The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 19:51 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:09:43 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <460e812f(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > > >> Surely, you don't think me fool enough to think that Virgil would >> actually give me a sincere compliment, or acknowledge that any of my >> nonstandard points actually has any merit, do you? Still, it was nice of >> Virgil to say I'm not worst ignoramus he knows. That warmed my heart. >> >> Still, I don't know what Virgil's comment about me says about my future >> responses to you. See above for a characterization of Q. > > >I have, upon occasion, found, and stated, that TO was correct on some >point or another. > >I have never found Zick to be correct on any point. But then I have long >since stopped looking at Zick's posts. I suppose that it is marginally >possible that Zick may have been right about something since then. Or that you have. Either way I figure we've put you out of our misery. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:05 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:14:21 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Virgil wrote: > >> >> I have never found Zick to be correct on any point. But then I have long >> since stopped looking at Zick's posts. I suppose that it is marginally >> possible that Zick may have been right about something since then. > >A stopped clock? Except Zick is not riight twice a day. Possibly twice a >year though. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Bob. Except in your case no one knows when that is. At least in my case they do. One day however no doubt you'll be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century hopefully later rather than sooner. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:06 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:30:03 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester has a vision, but his formalization is flawed, as I see it. I >think he intuits some valid issues, but as smart as I think he is to >intuit and see what he sees, I don't think he's analyzed the situation >properly. While that's perhaps disappointing, the very will to address >fundamental issues is telling, and such devotion should not go >unappreciated. <3 Appreciation is appreciated, Tony. Thanks for the opinion per say. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:11 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:18:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> >> Mathematikers still can't say what an infinity is, Bob, and when they >> try to they're just guessing anyway. So I suppose if we were to take >> your claim literally we would just have to conclude that what made >> physics possible was guessing and not mathematics at all. > >Not true. Transfite cardinality is well defined. I didn't say it wasn't, Bob. You can do all the transfinite zen you like. I said "infinity". >In projective geometry points at infinity are well defined (use >homogeneous coordinates). That's nice, Bob. >You are batting 0 for n, as usual. Considerably higher than second guessers. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:12
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:09:25 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Bob Kolker wrote: >> Tony Orlow 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. >> >> No. It is the cardinality of the set of integers. > >No, Bob, that's a Muslim lie, perpetrated by the Jews as a joke on the >xtians. > >> >> Deep in your heart you want everything to be finite. That will limit >> mathematics to totally up grocery bills and such like. > >No, Bob, life is not simply a marketplace for me, as it is for you. > >> >> Mathematics based on infinities has made physics possible. >> > >Measure makes physics possible. And guessing makes Bob possible. ~v~~ |