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 1 Apr 2007 19:48 On 1 Apr 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "Mike Kelly" <mikekellyuk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On 1 Apr, 16:48, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Brian Chandler wrote: >> > Tony Orlow wrote: >> >> Brian Chandler wrote: >> >>> Tony Orlow wrote: >> >>>> I'll give *you* a start, Brian, and I hope you don't have a heart attack >> >>>> over it. It's called 1, and it's the 1st element in your N. The 2nd is >> >>>> 2, and the 3rd is 3. Do you see a pattern? The nth is n. The nth marks >> >>>> the end of the first n elements. Huh! >> >> >>>> So, the property I would most readily attribute to this element Q is >> >>>> that it is the size of the set, up to and including element Q. >> >>> Euuuughwh! >> >> Gesundheit! >> >> >> I seeee! Q is really Big'un, and this all jibes with my >> >>> previous calculation that the value of Big'un is 16. Easy to test: is >> >>> 16 the size of the set up to and including 16? Why, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, >> >>> 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 - so it is!! >> >> >> Well, that's an interesting analysis, but something tells me there may >> >> be another natural greater than 16.... >> >> > Indeed. So your "characterization" of Q isn't much use, because it >> > doesn't distinguish Q from 16. >> >> If the size of N is Q, then Q is the last element of N. It doesn't exist. > >Irrespective of what notion of "size" is being used? Irregardless. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 19:49 On 1 Apr 2007 09:38:47 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: > >Mike Kelly wrote: >> On 1 Apr, 16:48, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> > Brian Chandler wrote: >> > > Tony Orlow wrote: >> > >> Brian Chandler wrote: >> > >>> Tony Orlow wrote: >> > >>>> I'll give *you* a start, Brian, and I hope you don't have a heart attack >> > >>>> over it. It's called 1, and it's the 1st element in your N. The 2nd is >> > >>>> 2, and the 3rd is 3. Do you see a pattern? The nth is n. The nth marks >> > >>>> the end of the first n elements. Huh! >> > >> > >>>> So, the property I would most readily attribute to this element Q is >> > >>>> that it is the size of the set, up to and including element Q. >> > >>> Euuuughwh! >> > >> Gesundheit! >> > >> > >> I seeee! Q is really Big'un, and this all jibes with my >> > >>> previous calculation that the value of Big'un is 16. Easy to test: is >> > >>> 16 the size of the set up to and including 16? Why, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, >> > >>> 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 - so it is!! >> > >> > >> Well, that's an interesting analysis, but something tells me there may >> > >> be another natural greater than 16.... >> > >> > > Indeed. So your "characterization" of Q isn't much use, because it >> > > doesn't distinguish Q from 16. >> > >> > If the size of N is Q, then Q is the last element of N. It doesn't exist. >> >> Irrespective of what notion of "size" is being used? > >I think it's easy to see that Tony's notion of "size" is based on his >all-powerful intuition, honed by looking at literally millions of >finite sets. He knows what size is when he sees it. If you count some >collection of elements, the size is the count when you finish. So >obviously the "size" of the pofnats (is this what N is here?) doesn't >exist. Which is perfectly true of course. > >I think he has at least realised that he's safest shoving all the >confused and nonexistent bits of his "theory" off to beyond the left >or the right, so only thos capable of "reaching" infinity will ever be >able to discuss them with him. The real mystery is why he bothers >sci.math with this. No more so than you, Brian. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 19:51 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:09:43 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <460e812f(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > > >> Surely, you don't think me fool enough to think that Virgil would >> actually give me a sincere compliment, or acknowledge that any of my >> nonstandard points actually has any merit, do you? Still, it was nice of >> Virgil to say I'm not worst ignoramus he knows. That warmed my heart. >> >> Still, I don't know what Virgil's comment about me says about my future >> responses to you. See above for a characterization of Q. > > >I have, upon occasion, found, and stated, that TO was correct on some >point or another. > >I have never found Zick to be correct on any point. But then I have long >since stopped looking at Zick's posts. I suppose that it is marginally >possible that Zick may have been right about something since then. Or that you have. Either way I figure we've put you out of our misery. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:05 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:14:21 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Virgil wrote: > >> >> I have never found Zick to be correct on any point. But then I have long >> since stopped looking at Zick's posts. I suppose that it is marginally >> possible that Zick may have been right about something since then. > >A stopped clock? Except Zick is not riight twice a day. Possibly twice a >year though. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Bob. Except in your case no one knows when that is. At least in my case they do. One day however no doubt you'll be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century hopefully later rather than sooner. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:06
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:30:03 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester has a vision, but his formalization is flawed, as I see it. I >think he intuits some valid issues, but as smart as I think he is to >intuit and see what he sees, I don't think he's analyzed the situation >properly. While that's perhaps disappointing, the very will to address >fundamental issues is telling, and such devotion should not go >unappreciated. <3 Appreciation is appreciated, Tony. Thanks for the opinion per say. ~v~~ |