Are natural numbers isomorphic to complex numbers?
in [Math]
|
Prev: 3 dimensions and their 4 directions
Next: Redshift and Microwave radiation favor Atom Totality and disfavor Big Bang #9; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
From: Akira Bergman on 4 Jun 2010 03:12 On Jun 4, 4:51 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > On Jun 4, 1:33 am, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Mr. Magidin, > > > There is no useful point in pushing this ping-pong game further. It > > has gone all wrong. > > I do not disrespect you, > > and I wish I had a chance to attend your > > classes to further my math education. > > > My apologies. > > See, my first reaction is to say "pull the other one, it's got bells > on" (which, as it happens, is not a comment about my sense of dress as > compraed to yours). But if the apologies are meant honestly, I accept > them and will say nothing further. > > -- > Arturo Magidin They are honest, please accept, and thank you for your patience.
From: Frederick Williams on 4 Jun 2010 05:18 Akira Bergman wrote: > > All I did was to ask a question. The answer to the question "Are natural numbers isomorphic to complex numbers?" is "No, because N and C have different cardinalities." What's wrong with that? -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Ostap Bender on 4 Jun 2010 06:00 On Jun 4, 12:07 am, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 4:56 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 3, 2:39 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't claim to be a genius. I am merely trying to learn some math > > > more by intuition, when I can get through the raving formalists like > > > yourself. > > > On Jun 2, 3:19 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > All I did was to ask a question. They remind me some of my university > > > teachers. They used to say; "Do not ask meaning questions, just work > > > the formalism. Intuition means nothing without formalism." They are > > > like the preachers of the fundamentalist religions. > > > Sounds like you are an innocent victim of a bunch of snobs, doesn't > > it? You ask a sincere question, and they tell you to go read a math > > book instead! What snotty snobs the mathematicians are! > > > I almost wept at the rudeness and snobbery that you have unjustly > > encountered here, until I saw another thread, in which John Jones > > > innocently wrote: > > > On May 19, 12:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > "2 + 2 = 4" does not express a truth, it expresses a pattern (such as > > > > two by two re-patterns to four by one) > > > And a nasty snob told him to shut up and not come back until he > > learned mathematics. > > > And do you know who that nasty snob was? It was you: > > > On May 29, 7:52 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 12:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > Maybe you should read a good book on mathematical logic, and not post > > > any more on this topic until you have a good understanding. > > > You are a snob and a hypocrite. You are here on an ego trip. You don't > > know the most trivial facts in set theory, you write total nonsense, > > and yet you have the audacity to put down others: "you should read a > > good book on mathematical logic, and not post any more on this topic > > until you have a good understanding." > > > Well, maybe you too should head your own advice, and go read a basic > > book on set theory, and not post any more on this topic until you have > > a good understanding (if ever). > > You do not know the background to that discussion. JJ was changing > titles of many posts everyday to the degree of sabotage of that NG and > did multiple postings on the same subject despite my repeated > explanations. > He was warned many times by many people about his destructive behavior > and only recently stopped the sabotage. Well, if that is the case (and I don't have time to investigate), then that's what you should have written to him. Instead, you made fun of his alleged unfamiliarity with logic textbooks. Your other posts to sci.logic also contain sharp criticism of JJ's mathematical ideas. While your criticism of his points is valid, your tone can hardly be described as understanding or friendly. You have the habit of making fun of people for their wrongful understanding of math. Don't you see the hypocrisy here? I assure you that the idea of N being isomorphic to C makes anybody even vaguely familiar with the word "uncountable", cringe.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 4 Jun 2010 10:03 Akira Bergman <akirabergman(a)gmail.com> writes: > Typical patronizing and self-serving academic, whose primary motive is > the protection of his position and pay. Nonsense. My exchanges with Arturo have been uniformly positive -- although at times he has become somewhat exasperated by my tedious logical pedantry -- and not once has he referred to my utter lack of any academic degree or paid position in academia. On the other hand, he has often been critical of those who like you spout idiotic drivel about mathematics, in news and it other venues, regardless of their academic status. In my experience with people in the academia this is not at all untypical. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 4 Jun 2010 10:11
Akira Bergman <akirabergman(a)gmail.com> writes: > He has been called names and betrayed by people you just because he > did not accept the stinking rewards of the establishment. Who are these people? Just how has he been betrayed? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |