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 2 Apr 2007 17:37 On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:12:46 +0000 (UTC), stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >> It is not true that the set of consecutive naturals starting at 1 with >> cardinality x has largest element x. A set of consecutive naturals >> starting at 1 need not have a largest element at all. > >To be fair to Tony, he said "size", not "cardinality". If Tony wishes to define >"size" such that set of consecutive naturals starting at 1 with size x has a >largest element x, he can, but an immediate consequence of that definition >is that N does not have a size. Is that true? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Apr 2007 17:37 On 2 Apr 2007 09:24:06 -0700, "Mike Kelly" <mikekellyuk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Who he thinks he is fooling is beyond me. There is a lot beyond you. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Apr 2007 17:39 On 2 Apr 2007 09:24:06 -0700, "Mike Kelly" <mikekellyuk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Cardinality is bunk! Of course not. It just has nothing to do with SOAP operas. ~v~~
From: Tony Orlow on 12 Apr 2007 14:12 Lester Zick wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:31:58 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> > wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >>> On 30 Mar 2007 10:23:51 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 30, 9:39 am, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> They >>>>> introduce the von Neumann ordinals defined solely by set inclusion, >>>> By membership, not inclusion. >>>> >>>>> and >>>>> yet, surreptitiously introduce the notion of order by means of this set. >>>> "Surreptitiously". You don't know an effing thing you're talking >>>> about. Look at a set theory textbook (such as Suppes's 'Axiomatic Set >>>> Theory') to see the explicit definitions. >>> Kinda like Moe(x) huh. >>> >>> ~v~~ >> Welcome back to your mother-effing thread. :) > > What's interesting here, Tony, is the sudden explosion of interest in > a thread you commented only the other day appeared moribund. I mean > 200+ posts on any given Sunday may well be a record. > > I think the trick is that you have to confine posts pretty much to a > few sentences so mathematikers can read and respond to them whilst > moving their lips. I often suspected mathematikers only had verbal > IQ's about room temperature and the retention capacity of orangutans > and now we have empirical evidence to that effect. Probably why > they're modern mathematikers to begin with because their intellectual > skills appear fairly well limited to memorizing and repeating slogans. > > ~v~~ What may perhaps be more interesting is that, after I disappeared again for two weeks, the thread petered out again. The trickis actually pursuing a point that exists. :) 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 12 Apr 2007 14:12
Lester Zick wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:05:25 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> > wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:06:42 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Lester Zick wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> You might be surprised at how it relates to science. Where does mass >>>>>>>> come from, anyway? >>>>>>> Not from number rings and real number lines that's for sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Are you sure? >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>>> What thoughts have you given to cyclical processes? >>>>> Plenty. Everything in physical nature represents cyclical processes. >>>>> So what? What difference does that make? We can describe cyclical >>>>> processes quite adequately without assuming there is a real number >>>>> line or number rings. In fact we can describe cyclical processes even >>>>> if there is no real number line and number ring. They're irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> ~v~~ >>>> Oh. What causes them? >>> Constant linear velocity in combination with transverse acceleration. >>> >>> ~v~~ >> Constant transverse acceleration? > > What did I say, Tony? Constant linear velocity in combination with > transverse acceleration? Or constant transverse acceleration? I mean > my reply is right there above yours. > > ~v~~ If the transverse acceleration varies, then you do not have a circle. 01oo |