PROOF INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST! Not even ONE type
in [Math]
|
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
From: Don Stockbauer on 12 Jul 2010 09:03 On Jul 12, 1:38 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > > "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > >>> To me, it is self-evident that the axiom of infinity is true. > > wrong attribution.. > > Herc I have an affinity for infinity.
From: Wolf K on 12 Jul 2010 09:35
On 12/07/2010 01:22, K_h wrote: > "Curt Welch"<curt(a)kcwc.com> wrote in message > news:20100711120058.644$rX(a)newsreader.com... >> "K_h"<KHolmes(a)SX729.com> wrote: >>> In regular arithmetic 4+5=9 is true but Curt was claiming >>> that there is some tiny chance it could be wrong in regular arithmetic. >>> Curt is obviously wrong there. >> >> If you limit the scope of the measure of "truth" to "in regular arithmetic" >> then you are correct, it's an absolute truth. I was not talking about "in >> regular arithmetic". I was talking about "in life". I was talking about >> reality vs the fairy tale stories we make up called "in regular >> arithmetic". In the stories we make up, we pretend that absolute truth can > > The truth embodied in 4+5=9 is an absolute truth in life. It is not a "fairy > tale". This is all obvious. a) No actual "in life" measurement is exact, there is always a measurement error. 4 miles east + 4 miles east = 9 miles east +/- some measurement error, which is always uncertain past some number of significant digits. Which should remind you of the issue of accuracy vs. precision, the misunderstanding of which leads to such absurdities as claiming that a 3.45 grade point average is better than a 3.44 average. Ironically, it's the truths of "regular arithmetic" that enable one to understand why these numbers are absurd. b) 4 miles east plus 5 miles west is not 9 miles northwest. c) 4 pints of water plus 5 pints of ethanol do not produce 9 pints of vodka. Etc. wolf k. |