Galileo's Paradox
in [Math]
|
From: Virgil on 8 Dec 2006 15:59 In article <4579bcc0$1(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > David Marcus wrote: > > Tonico wrote: > >> Tony Orlow ha escrito: > >>> Eckard Blumschein wrote: > >>>> On 12/4/2006 9:56 PM, Bob Kolker 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. > >>>> To those who belive in the usefulness of that illusion. > >>>> > >>> Aleph_0 is a phantom. The aleph_0th natural starting from 1 would be > >>> aleph_0. It's not a count of the naturals. There is no smallest infinity > >>> but, sorry to have to tell you, Eckard, a whole spectrum of infinities > >>> that extend above and below any given infinite expression. Sure, > >>> transfinitology is quasi-religious. Actual infinity can be quite > >>> sensible, though. :) > >>> > >>> Tony > >> *********************************************************** > >> Just like good'ol Mad Journal with Spy vs Spy, but here it is "Troll vs > >> Troll"...fascinating. > > > > A good analogy. > > > > Good for your ego, but not very illustrative. > > Tony It may appear less than illustrative to its target, but more so to mere spectators.
From: Virgil on 8 Dec 2006 16:02 In article <4579bdf2(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> When challenged to support his fool theories, TO resorts to nonsense. > > > > At least he admitted that his fool theory has no relevance to any of the > > number systems commonly used in Mathematics. > > > > Of course I did. It depends on some substantially different assumptions. When is TO going to come out with that promise axiom system in which his various assumptions do not trip over each other?
From: Virgil on 8 Dec 2006 16:04 In article <4579be96$1(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > In article <MPG.1fe02b24b2771b489899d1(a)news.rcn.com>, > > David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > > >> Virgil wrote: > >>> In article <45725b3c(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > >>> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm not talking more nonsense than you, if you're talking about this > >>>> diagonal line through some "quandrant". What, in your least sloppy > >>>> language, is the meaning of the anti-diagonal generated by the random > >>>> list? > >>> It has been explained often enough that even someone as dense as TO > >>> could have understood it, if he were only willing to try. > >> Do you really think so? I wonder. > > > > Well TO might only be trolling. > > Define that term, then explain why you think that's what I'm doing. You > know, above all others, that it's not. :s > > Tony Does TO declare he is NOT trolling? Then he must be claiming to believe all those odd assumptions he makes can be made to work together. I am all agog.
From: Virgil on 8 Dec 2006 16:09 In article <4579C275.8080700(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > On 12/8/2006 7:41 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <4579A2D7.2030500(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, > > Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > > >> First of all I see mounting evidence for a lack of evidence which could > >> support some bizarre fancies related to the elusory belief introduced by > >> Dedekind, Cantor, et al. "there must be more reals than rationals > >> because the latter are a subset of the former" > > > > That is an extremely convoluted way of saying nothing. If there were > > evidence of anything wrong, present it. Otherwise quit carping. > > I am pointing my finger squarely on the root of all nonsense that has > been confusing and hampering the fundamentals of mathematics for more > than 100 years, and you are trying to belittle my attack? I did not realize that your bizarre fancies were coherent enough to constitute an attack. Your finger is pointing at nothing at all. > > Take issue! With what? There is not enough in your perorations to be worth taking issue with them. > > > >> I hide my daring smile and ask if |sign(0)|=1 might be correct, than > >> people wonder why I have such a silly idea. > > > > As a "sign()" function is not standardized across mathematics, one can > > chose to define one's own in any way one likes, but unless one has some > > fairly good reasons for one's definition, it is not likely to gain much > > acceptance. > > Slippery eel! The sign function is just an example. It is an example of EB's trying to make much of nothing.
From: Virgil on 8 Dec 2006 16:10
In article <4579C339.8070006(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > On 12/8/2006 7:23 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <457988FD.2060201(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, > > Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > > > > "Phucking up" is idiomatic English for making mistakes. > > Thank you. Meanwhile I already learned a lot from you. > Exclusively hopefully exclusive words. Be careful where you use that last idim. |