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: Ostap Bender on 2 Jun 2010 01:33 On Jun 1, 7:56 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: > In article > <4b309679-e046-43e4-b849-b54456dac...(a)z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, > Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 7:16 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 5:05 am, "porky pig...(a)my-deja.com" <porky pig...(a)my- > > > > deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 1, 3:05 am, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 1, 3:42 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Do Bergman and Stockbauer mean that N is isomorphic to C, > > > > > > or that N is isomorphic to a subset of C? (Leaving out > > > > > > the words "a subset of" led to a huge argument in another > > > > > > recent thread.) > > > > > > I mean N is isomorphic to C. > > > > > Thanks. May be you don't understand that, but with this reply you > > > > instantly established your credentials. > > > > Don't jump on that one so eagerly. I was only confirming the meaning > > > of the original question. There is no claim here. Only a question > > > supported by an observation on the primes. > > > Any "isomorphism", as the word is usually understood, requires among > > other things a one-to-one identification between the two objects. > > Since there can be no one-to-one identification between the natural > > numbers and the complex numbers, the question has a trivial negative > > answer, *regardless* of any observations made on primes or any other > > objects, *unless* you wish to change the meaning of "isomorphic". > > or the meaning of N, or the meaning of C, or the meaning of "is". > I wouldn't put any of those past OP. ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" /President Clinton/
From: Transfer Principle on 2 Jun 2010 16:11 On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 7:56 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> > wrote: > > or the meaning of N, or the meaning of C, or the meaning of "is". > > I wouldn't put any of those past OP. > ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" /President > Clinton/ Like many sci.math posters, Myerson only questions the meaning of "is" if someone with whom he disagrees, in this case the OP, uses the word. Myerson never asks those with whom he agrees to define every single word they use, even two-letter words. Thus reveals the hypocrisy of those who ask for definitions of words. And kudos to Bender to drawing attention to Myerson and his Clintonian hairsplitting.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 2 Jun 2010 17:23 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Jun 1, 7:56 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> >> wrote: >> > or the meaning of N, or the meaning of C, or the meaning of "is". >> > I wouldn't put any of those past OP. >> ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" /President >> Clinton/ > > Like many sci.math posters, Myerson only questions the meaning > of "is" if someone with whom he disagrees, in this case the OP, > uses the word. Myerson never asks those with whom he agrees to > define every single word they use, even two-letter words. Thus > reveals the hypocrisy of those who ask for definitions of words. > > And kudos to Bender to drawing attention to Myerson and his > Clintonian hairsplitting. Yes, kudos to Bender! Gerry's joke is much improved by someone taking the time to explain the reference. Though, you still didn't get it, I guess. Perhaps some of us need even more explanations. -- "The math doesn't care about their mortgages. It doesn't care about their political needs. [...] Today's mathematicians have to hate mathematics because mathematics doesn't look out for them. It doesn't pay attention to their needs." --- JSH analyzes mathematicians
From: Akira Bergman on 2 Jun 2010 18:19 On Jun 3, 6:11 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 7:56 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> > > wrote: > > > or the meaning of N, or the meaning of C, or the meaning of "is". > > > I wouldn't put any of those past OP. > > ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" /President > > Clinton/ > > Like many sci.math posters, Myerson only questions the meaning > of "is" if someone with whom he disagrees, in this case the OP, > uses the word. Myerson never asks those with whom he agrees to > define every single word they use, even two-letter words. Thus > reveals the hypocrisy of those who ask for definitions of words. > > And kudos to Bender to drawing attention to Myerson and his > Clintonian hairsplitting. Pack mentality in action. Insult one of them and all come barking. They seem to need drama in their little lives. 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.
From: Tonico on 2 Jun 2010 18:38
On Jun 2, 11:11 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 7:56 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> > > wrote: > > > or the meaning of N, or the meaning of C, or the meaning of "is". > > > I wouldn't put any of those past OP. > > ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" /President > > Clinton/ > > Like many sci.math posters, Myerson only questions the meaning > of "is" if someone with whom he disagrees, in this case the OP, > uses the word. Myerson never asks those with whom he agrees to > define every single word they use, even two-letter words. Thus > reveals the hypocrisy of those who ask for definitions of words. > > And kudos to Bender to drawing attention to Myerson and his > Clintonian hairsplitting. Lwalke, as many other times, you're completely clueless in this one...again. Tsk,tsk,tsk. Tonio |