, less >formal, statements since they too easily can become fodder for >misunderstandings due to crank oversimplifications and crank strawman >captiousness). Aw gee, Moe, so what's wrong with "~v~~"? That's pretty symbolic and pretty precise. Also happens to be true.I mean when you eventually get around to considering the truth of what you say. >I suggest first that I would post a specification of a syntax for a >formal first order language for set theory. Why specifically for set "theory" which isn't actually a theory at all but just a group of set analytical techniques which you don't even claim to be true? > Then perhaps we could move >on to an axiomatization of the first order calculus, identity theory, >and then different set theories. You might just consider starting off with something a little less ambitious and a little more true. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Nov 2006 13:23
On 1 Nov 2006 16:57:47 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On 31 Oct 2006 15:22:10 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> On 30 Oct 2006 17:45:48 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> >> According to MoeBlee mathematical definitions require a "domain of >> >> >> discourse" variable such as IN(x) and OUT(x). >> >> > >> >> >I did not say that. Regarding a particular definition I gave, I >> >> >explained to you that the variable ranges over the domain of discourse >> >> >of any given model. I didn't say, in general, that definitions >> >> >"require" variables (some defininitonal forms do require variables, but >> >> >not all definitions do), nor did I suggest using variables in the >> >> >mindless way you have done in certain examples you've posted that >> >> >misrepresent the actual definition I gave. >> >> >> >> Then exactly why did you go apeshit over the issue, Moe? >> > >> >Because you kept representing that I said what I did not say, you >> >idiot. >> >> And you know that how, Moe? Because the material you deleted backs you >> up? Or because the material you deleted doesn't back you up? > >Deleted material? I haven't deleted any posts. Uh oh, Moe, this borders on deliberate misrepresentation since I refer specifically to "material you deleted" and you try to evade the issue by claiming you haven't "deleted any posts". I'm not even sure how you might go about deleting any posts to begin with. But you sure have deleted a lot of material in replies to my posts then demanded I go and research the significance of deleted material to satisfy your claims. I think it's becoming pretty obvious here who's being evasive. > And the fact that I >haven't included every previous quote in every of my posts is not an >issue unless you show some lack of inclusion that did materially >distort what you said. Unless I show??? It's your claim, sport, not mine. You need to start supporting your own claims for a change and stop demanding others do it for you. > I'm not going to commit to including all >accumulated previous quoted posts in each of my replies. And I may trim >to certain quotes and portions of previous posts to emphasize the scope >of my particular interest in what I am replying to. If you claim a >material distortion, then go ahead and show what you think has been >distorted, if you like. You're the one who claims a material distortion, slick. >Meanwhile, what backs me up are the posts in the threads, including >your own posts in which you mangled my formulas and what I had said, >which (as far as I know) are not deleted by you and remain just as they >were posted. Then you can actually prove your claims for a change? >Now, since you're whining about wanting to move on, then do it. Or >don't and continue to whine about it. But no matter what you do, you >always manage to make yourself into an utter fool and boor doing it >anyway. I wasn't the one whining about wanting to move on, Moe(x), you were. I'm perfectly content to stay right here while I refine my definitions and terminology to bring them into better conformance with standard mathematical usage and more appropriate neomathematical forensic modalities. ~v~~ |