CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
in [Logic]
|
From: George Greene on 22 Jun 2010 14:03 On Jun 22, 2:52 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Your idea of knocking my core belief is calling me deluded Absolutely NO CORE BELIEFS are relevant here. NO BELIEFS are relevant here. ALL that is going on here IS AXIOMS. YOU DON'T NEED to BELIEVE the axioms! ALL you need to do is SEE WHAT FOLLOWS from them UNDER THE RULES of logic! That's WHY it says "sci.logic" ON THE DOOR!
From: George Greene on 22 Jun 2010 14:04 On Jun 22, 1:42 pm, "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > I think Herc's problem with Cantor's are only sustainable while he is > allowed to confuse himself with his > ambiguous/contradictory/plain-old-incorrect terminology, Exactly. It is truly hard to believe he was ever a programmer because he refuses to learn FOL. Maybe the problem is that FOL is declarative and he only learned procedural languages.
From: George Greene on 22 Jun 2010 14:10 On Jun 22, 1:42 pm, "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > As I went further, I realised Herc knows nothing of normal mathematical > definitions It's worse than that; he doesn't understand the concept of "a definition" PERIOD. > Also he has his own unclear (contradictory maybe?) > definitions for words he uses. He BRAGS about this! He speaks vaguely and then calls YOU stupid for not being able to figure out what he means! Worse, he "reasons" IN ENGLISH, IN NATURAL language, and expects everybody to see that his simple leaps are simply obvious! > Still, I thought if I break everything down into smaller and smaller steps, > explain exactly all the definitions involved, get Herc to clarify his own > definitions to make them precise etc., then I could still get him to realise > he's mistaken. He won't be able to realize it until he is willing to use quantifiers. Even now he writes "An" or "forall n" WITHOUT BRACKETS, i.e., he has no notion OF SCOPE of the quantifiers. Again, this makes it hard to believe that he was ever a programmer. > > But there is a much more basic problem - Herc actually refuses to engage in > "normal mathematical dialog". What I mean is that if you and I discussed > something, and I didn't understand a step in your proof, I'd point out what > I didn't understand, and you'd go away and expand the proof until I was > happy. Similarly, if I used a vague term, you could ask me to clarify it, > and I would break it down into well understood basic notions, quantifiers, > etc., and we'd move on... Neither of us would be offended by the process or > think we were being insulted, That may be normal for mathematicians, but in the rest of the world, it is not. I have done a little math in my day and I know *I* would be insulted. If two people are bothering to talk at all, they are not going to pre- commit to completely explaining each other's databases. At some point, it really is going to be the case that, "I'm sorry, if you didn't ALREADY know THAT, then, well, you're just STUPID: NORMAL people learned THAT in the 10th grade, OR SOONER". That is a little less likely to happen HERE simply because not everybody's pre-college program included FOL, but Herc is committed TO MANGLING ENGLISH as well as to not learning formal language.
From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 17:38 On Jun 23, 4:10 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jun 22, 1:42 pm, "Mike Terry" > > <news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > > As I went further, I realised Herc knows nothing of normal mathematical > > definitions > > It's worse than that; he doesn't understand the concept of "a > definition" PERIOD. > > > Also he has his own unclear (contradictory maybe?) > > definitions for words he uses. > > He BRAGS about this! He speaks vaguely and then calls YOU stupid > for not being able to figure out what he means! > Worse, he "reasons" IN ENGLISH, IN NATURAL language, and expects > everybody to see that his simple leaps are simply obvious! > > > Still, I thought if I break everything down into smaller and smaller steps, > > explain exactly all the definitions involved, get Herc to clarify his own > > definitions to make them precise etc., then I could still get him to realise > > he's mistaken. > > He won't be able to realize it until he is willing to use quantifiers. > Even now he writes "An" or "forall n" WITHOUT BRACKETS, i.e., > he has no notion OF SCOPE of the quantifiers. > Again, this makes it hard to believe that he was ever a programmer. > > > > > But there is a much more basic problem - Herc actually refuses to engage in > > "normal mathematical dialog". What I mean is that if you and I discussed > > something, and I didn't understand a step in your proof, I'd point out what > > I didn't understand, and you'd go away and expand the proof until I was > > happy. Similarly, if I used a vague term, you could ask me to clarify it, > > and I would break it down into well understood basic