THE HOLY GRAIL ~ CANTOR DISPROOF
in [Math]
|
Prev: Simple permutation question
Next: INFINITE LIST OF PRIME NUMBERS BY PLACEMENT BY NEW -1TANGENT MATHEMATICS
From: George Greene on 29 May 2010 03:13 On May 28, 11:45 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? You should ask him whether he "believes" the axioms of ZFC, or, more specifically, ask him which axiom he disbelieves. Logic in general is not even about "claims": FIRST, you HAVE to have AXIOMS (and zeroth, you have to have rules of inference, but people in general are far less likely to insist on variations-away-from-the-usual on those, with maybe the possible exception of constructivism). The most irritating of the cranks will refuse to specify their axioms, or attack the legitimacy of "the" axiomatic "method".
From: |-|ercules on 29 May 2010 03:46 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > On May 28, 11:45 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? > > You should ask him whether he "believes" the axioms of ZFC, > or, more specifically, ask him which axiom he disbelieves. > > Logic in general is not even about "claims": FIRST, you HAVE to have > AXIOMS > (and zeroth, you have to have rules of inference, but people in > general are far > less likely to insist on variations-away-from-the-usual on those, with > maybe the > possible exception of constructivism). The most irritating of the > cranks will > refuse to specify their axioms, or attack the legitimacy of "the" > axiomatic "method". Why is the axiomatic method legitimate? Bonus points if you can demonstrate this from axioms! Herc
From: |-|ercules on 29 May 2010 03:55 "Transfer Principle" <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> wrote .. > On May 27, 3:31 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Transfer Principle" <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote .. >> > I definitely do _not_ accept Herc/Cooper's claim that >> > he is Genesis Adam, since, to say the least, Adam is >> > _dead_ according to Genesis (for having eaten the >> > forbidden fruit). How can someone be a specific >> > person mentioned in a book if according to that book, >> > that person is dead? (Unless that book is wrong, of >> > course but Herc/Cooper also states belief that the >> > book is true.) >> Well that's it for me and sci math you have your wish. When people stop blatantly lying in my face I'll check again in 100 >> years. > > And this is exactly what I was trying to avoid. > > In another thread, there was a long discussion about how I > should stop being so quick to defend the so-called "cranks" > and start allowing for the possibility that what they are > saying might be "wrong." Jim Burns, Jesse Hughes, and > others convinced me that I am more likely to be respected > (and less likely to be killfiled) by posters, if only I would > consider the possibility that the "cranks" are "wrong." > > So what happens? I decide to consider the possibility that > Herc might be wrong. And then Herc becomes offended > and decides to stop posting. > > One word that I told myself that I'd try to use less often is > "bully" -- in particular, I wanted to stop referring to other > posters as "bullies." But right now, I need to call _myself_ > (and only _myself_) a "bully." For that's exactly what I > just did. I just "bullied" Herc out of sci.math. > > What did I do to offend Herc? First, when he made a > mathematical claim, I told him that ZFC refutes his claim > and gave him a proof of this. I avoided assuming that ZFC > is the only possible theory or only theory worth considering, > but merely told him that ZFC refutes his claim. > > Herc's response? > >> Translation, "No because I told you so". > > Next, I tried to show Herc a specific counterexample to his > claim, still working in ZFC. > > Herc's response? > >> You are selecting specific diagonals based on the list. > > reminding me that his claim was probabilistic in nature. > > But the straw that broke the camel's back wasn't even > mathematical in nature. It was a discussion about Genesis > Adam, which I was trying to avoid. But I had to say in > passing to Aatu (who had just criticized me for trying to > defend Herc) that I don't consider Herc to be Genesis Adam, > and do reiterate that I consider all discussion about Adam to > be off-topic for sci.math in the first place. > > Herc's response? > >> ps that's the dumbest [expletive] rebuttal of Genesis possible > > And then he leaves, because I have just "bullied" him away. > > It's threads like these that make me want to go back to my > habit of defending "cranks" at all costs. I'd much rather be > overly accommodating to Herc than be the poster who is > responsible for scaring Herc away. If galathaea were still > here, I bet she'd be pointing her finger directly at me for > being the "bully" who "scared" Herc away. > > And it was all because Aatu criticized me for defending Herc, > and I had to react to his criticism. > > 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. And so the > next time someone posts a claim refuted by ZFC, I defend > their claim, and someone criticizes me for doing so, then I'll > be sure to remember this thread, the thread in which I > bullied and scared Herc away. That's a very noble post TP! Truly unexpected for usenet. I only crosspost to sci.math now anyway, supernatural or truman explanations.. The theory was mathematicians would have the mental prowess and probability theory to see the difference between normal coincidences and supernatural coincidences, but the motivation for you to do so was impossible to muster. Herc
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 29 May 2010 08:37 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > Here Aatu has used the word "crank," and in the plural, to boot. This > means that use of the word "crank," in both singular and plural, is > now open to me. Well, I didn't call anyone a crank. I spoke of people who get called cranks by other people. > Also, Aatu refers to Herc/Cooper as "insane." I don't accept that most > so-called "cranks" are "insane." There is no reason to suppose most people who get called cranks are insane in any clinical sense. > So I should reject all of Herc/Cooper's mathematics just because of > his insane claim to be Adam? Surely not. His mathematical claims should be rejected on basis that they are for the most part simply nonsense or patently false. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 29 May 2010 08:39
"|-|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. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |