Passing through every quantity
in [Math]
|
Prev: the hindu 10 digit number system, the foundation of human progress
Next: typesetting a sequence and double subscripts
From: purple on 30 Jun 2010 14:20 On 6/30/2010 1:05 PM, BURT wrote: > On Jun 23, 9:47 pm, Arturo Magidin<magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: >> On Jun 20, 10:44 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 20, 2:18 pm, ArturoMagidin<magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: >> >>>> On Jun 20, 3:40 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 20, 1:14 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> On 6/20/2010 2:34 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>>>>>> Lets say you accelerate; you have a starting speed and and end speed. >>>>>>> But you must go through every quantity of speed inbetween down to the >>>>>>> infinitely small. This is similar to Zeno with infinities in distance >>>>>>> passed through in finite time. There are transcendental quantities. >> >>>>>> The universe has no problems dealing with a continuum. >> >>>>> The math is called the Continuum Hypothesis. >> >>>> Ehr, no, it really is not called that. >> >>>> (There *is* something called "the Continuum Hypothesis" in math, but >>>> it has nothing to do with anything that has been mentioned or alluded >>>> to in this thread) >>> The Continuum Hypothesis is about sizes of infinity of the infinitely >>> small. >> >> Again, no, it's not really that. >> >>> And this is a higher way for math to define finite quantities. >> >> I have no idea what "this" may be, higher, lower, or co-planar, but I >> do know that it is *not* "the Continuum Hypothesis", just like I know >> that it is also not "A Hearbreaking Work of Staggering Brilliance." >> >> -- >> Arturo Magidn- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > There is now a higher way to think of the finites. > > Mitch Raemsch The universe has no problems dealing with a continuum.
From: Arturo Magidin on 30 Jun 2010 14:29 On Jun 30, 1:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 9:47 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 20, 10:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 2:18 pm, ArturoMagidin<magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 20, 3:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 20, 1:14 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/20/2010 2:34 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > > Lets say you accelerate; you have a starting speed and and end speed. > > > > > > > But you must go through every quantity of speed inbetween down to the > > > > > > > infinitely small. This is similar to Zeno with infinities in distance > > > > > > > passed through in finite time. There are transcendental quantities. > > > > > > > The universe has no problems dealing with a continuum. > > > > > > The math is called the Continuum Hypothesis. > > > > > Ehr, no, it really is not called that. > > > > > (There *is* something called "the Continuum Hypothesis" in math, but > > > > it has nothing to do with anything that has been mentioned or alluded > > > > to in this thread) > > > The Continuum Hypothesis is about sizes of infinity of the infinitely > > > small. > > > Again, no, it's not really that. > > > > And this is a higher way for math to define finite quantities. > > > I have no idea what "this" may be, higher, lower, or co-planar, but I > > do know that it is *not* "the Continuum Hypothesis", just like I know > > that it is also not "A Hearbreaking Work of Staggering Brilliance." > > There is now a higher way to think of the finites. And a much poorer way of speaking, apparently, which uses common terms for private meanings. Or, more likely, a much higher utter confusion on the part of at least one of us. And it's not me. -- Arturo Magidin
From: purple on 30 Jun 2010 15:42
On 6/30/2010 1:29 PM, Arturo Magidin wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:05 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jun 23, 9:47 pm, Arturo Magidin<magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jun 20, 10:44 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Jun 20, 2:18 pm, ArturoMagidin<magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 20, 3:40 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Jun 20, 1:14 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 6/20/2010 2:34 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Lets say you accelerate; you have a starting speed and and end speed. >>>>>>>> But you must go through every quantity of speed inbetween down to the >>>>>>>> infinitely small. This is similar to Zeno with infinities in distance >>>>>>>> passed through in finite time. There are transcendental quantities. >> >>>>>>> The universe has no problems dealing with a continuum. >> >>>>>> The math is called the Continuum Hypothesis. >> >>>>> Ehr, no, it really is not called that. >> >>>>> (There *is* something called "the Continuum Hypothesis" in math, but >>>>> it has nothing to do with anything that has been mentioned or alluded >>>>> to in this thread) >>>> The Continuum Hypothesis is about sizes of infinity of the infinitely >>>> small. >> >>> Again, no, it's not really that. >> >>>> And this is a higher way for math to define finite quantities. >> >>> I have no idea what "this" may be, higher, lower, or co-planar, but I >>> do know that it is *not* "the Continuum Hypothesis", just like I know >>> that it is also not "A Hearbreaking Work of Staggering Brilliance." > >> >> There is now a higher way to think of the finites. > > And a much poorer way of speaking, apparently, which uses common terms > for private meanings. > > Or, more likely, a much higher utter confusion on the part of at least > one of us. And it's not me. It isn't confusion, it is insanity. |