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 20:21 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:20:12 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <460e82b1(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > >> As I said to Brian, it's provably the size of the set of finite natural >> numbers greater than or equal to 1. No, there is no last finite natural, >> and no, there is no "size" for N. Aleph_0 is a phantom. > >All numbers are equally phantasmal in the physical world and equally >real in the mental world. So the physical world isn't real? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:28 On 1 Apr 2007 03:58:03 -0700, "Mike Kelly" <mikekellyuk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >This appears to have nothing to do with my post. I guess this kind of >babble means that you're literally incapable of recognising that your >arguments are completely bunk. Your mind will not allow you to realise >that you've been wasting a lot of time spewing meaningless garbage. If >it did, you might have to admit you were wrong. Maybe you'd even learn >something from your errors. And Tony Orlow doesn't want that. Tony >Orlow doesn't want to learn how to communicate mathematically. Tony >Orlow doesn't want to be able to explain his ideas to other people. >Tony Orlow just wants to pontificate endlessly on usenet and play at >being a mathematician. > >You complain about set theory giving a wrong size to N when there is >no "acceptable" size to give it. >It's pointed out that set theory *doesn't* give a size to N. >You utterly refuse to acknowledge your error and start babbling >incoherently about only tangentially related stuff. > >Stop being such an intellectual coward. You're the one pschologizing. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:35 On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 05:22:30 +0000 (UTC), stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >In sci.math Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >>> >>> None of the options mention "size" Tony. What does "size" have >>> to do with a, b or c? >>> > >> Ugh. Me already tell you, nth one is n, then there are n of them. So >> easy, even a caveman can do it. Size is difference between. > >Brilliant Tony. Act like an idiot when backed into a corner. >Did you learn that trick from Lester? Just like you learn your tricks from dogs, lil Stevie. >You are truly pathetic. Demonstration of truth for a change? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:41 On 31 Mar 2007 22:36:51 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: > >stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >> In sci.math Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> > stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> None of the options mention "size" Tony. What does "size" have >> >> to do with a, b or c? >> >> >> >> > Ugh. Me already tell you, nth one is n, then there are n of them. So >> > easy, even a caveman can do it. Size is difference between. >> >> Brilliant Tony. Act like an idiot when backed into a corner. >> Did you learn that trick from Lester? > >Don't think so. You think now, Brian. Teach lil Stevie the trick. > You think Lester is acting? Lil Stevie doesn't think. That's the problem. And his endless recitals get pretty boring. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:42
On 1 Apr 2007 00:07:18 -0700, cbrown(a)cbrownsystems.com wrote: >So easy, even a caveman can do it. An exemplar per se. ~v~~ |