PROOF INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST! Not even ONE type
in [Math]
|
From: |-|ercules on 10 Jul 2010 21:42 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote ... > On Jul 9, 6:38 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Perhaps you don't understand the proof, it only contradicts a well used axiom, not a well established fact. > > AND WHICH axiom is that?? > If you can answer that one question (which if course you can't), > we MIGHT get somewhere. Axiom Of Infinity. EI ( {} e I ^ Ax e I ( ( x U {x} ) e I ) ) Herc's Axiom Of No Infinity If the Qth element of a sequence is the natural number Q, then the size of the sequence equals some element of the sequence. Herc's Axiom Of Pseudo Infinity (based on above equation AOF) There is a set, I, that includes all the natural numbers that could physically be computed (before the end of the computer sustainable Universe) Herc
From: Marshall on 10 Jul 2010 22:36 On Jul 10, 5:01 pm, "Vesa Monisto" <vesa.moni...(a)elisanetPOISTA.fi> wrote: > "Marshall" <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 10, 2:22 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> You can save yourself a lot of bother if you just go with the > >> cybernetic interpretation of infinity: > > >>http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/INFINITY.html > > > I felt myself getting stupider with each sentence of that > > article that I read, so I stopped early. I expect a complete > > recovery. > > "To find his stupidity is the first step to get rid of it". ;) > The link Don gave is worth to read! No it wasn't. It was worthless tripe. > Curt gave the idea of infinity in the form "10 goto 10". > I gave the idea in Basic; here even in more conventional notation: Bleah. The crappy reference, and the stuff you're talking about, all bring irrelevant concepts of procedure into simple questions of cardinality. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 11 Jul 2010 01:38 K_h wrote: > "Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:MTSZn.2663$Bh2.125(a)newsfe04.iad... >> K_h wrote: >>> Mathematical truth exists. >> Sure. In your mind for example! > > And also outside of the human mind. Did you mean _physically outside of human mind_ ? That's very bizarre to say of mathematical abstractions that human thinks of. No? > >>> The equation 10+20=30 is an absolute truth and that truth does exist. >> Again, in your mind perhaps. Others working in modulo arithmetic >> may state 10+20=0 is absolutely true, just as you stated "10+20=30 >> is an absolute truth". What's the difference anyway? > > If you don't believe that 10+20=30 is true in regular arithmetic then there's not > much point in arguing it. Obviously I was not referring to modulo arithmetic. I didn't say I don't believe such in regular arithmetic. But if you have to refer to regular arithmetic then that isn't "an absolute truth" as you had incorrectly claimed! An absolute mathematical truth is a statement which is just true _independent of any context_ that you're referring to. And there isn't such an absolute truth. > >>> So you have existential doubts about the truth of 4+5=9? >> People have no doubt that 4+5=9 is false in some modulo arithmetic. > > So we agree that there are absolute truths in both regular and modulo arithmetic. No, I didn't agree to that. A truth that requires a context for it to be true isn't an absolute truth. And in any rate it's not "outside of the human mind" as you incorrectly stated above. -- ---------------------------------------------------- There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity. NYOGEN SENZAKI ----------------------------------------------------
From: Marshall on 11 Jul 2010 01:50 On Jul 10, 10:38 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > K_h wrote: > > "Nam Nguyen" <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message > >news:MTSZn.2663$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 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. > > > > >>> 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. > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity. > > NYOGEN SENZAKI > ---------------------------------------------------- Just an FYI for K_h, Nam is a complete buffoon and you should not feel the least bit compelled to respond to his nonsense. As I'm sure is already clear from the above. Marshall
From: Transfer Principle on 11 Jul 2010 02:03
On Jul 9, 6:22 am, Wolf K <weki...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: > On 08/07/2010 23:04, |-|ercules wrote: > > Transfinite theory is just oo+1 > oo. And it works on EVERY example, > > you may choose another animal if 2 elephants is Aleph_2 or some BS. > Dear Herc: You have demonstrated the classic traits of a crank: Here we go again with the five-letter insults! But let's take a look at why Wolf K. chose that word to describe Herc: > a) announce a proof that some widely accepted > principle/theorem/insight/etc that violates your notions of reality is > wrong, using arguments rife with unstated assumptions, vague > definitions, and shifting meanings First of all, just because a principle is "widely accepted," it doesn't mean that Herc has to accept it. After all, "widely accepted" isn't the same as "unanimous accepted." Finitism is a respectable mathematical position, even though it's not the majority position. And there are many other mathematical positions, such as intuitionism and constructivism, that aren't "widely accepted," yet there are still such mathematicians. Furthermore, about "violating [one's] notions of reality," I point out 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 reject "V=L," then Herc can reject the Axiom of Infinity. Thus, I interpret a) as saying that Wolf K. calls posters "cranks" when they violate _his_ (i.e., Wolf K.'s) notion of reality. > b) express your proof in technical terminology that you do not understand Now b) makes the common assumption that if one doesn't accept a theory, then one must not understand it. Yet surely it's possible for a finitist to understand infinitary terminology without accepting it, just as it's possible for an atheist or Muslim to understand the Bible without accepting it. > c) attempt to refute the corrections and clarifications politely offered > by people who understand the field But what constitutes a "correction" is subject to opinion -- a classical analyst might consider telling a finitist about infinity to be "correcting" them, just as a Muslim might consider telling an atheist or Christian about the Quran to be "correcting: them, too. It's only natural that a finitist would refute these so-called "corrections," just as it's natural for the adherents of a religion to resist conversion to another religion. > d) resort to ad hominem arguments; > e) descend into personal insult. Posters on both sides of the debate do both all the time. So according to d) and e), nearly every poster is a "crank." Thus, I disagree with all five justifications that Wolf K. gives for calling Herc a "crank." |