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 19:05 On Jun 4, 8:00 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. No hypocrisy here with JJ case. As any regular alt.philosophy poster if you like. The posts at sci.logic is only a part of the story. He carried on about LSD while he kept his routine of changing titles of well established threads everyday and posting other nonsense. Many people asked him to stop but he would not listen. In the end I tried to expose his situation by attacking his knowledge and habits directly, hoping that it would change him. Maybe it helped, who knows, since he stopped. Maybe Google finally decided to take action on the complaints. alt.philosophy is very different to sci.math in that most hide behind aliases and many are politically motivated. Hanging around that NG made me very cautious of other people's motives. Hence my overreaction and misunderstanding of well intentioned criticism here. Do all the research you can. You can not prove the JJ case. See, I am not alone in rushing to conclusion on little evidence. You were too desperate to find something that can stick, and made a mistake. Unwilling to acknowledge, you resorted to insults to cover your mistake.
From: Ostap Bender on 4 Jun 2010 20:19 On Jun 4, 4:05 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 8:00 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No hypocrisy here with JJ case. As any regular alt.philosophy poster > if you like. The posts at sci.logic is only a part of the story. He > carried on about LSD while he kept his routine of changing titles of > well established threads everyday and posting other nonsense. Many > people asked him to stop but he would not listen. In the end I tried > to expose his situation by attacking his knowledge and habits > directly, hoping that it would change him. Maybe it helped, who knows, > since he stopped. Maybe Google finally decided to take action on the > complaints. > > alt.philosophy is very different to sci.math in that most hide behind > aliases and many are politically motivated. Hanging around that NG > made me very cautious of other people's motives. Hence my overreaction > and misunderstanding of well intentioned criticism here. > > Do all the research you can. You can not prove the JJ case. You don't understand. The last thing I want to do is defend JJ's ideas. He is a simpleton and says a lot of stupid things. Just like you, when you entertain the idea that a countable set can be isomorphic to an uncountable one. To repeat for the third time: you treated JJ's stupidities in exactly the same way, if not worse, that the other people here treated your own stupidity about the "isomorphism": > > > > On May 29, 7:52 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.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. > > See, I am > not alone in rushing to conclusion on little evidence. You were too > desperate to find something that can stick, and made a mistake. What mistake? Please quote my text in this thread that was a "mistake". > Unwilling to acknowledge, you resorted to insults to cover your > mistake. What mistake? Picking an argument with a clueless and snobbish ignoramus like yourself?
From: Akira Bergman on 4 Jun 2010 21:14 "To repeat for the third time: you treated JJ's stupidities in exactly the same way, if not worse, that the other people here treated your own stupidity about the "isomorphism": " Except that I did not deserve the initial abuse by the mob. JJ's treatment has a long history and he deserved it. I posted here once in a long time and I got ridiculed. Besides I had support. Here is your mistake; "He is a simpleton and says a lot of stupid things." "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:" You are hurt with my comments about the academia and trying desperately for a come back. You are a cheap politician.
From: Ostap Bender on 4 Jun 2010 22:44 On Jun 4, 6:14 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "To repeat for the third time: you treated JJ's stupidities in exactly > the same way, if not worse, that the other people here treated your > own stupidity about the "isomorphism": " > > Except that I did not deserve the initial abuse by the mob. JJ's > treatment has a long history and he deserved it. I posted here once in > a long time and I got ridiculed. In hindsight, don't you find your idea of a countable set being isomorphjic to an uncountable set to be very funny? Especially coming form somebody like yourself who tries to teach mathematical logic to others. > Besides I had support. You wear jock straps while posting to sci.math? Or do you mean that you found another cretin who thinks that the set of complex numbers is countable? > Here is your mistake; > > "He is a simpleton and says a lot of stupid things." Which part of that sentence is a "mistake"? That he is a simpleton? Or that he says a lot of stupid things? > "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:" So, my mistake was using the word "innocently"? Scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh? So, you are telling me that this JJ fellow writes not "innocently" but "guiltily"? Are you saying that he doesn't believe his own stupid ideas but posts them for some impure purpose? What purpose is that? To yank your chain? If so - he is very successful. > You are hurt with my comments about the academia and trying > desperately for a come back. You are a cheap politician. Why would I be "hurt" by anything that an ignoramus like yourself would say? And especially by your words about academia, given that I left academia at the age of 30 and have never been back. Your efforts at playing a psychologist are as inane as your trying to play a expert on mathematical logic and set theory.
From: Ostap Bender on 4 Jun 2010 22:47
On Jun 4, 7:44 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 6:14 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > "To repeat for the third time: you treated JJ's stupidities in exactly > > the same way, if not worse, that the other people here treated your > > own stupidity about the "isomorphism": " > > > Except that I did not deserve the initial abuse by the mob. JJ's > > treatment has a long history and he deserved it. I posted here once in > > a long time and I got ridiculed. > > In hindsight, don't you find your idea of a countable set being > isomorphjic to an uncountable set to be very funny? Especially coming > form somebody like yourself who tries to teach mathematical logic to > others. > > > Besides I had support. > > You wear jock straps while posting to sci.math? > > Or do you mean that you found another cretin who thinks that the set > of complex numbers is countable? > > > Here is your mistake; > > > "He is a simpleton and says a lot of stupid things." > > Which part of that sentence is a "mistake"? That he is a simpleton? Or > that he says a lot of stupid things? > > > "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:" > > So, my mistake was using the word "innocently"? Scraping the bottom of > the barrel, eh? > > So, you are telling me that this JJ fellow writes not "innocently" but > "guiltily"? Are you saying that he doesn't believe his own stupid > ideas but posts them for some impure purpose? What purpose is that? To > yank your chain? If so - he is very successful. A better antonym to "innocent" here is "malicious": So, you are telling me that this JJ fellow writes not "innocently" but "maliciously"? Are you saying that he doesn't believe his own stupid ideas but posts them for some malicious purpose? What purpose is that? To yank your chain? If so - he is very successful. > > You are hurt with my comments about the academia and trying > > desperately for a come back. You are a cheap politician. > > Why would I be "hurt" by anything that an ignoramus like yourself > would say? And especially by your words about academia, given that I > left academia at the age of 30 and have never been back. > > Your efforts at playing a psychologist are as inane as your trying to > play a expert on mathematical logic and set theory. |