The Definition of Points
in [Math]
|
Prev: Guide to presenting Lemma, Theorems and Definitions
Next: Density of the set of all zeroes of a function with givenproperties
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:48 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> It only eliminates false >>> hypotheses. >> >> Well it would certainly do that if it quite knew what was true and >> false to begin with. Strictly speaking contemporary science eliminates >> hypotheses which contradict axiomatic assumptions of truth. But that >> doesn't mean it eliminates hypotheses which are false because it just >> doesn't know what is false in mechanically reduced exhaustive terms. >> > >Again, define "mechanics"? And, this time, don't tell me it means that >everything is derived from not, while you're proving that everything is >derived from not, and complaining about circularity. :) I complain about circularity because circular reductions are not finitely regressible to anything. In other words they're not finite but infinite. Mechanics is finitely regressible to self contradictory alternatives. That's what makes it exhaustive. Choose anything you want as long as it's finitely regressible and demonstrably so. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:49 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> It's modern mathematikers and empirics who ask gods for revelations. I >> concentrate on demonstrating what's true and false in mechanically >> reduced exhaustive terms of finite tautological regression to self >> contradictory alternatives. Whole nuther kettle of fish. >> > >Smells a little familiar... Only because you're used to the smell of something rotten in the state of Denmark. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:50 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Your position on science and math seems to be that either we proceed >> according to naive and mechanically unreduced and inexhaustive >> assumptions of truth or we proceed by appeals to divine revelation. >> Six of one half dozen of the other. >> > >Nah, I'll take two of the first, and five loaves...no need for the other. Hey, what can I tell you, Tony, as long as you aren't particular. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:52 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Their size is finite for any finite number of subdivisions. >> >> And it continues to be finite for any infinite number of subdivisions >> as well.The finitude of subdivisions isn't related to their number but >> to the mechanical nature of bisective subdivision. >> > >Only to a Zenoite. Once you have unmeasurable subintervals, you have >bisected a finite segment an unmeasurable number of times. Unmeasurable subintervals? Unmeasured subintervals perhaps. But not unmeasurable subintervals. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:53
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Equal subdivisions. That's what gets us cardinal numbers. >> > >Sure, n iterations of subdivision yield 2^n equal and generally mutually >exclusive subintervals. I don't know what you mean by mutually exclusive subintervals. They're equal in size. Only their position differs in relation to one another. ~v~~ |