Prev: two limits to speed: speed of light and upper limit of slow speed #596 Correcting Math
Next: I am groovy
From: John Jones on 13 Apr 2010 19:43
Like the operating range of notes that can be played on particular
musical instruments, numbers, too, have an operating range. Here are
some ways in which that range is limited.

1. The number nine has a greater range than the number one. 9 goes
further than 1 because it expresses larger numbers for the same number
of signs. For example, 9999 uses four signs, whereas 10000 (which is one
larger than 9999) uses five signs.

2. For the mathematician, the operating range of all the numbers goes no
further than infinity. It would be a mistake for them to deny this as it
would mean that one goes no further than zero.

3. One can go no further than zero of course, - we must expand the
definition of numbers if we want to count monad or solitary objects.
Such objects are not countable. Thus, an expansion of the definition of
number to include all worldly objects places limits on Peano's successor
axiom.

It is because of this that numbers are antecedent to the Peano axioms,
or at least antecedent to the axiom of succession which states that one
number follows another. Clearly, in the case of the monad object, no
number follows zero, which makes the Peano axioms arbitarily restrictive
in their description of physical possibility. Amen.

Can harmless imagination find nonsense in the studied utterances of
humankind?
From: ta on 13 Apr 2010 19:44
On Apr 13, 7:43 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Like the operating range of notes that can be played on particular
> musical instruments, numbers, too, have an operating range. Here are
> some ways in which that range is limited.
>
> 1. The number nine has a greater range than the number one. 9 goes
> further than 1 because it expresses larger numbers for the same number
> of signs. For example, 9999 uses four signs, whereas 10000 (which is one
> larger than 9999) uses five signs.
>
> 2. For the mathematician, the operating range of all the numbers goes no
> further than infinity. It would be a mistake for them to deny this as it
> would mean that one goes no further than zero.
>
> 3. One can go no further than zero of course, - we must expand the
> definition of numbers if we want to count monad or solitary objects.
> Such objects are not countable. Thus, an expansion of the definition of
> number to include all worldly objects places limits on Peano's successor
> axiom.
>
> It is because of this that numbers are antecedent to the Peano axioms,
> or at least antecedent to the axiom of succession which states that one
> number follows another. Clearly, in the case of the monad object, no
> number follows zero, which makes the Peano axioms arbitarily restrictive
> in their description of physical possibility. Amen.
>
> Can harmless imagination find nonsense in the studied utterances of
> humankind?

It depends on how much acid you're on.
From: Sir Frederick on 13 Apr 2010 19:48
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:43:17 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote:


>
>Can harmless imagination find nonsense in the studied utterances of
>humankind?

How about this "utterance" :
"The fact of existence is utter nonsense."
From: John Stafford on 13 Apr 2010 20:53
In article
<a3b72a1c-3b67-4795-ad44-d03ed4c5c01e(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
ta <tapadlr(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 13, 7:43�pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:

(If the attributes are wrong, then please forgive)

> > Can harmless imagination find nonsense in the studied utterances of
> > humankind?
>
> It depends on how much acid you're on.

Ya! But after 55 or-so-years of the experiences of that THANG it all
settles out into our dream of <insert PERSONAL_THANG_here>.
From: ta on 13 Apr 2010 20:57
On Apr 13, 8:53 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> In article
> <a3b72a1c-3b67-4795-ad44-d03ed4c5c...(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  ta <tapa...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 7:43 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> (If the attributes are wrong, then please forgive)
>
> > > Can harmless imagination find nonsense in the studied utterances of
> > > humankind?
>
> > It depends on how much acid you're on.
>
> Ya! But after 55 or-so-years of the experiences of that THANG it all
> settles out into our dream of <insert PERSONAL_THANG_here>.

All I know is 3 is the magic number:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxmKRyLdBho
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: two limits to speed: speed of light and upper limit of slow speed #596 Correcting Math
Next: I am groovy