CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< [Math]

Prev: Anders, Ebihara Re: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #180; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: combinations of additive and multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #181; ATOM TOTALITY

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

From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 20:09

On 22/06/2010 4:49 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> IN FACT
>
> 3 It takes 10^x reals to list every permutation of digits x digits
> wide
> So with infinite reals you can list Every permutation of digits
> infinite digits wide.

That's just an assertion. Let's see your proof. You might think it's
obvious, but in Maths, obvious doesn't count.

Sylvia.

From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 20:36

On 23/06/2010 3:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> "Sylvia Else"<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> news:88ajhvF3kjU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> On 22/06/2010 11:41 AM, herbzet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> herbzet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Herc is a troll who is HAVING A BALL jerking all the "smart guys"
> around.
>>>>
>>>> Or not. Herc is a paranoid schizophrenic, and subject to a variety of
>>>> delusions.
>>>
>>> None of which implies that he is not also a troll.
>>>
>>>> What isn't clear is whether this Cantor stuff is a
>>>> conventional misunderstanding, or yet another delusion.
>>>
>>> It's the same old tired Cantor troll b.s.
>>
>> I didn't realise before how long this has been going on for.
>>
>> But I don't think he's a troll - he appears to have a genuine belief
>> that the world's mathematicians have got this wrong. If it's a
>> conventional misunderstanding, he might yet be persuaded that he is
>> mistaken.
>
> Personally I can't see this ever happening. When I started off with Herc
> (years ago), it seemed like he was just making a simple mistake, and so it
> should be easy enough to show where this mistake was. (And indeed it is
> easy in a mathematical sense...)
>
> As I went further, I realised Herc knows nothing of normal mathematical
> definitions (like um.. like the ones used in Cantor's proofs which he is
> discussing), and nothing of mathematical reasoning (proofs starting from
> definitions etc.). Also he has his own unclear (contradictory maybe?)
> definitions for words he uses. So obviously a bit more work than I first
> thought! :)
>
> 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.
>
> 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, it's just business as usual for communicating
> mathematics.
>
> Actually, I've never really thought of this as a "mathematical" skill, as
> I've always thought of mathematics as being the interesting stuff we do on
> top of all that. It's a basic skill which I'm sure I had around the age of
> 10 (once I'd read simple proofs like the infinitude of the primes etc.),
> although clearly at that age I didn't understand many definitions.
>
> Anyway, it's to be expected that posters won't all have the same level of
> knowledge of working definitions, which is why we have "normal mathematical
> dialog" to get along! I believe it's impossible to "talk maths" with
> someone who simply refuses to engage in this behaviour.
>
> This includes Herc - I don't believe he will ever respond to a request to
> clarify something into simpler terms. (Maybe some people's brains just
> don't work in that analytic way?, and so they don't understand the need for
> it?) And if you suggest a precise definition for something vague Herc is
> saying, he will neither confirm nor deny that that is what he meant. (He
> may even scold you for introducing irrelevent factors into the argument, and
> suggest you should just ask him to explain, but if you do that of course you
> won't get much of a clarification!)
>
> So what will Herc actually do if you follow my earlier idea of explaining in
> greater and greater detail, asking for clarifications, refusing to go along
> with vague confusing terminology until it is clarified and so on? [I
> thought that surely if I did this thoroughly enough, Herc would have NO
> CHOICE but to agree where he was wrong, or at least he would have to reply
> in such a way that it was obvious to himself and others that he was not able
> to answer the questions and support his claims.]
>
> The answer is that Herc will just ignore all your efforts and respond with
> something vague, unrelated to the detail of your postings. E.g. he will
> ignore your questions and ask you to "go away and work out all the possible
> antidiagonals", or something. Perhaps he will write a piece at the end of
> your post telling you where YOU are going wrong, and repeat his demand that
> you answer some ambiguous or irrelevent question. (And yes, with enough
> persistence he will become abusive.) What he WILL NOT do is respond
> meaningfully to any requests for mathematical clarification! Later on he'll
> start another thread using the same unclear terminology, and nothing will
> have moved on.

That seems a pretty good summing up of Herc's approach, and not only in
discussions about mathematics. I've had the same response in discussions
about his claimed ability to 'channel' answers to questions, and about
his belief that his thoughts are being broadcast and are audible to
those around him.

I suppose one could consider the similarity of response as some evidence
of a similar underlying cause - that is, that Herc's belief that Cantor
is wrong is a delusion of grandeur (Herc's right, world's mathematicians
wrong), rather than a misunderstanding. His belief that he is "Adam" is
another delusion of grandeur.

I wonder whether the same explanation applies to TomTom in this thread
about special relativity:

<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/3cd6e54c1619c2f5/82b113b832297687>

which is another example of someone who refuses to be pinned down.

>
> Do you count JSH?

I don't know him. I've looked up a few posts, but not enough to form a view.

Sylvia

From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 22:25

On 23/06/2010 10:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/06/2010 4:49 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>> IN FACT
>>
>> 3 It takes 10^x reals to list every permutation of digits x digits
>> wide
>> So with infinite reals you can list Every permutation of digits
>> infinite digits wide.
>
> That's just an assertion. Let's see your proof. You might think it's
> obvious, but in Maths, obvious doesn't count.
>
> Sylvia.

Are you going to ignore this Herc? Let's see the colour of your money.
If you can prove it, do so.

Sylvia.