Galileo's Paradox
in [Math]
|
From: Tony Orlow on 8 Dec 2006 13:55 Bob Kolker wrote: > Eckard Blumschein wrote: >> I wonder who educated Bob. Didn't he intend to kill the maybe million of >> muslims who live in Germany by means of atomic bombs? > > Not in Germany. In the Middle East. > > The Germans can take care of their own Muslims. They have a lot of > practice at dealing with undersirable populations. > > Bob Kolker Hmmm.... I wonder if Bob is some sort of Christian? I'm not sure Jesus would appreciate bombing his 'hood in the Middle East, though I think he probably saw that all that was inevitable, given the predominance of Bob's on the planet. I would direct Bob to Google "Lord Balfour", and the roots of the establishment of modern Israel in the context of the simultaneous corruption (from inside and out) of the Ottoman Empire, and the development of the combustion engine and discovery of vast oil reserves in that area. An appreciation for the economic (psychological) aspects of history might be required for full comprehension of the situation. Keep in mind that our illustrious (actually fat, ugly and obnoxious) Vice President stated in 1998, publicly, as CEO of Halliburton, when questioned regarding whether he was concerned about the political situation in the Caspian Sea area where he said the next oil frontier lay: "No, I'm not worried about that. We have to go where the oil is". He shoul;d have been a tad more worried, but he was only worried about staying fat, not others dying. War is about money and power over others: ego and lust. Don't pretend it's about religion, or you prove yourself the King's pawn. God has no interest in your fussing and fighting, like you have no interest in the mysteries of God, obviously. So, if you have any appreciation for goodness, take a moment of silence in the dark, and ask what the truth is about that. Sorry, that wasn't math. :) TOny
From: Tony Orlow on 8 Dec 2006 13:56 Lester Zick wrote: > On 5 Dec 2006 13:04:57 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Bob Kolker wrote: >>> Eckard Blumschein wrote: >>>> I wonder who educated Bob. Didn't he intend to kill the maybe million of >>>> muslims who live in Germany by means of atomic bombs? >>> Not in Germany. In the Middle East. >> I won't pursue this any further except to say that this particular >> opinion of Kolker's (even though he should have the prerogative to >> express it) is morally beyond the pale. > > Really a shame to conflate mathematics and politics. > > ~v~~ It's no shame to place politics, the science of more that one person, within a greater context. Those who forget.... Tony
From: Tony Orlow on 8 Dec 2006 13:57 Lester Zick wrote: > On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:52:23 +0100, Eckard Blumschein > <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > >> On 12/4/2006 11:23 PM, Lester Zick wrote: >>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:56:58 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Eckard Blumschein wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2*oo is not larger than oo. Infinity is not a quantum but a quality. >>>> But aleph-0 is a quantity. >>> It is? So which quantity is it? I mean could you show us an aleph-0 >>> quantity or at least prove that there is such a quantity? >> I am not sure if aleph_0 is considered a quantity in set theory. It is >> irrelevant. Since the alefs are obviously ordered by countable indices, >> they look like quantities. Cantor claimed to count the uncountable. >> Cantor was naive enough as to believe that infinity is a firm quantum. > > Well lots of things share properties with other things. Doesn't mean > they are those things though. > > ~v~~ Only if they share the exact same measure for each property, however that property's measured. 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 8 Dec 2006 14:02 Virgil wrote: > In article <4575b508(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Eckard Blumschein wrote:(deleted) > >> Now, just a minute, Eckard. You're contradicting yourself > > If even TO is taking EB to task, then EB must indeed be in a bad skin. Eckard and I are discussing things. We can disagree. It's not like either of us agrees with a comfortable majority. so do we lose much security in disagreeing with each other? Some of us are used to being insecure, and yet, strong, and persisting, and surviving. I have a funny feeling you did that, socially, during a period.... Life's like that. M. Antoni
From: Lester Zick on 8 Dec 2006 14:18
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:50:24 GMT, Michael Press <jack(a)fake.net> wrote: >In article ><1165466931.523088.27190(a)j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: > >> fallaciousness [is there a word 'fallacity'?] > >fallaciousness yes; fallacity no, >and too close to felicity. How's about "phallicity"? >`Falsity' is good English; >also falsehood. When out on a limb >try climbing back to the trunk. ~v~~ |