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: MoeBlee on 12 Apr 2007 17:43 On Apr 12, 12:27 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > On Mar 31, 5:39 am, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > >> In order to support the notion of aleph_0, one has to discard the basic > >> notion of subtraction in the infinite case. That seems like an undue > >> sacrifice to me, for the sake of nonsense. Sorry. > > > For the sake of a formal axiomatization of the theorems of ordinary > > mathematics in analysis, algebra, topology, etc. > > > But please do let us know when you have such a formal axiomatization > > but one that does have cardinal subtraction working in the infinite > > case just as it works in the finite case. > > > MoeBlee > > Sorry, MoeBlee, but when I produce any final product in this area, > cardinality will be a footnote, and not central to the theory. As I work > on other things, so do I work on this. I really don't care what you work on. My point is that your commentary in these threads has virtually no formal mathematical import, as it comes down to a bunch of whining that your personal notions are not embodied in set theory even though you can't point to a formal system (either published or of your own, and the gibberish you've posted in threads and on your own site is not even a corhernt attempt toward a formal system) that does embody your personal notions and you can't even HINT at what such a system might be. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 12 Apr 2007 17:48 On Apr 12, 12:30 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Yes, Lester, Stephen is exactly right. I am very happy to see this > response. It follows from the assumptions. Axioms have merit, but > deserve periodic review. YOU can't REview something you've never VIEWED. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 12 Apr 2007 18:05 On Apr 12, 2:36 pm, "MoeBlee" <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Zermelo's motivation was to prove that every set is well ordered. Since that phrasing might be misunderstood, I should say that I mean: Zermelo's motivation was to prove that for every set, there exists a well ordering on it. MoeBlee
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:17 On 12 Apr 2007 14:43:15 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >I really don't care what you work on. My point is that your commentary >in these threads has virtually no formal mathematical import, Well no formal modern mathematical support perhaps, Moe(x), but I don't think you can say no formal mathematical import. ~v~~
From: MoeBlee on 12 Apr 2007 18:20
On Apr 12, 3:17 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 12 Apr 2007 14:43:15 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >I really don't care what you work on. My point is that your commentary > >in these threads has virtually no formal mathematical import, > > Well no formal modern mathematical support perhaps, Moe(x), but I > don't think you can say no formal mathematical import. I said 'virtually none'. MoeBlee |