The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:27 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:16:11 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> So.. you (correctly) note that there are not a finite "number" of >>> reals in [0,1]. You think this "proves" that there exists an infinite >>> "number". Why? (And, what is your definition of "number")? >> >> And what is your definition of "infinite"? >> >> ~v~~ > >"greater than any finite" I'm not sure that's a big help, Tony. You have yet to show there is any such number. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:27 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:22:10 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <461e7764(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: > >> > And what is your definition of "infinite"? >> > >> > ~v~~ >> >> "greater than any finite" >> > >And is TO's definition of finite "less than infinite"? 46. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:28 On 12 Apr 2007 14:04:12 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 12, 11:16 am, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> > And what is your definition of "infinite"? > >> "greater than any finite" > >Define 'finite' and 'greater than'. > >Nevermind, you have no primitives anyway to which ANY of your >definitions ultimately revert. Well we certainly have the primitive Moe(x) to which any of your definitions ultimately revert. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:29 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:23:04 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> 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~~ > >That's okay. 0 for 0 is 100%!!! :) Not exactly, Tony. 0/0 would have to be evaluated under L'Hospital's rule. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:33
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:30:32 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:14:27 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>> You need to define what relation your grammar denotes, or there is no >>>>> understanding when you write things like "not a not b". >> >> What grammar did you have in mind exactly, Tony? > >Some commonly understood mapping between strings and meaning, basically. > Care to define what your strings mean? :)1oo What strings? Care to define what your "mappings" "between" "strings" and "meaning" mean, Tony? Then we can get to the basis of grammar. >>>> Of course not. I didn't intend for my grammar to denote anything in >>>> particular much as Brian and mathematikers don't intend to do much >>>> more than speak in tongues while they're awaiting the second coming. >>>> >>> Then, what, you're not actually saying anything? >> >> Of course I am. ~v~~ |