Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: MoeBlee on 31 Oct 2006 13:08 mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > Every path is related to two edges which are not related to any other > path. And that is easy enough to see. I can't comment since, other than ostensively, you won't define the relation you have in mind when you say 'are not related'. I offered to be an audience for your argument if you would define your terms, but you decline. MoeBlee
From: Han.deBruijn on 31 Oct 2006 15:11 stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: why I am > talking about physical problems anyway? The balls and vase problem > is not a physical problem. Mathematics is perfectly capable > of handling non physical problems, despite your cryptic insistence > that "mathematics is not independent of physics". Sure. Case closed. As usual. And that's the end of our debate, huh? Han de Bruijn
From: stephen on 31 Oct 2006 15:28 Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl wrote: > stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: why I am >> talking about physical problems anyway? The balls and vase problem >> is not a physical problem. Mathematics is perfectly capable >> of handling non physical problems, despite your cryptic insistence >> that "mathematics is not independent of physics". > Sure. Case closed. As usual. And that's the end of our debate, huh? > Han de Bruijn Given that you seem intent on snipping most of what I say, and are just responding in sentence fragments, I suppose so. Stephen
From: Virgil on 31 Oct 2006 16:19 In article <1162284771.696211.178020(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Albrecht" <albstorz(a)gmx.de> wrote: > Sebastian Holzmann schrieb: > > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > "dirty" is a property which without the axiom of dirt is as well > > > defined as "infinite" without the axiom of infinity. > > > > No. A set x (which is here to denote an element of a model M of ZF-INF) > > is called "finite" if x satisfies one of the following conditions: > > > > 0: x does not have an element > > 1: x has exactly one element > > 2: x has exactly two elements > > and so on > > > > otherwise, x is called "infinite". Where do I need the axiom of infinity > > to do this? > > Since there is no x which don't follow one of your conditions 0, 1, 2, Such claims, made without proofs, are irrelevant.
From: Virgil on 31 Oct 2006 16:27
In article <f328c$45470fd4$82a1e228$20321(a)news2.tudelft.nl>, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > David Marcus wrote: > > > > I guess your definition of "mathematics" is different from mine. > > Yes. Like your definition of "physics" is different from mine. > > Han de Bruijn Fair enough. In another post, HdB claimed to have physical evidence that a discontinuity would halt time, or something equally idiotic. So we are not at all distressed to hear him say that his definition of physics is quite different from ours. |