notions, quantifiers, > > etc., and we'd move on... Neither of us would be offended by the process or > > think we were being insulted, > > That may be normal for mathematicians, but in the rest of the world, > it is not. > I have done a little math in my day and I know *I* would be insulted. > If two people are bothering to talk at all, they are not going to pre- > commit to completely explaining each other's databases. At some > point, > it really is going to be the case that, "I'm sorry, if you didn't > ALREADY know THAT, > then, well, you're just STUPID: NORMAL people learned THAT in the > 10th grade, > OR SOONER". That is a little less likely to happen HERE simply > because > not everybody's pre-college program included FOL, but Herc is > committed > TO MANGLING ENGLISH as well as to not learning formal language. Funny Mike posts of my ignorance directly ignoring my 3 points George atleast posts outright lies or does he really think y = 2^x is defined when x = oo but not when y = oo hint: y is the length of the list under discussion I told mike something like the antidiagonal is 'the other 9 out of 10 digits ad infinitum" he said it was nonsense so unasked him to define a general antidiag for all possible antidiagonals. He STILL blames me for not clarifying the statement about "the other 9 digits" because I replied with a question not only that I pointed this out 4 times and he still writes lectures that i don't converse properly Herc
From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 17:47
On Jun 23, 7:38 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 4:10 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:42 pm, "Mike Terry" > > > <news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > > > As I went further, I realised Herc knows nothing of normal mathematical > > > definitions > > > It's worse than that; he doesn't understand the concept of "a > > definition" PERIOD. > > > > Also he has his own unclear (contradictory maybe?) > > > definitions for words he uses. > > > He BRAGS about this! He speaks vaguely and then calls YOU stupid > > for not being able to figure out what he means! > > Worse, he "reasons" IN ENGLISH, IN NATURAL language, and expects > > everybody to see that his simple leaps are simply obvious! > > > > Still, I thought if I break everything down into smaller and smaller steps, > > > explain exactly all the definitions involved, get Herc to clarify his own > > > definitions to make them precise etc., then I could still get him to realise > > > he's mistaken. > > > He won't be able to realize it until he is willing to use quantifiers. > > Even now he writes "An" or "forall n" WITHOUT BRACKETS, i.e., > > he has no notion OF SCOPE of the quantifiers. > > Again, this makes it hard to believe that he was ever a programmer. > > > > But there is a much more basic problem - Herc actually refuses to engage in > > > "normal mathematical dialog". What I mean is that if you and I discussed > > > something, and I didn't understand a step in your proof, I'd point out what > > > I didn't understand, and you'd go away and expand the proof until I was > > > happy. Similarly, if I used a vague term, you could ask me to clarify it, > > > and I would break it down into well understood basic notions, quantifiers, > > > etc., and we'd move on... Neither of us would be offended by the process or > > > think we were being insulted, > > > That may be normal for mathematicians, but in the rest of the world, > > it is not. > > I have done a little math in my day and I know *I* would be insulted. > > If two people are bothering to talk at all, they are not going to pre- > > commit to completely explaining each other's databases. At some > > point, > > it really is going to be the case that, "I'm sorry, if you didn't > > ALREADY know THAT, > > then, well, you're just STUPID: NORMAL people learned THAT in the > > 10th grade, > > OR SOONER". That is a little less likely to happen HERE simply > > because > > not everybody's pre-college program included FOL, but Herc is > > committed > > TO MANGLING ENGLISH as well as to not learning formal language. > > Funny Mike posts of my ignorance directly ignoring my 3 points > > George atleast posts outright lies or does he really think > y = 2^x > is defined when x = oo > but not when y = oo > hint: y is the length of the list under discussion > > I told mike something like the antidiagonal is 'the other 9 out of 10 > digits ad infinitum" > > he said it was nonsense so unasked him to define a general > antidiag for all possible antidiagonals. > > He STILL blames me for not clarifying the statement about > "the other 9 digits" because I replied with a question > > not only that I pointed this out 4 times and he still writes > lectures that i don't converse properly > > Herc Just because a formula for ALL antidiagonals is deliberately missing from your text books, doesn't mean it's not a valid formula of mathematics. Post anything different to sci.math and you refute it based on your inability to parse it. Herc |