The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Virgil on 1 Apr 2007 15:31 In article <460fd453(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > If the size of N is Q, then Q is the last element of N. It doesn't exist. By that argument, wouldn�t the size of the set of negative integers be -1. >
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 15:56 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~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 18:38 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:48:57 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:50:10 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> And the only way we can address >>>> relations between zeroes and in-finites is through L'Hospital's rule >>>> where derivatives are not zero or in-finite. And all I see you doing >>>> is sketching a series of rules you imagine are obeyed by some of the >>>> things you talk about without however integrating them mechanically >>>> with others of the things you and others talk about. It really doesn't >>>> matter whether you put them within the interval 0-1 instead of at the >>>> end of the number line if there are conflicting mechanical properties >>>> preventing them from lying together on any straight line segment. >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> Well, if you actually paid attention to any of my ideas, you'd see they >>> are indeed mostly mechanically related to each other, but you don't seem >>> interested in discussing the possibly useful mechanics employed therein. >> >> Only because you don't seem interested in discussing the mechanics on >> which the possibly useful mechanics employed therein are based, Tony. > >But I am. I've asked that you fill in those true/false entries in the >table I gave you, so we can see what relation you're employing. That's >an effort in "discussing" the "mechanics". What mechanics? True/false tabular mechanics? How about a definite "maybe". All I can see you're doing, Tony, is listing the details of what you consider true/false values and conjunctions in greater detail whereas I'm interested in ascertaining why and how things are true or false to begin with. >> I'm less interested in discussing one "possibly useful mechanics" over >> another when there is no demonstrable mechanical basis for the >> "possibly useful mechanics" to begin with. You claim they're "mostly >> mechanically" related but not the mechanics through which they're >> "mostly mechanically related" except various ambiguous claims per say. >> >> ~v~~ > >Pro say, to be exact. How many inputs, how many outputs, and what >mapping, what relation? Them's mechanics. So, expliculate. They're mechanics? How can you tell? What is it that makes them mechanics? You provide no evidence they're exhaustive or anything you say is necessarily true to the exclusion of other possibilities. You just say they are or aren't whatever you want according to whatever assumptions you want to make. I don't see that as mechanics. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 18:43 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:47:26 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:04:33 -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: >>>> >>>>>>>> Okay, Tony. You've made it clear you don't care what anyone thinks as >>>>>>>> long as it suits your druthers and philosophical perspective on math. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is so completely different from you, of course... >>>>>> Difference is that I demonstrate the truth of what I'm talking about >>>>>> in mechanically reduced exhaustive terms whereas what you talk about >>>>>> is just speculative. >>>>> You speculate that it's agreed that not is the universal truth. It's not. >>>> No I don't, Tony. It really is irritating that despite having read >>>> E201 and E401 you call what I've done in those root threads >>>> "speculation". What makes you think it's speculation? I mean if you >>>> didn't understand what I wrote or how it demonstrates what I say then >>>> I'd be happy to revisit the issue. However not questioning the >>>> demonstration and still insisting it's speculation and no different >>>> from what you say is just not okay. >>> I've questioned that assumption all along. We've spoken about it plenty. >> >> What assumption, Tony?You talk as if there is some kind of assumption. >That "not not" is self-contradictory, as if "not" is a statement.... "Not" is a predicate and "not not" is a self contradictory combination of predicates. I don't know what you mean by a "statement". Predicates are statements as far as I can tell. >>>> I don't speculate "it's agreed" or not. I don't really care whether >>>> it's agreed or not and as a practical matter at this juncture I'd have >>>> to say it's much more likely not agreed than agreed. What matters is >>>> whether it's demonstrated and if not why not and not whether it's >>>> agreed or not since agreements and demonstrations of truth are not the >>>> same at all. Agreements require comprehension and comprehension >>>> requires study and time whereas demonstrations of truth only require >>>> logic whether or not there is comprehension. >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> Demonstrate what the rules are for producing a valid one of your logical >>> statements from one or more other valid ones of your logical statements, >>> because "not not" and "not a not b" are not standard valid logic >>> statements with known rules of manipulation. What are the mechanics? As >>> far as I can tell, the first is not(not(true))=true and the second is >>> or(not(a),not(b)), or, not(and(a,b)). >> >> Or you could demonstrate why the standard valid logic you cite is >> standard and valid. >> >> ~v~~ > >Okay, I'll take that as a disinclination and failure to comply. You have >the right to remain silent... ;) Well it's certainly a disinclination to comply with your assumptions regarding just whatever "standard valid" logic you consider "standard" and "valid" without being able to demonstrate why it's either one.Just naming things "true" and "false" doesn't make them so and that failure renders your claims nothing more than aribitrary bit manipulations. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 18:45
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~~ |