PROOF INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST! Not even ONE type [Logic]

Prev: EINSTEIN'S ABUSE OF TIME
Next: NP+complete-problem navigation, search In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NP-complete (abbreviated NP-C or NPC), is a class of problems having two properties: * It is in the set of NP (nondeterministic polynomial time) pr

From: Nam Nguyen on 12 Jul 2010 02:03

K_h wrote:

>
> The truth embodied in 4+5=9 is an absolute truth in life. It is not a "fairy
> tale". This is all obvious.

Can you define what an absolute truth is? Or are you just saying "absolute
truth" as a religious mantra without a clue to what it means?

>
>> and does exist, and all of math takes place in that fairy tale land. It's
>> highly useful and important to do math under that belief. But what's
>> invalid, is to assume the lies we use to do math, actually happen (or
>> exist) in the real world.
>
> Mathematical truth exists in the real world and those truths are not lies.

Statement like yours above is a lie because mathematical truth exists in
a real world. Unless you don't really know what the real world is which
is quite possible given what you've said.

> Again, this is obvious.

It's quite obvious you have a delusion and couldn't recognize mathematical
truths don't exist in the real world. Cranks also say similar things too.

> Marshall, thanks for the heads-up on Nam; it looks like
> Curt is another Nam.

Two idiotic ramblings (yours and Marshall's) that never make a better one.

--
---------------------------------------------------
Time passes, there is no way we can hold it back.
Why, then, do thoughts linger long after everything
else is gone?
Ryokan
---------------------------------------------------

From: |-|ercules on 12 Jul 2010 02:21

"K_h" <KHolmes(a)SX729.com> wrote >
> "Transfer Principle" <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> wrote in message ...
> On Jul 9, 6:22 am, Wolf K <weki...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> that set theorists reject axioms that violate their notions of reality
>> all the time. For example, they reject V=L because it's too
>> restrictive and say that it's not "really true." If set theorist can
>
> I doubt if they are saying it is untrue although some have doubts about it. V=L is a plausible axiom.
>
>> reject "V=L," then Herc can reject the Axiom of Infinity.
>
> He is free to reject it if he likes. But we need to make a distinction here between somebody simply stating their beliefs as
> opposed to somebody trying to convince others to believe something. Justification is required for the latter but not the former.
> So if Herc wants other to reject the axiom of infinity then the explanatory obligation falls on him. To me, it is self-evident
> that the axiom of infinity is true. Simple examples for it are the non-repeating numerals of, for example, the square root of 2.
> Algorithms for root 2 allow one to exactly define the nth numeral in its decimal expansion.

There's 2 points.

1/ As the length of the sequence of natural numbers -> oo
the values of the natural numbers -> oo

This is analogous to the equation y = x where you claim x reaches infinity but not y.

2/ There is no infinity in calculus. Yet in set theory it EXISTS!

So what is oo?
First of all, it is just a symbol for the concept of growing without bound. Instead of saying "let x (or n) grow without bound",
mathematicians often say "let x (or n) tend to infinity" or "as x (or n) tends to infinity."
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/Infinity/BigNumber.shtml

Herc

From: Nam Nguyen on 12 Jul 2010 02:27

K_h wrote:

> To me, it is self-evident that the
> axiom of infinity is true. Simple examples for it are the non-repeating numerals

You're clueless about mathematical reasonings and should not have
proclaimed anything "self evident". "Non-repeating numerals" can't
be examples (let alone simple ones) of the purported truth of the
Axiom of Infinity: the 2 are not even of the same language!

Learn basic facts about mathematical logic first, before uttering and
proclaiming "self evident" things that you're clueless about such as
"axiom of infinity is true", or mathematical truths exist in the real
world.

--
---------------------------------------------------
Time passes, there is no way we can hold it back.
Why, then, do thoughts linger long after everything
else is gone?
Ryokan
---------------------------------------------------

From: |-|ercules on 12 Jul 2010 02:27

"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>> To me, it is self-evident that the axiom of infinity is true. Simple examples for it are the non-repeating numerals of, for
>> example, the square root of 2. Algorithms for root 2 allow one to exactly define the nth numeral in its decimal expansion.

It is computable to get ANY numeral of root 2.

Is it not computable to get ALL numerals of root 2.

You could shift your definition of computable admittedly but the problem remains intractable.

Herc

From: |-|ercules on 12 Jul 2010 02:38

"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>>> To me, it is self-evident that the axiom of infinity is true.

wrong attribution..

Herc