PROOF INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST! Not even ONE type
in [Math]
|
From: Wolf K on 10 Jul 2010 12:28 On 09/07/2010 18:38, |-|ercules wrote: > Perhaps you don't understand the proof, it only contradicts a well used > axiom, not a well established fact. > > > > > A REVISED PROOF OF THE NON-EXISTENCE OF INFINITY > > > C10 = 0.12345678910111213141516... > > x = the number of digits in the expansion of C10 > y = the number of consecutive digits of PI in C10 > > As x->oo, y->oo > x = oo > > Assume the limit exists. > y=oo > Contradiction (for each finite starting digit of PI in C10 there is a > finite ending digit) > Limit doesn't exist. > > y cannot reach infinity > therefore x cannot reach infinity > > x = the number of digits in the expansion of C10 > x =/= oo > > INFERENCE there is no oo > > > > Herc Infinity is not a limit. wolf k.
From: Wolf K on 10 Jul 2010 12:31 On 09/07/2010 16:46, George Greene wrote: > On Jul 7, 2:31 pm, Aatu Koskensilta<aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: >> c...(a)kcwc.com (Curt Welch) writes: >>> But math isn't about simple physical existence. It's about words and >>> their definitions. It's a study of formal langauge and what can be >>> _said_ using a formal language. >> >> No it's not. > > I wouldn't've been that simplistic about it, but I'll take your side > on this, > even though I usually defend that math is formal. NOTHING CAN be said > with a formal language. That's THE WHOLE POINT; it's FORMAL. > It doesn't MEAN ANYthing. It doesn't even NEED to mean anything. > To the extent that math DOES mean something, there is more going on > than "formal language". > ANYthing "can" be said using a formal language, once you admit the > possibility that formal languages > can say things. You can just stipulate (don't ask ME how -- the SAME > way the DICTIONARY does it; > THAT'S how) -- that this or that formal gibberish MEANS whatever. > The dictionary records what the dictionary maker figures people mean when they use words. The dictionary doesn't stipulate anything, even though many people (still dazed by the nonsense passed off as "grammar in grade 6) believe that the dictionary tells you waht words "really" mean. cheers, wolf k
From: K_h on 10 Jul 2010 16:41 "Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message news:MTSZn.2663$Bh2.125(a)newsfe04.iad... > K_h wrote: >> "Curt Welch" <curt(a)kcwc.com> wrote in message >> news:20100708093928.442$LY(a)newsreader.com... >>> "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> "Curt Welch" <curt(a)kcwc.com> wrote... >>>> I realize the difficulty in confirming a rock exists. But all you have >>>> to do is confirm *something* exists. Even if you're in error the >>>> conclusion is still true. E x >>>> >>>> Herc >>> That's an interesting point. I don't see any argument against the idea >>> that something exists is an absolute truth. I think therefore I am. That >>> might be the one and only absolute truth. >> >> Mathematical truth exists. > > Sure. In your mind for example! And also outside of the human mind. >> To my recollection, I have never seen anybody claim that 2x7=14 is false or >> fails to be true after somebody dies. > > How did you mean by that? Did you mean the dead couldn't claim > 2x7=14 is false? (If so, there are many things they couldn't > possibly claim, naturally!) No. Say your father dies and you are standing by his grave. Do you then claim that 2x7=14 is now falsified? >> The equation 10+20=30 is an absolute truth and that truth does exist. > > Again, in your mind perhaps. Others working in modulo arithmetic > may state 10+20=0 is absolutely true, just as you stated "10+20=30 > is an absolute truth". What's the difference anyway? If you don't believe that 10+20=30 is true in regular arithmetic then there's not much point in arguing it. Obviously I was not referring to modulo arithmetic. >> So you have existential doubts about the truth of 4+5=9? > > People have no doubt that 4+5=9 is false in some modulo arithmetic. So we agree that there are absolute truths in both regular and modulo arithmetic. 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. _
From: Don Stockbauer on 10 Jul 2010 17:22 You can save yourself a lot of bother if you just go with the cybernetic interpretation of infinity: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/INFINITY.html
From: Marshall on 10 Jul 2010 18:25
On Jul 10, 2:22 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You can save yourself a lot of bother if you just go with the > cybernetic interpretation of infinity: > > http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/INFINITY.html I felt myself getting stupider with each sentence of that article that I read, so I stopped early. I expect a complete recovery. Marshall |