The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: MoeBlee on 12 Apr 2007 18:05 On Apr 12, 2:36 pm, "MoeBlee" <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Zermelo's motivation was to prove that every set is well ordered. Since that phrasing might be misunderstood, I should say that I mean: Zermelo's motivation was to prove that for every set, there exists a well ordering on it. MoeBlee
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:17 On 12 Apr 2007 14:43:15 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >I really don't care what you work on. My point is that your commentary >in these threads has virtually no formal mathematical import, Well no formal modern mathematical support perhaps, Moe(x), but I don't think you can say no formal mathematical import. ~v~~
From: MoeBlee on 12 Apr 2007 18:20 On Apr 12, 3:17 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 12 Apr 2007 14:43:15 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >I really don't care what you work on. My point is that your commentary > >in these threads has virtually no formal mathematical import, > > Well no formal modern mathematical support perhaps, Moe(x), but I > don't think you can say no formal mathematical import. I said 'virtually none'. MoeBlee
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:24 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:12:06 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> 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~~ > >What may perhaps be more interesting is that, after I disappeared again >for two weeks, the thread petered out again. Oh I readily grant you, Tony, that the mathematikers would rather argue with you than me because you deal in commonly held beliefs mathematikers are used to dealing with whereas I deal in truth which mathematikers are not used to dealing with. > The trickis actually >pursuing a point that exists. :) No idear what you're on about here, Tony. When you find some mathematiker who can read without moving his lips let me know. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:25
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:12:56 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> 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~~ > >If the transverse acceleration varies, then you do not have a circle. Of course not. You do however have a curve. ~v~~ |