Galileo's Paradox
in [Math]
|
From: David Marcus on 6 Dec 2006 01:06 Bob Kolker wrote: > > > > Cantor has won his psycho-battle against Kronecker who eventually got > > ill and gave up when Cantor got admired for his masterly > > misinterpretation. Kronecker died already in 1891. It was perhaps > > Cantor's own feeling to be possibly wrong which prompted his mental > > breakdowns for the first time in 1884 after Cantor believed to have a > > Depression is a purely physical/chemical condition. It is all about > seritonin re-uptake. There is strong evidence that depression is > hereditary. I doubt it is solely hereditary. However, your point that chemistry is very important to depression is well taken. Two people can have very different reactions to the same events. And, there are effective medications for depression. > There is no such thing as a mental disease since there is no > such thing as a mind. However the brain and nervous system, like any > other subsystem of the physical body is subject to disease and disfunction. Analogy: mind is software, brain is hardware. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 6 Dec 2006 01:08 Eckard Blumschein wrote: > On 11/30/2006 9:56 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <456EB22F.70703(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, > > Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > > > >> On 11/29/2006 7:59 PM, Virgil wrote: > >> > In article <456D7417.30000(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, > > > >> Cantor himself was the victim of his own stupid notion of infinity. > >> He wrote: There are not more points in a cube than in a line. > >> I see it but I cannot believe it. > > > > Cantor defined his sense of "more" quite precisely, and according to > > *that* definition what he wrote is precisely true. > > > > If EB wishes to reject that definition, > > Cantor did know that his fancy was rejected from all important figures > even those hundreds or even thousands of years ago. He was not more than > correct. He was wrong. What Cantor thought or didn't think is irrelevant. And, definitions cannot be wrong. Since you claim something is wrong, please state exactly what the error is. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 6 Dec 2006 01:20 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. -- David Marcus
From: Virgil on 6 Dec 2006 02:07 In article <MPG.1fe0256c78eba3009899cd(a)news.rcn.com>, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > Eckard Blumschein wrote: > > On 11/29/2006 6:12 PM, stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > > > Again, your problem is insisting that cardinality match some vague notion > > > of 'how many' > > > that you have not defined. > > > > The basic problem is: He lacks the insight that cardinality is a > > cardinal mistake, > > Ah, mathematical argument via pun. > > > something that has proven unfounded as well as useless. > > Define "unfounded". EB's arguments give us a plethora of examples of both unfoundedness and the uselessness.
From: Virgil on 6 Dec 2006 02:09
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. |