The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 19:42 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:53:25 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:24:12 -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: >>>> >>>>>>> Add 1 n >>>>>>> times to 0 and you get n. If n is infinite, then n is infinite. >>>>>> This is reasoning per say instead of per se. >>>>>> >>>>> Pro se, even. If the first natural is 1, then the nth is n, and if there >>>>> are n of them, there's an nth, and it's a member of the set. Just ask >>>>> Mueckenheim. >>>> Pro se means for yourself and not for itself. >>> In my own behalf, yes. >>> >>>> I don't have much to do >>>> with Mueckenheim because he seems more interested in special pleading >>>> than universal truth. At least his assumptions of truth don't seem >>>> especially better or worse than any other assumptions of truth. >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> He has some valid points about the condition of the patient, but of >>> course he and I have different remedies. >> >> Some of which may prove deadly. >> >> ~v~~ > >Well, his mostly consist of amputation and leeches, but as long as he >sticks to the extremities, I don't think death is inevitable... > >Mine don't actually break anything, except for the leeches, and some >bones... Tell it to George Washington. I'm sure he'll be impressed. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 19:45 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:55:34 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On 31 Mar 2007 10:02:17 -0700, "Brian Chandler" >> <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: >> >>> Tony Orlow wrote: >>>> Brian Chandler wrote: >>>>> Tony Orlow wrote: >>>> Hi Imaginatorium - >>> That's not my name - for some reason Google has consented to writing >>> my name again. The Imaginatorium is my place of (self-)employment, >> >> And here I just assumed it was your place of self confinement. >> >>> so >>> I am the Chief Imaginator, but you may call me Brian. >> >> Arguing imagination among mathematikers is like arguing virtue among >> whores. >> >> ~v~~ > >So, what do you have against whores? Nothing. I just consider their claims to virtue suspect. No more so than modern mathematikers and empirics but suspect nonetheless. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 19:47 On 31 Mar 2007 21:54:21 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: >Do you want to try again? Not unless you can abbreviate it considerably. ~v~~
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~~ |