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: |-|ercules on 29 Jun 2010 01:50

"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote
> Fencing is equivalent to your increasing sizes of lists.
>
> Mowing is equivalent to my increasing widths of digits along an infinite digit sequence.

I hope my distinction holds because every time I post to sci.math people will say
"finished mowing that lawn yet Herc?"!!

Herc

From: Jesse F. Hughes on 29 Jun 2010 08:33

Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> writes:

> Let's see - does it mention replies to off-topic posts? No.
>
> OK, technically, a reply is itself a post, but it's the initial
> off-topic posting that the nuisance, not the replies.
>
> I'm reading this thread in sci.math. I'm not going to engage in a
> process of manual filtering based on the newsgroups that are being
> posted to just to appease those who can't be bothered to kill the thread
> of Herc's initial posting.

Frankly, Sylvia, I agree with others. You've been politely asked to
drop aus.tv from replies. This takes less than 15 seconds of editing
the Newsgroup field. It is a reasonable request.

--
"I am one of those annoying people who is so good at so many things
that I can't seem to pick one. I can seriously party. But I can also
sit for long periods concentrating profusely on some problem or
other."-- James S Harris: Serious partier, profuse concentrator.

From: Transfer Principle on 30 Jun 2010 02:00

On Jun 28, 9:58 pm, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Little wrote:
> > In short, just another crank.
> Yeh, well, I actually defended him from the beginning when he
> showed up in sci.logic with his project of providing formal
> systems in which the assertions of various cranks can be
> demonstrated. I think that is a valid intellectual exercise,
> at least, and could provoke some actually interesting
> discussions about fundamental assumptions we routinely make
> in logic/math.

I actually attempted to do this a few times in this thread, but
when Herc stated that he was trying to use some form of
induction, all I could muster was a schema of the form:

(phi(.1) & An (phi(n 1's) -> phi(n+1 1's))) -> phi(.111...)

Of course, such schemata are invalid in standard theory, and I
even attempted to warn Herc that the majority of posters in this
thread are likely to reject such schemata.

I still believe that it's possible to find a workable schema that
describe Herc's intuitions, but it won't be easy.

From: Transfer Principle on 30 Jun 2010 02:03

On Jun 28, 9:58 pm, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

[Oops! Reposting because I forgot to remove aus.tv per
herbzet's request]

> Tim Little wrote:
> > In short, just another crank.
> Yeh, well, I actually defended him from the beginning when he
> showed up in sci.logic with his project of providing formal
> systems in which the assertions of various cranks can be
> demonstrated. I think that is a valid intellectual exercise,
> at least, and could provoke some actually interesting
> discussions about fundamental assumptions we routinely make
> in logic/math.

I actually attempted to do this a few times in this thread, but
when Herc stated that he was trying to use some form of
induction, all I could muster was a schema of the form:

(phi(.1) & An (phi(n 1's) -> phi(n+1 1's))) -> phi(.111...)

Of course, such schemata are invalid in standard theory, and I
even attempted to warn Herc that the majority of posters in this
thread are likely to reject such schemata.

I still believe that it's possible to find a workable schema that
describe Herc's intuitions, but it won't be easy.

From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 02:20

"Transfer Principle" <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> wrote
> On Jun 28, 9:58 pm, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tim Little wrote:
>> > In short, just another crank.
>> Yeh, well, I actually defended him from the beginning when he
>> showed up in sci.logic with his project of providing formal
>> systems in which the assertions of various cranks can be
>> demonstrated. I think that is a valid intellectual exercise,
>> at least, and could provoke some actually interesting
>> discussions about fundamental assumptions we routinely make
>> in logic/math.
>
> I actually attempted to do this a few times in this thread, but
> when Herc stated that he was trying to use some form of
> induction, all I could muster was a schema of the form:
>
> (phi(.1) & An (phi(n 1's) -> phi(n+1 1's))) -> phi(.111...)
>
> Of course, such schemata are invalid in standard theory, and I
> even attempted to warn Herc that the majority of posters in this
> thread are likely to reject such schemata.
>
> I still believe that it's possible to find a workable schema that
> describe Herc's intuitions, but it won't be easy.

phi( <[1] 2 3 4...> ) & An ((phi ( <[1 2 ... n] n+1 n+2 ...>) -> phi( <[1 2 ... n n+1] n+2 n+3 ...> ))
->
phi( <[1 2 3 4...]> )

Herc