PROOF INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST! Not even ONE type
in [Math]
|
From: Vesa Monisto on 19 Jul 2010 09:27 "R. Srinivasan" <sradhakr(a)in.ibm.com> wrote in message news:b9a7f959-baa5-45e2-b9f8-beaa3d9c9984(a)g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > ... > I claim that human beings can only discuss *formal* truth > intelligently when it is characterized as provability. > ... Well, OTOH, provers are like salesmen traveling in late night trains, IMHO. A picture of Russell's and Whitehead's proof that 1 + 1 = 2: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/selfreference/russell.shtml V.M. [I've got it: *Bugs for Bats, Bags for Buts!* For programmers sets {a,b,c, ...}, flats [a,a,a, ...], bags (a,a,b, ...), and relations 1-1, 1-n, n-n. For all others cardinals of any-to-any mappings of max entropy. -- Patterns a la "I've Got Rhythm" (Gerschwin).]
From: K_h on 22 Jul 2010 17:40 "R. Srinivasan" <sradhakr(a)in.ibm.com> wrote in message news:b9a7f959-baa5-45e2-b9f8-beaa3d9c9984(a)g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jul 17, 8:09 am, c...(a)kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote: > "K_h" <KHol...(a)SX729.com> wrote: > > "Curt Welch" <c...(a)kcwc.com> wrote in message > >news:20100715013832.531$Gi(a)newsreader.com... > > I claim that human beings can only discuss *formal* truth > intelligently when it is characterized as provability. Further, > provability is always with respect to (axiomatic) theories, and > therefore truth (for formal propositions) must be with respect to such > theories. When human beings formulate a theory, they are basically > asserting a number of truths *axiomatically*, via provability of > various propositions in such theories. When this line of thinking is > taken to its logical conclusion, one gets the logic NAFL and one can > show that infinite sets are not permitted in such a logic. Again, it > is not the claim of NAFL that "absolute truths" do not exist; it is > just that formal logic is not about such absolute truths, even if they > exist. Accepted axioms are assertions that are observed to be true and cannot be reduced to anything simpler. Since most mathematicians, especially set theorists, accept the axiom of infinity, they all disagree with you on a few of these points -- especially double negation and mathematical realism (aka mathematical Platonism). > Let us look at the claim made by K_h that '"the truth underlying > '1+1=2' is an absolute truth". From other posts of K_h, it is clear > he claims that such a truth is existent in *our* universe, rather than > in some ideal Platonic world. Let us see if we can falsify this claim. The absolute truth underlying '1+1=2' exists everywhere: in "our" universe and in any ideal platonic world. > There is a theory of cosmology to the effect that our universe has > zero total energy and in fact originated from absolutely nothing: By definition, absolute nothing does not exist (absolute nothing being the absence of matter, energy, quantum fields, space, time, etc). Therefore it cannot do, nor can it produce, anything. One has to be careful with popular expositions of cosmology that bring in philosophical impossibilities; there is lots of misinformation out there. > http://161.58.115.79/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html > > So as per this theory (which I do not necessarily agree with) there > was a time when there was absolutely "nothing" in our universe. To > quote selectively from the above reference: > > "....the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, > and its total energy is zero. ...The meaning of "nothing" is > somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing > space and time, or it could be nothing at all - that is, all concepts > of space and time were created with the universe itself." As I mentioned above, it cannot be nothing at all. The field equations of general relativity permit one to set the zero point at 0 but that is just a convention; it could just as easily be set at 10^600 Kg*c^2. In the theories you refer to the gravitational energy becomes vacuum and expansion energy very early on. > Let us go back to the time when there was (supposedly) absolutely > nothing in the universe. In fact, there is no proof that the universe > will not relapse to such a state in the future (presumably via the > "Big Crunch" predicted by general relativity, when all matter in the > universe collapses). > > I claim that in such a universe, there is no evidence whatsoever for > "1+1=2" (leave alone evidence for infinite sets). In fact, one can > reasonably conclude only the existence of the number zero, or the > empty set, which would characterize the universe itself. The truth of "1+1=2" exists even if it is not physically instantiated in the universe. _
From: Wolf K on 22 Jul 2010 21:31 On 22/07/2010 17:40, K_h wrote: [...]> > Accepted axioms are assertions that are observed to be true and cannot be reduced > to anything simpler.[...] "Observed" is the wrong word here. wolf k.
From: Don Stockbauer on 23 Jul 2010 08:26 On Jul 22, 8:31 pm, Wolf K <weki...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: > On 22/07/2010 17:40, K_h wrote: > [...]> > > > Accepted axioms are assertions that are observed to be true and cannot be reduced > > to anything simpler.[...] > > "Observed" is the wrong word here. > > wolf k. Infinity gets me......excited.
From: Inverse 19 mathematics on 23 Jul 2010 08:48
On Jul 23, 7:26 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 8:31 pm, Wolf K <weki...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: > > > On 22/07/2010 17:40, K_h wrote: > > [...]> > > > > Accepted axioms are assertions that are observed to be true and cannot be reduced > > > to anything simpler.[...] > > > "Observed" is the wrong word here. > > > wolf k. > > Infinity gets me......excited. PLEASE PLEASE , We have proven that the K constant for divergence of numbers is .001(000.-1=0.001) . It is obvious that numbers etc diverge at 1:3 (Tan 19), and since the inverse point is fixed that divetgence would ultimately lead to reversaal of the inverse curve. all math calculations originate in a fixed point, whilst the divergence is not fixed , so mathematically the inverse point must must move relatively nearer to the plane of divergence ultimately to exceed that plane it into a reverse curved relationship-- THAT POINT IS THE EDGE OF INFINITY AND WILL BE A VERY LOUD BOOM Hope Research http://hoperesearch.web.officelive.com/default.aspx |