Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: stephen on 25 Oct 2006 17:43 MoeBlee <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Lester Zick wrote: >> "Definition" in mathematics would appear to mean pretty much whatever >> people who claim to do mathematics say it means. > No, in mathematical logic we prove that there are certain definitional > forms that meet the criteria of elminability and non-creativity. >> Ex: Cardinality is >> card(x)= least ordinal(x) equinumerous(x). > Where did you read that definition? It's nonsense. Lester likes to parrot back things other people have said in a distorted manner. He thinks it is clever. He also thinks that dr/dt = r/t for circular motion. He is absolutely clueless about mathematics. > The definition I gave, which is not nonsense, is: > card(x) = the least ordinal equinumerous with x. > MoeBlee Lester cannot read mathematics, so it all looks like nonsense to him. When he tries to repeat it, he gets nonsense because he has no understanding. Stephen
From: Lester Zick on 25 Oct 2006 17:52 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:33:20 -0400, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: >stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >> David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: >> > Lester Zick wrote: >> >> "Definition" in mathematics would appear to mean pretty much whatever >> >> people who claim to do mathematics say it means. Ex: Cardinality is >> >> card(x)= least ordinal(x) equinumerous(x). In other words mathematical >> >> definition is when definition(x) defines mathematical definition(x).Or >> >> mathematics is when mathematician(x) and a mathematician is when >> >> mathematics(x). I don't know whether M. gives mathematical definitions >> >> or not.However I know a great many mathematikers who definitely don't. >> >> > OK, so both Mueckenheim and you don't know what the word "definition" >> > means in Mathematics. I suppose most of us already knew that. What we >> > find somewhat puzzling is why you don't take the trouble to learn. Have >> > you tried, but not been able to? What math courses have you taken? >> >> You are talking to someone who thinks that dr/dt = r/t for >> circular motion, where r is the radius and t is time. Do >> not expect anything sensible. > >Don't worry: My expectations are very low. So are mine. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 25 Oct 2006 18:01 On 25 Oct 2006 13:32:54 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> "Definition" in mathematics would appear to mean pretty much whatever >> people who claim to do mathematics say it means. > >No, in mathematical logic we prove that there are certain definitional >forms that meet the criteria of elminability and non-creativity. > >> Ex: Cardinality is >> card(x)= least ordinal(x) equinumerous(x). > >Where did you read that definition? It's nonsense. I admit it's an inexact recollection. >The definition I gave, which is not nonsense, is: > >card(x) = the least ordinal equinumerous with x. So then maybe you can give us a mathematically exhaustive definition of "the" and "with"? Why not just say "cardinality is equinumerous least ordinality"? After all the original objective as I recall was to define cardinality and not cardinal(x). I mean the only reason I can think of to specify the particular x is when not x is a consideration as when I defined crankiness for David to be crank(x)=disagree(u). ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 25 Oct 2006 18:02 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:02:37 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <1161806006.602919.26360(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > >> Oh no, not that! It is enough to know that the subject of what you call >> "logic" is nonsense. > >And we know already that what "Mueckenh" calls logic is nonsense, so we >are home free. You've always been home free because you just assume the truth of your assumptions. Doesn't take a lot of reasoning power to do that. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 25 Oct 2006 18:03
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:59:56 +0000 (UTC), Sebastian Holzmann <SHolzmann(a)gmx.de> wrote: >mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >> I am afraid, it will be useless for you to consult any books. >> Nevertheless, here is my attempt to teach you some real logic: >> Vor allem ist die Bildung der wichtigsten Klasse paradoxer Mengen, >> n?mlich der allzu umfassenden Mengen (Antinomien von Burali-Forti, >> Russell usw.) durch unsere Axiome ausgeschlossen. Denn diese gestatten, >> eine oder mehrere gegebene Mengen als Ausgangspunkt nehmend, nur >> entweder die Bildung beschr?nkterer Mengen durch Aussonderung bzw. >> Auswahl, oder die Bildung von Mengen, die in eng umschriebenem Ma? >> sozusagen umfassender sind, durch Paarung, Vereinigung, Potenzierung >> usw. > >Mathematics has advanced beyond the stages of the 19th century. But apparently mathematikers haven't. ~v~~ |