The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:14 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:42:46 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Tony Orlow wrote:>> >> >> Measure makes physics possible. > >On compact sets which must have infinite cardinality. Yes but do the play on DVR's? >The measure of a dense countable set is zero. The measure of the dense countable set known as Bob no doubt. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:15 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:45:58 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <460ef650(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Bob Kolker wrote: >> > Tony Orlow wrote:>> >> >> >> >> Measure makes physics possible. >> > >> > On compact sets which must have infinite cardinality. >> > >> > The measure of a dense countable set is zero. >> > >> > Bob Kolker >> >> Yes, some finite multiple of an infinitesimal. > >In any consistent system in which there are infinitesimals, none of >those infinitesimals are zero. Yet Bob claims to be able to integrate points into lines? Go figure. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:19 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:05:48 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <460edc26(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > 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. > >And does TO pretend to have a mathematically valid proof of that claim? Tony is probably only jewish on his parents' side. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:21 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:20:12 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <460e82b1(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> 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. > >All numbers are equally phantasmal in the physical world and equally >real in the mental world. So the physical world isn't real? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:28
On 1 Apr 2007 03:58:03 -0700, "Mike Kelly" <mikekellyuk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >This appears to have nothing to do with my post. I guess this kind of >babble means that you're literally incapable of recognising that your >arguments are completely bunk. Your mind will not allow you to realise >that you've been wasting a lot of time spewing meaningless garbage. If >it did, you might have to admit you were wrong. Maybe you'd even learn >something from your errors. And Tony Orlow doesn't want that. Tony >Orlow doesn't want to learn how to communicate mathematically. Tony >Orlow doesn't want to be able to explain his ideas to other people. >Tony Orlow just wants to pontificate endlessly on usenet and play at >being a mathematician. > >You complain about set theory giving a wrong size to N when there is >no "acceptable" size to give it. >It's pointed out that set theory *doesn't* give a size to N. >You utterly refuse to acknowledge your error and start babbling >incoherently about only tangentially related stuff. > >Stop being such an intellectual coward. You're the one pschologizing. ~v~~ |