The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:35 On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 05:22:30 +0000 (UTC), stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >In sci.math Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >>> >>> None of the options mention "size" Tony. What does "size" have >>> to do with a, b or c? >>> > >> Ugh. Me already tell you, nth one is n, then there are n of them. So >> easy, even a caveman can do it. Size is difference between. > >Brilliant Tony. Act like an idiot when backed into a corner. >Did you learn that trick from Lester? Just like you learn your tricks from dogs, lil Stevie. >You are truly pathetic. Demonstration of truth for a change? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:41 On 31 Mar 2007 22:36:51 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: > >stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >> In sci.math Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> > stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> None of the options mention "size" Tony. What does "size" have >> >> to do with a, b or c? >> >> >> >> > Ugh. Me already tell you, nth one is n, then there are n of them. So >> > easy, even a caveman can do it. Size is difference between. >> >> Brilliant Tony. Act like an idiot when backed into a corner. >> Did you learn that trick from Lester? > >Don't think so. You think now, Brian. Teach lil Stevie the trick. > You think Lester is acting? Lil Stevie doesn't think. That's the problem. And his endless recitals get pretty boring. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:42 On 1 Apr 2007 00:07:18 -0700, cbrown(a)cbrownsystems.com wrote: >So easy, even a caveman can do it. An exemplar per se. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:46 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:56:38 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:25:24 -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: >>>> >>>>>>> If n is >>>>>>> infinite, so is 2^n. If you actually perform an infinite number of >>>>>>> subdivisions, then you get actually infinitesimal subintervals. >>>>>> And if the process is infinitesimal subdivision every interval you get >>>>>> is infinitesimal per se because it's the result of a process of >>>>>> infinitesimal subdivision and not because its magnitude is >>>>>> infinitesimal as distinct from the process itself. >>>>> It's because it's the result of an actually infinite sequence of finite >>>>> subdivisions. >>>> And what pray tell is an "actually infinite sequence"? >>>> >>>>> One can also perform some infinite subdivision in some >>>>> finite step or so, but that's a little too hocus-pocus to prove. In the >>>>> meantime, we have at least potentially infinite sequences of >>>>> subdivisions, increments, hyperdimensionalities, or whatever... >>>> Sounds like you're guessing again, Tony. >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> An actually infinite sequence is one where there exist two elements, one >>> of which is an infinite number of elements beyond the other. >> >> Which tells us what exactly, Tony, infinite sequences are infinite? >> >> ~v~~ > >It tells us "actual" means "uncountable" in the context of "infinite". Same difference I expect if we don't understand what you mean by "infinite". ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:50
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:11:42 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >T. O wrote. >> One may express them algebraically, but their truth is derived and >> justified geometrically. > >There is only one justification in mathematics. Does the conclusion >follow logically from the premises. Not actually, Bob. That's pure Aristotelian syllogistic inference not mathematics. ~v~~ |