PROOF INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST! Not even ONE type
in [Math]
|
From: Marshall on 14 Jul 2010 02:45 On Jul 13, 9:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > > Yes. All this stuff about relativity you've been saying > > is trivial and obvious > > Yes, The principle of it is very similar if not identical > to SR, which I'm sure you studied before. Did you not? If "SR" is "special relativity" then I can truthfully say that I've heard of it. > Why have you seemed to have problem understanding it now? I don't believe I've ever had a problem understanding what you've said. "Words can mean different things" isn't much of a concept. The thing you often don't seem to get is that when we say "1+1=2" we don't mean " '1+1=2' ". Marshall
From: Dan Christensen on 14 Jul 2010 13:22 On Jul 13, 9:29 am, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 2:24 pm, Dan Christensen <Dan_Christen...(a)sympatico.ca> > wrote: > > > > > > > Correction > > > On Jul 10, 7:22 pm, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 10:17 am, Dan Christensen <Dan_Christen...(a)sympatico.ca> > > > wrote: > > > > > I can't imagine that you would be able to do very much using > > > > "finitist" methods. How do they handle such basic concepts as the > > > > square root of 2? > > > > Terence Tao in "A computational perspective on set theory"http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/a-computational-perspective-... > > > > in which he explores the question "what is the finitary analogue of > > > statements such as Cantors theorem or the Banach-Tarski paradox?" > > > With your "countably infinite loops" (see link), it seems you are > > sneaking infinite sets in through the back door. You posit an > > algorithm that can complete an infinite, countable number of > > iterations (ranging over ALL the natural numbers) and arrive at some > > conclusion. Have such notions ever been successfully formalized > > without referring to the set of natural numbers as a whole? > > I am not qualified to answer your question (if I even understand it) > and as I work in the real world as opposed to some theory I don't have > time to dig out the references now, but I believe that Ed Nelson and > Alexander Yessenin-Volpin (both regularly mentioned in these kinds of > threads) have tried to address that issue. See Nelson's Predicative > Arithmetic athttp://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/pa.pdf > > My impression is that the answer to the "successfully" part of your > question is open. Thanks for your patience, Fred. I apologize if I seemed overly aggressive here. It's hard not to get caught up in all this. Instead of directing it at you, I should have said, "It seems THE AUTHOR is sneaking... THE AUTHOR posits...." etc. Best regards, Dan
From: Don Stockbauer on 14 Jul 2010 23:09 On Jul 14, 1:45 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 9:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > Marshall wrote: > > > > Yes. All this stuff about relativity you've been saying > > > is trivial and obvious > > > Yes, The principle of it is very similar if not identical > > to SR, which I'm sure you studied before. Did you not? > > If "SR" is "special relativity" then I can truthfully say that > I've heard of it. > > > Why have you seemed to have problem understanding it now? > > I don't believe I've ever had a problem understanding what > you've said. "Words can mean different things" isn't much > of a concept. It's polysemy, and it's the prime confusion causer in our civilization.
From: Marshall on 14 Jul 2010 23:28 On Jul 14, 8:09 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 1:45 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 13, 9:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > > Marshall wrote: > > > > > Yes. All this stuff about relativity you've been saying > > > > is trivial and obvious > > > > Yes, The principle of it is very similar if not identical > > > to SR, which I'm sure you studied before. Did you not? > > > If "SR" is "special relativity" then I can truthfully say that > > I've heard of it. > > > > Why have you seemed to have problem understanding it now? > > > I don't believe I've ever had a problem understanding what > > you've said. "Words can mean different things" isn't much > > of a concept. > > It's polysemy, and it's the prime confusion causer in our civilization. Even if I accept that (I'm not expressing an opinion either way) it's still not a terribly *complex* concept. The number of different instances of it, and the scope of the consequences might be enormous but it's still a simple idea. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Jul 2010 00:05
Marshall wrote: > On Jul 14, 8:09 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 14, 1:45 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 13, 9:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>> Yes. All this stuff about relativity you've been saying >>>>> is trivial and obvious >>>> Yes, The principle of it is very similar if not identical >>>> to SR, which I'm sure you studied before. Did you not? >>> If "SR" is "special relativity" then I can truthfully say that >>> I've heard of it. >>>> Why have you seemed to have problem understanding it now? >>> I don't believe I've ever had a problem understanding what >>> you've said. "Words can mean different things" isn't much >>> of a concept. >> It's polysemy, and it's the prime confusion causer in our civilization. > > Even if I accept that (I'm not expressing an opinion either way) > it's still not a terribly *complex* concept. The number of different > instances of it, and the scope of the consequences might be > enormous but it's still a simple idea. Actually I've never argued "Words can mean different things" is a complex concept, and certainly not 100+ years after SR! The question I had and which you've not indicated a clear answer is: would you agree or not agree that the truth of the mathematical statement,e.g, "4+5=9" is a relative truth? -- --------------------------------------------------- Time passes, there is no way we can hold it back. Why, then, do thoughts linger long after everything else is gone? Ryokan --------------------------------------------------- |