Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: cbrown on 16 Oct 2006 16:56 Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > cbrown(a)cbrownsystems.com schreef: > > > Han de Bruijn wrote: > > > stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > > > > > > > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Dik T. Winter wrote: > > > > > > > >>>In article <1160857746.680029.319340(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> > > > >>>Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL writes: > > > >>> > Virgil schreef: > > > >>>... > > > >>> > > I do not object to the constraints of the mathematics of physics when > > > >>> > > doing physics, but why should I be so constrained when not doing physics? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Because (empirical) physics is an absolute guarantee for consistency? > > > >>> > > > >>>Can you prove that? > > > > > > > >>Is it possible to live in a (physical) world that is inconsistent? > > > > > > > > Perhaps. How could we know? > > > > > > How can we know, heh? Can things in the real world be true AND false > > > (: definition of inconsistency) at the same time? > > > > The cat in the box is dead; and the cat in the box is not dead. > > I talked about the real world, physics as an empirical science, > not about artifical theoretical constructs. In the real world, > Schrodinger's cat is dead :-( > I thought you kept up with physics? http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/4/7/2 The device is conducting electricity in a clockwise fashion; and the device is not conducting electricity in a clockwise fashion. Cheers - Chas
From: Virgil on 16 Oct 2006 17:01 In article <1161027917.596265.118160(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > If there are actually infinitely many positions, then 0.111... is not > > > completely covered, hence not defined , > > > > Still unproven. > > > > > hence not existing, hence the > > > "if there are actually infinitely many positions" contradicts itself. > > > > Pray, first show a *valid* mathematical proof of your statement above. > > It is impossible to show a "valid" mathematical proof against set > theory. While mathematicians certainly hope that it true about ZF and NBG, it is known not to be provable unless it is false. What is known is that no one has yet published a valid proof against either, and we hope that situation will continue. > We have discussed the vase and I would not have believed in > advance that anybody could maintain arguments here like Virgil and > William and others. And I, and William and those others, would not have believed that anyone would maintain arguments like yours once our lucent logic on the situation was presented. Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. Therefore I am sure set theory will never be > contradicted --- its proponents simply will die out. > > Regards, WM
From: Virgil on 16 Oct 2006 17:08 In article <1161029094.090551.124570(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > David Marcus schrieb: > > > Please let people know when you are not using standard terminology and > > when you do this, please define your terms. What does it mean to say a > > natural number "is not fixed"? > > One cannot know it, cannot call it by its name, but it is provably > present. In English "not fixed" implies variable. "Indeterminate" better conveys the meaning of fixed in value but unknown.
From: Virgil on 16 Oct 2006 17:10 In article <1161029211.650531.54720(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > Weird is that adding 9 balls instead of 1 per transaction leads to zero > balls. Superweird is that removing each ball before noon leaves any at noon.
From: Virgil on 16 Oct 2006 17:13
In article <1161029391.305685.141910(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > Sure, theories. Can't you talk about something else but "theories"? > > Han de Bruijn Isn't the point of physics to come up with theories? And now a physicist wants to outen them? |