The Indescribable Random Numbers
in [Math]
|
Prev: Meaning, Presuppositions, Truth-relevance, Gödel's Theorem and the Liar Paradox
Next: Original Result Tunze.
From: Jacko on 10 Aug 2010 15:33 A Cantor is 'Jazz Singer' recountor of the torah. Cardinality is related to Cardinal. A sin is a religious moral judgement. The 1984 UK Data Protection Act referes to storing false or misleading information of a personal nature and having it used against the individual the information is about. Does this imply that quoting Cantor proved X and sullying his name, when he is not about to retort and consider the option of withdrawing the 'proof' is an offence under the act?
From: Shubee on 10 Aug 2010 15:41 On Aug 10, 12:49 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Sure, set theory can be so thoroughly sanitized that probably no > > paradoxes can develop but where's the fun and excitement in doing > > that? > > It's not about the fun, it's about the lack of fraud. I'm certain that mathematical reality is consistent but I doubt that the rule "don't have fun" is one of its axioms. I simply believe that there is something greater and more thrilling than ZFC. Believing that, I consider it a great adventure to search for deeper axiom sets. > Consider a non bernoulli pseudo-random reversable source. (not a 50:50 > source). > > Then given an odd number of these sources, majority selection of head/ > tail state can be used to create a more biased source (h:t)^n -> > central limit -> n moves to infinity -> 2h<t is possible. > > It takes 2 bits to turn a pseudo random bernoulli source into a non > bernoulli reversable source. > > There exists a coding which can use the generated sequence with 2h<t > to store information choices, by considering the occasional h to be an > error in need of a correction (ignoring by stepping over) coding, > implying a slower rate always t stream, which can be written upon by > turning a t into a h. Than you Jacko. That sounds like a very fun game. Unfortunately, I never learned to play that particular game.
From: Jacko on 10 Aug 2010 15:48 On 10 Aug, 20:41, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 12:49 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Sure, set theory can be so thoroughly sanitized that probably no > > > paradoxes can develop but where's the fun and excitement in doing > > > that? > > > It's not about the fun, it's about the lack of fraud. > > I'm certain that mathematical reality is consistent but I doubt that > the rule "don't have fun" is one of its axioms. I simply believe that > there is something greater and more thrilling than ZFC. Believing > that, I consider it a great adventure to search for deeper axiom > sets. Fun is an auxillary coincidental, not a rason d'etre. > > Consider a non bernoulli pseudo-random reversable source. (not a 50:50 > > source). > > > Then given an odd number of these sources, majority selection of head/ > > tail state can be used to create a more biased source (h:t)^n -> > > central limit -> n moves to infinity -> 2h<t is possible. > > > It takes 2 bits to turn a pseudo random bernoulli source into a non > > bernoulli reversable source. > > > There exists a coding which can use the generated sequence with 2h<t > > to store information choices, by considering the occasional h to be an > > error in need of a correction (ignoring by stepping over) coding, > > implying a slower rate always t stream, which can be written upon by > > turning a t into a h. > > Than you Jacko. That sounds like a very fun game. Unfortunately, I > never learned to play that particular game. comp.compression has this curent 'fun game'.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 10 Aug 2010 15:57 Jacko <jackokring(a)gmail.com> writes: > I don't think so. Unless you have a full proof that there are only a > finite number of numbers below infinity, and not some messed up proof > by negation with a not(red) = blue => no green. Why should I have such a proof? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Shubee on 10 Aug 2010 16:05
On Aug 10, 2:33 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > A Cantor is 'Jazz Singer' recountor of the torah. Cardinality is > related to Cardinal. A sin is a religious moral judgement. The 1984 UK > Data Protection Act referes to storing false or misleading information > of a personal nature and having it used against the individual the > information is about. > > Does this imply that quoting Cantor proved X and sullying his name, > when he is not about to retort and consider the option of withdrawing > the 'proof' is an offence under the act? Wouldn't it be more interesting to investigate the hopelessly indescribable real numbers, i.e., the ethereal ones that can't be defined with a finite number of words, numbers or mathematical symbols? |