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: K_h on 12 Jul 2010 18:21

"Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:uNc_n.6705$KT3.5193(a)newsfe13.iad...
> K_h wrote:
>> "Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:MTSZn.2663$Bh2.125(a)newsfe04.iad...
>>> K_h wrote:
>
>>>> Mathematical truth exists.
>>> Sure. In your mind for example!
>>
>> And also outside of the human mind.
>
> Did you mean _physically outside of human mind_ ? That's very bizarre to say
> of mathematical abstractions that human thinks of. No?

The truth underlying the abstractions does exist.

>>>> The equation 10+20=30 is an absolute truth and that truth does exist.
>>> Again, in your mind perhaps. Others working in modulo arithmetic
>>> may state 10+20=0 is absolutely true, just as you stated "10+20=30
>>> is an absolute truth". What's the difference anyway?
>>
>> If you don't believe that 10+20=30 is true in regular arithmetic then there's
>> not much point in arguing it. Obviously I was not referring to modulo
>> arithmetic.
>
> I didn't say I don't believe such in regular arithmetic. But if you have to
> refer to regular arithmetic then that isn't "an absolute truth" as you had
> incorrectly claimed! An absolute mathematical truth is a statement which is
> just true _independent of any context_ that you're referring to. And there
> isn't such an absolute truth.

No, I correctly claimed that the truth underlying regular arithmetic does exist
and that truth is independent of context. 1+1=2 is true for any two objects: two
cars, two houses, two people, etc.

>>>> So you have existential doubts about the truth of 4+5=9?
>>> People have no doubt that 4+5=9 is false in some modulo arithmetic.
>>
>> So we agree that there are absolute truths in both regular and modulo
>> arithmetic.
>
> No, I didn't agree to that. A truth that requires a context for it to be true
> isn't an absolute truth. And in any rate it's not "outside of the human mind"
> as you incorrectly stated above.

Those truths exist and are perceived by the human mind so I stated nothing
incorrectly.

_

From: Marshall on 12 Jul 2010 20:28

On Jul 12, 12:50 pm, c...(a)kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> "K_h" <KHol...(a)SX729.com> wrote:
>
> > No, there are absolute truths of the universe, for example conservation
> > of electric charge.
>
> Not absolute in ANY sense. Our understand of the universe, and these laws
> of nature we created to explain it are all predictions about the future
> derived from past experience. Such predictions NEVER become absolute
> truths. NO matter how many times we flip the coin and see it comes up
> heads, do we _ever_ get to make the claim that the next time we flip it, we
> will get heads again, with ABSOLUTE certainty.

I see you are absolutely certain that there is no absolute certainty.

Marshall

From: David Bernier on 12 Jul 2010 21:33

Marshall wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:50 pm, c...(a)kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
>> "K_h"<KHol...(a)SX729.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, there are absolute truths of the universe, for example conservation
>>> of electric charge.
>>
>> Not absolute in ANY sense. Our understand of the universe, and these laws
>> of nature we created to explain it are all predictions about the future
>> derived from past experience. Such predictions NEVER become absolute
>> truths. NO matter how many times we flip the coin and see it comes up
>> heads, do we _ever_ get to make the claim that the next time we flip it, we
>> will get heads again, with ABSOLUTE certainty.
>
> I see you are absolutely certain that there is no absolute certainty.
[...]

I don't think there are Laws of measurement for electric charge.
To take a census of electric charges, shouldn't there be a
census time? And clocks to tell when it is census time?

If two different methods of measuring charge always give the same
answer, which is the official one for census purposes?

How can one make sure that the census was 100% accurate?

David Bernier

From: Wolf K on 12 Jul 2010 21:48

On 12/07/2010 18:21, K_h wrote:
[...]
> No, I correctly claimed that the truth underlying regular arithmetic does exist
> and that truth is independent of context. 1+1=2 is true for any two objects: two
> cars, two houses, two people, etc.
[...]

Plato was wrong.

wolf k.

From: Nam Nguyen on 12 Jul 2010 22:19

K_h wrote:
> "Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:uNc_n.6705$KT3.5193(a)newsfe13.iad...
>> K_h wrote:
>>> "Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:MTSZn.2663$Bh2.125(a)newsfe04.iad...
>>>> K_h wrote:
>>>>> Mathematical truth exists.
>>>> Sure. In your mind for example!
>>> And also outside of the human mind.
>> Did you mean _physically outside of human mind_ ? That's very bizarre to say
>> of mathematical abstractions that human thinks of. No?
>
> The truth underlying the abstractions does exist.

Sure. In your mind for example!

>
> No, I correctly claimed that the truth underlying regular arithmetic does exist
> and that truth is independent of context. 1+1=2 is true for any two objects: two
> cars, two houses, two people, etc.

But 1+1=2 is true in many ... many _modulo arithmetics_ "for any two objects: two
cars, two houses, two people, etc.", right?

> Those truths exist and are perceived by the human mind so I stated nothing
> incorrectly.

Of course you did: when you said "Mathematical truth exists ... outside of the
human mind"!

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