An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Lester Zick on 2 Nov 2006 17:25 On 2 Nov 2006 11:02:25 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> 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. > >Thanks, but no thanks for the uninformed rant. Whereas you prefer informed rants? There's still no reason to suppose your set "theory" is true or is even a theory at all. Certainly you provide none in your uninformed rants. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Nov 2006 17:35 On 2 Nov 2006 11:21:10 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> 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". > >No, since in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE I addressed not deletion of posts >but redacting of them. So perhaps you can explain how you delete posts? > So when you said 'deleted material', I addressed >both possible senses of that. I didn't say that you had claimed the >first sense, but rather I simply addressed both senses, since 'deleted >material' is ambiguous as to which sense. Things are usually ambiguous in Moeland. >> 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. > >I made no such demand. And I've evaded nothing. Of course you haven't. >> > 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. > >No, it's YOUR claim that my not including all quoted material is some >kind of issue. It's not an issue unless the lack of complete inclusion >is materially distorting. Which of course it is when you claim there is some material distortion. >> You need to start >> supporting your own claims for a change and stop demanding others do >> it for you. > >You need to stop claiming that I demand anyone support my own claims. Only iff you start supporting your own claims. >> > 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. > >You're completely mixed up, as usual. Of course I'm mixed up. Just not quite so much as yourself. > You distorted my formula and >points I made. Do you understand the difference between misrepresentation or distortion and outright mockery, Moe(x)? > I already demonstrated that many posts ago. You already claimed it long ago. I have yet to see any demonstration. > THEN YOU >claimed that my not including all quoted material is at issue. Only when the excluded material bears on your claim. > But that >is not at issue unless my not including all quoted material causes >material distortion. Sure. > So, no, *I* don't claim that my not including all >quoted material causes material distortion. Quite the contrary. Thanks for regressing one claim to another. That really demonstrates a lot. >> >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. > >YOU, not I, were the one to say "maybe we can move on" (or whatever >exact quote you made). Whereas you were whining and I agreed we should move on to prevent you from more whining. >> 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. Evasion noted. ~v~~
From: MoeBlee on 2 Nov 2006 18:26 Lester Zick wrote: > On 2 Nov 2006 11:21:10 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Lester Zick wrote: > >> 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. > > Evasion noted. You just quoted yourself, then commented 'Evasion noted'. Nicely done. MoeBlee
From: David Marcus on 2 Nov 2006 19:16 cbrown(a)cbrownsystems.com wrote: > (Side bar: I've always been slightly tweaked by the events at time t = > -1. Ball 1 is simultaneously added to and removed from the vase. Is > Ball 1 ever actually "in" the vase? What if we had said "at time t = > 1/n, remove ball n and add balls (10*(n-1)+1) to 10*n inclusive?" Would > we actually know that Ball 1 isn't /still/ in the vase? In which case, > we've been wrong all along - the vase is /not/ empty at noon: Ball 1 is > in the vase at noon!). I've also found that curious. If we just blindly translate the words into math, we get that ball 1 is in the vase at time t iff -1 <= t < -1. So, ball 1 is never in the vase. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 2 Nov 2006 19:19
cbrown(a)cbrownsystems.com wrote: > David Marcus wrote: > > 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()". > > Hey! Don't blame me! He started it! I wasn't blaming you! Although, just because he starts it, doesn't mean you have to keep doing it! -- David Marcus |