Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: David Marcus on 1 Nov 2006 17:19 stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl> wrote: > > That's besides the point. First of all, it has NOT been established that > > black holes indeed exist in our galaxy. But apart from this, the mass of > > a black hole is _finite_, while the mass of the balls in a vase becomes > > _infinite_. > > No it does not. At no time is the number of balls in the vase infinite. > Remember, the vase is empty at noon. Right. It is only people who say (erroneously) that the vase is not empty at noon who say the vase contains an infinite number of balls. There is certainly nothing in physics that says we can't have an empty vase. Even if the mass of the balls in the vase was infinite, that would only be a problem for physics if the volume of the vase was finite. I don't think General Relativity says the universe has to be finite. -- David Marcus
From: Lester Zick on 1 Nov 2006 17:32 On 31 Oct 2006 15:48:41 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On 30 Oct 2006 15:21:01 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> My mistake, Moe. It's just that you keep snipping all these posts. >> > >> >I snip so that the posts are not ridiculously long. If I ever leave out >> >context that you feel needs to be included, then you may reinstate that >> >context in your reply. I do not snip to materially distort context, >> >though I recognize that even judicious snipping by its very nature >> >omits context that, in some aspect, may be considered needed. >> >> Well if I previously indicated that converstations with you were short >> and to the point, I plead guilty but didn't imagine that was a license >> to truncate and then complain about what was said in the material >> truncated. Otherwise I have no intention of trying to reconstruct the >> conversation or arguing the subject further especially since David has >> taken to whining about it in your behalf. >> >> >I disagree strongly with many things you say, but of course I do not >> >begrudge your prerogative to say whatever you like about these subjects >> >as I reply and say what I disagree with in what you've said (which is >> >not generous of me, but rather is, to me, just a reflection of the >> >basic premise that everyone gets to speak his or her mind)...except I >> >ask you please not to claim I've said things that I have not said >> >through your incorrect paraphrases of what I said. >> >> I don't recall quoting you directly and literally but of extrapolating >> the implications of what you said whether you agree with those >> implications and my inferences or not. The problem I noted directly >> concerned your ideas and claims of standard mathematical definition >> which were not employed by Stephen. > >If I were to reply in Zickian fashion, it would be "Who cares?" >(Moderate language version.) Obviously you care. David cares. But that's probably only because you're caring individuals. >Anyway, since you ARE going on about this still, it's not a matter of >your "extrapolating implications" but of your intentionally mangling >the formulas and making it look as if your mangled versions were what I >was claiming and also saying that I said certain things that are NOT >plausible "extrapolations of what I said". Okay(x). So(x)exactly(x)which(x)are(x)mangled(x)versions(x)of(x) what(x)you(x)were(x)claiming(x)? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Nov 2006 17:44 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:00:23 -0500, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: >mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: >> David Marcus schrieb: >> >> > > Do and enjoy your mathematics. I will not disturb you. >> > >> > Then why are you posting to sci.math? What do you possibly hope to >> > achieve? >> >> To help those who have not yet decided to study set theory to avoid >> wasting their time. > >But, since you clearly haven't studied set theory, how do you know it is >a waste of time? Because you studied it? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Nov 2006 17:46 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:18:17 -0500, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: >imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: >> David Marcus wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > I wonder: do Lester, Ross, Han, Tony, and WM all agree that noon doesn't >> > exist? It is such an odd thing to say. Imagine walking up to someone in >> > the street and trying to convince them that noon doesn't exist. >> > >> > It is so hard to keep the nonsense straight. It all seems to run >> > together--although there are stylistic differences. >> >> More than stylistic, I think. For example, don't offhand recall Lester >> ever saying anything mathematical that was even wrong, whereas our Tony >> is reponding in another thread, saying something that makes sense, >> seems to be correct, and (gasp!) includes use of the f-word. >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/ea85cc0bd40c0ca8/43d661d74974c55d#43d661d74974c55d >> >> Question: >> If a_n is such that sum(a_n) converges is it true that sum((a_n)^3) >> converges? >> >> Tony's answer: >> It would seem so, at least assuming all positive terms. The number of >> a_n greater than 1 must be finite if sum(a_n) converges, so the number >> of a_n^3 greater than 1 would be finite as well, and that portion >> converge. For all a_n less than or equal to 1, a_n^3 is less than or >> equal to a_n, and so that portion would converge as a series of lesser >> terms. >> >> I think he may have missed the point slightly, since I suppose the >> nontrivial question is about the case where all terms are not positive, >> but let's not be negative. > >But notice his style: first he gives what he thinks the answer is, then >he points out that he's adding an assumption! Whereas you have no style whatsoever and start right out with assumptions you don't even pretend you can demonstrate. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Nov 2006 17:48
On 1 Nov 2006 10:53:57 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >MoeBlee wrote: >> "Detactable", > >> 'detecable' > >I meant 'detectable' of course. So(x)you(x)claim(x), Moe(x). But(x)oftentimes(x)we(x)can't(x)tell(x) what(x)you(x)may(x)mean(x)from(x)what(x)you(x)say(x). Poor(x)us(x). ~v~~ |