PROOF INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST! Not even ONE type
in [Math]
|
From: |-|ercules on 8 Jul 2010 18:09 "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... > On Jul 8, 3:50 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> This statement cannot be proven by MoeBlee > > "Herc cannot understand that Herc is an ineducable loon." > > Paradox free! > > MoeBlee So you admit your mathematics is limited to the point you cannot verify the truth of that proposition? Everyone reading this knows This statement cannot be proven by MoeBlee is TRUE! But you don't, stupid! Herc
From: |-|ercules on 8 Jul 2010 18:13 "Curt Welch" <curt(a)kcwc.com> wrote > all that extra checking, my belief that you created a true statement in the > language could still be in error with some small probability. But this > question is even more fundamental than that, getting down to the Heisenberg > uncertainty principle at the lower levels of our physical world. I see the problem now. HUP does NOT imply no absolute knowledge. You can know the precise location of an atom if you have no knowledge of it's momentum. Or you can know the precise momentum of an atom if you have no knowledge of it's location. But you can't know BOTH precisely. So you could know EITHER fact A OR fact B. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 8 Jul 2010 23:04 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > Infinity exists because there are an infinite number of natural > numbers. No! All you have proven is no least upper bound you hypocrite. > Higher infinities exist because if those natural numbers form a set, > then it has a powerset, and the powerset IS ALWAYS bigger! > This is the biggest (INFINITE) moronic theory of the millennium. Add {elephant} to a set and it's bigger. 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. Herc
From: Wolf K on 9 Jul 2010 09:22 On 08/07/2010 23:04, |-|ercules wrote: > "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote >> Infinity exists because there are an infinite number of natural >> numbers. > > No! All you have proven is no least upper bound you hypocrite. > > > >> Higher infinities exist because if those natural numbers form a set, >> then it has a powerset, and the powerset IS ALWAYS bigger! >> > > This is the biggest (INFINITE) moronic theory of the millennium. > Add {elephant} to a set and it's bigger. > > 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. > > Herc Dear Herc: You have demonstrated the classic traits of a crank: 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; b) express your proof in technical terminology that you do not understand; c) attempt to refute the corrections and clarifications politely offered by people who understand the field; d) resort to ad hominem arguments; e) descend into personal insult. IOW, you stopped thinking around grade 5 or 6. Point in your favour: you haven't (yet?) attacked the "establishment" that is nefariously preventing recognition of your genius. have a good day, wolf k.
From: Dan Christensen on 9 Jul 2010 13:17
On Jul 7, 9:36 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Jul 6, 12:23 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > INFERENCE there is no oo > > Herc has joined the growing number of sci.math finitists. > > We already know that Han de Bruijn and R. Srinivasan are > finitists as well. A few posters, including Archimedes > Plutonium and WM, defy classification. AP believes that > all numbers larger than 10^500 are infinite -- so > technically speaking, he still believes in infinity, but > his infinity is much less than standard infinity. (Note > that both Herc and AP use Chapernowne's constant in their > arguments regarding infinity.) WM, on the other hand, > believes that some standard natural numbers don't really > exist, although he has no upper bound on the largest > natural number. It had been said that for that reason, > one can't call WM an _ultra_finitist, although it's > possible that WM is merely a finitist. > 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? Dan |