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: Marshall on 13 Jul 2010 10:51

On Jul 12, 7:19 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> K_h wrote:
> > "Nam Nguyen" <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >news:uNc_n.6705$KT3.5193(a)newsfe13.iad...
> >> K_h wrote:
> >>> "Nam Nguyen" <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:MTSZn.2663$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?

That's a different plus. (Or alternatively a different equals.) They
aren't
the same sentences, even if we use the same strings to write them.

So your whole argument about "relativity" reduces to pointing out that
sometimes words mean different things, like when "blue" can mean
a particular color, or an emotion, or "marked by blasphemy." Your
only *technical* point about "no absolute truth" is that there is no
absolute authoritative definition.

Whoop de do! What an amazing thing you've discovered!

Marshall

From: Curt Welch on 13 Jul 2010 13:59

Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:50=A0pm, 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. =A0Our understand of the universe, and these
> > l=
> aws
> > of nature we created to explain it are all predictions about the future
> > derived from past experience. Such predictions NEVER become absolute
> > truths. =A0NO 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

Your attempt at being clever fails. I already explained the error in such
an assumption but maybe you didn't see my post when you wrote that?

There are no absolutes, so how would I be absolutely certain there are no
absolutes? I'm not of course and and I of course am not absolutely certain
so what you think I believe is clearly wrong.

The answer is quite simple and if you are good at figuring out puzzles, you
would have known the answer before you wasted your time posting. We can't
be absolute about any position, including the position that there are no
absolutes. All we can do is assign a rough probability of certainty to any
belief. By how I talk about there being "no absolutes" you can assume this
means I've assigned a very high (but NOT ABSOLUTE) probability to the
belief. And as such, I have decided it's valid to ACT AS IF it were
absolute, even though I know it's not. I believe it to the true beyond a
reasonable doubt, but I don't believe it's an absolute truth. There are no
contradictions in the statement because the statement is not a statement of
absolutes, it's a statement of estimated probabilities (as all statements
must be).

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt(a)kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

From: David R Tribble on 13 Jul 2010 20:08

K_h wrote:
> This is wrong. Consider PI = 3.1415... and note that its first digit is a 3, its
> second digit is a 1, its third digit is a 4, and so on. There are various
> formulas that allow one to calculate ANY of its ALEPH_0 digits. But those
> formulas take time to compute and so many, in fact infinitely many, of its digits
> can't be calculated by humans -- unless some breakthrough happens in pure theory
> that allows one to calculate the nth digit of PI by some simple but clever
> formula f(n).

You can calculate the nth hexadecimal (or binary) digit of' pi
in O(1) time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digits_of_pi#Digit_extraction_methods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe_formula

From: Nam Nguyen on 13 Jul 2010 22:18

Marshall wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:19 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>> K_h wrote:
>>> "Nam Nguyen" <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:uNc_n.6705$KT3.5193(a)newsfe13.iad...
>>>> K_h wrote:
>>>>> "Nam Nguyen" <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MTSZn.2663$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?
>
> That's a different plus.

So, how many _different_ pluses can you see in 1+1=2? You see, the truth
of "1+1=2" is subjective, relative to what different meanings you or
anybody else would take '+' to mean.

Your "a different plus" actually confirms, not denies, the relativity of
mathematical truth here!

>
> So your whole argument about "relativity" reduces to pointing out that
> sometimes words mean different things, like when "blue" can mean
> a particular color, or an emotion, or "marked by blasphemy."

In a nutshell yes. As you yourself said "That's a different plus"!

> Your
> only *technical* point about "no absolute truth" is that there is no
> absolute authoritative definition.

Your "authoritative definition" here in this context is obscured.

> Whoop de do! What an amazing thing you've discovered!

It's actually quite trivial: you yourself discovered it in _your_
"That's a different plus"!

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

From: George Greene on 13 Jul 2010 23:53

On Jul 13, 10:03 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> I could redefine pseudo infinity to be any finite length = any computable length
> with a program that terminates,

No, actually, you couldn't, not ALL the time.
The program doesn't know if the input is of finite length OR NOT.
It only knows IF IT GETS to the end. In other words, the program only
terminates
HALF the time. When the input is infinite, the program does NOT
terminate.

> if you can compute n then you can (theoretically)
> compute n-1, so pseudo infinity might be the initial sequence of N up to the largest
> physically computable number.

There is no such thing as the largest physically computable number.
If n is physically computable THEN N+1 IS TOO, DUMBASS.
That is every bit as true as "then n-1 is too".

> Let me clarify the argument.

> let x = the length of some incremental sequence of natural numbers, starting at 1
> let y = the last value of such sequence
>
> As x->oo, y->oo

That is true, but it does not follow from the fact that the limits are
equal
that the numbers have to be equal along the way, or, more importantly,
IF YOU START COUNTING FROM ZERO,
then y=x-1, ALL THE TIME.
y<x, ALL THE TIME.
If we were using Herc-induction then this would imply oo < oo,
which is just one more reason why nobody takes you seriously.

> y = x
>
> The limit of y does not exist
> Therefore the limit of x does not exist

There IS NO SUCH THING as "the limit of x", even BEFORE you say "it
doesn't exist".
One takes "the limit of" SOME FUNCTION OF x (like y), NOT the limit of
x.

The fact that x does not REACH a limit is the whole reason WHY YOU
NEED limits!
lim x = oo is something that you do NOT generally see!
x->oo