The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 13 Apr 2007 13:29 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:29:22 -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: >> >>> Yeah, "true" and "false" and "or" are kinda ambiguous, eh?" >> >> They are where your demonstrations of their truth are concerned >> because there don't seem to be any. You just trot them out as if they >> were obvious axiomatic assumptions of truth not requiring any >> mechanical basis whatsoever or demonstrations on your part. >> >> ~v~~ > >So, you're not interested in classifying certain propositions as "true" >and others as "false", so each is either true "or" false? I coulda >swored you done said that....oh nebbe mine! It makes no difference how you classify proposition as true or false when you can't demonstrate how it is they're true or false to begin with. Just saying they're true or false is irrelevant unless you can show why and how. That's what I'm trying to point out to you. You seem stuck on merely assuming certain propositions are true or false. ~v~~
From: Tony Orlow on 13 Apr 2007 13:38 MoeBlee wrote: > 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 > I am not sure how the Axiom of Choice demonstrates that. Well Order the Reals! Tony
From: Tony Orlow on 13 Apr 2007 13:40 Lester Zick wrote: > 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~~ I thought you considered the transverse acceleration to vary infinitesimally, but that was a while back... 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 13 Apr 2007 13:40 Lester Zick wrote: > 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~~ How many reals between 0 and 1? That's the number. 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 13 Apr 2007 13:42
Lester Zick wrote: > 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~~ Well, you put something together that one can take a derivative of, and let's see what happens with that. 01oo |