THE HOLY GRAIL ~ CANTOR DISPROOF
in [Physics]
|
Prev: A tribute to Martin Gardner
Next: Virgo, Fornax and Hydra-Cen superclusters Chapt 11, Space is EM; magnet & iron filings Experiment #108; ATOM TOTALITY
From: |-|ercules on 29 May 2010 09:23 "Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote ... > "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> You said it was a statement of incontrovertible fact, you just snipped >> that! > > I didn't claim to have any mathematical proof of the fact. Indeed, since > it is not a mathematical claim there can be no question of a > mathematical proof. Just read the subsequent explanation in the thread > you quote from. So you claim incontrovertible facts exist without proof? Or incontrovertible facts exist with non mathematical proofs? Herc
From: Marshall on 29 May 2010 10:23 On May 28, 8:45 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On May 28, 8:10 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So what happens? I decide to consider the possibility that > > > Herc might be wrong. And then Herc becomes offended > > > and decides to stop posting. > > > > SFW? He'll be back tomorrow. > > We'll see about that. Ahem. > > > What I want to be able to do is speak to posters like Herc in > > > such a way as not to be a "bully" to them, yet avoid drawing > > > criticism from others, like Aatu in this thread. > > I and others criticize you for wanting that. It's unachievable, > > and if it was achievable, it'd be undesirable. > > Then what should I do the next time someone makes a claim > that is refuted by ZFC? I suppose that I should continue to > do what I did in this thread, and consider all the main reasons > that someone might make such a claim. No, silly boy. You should say what you think the truth is, and why. Note that my proposal doesn't have you bending over to try to include everyone in the Great Love Blanket of Diversity. Look, if you'd just come out and admit that you're 14, or whatever your deal is, and listen to your elders, then everyone would be saying what an amazingly smart 14 year old you are. Instead, by trying to take the place of a grownup, which you decidedly do not have the life experience for, you come off looking like a guy with a big heart, some interest in math, and terrible taste in people. Sci.math does not require that you bring enough gum for everyone. Marshall
From: David R Tribble on 29 May 2010 11:39 Transfer Principle (L Walker) wrote: >> Then what should I do the next time someone makes a claim >> that is refuted by ZFC? I suppose that I should continue to >> do what I did in this thread, and consider all the main reasons >> that someone might make such a claim. > Marshall wrote: > No, silly boy. You should say what you think the truth is, > and why. Note that my proposal doesn't have you > bending over to try to include everyone in the Great > Love Blanket of Diversity. > > Look, if you'd just come out and admit that you're > 14, or whatever your deal is, and listen to your > elders, then everyone would be saying what an > amazingly smart 14 year old you are. Instead, > by trying to take the place of a grownup, which > you decidedly do not have the life experience > for, you come off looking like a guy with a big > heart, some interest in math, and terrible taste > in people. Do you think that Walker likes (or possibly craves) all the attention given to his attempts to include the loons?
From: William Hughes on 29 May 2010 14:22 On May 29, 12:34 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On May 27, 7:32 am, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 27, 1:10 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > Probability? Random? > > It is true that You deleted a line without indication. - William Hughes
From: Transfer Principle on 1 Jun 2010 15:15
On May 29, 7:23 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 8:45 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > Then what should I do the next time someone makes a claim > > that is refuted by ZFC? I suppose that I should continue to > > do what I did in this thread, and consider all the main reasons > > that someone might make such a claim. > No, silly boy. You should say what you think the truth is, > and why. In another thread, a poster made a claim about Cantor that is refuted by ZFC. And so I listed the four possible cases, as usual, only to have another poster, Waldby, say that even listing the cases is still considered "patronizing." And we can see what the problem here is: To tell a poster that he is right when he is right is OK. To tell a poster that he is right when he is wrong is patronizing. To tell a poster that he is wrong when he is right is bullying. To tell a poster that he is wrong when he is wrong is OK. We know that posters don't want to be bullied, and we know that they don't want to be patronized. But what I fear is that even to list the _possibility_ that a poster is right when he is wrong is patronizing (and vice versa for bullying). That is to say, if a poster contradicts ZFC, that poster might either be right about an alternate theory or wrong about ZFC. To tell a poster that he is right about an alternate theory when he intends to talk about ZFC is evidently patronizing (and I'll accept that), but even just to _ask_ (not _tell_, but _ask_) him whether he's using an alternate theory (when he isn't) is _still_ patronizing? I still want to be able to ask questions, even if the answer of the questions happens to be "no," without being patronizing (or bullying, since some questions may sound like bullying). But instead, this would mean that I can't respond to a post attacking Cantor without _knowing_ (not _asking_, but _knowing_) whether the OP is right or wrong. > Look, if you'd just [...] listen to your elders [...] That's what I've been trying to do! And so let me combine the suggestions of Greene, Spight, and Waldby and come up with a new plan of how to respond to a post attacking Cantor. Instead of listing the four cases -- Waldby mentioned a Case 5, but even if I added this fifth case, someone in the future might mention a Case 6, and then we can never be sure that the list is exclusive or exhaustive -- I can address the main cases without enumerating them. Example: Hypothetical OP: "Cantor is wrong because ..." (followed by an argument that is flawed wrt ZFC). My response: I have nothing against theories other than ZFC. But ZFC, the standard theory, proves that there exist uncountably many real numbers. Here's why the OP's argument fails in ZFC: (followed by an explanation of how the argument is flawed wrt ZFC). If the OP is referring to a theory other than ZFC, then I'd like to know more about this theory. How do the axioms of the new theory differ from those of ZFC? Which axioms of ZFC does the OP reject? Is the OP considering NFU? (End of response) And so this covers the three suggestions. Waldby suggests that I respond with a mathematical post. I would argue that a post which entirely discusses a theory other than ZFC is still mathematical, but the problem is that I wouldn't know enough about which theory the OP has in mind in order to make a coherent post. Thus, until I know more about the theory, the mathematical content in the post would have to come from ZFC or standard theory. Therefore, my post can describe why the OP's argument is flawed in ZFC. Greene suggests that if a poster rejects ZFC, I find out which specific axioms the poster is rejecting. And Spight suggests that I post what I think the truth is, though I can't be sure what the truth is until I know whether the OP is discussing ZFC or not. And so I can acknowledge this. As it turns out, I have the opportunity to demonstrate these better posting habits right away. In another thread, a poster has claimed that N and C are isomorphic. I've already posted in that thread in order to clarify that the poster really does mean to say that N is isomorphic to _C_, and not to merely a _subset_ of C. So I can now follow the suggestions from this thread and point out why ZFC proves that N is not isomorphic to C, as well as ask about alternate theories in which N is isomorphic to C. |