PROOF INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST! Not even ONE type
in [Math]
|
From: Wolf K on 12 Jul 2010 09:43 On 11/07/2010 02:54, Transfer Principle wrote: > On Jul 9, 6:22 am, Wolf K<weki...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: >> IOW, you stopped thinking around grade 5 or 6. > > Wolf K.'s reference to grades 5-6 here is interesting, since > this is around the age that students are required to refer to > infinitary concepts. The math curriculum varies quite a bit between jurisdictions, and . What I in mind is the fact that around grade six most of us have formed a world picture, and find it more or less impossible to change it as puberty rebuilds our brain. Cranks are merely the most extreme examples of this: while most people seem content to say "Well, that's something I don't understand", cranks try to disprove what they don't understand. cheers, wolf k.
From: Wolf K on 12 Jul 2010 09:46 On 08/07/2010 16:50, |-|ercules wrote: [...] > Actually Curt is spot on. Godel's proof is a farce. Come back when you > can tell me > the truth value of the following proposition: > > This statement cannot be proven by MoeBlee > > True or false Moeblee? Don't forget to give your reasoning! > > Herc You challenge assumes that the test statement has something to do with GT. It doesn't. cheers, wolf k.
From: Wolf K on 12 Jul 2010 09:55 On 09/07/2010 16:44, George Greene wrote: > On Jul 7, 2:36 pm, c...(a)kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote: >> You have to be careful in such debates to understand what "exists" means >> and how you are using it. > > You MEANT to say that ONE has to be careful. > *I* certainly do not have to be any more careful than usual. > I am already aware of the point you are trying to make here. > You are in no position to lecture me personally. > You have to be careful in these debates to understand what "you" > means, > and how you are going to be perceived as using it. Curt is using "you" as the generic pronoun, more formally expressed by using "one", as in "One must not assume that "you" means oneself." cheers, wolf k.
From: Wolf K on 12 Jul 2010 10:10 On 11/07/2010 12:16, George Greene wrote: > On Jul 10, 12:31 pm, Wolf K<weki...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: >> (still dazed by the nonsense passed off as "grammar >> in grade 6) > > No farting in church. This is sci.logic. > Even if grammar isn't all that coherent for NATURAL languages, it is > still very much > necessary&relevant for computer programming languages, formal > languages, and logic. > Around HERE, what you call "nonsense" was a noble attempt to get > people to think straight > and write clearly -- even if it got a little Procrustean at times. I taught a course in the history of English before I descended into the real world and taught grammar in high school, Where I discovered that much of what my students believed about English was nonsense, and had been learned in middle school. What they had actually learned were some (often poorly understood) rules about how to speak middle class English. "Grammar" has a different meaning for artificial formal languages than in natural languages. For a formal language, the grammar is simply the definition of well-formed statements in that language; some also include rules of inference, which is OK by me. Grammars of natural language are contingent theories of how its speakers form utterances that "make sense". The "grammar" taught in middle school is in large part a description of a class dialect. Since to be successful one needs to master this dialect, it is of course useful to teach it. cheers, wolf k.
From: Milton J. Smuthworthy, I on 12 Jul 2010 12:31
Then Don Stockbauer says: >>> >>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote >>>>> =A0To me, it is self-evident that the axiom of infinity is true. > >I have an affinity for infinity. I'm finicky about these infinity foibles. |