Uncountability of the Rationals?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Collatz conjecture
Next: Beginner-ish question
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 10 Jun 2010 17:09 Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> writes: > On Jun 10, 3:05 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: >> > To me, the difference between ZFC and non-ZFC theories >> > is more analogous to the difference between a flight >> > on American Airlines from JFK to LAX, and a flight on >> > Virgin America from JFK to LAX. In this analogy, >> > MoeBlee is forcing everyone to fly only on American >> > Airlines and not Virgin or any other airline. >> >> No, he's not. Moe has *never* said that ZFC is the only acceptable >> theory. >> >> > In another thread, he claims that he doesn't consider ZFC to be the >> > best theory, but the fact that he compares ZFC to an airliner and >> > other theories to rubber balls speaks for itself. >> >> The fact is that Tony, AP, etc., have *not* offered any coherent >> mathematical theory at all *and you know it*. Thus, if Moe criticizes >> their blatherings, then it is extraordinarily disingenuous to claim this >> as evidence that he accepts only ZFC. >> >> -- >> Jesse F. Hughes >> >> "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a >> completely unintentional side effect." -- Linus Torvalds > > "Disingenuous" means "lying". I believe Transfer's comment falls into > the category of a best-guess interpretation of Moe's motives. You, > Moe, Virgie, The Tribble and others seem completely closed to the > concept of any improvement on the standard obfuscation. For, "none > shall drive us from the Garden which Cantor has created for us". If it > doesn't produce fruit, it's time to plant a new bed, or at least > fertilize. I have nothing against alternative definitions of set size, but you have offered no clear definition at all. Nor do I have anything against alternative theories. Why should I? Indeed, in a previous life, I did a bit of work in ZFA, which is an anti-well-founded variant of ZFC. The criticisms that you receive are based primarily on the fact that you have never offered a clear and complete definition of set size that really competes with cardinality at all. Instead, you have a definition that applies to *some* (not all) sets and --- according to your own description --- gives different answers depending on one's perspective. That's not a promising mathematical definition. -- "It was over ten years ago that I was a lieutenant in the U.S. Army and one day for some reason I thought to myself that I should be able to figure out something brilliant. [...] Like, why can't I figure out some math thing?" -- James S. Harris on inspirational moments.
From: MoeBlee on 10 Jun 2010 17:29 On Jun 10, 2:34 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 3:05 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > > To me, the difference between ZFC and non-ZFC theories > > > is more analogous to the difference between a flight > > > on American Airlines from JFK to LAX, and a flight on > > > Virgin America from JFK to LAX. In this analogy, > > > MoeBlee is forcing everyone to fly only on American > > > Airlines and not Virgin or any other airline. > > > No, he's not. Moe has *never* said that ZFC is the only acceptable > > theory. > > > > In another thread, he claims that he doesn't consider ZFC to be the > > > best theory, but the fact that he compares ZFC to an airliner and > > > other theories to rubber balls speaks for itself. > > > The fact is that Tony, AP, etc., have *not* offered any coherent > > mathematical theory at all *and you know it*. Thus, if Moe criticizes > > their blatherings, then it is extraordinarily disingenuous to claim this > > as evidence that he accepts only ZFC. > > "Disingenuous" means "lying". I believe Transfer's comment falls into > the category of a best-guess interpretation of Moe's motives. MAYBE if they weren't continual, large misinterpretations, and after I have time and time straightened him out about it. No matter how many times I explain to him, and no matter how many times I ask him to stop putting words in my mouth that aren't entailed by what I actually posted, he persists to grossly misrepresent me. In that way he is lying about me. Of course, in itself that someone makes mistakes about another's message is not reason to say he or she is disingenuous or lying. But with Transfer Principle it is WAY beyond that level of reasonable error or missed communication. He's got a Javert-like obsession to convince us that I have certain intolerant beliefs about theories, and in his attempt do that, time after time, year after year, he makes insane misrepresentations of what I've posted. > You, > Moe, Virgie, The Tribble and others seem completely closed to the > concept of any improvement on the standard obfuscation. Now YOU are lying, since I just got through illustrating how that is not true, for about the 300th time. And if you even go over many of my posts over the years you'd see plenty of discussion by me about the sense in which not only am I not closed to alternative theories or even concepts but that I welcome them. Just because I fault you for confusing mere mumbling of mathematical sounding terminology for mathematics, for being ignorant about what you presume to critique, and for acting like a narcissistic teenager, doesn't entail that I am closed minded to alternatives in mathematics. Damn I STUDY more alternative mathematics (at the humble level that I am capable of studying) than you've never bothered to even HEAR about. MoeBlee
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 10 Jun 2010 17:30 David R Tribble <david(a)tribble.com> writes: > Tony Orlow wrote: >> No, That's IFR in particular which is used on countable sets of reals >> mapped from some segment of N. > > So then what is the *general* case for IFR? Could someone remind me what IFR stands for? -- "I've noticed [...] I routinely have been putting up flawed equations with my surrogate factoring work. My take on it is that I have some deep fear that the work is too dangerous and am sabotaging myself." -- James S. Harris
From: Virgil on 10 Jun 2010 20:16 In article <bdd19e7c-ed03-4443-be29-3f67d32a234d(a)z26g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > What's the relationship between pi and e? That 'pie' makes a word but 'epi' only makes a prefix.
From: Virgil on 10 Jun 2010 20:20
In article <cff460c6-fea6-4e70-b3eb-f6923003e740(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 3:05�pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > > To me, the difference between ZFC and non-ZFC theories > > > is more analogous to the difference between a flight > > > on American Airlines from JFK to LAX, and a flight on > > > Virgin America from JFK to LAX. In this analogy, > > > MoeBlee is forcing everyone to fly only on American > > > Airlines and not Virgin or any other airline. > > > > No, he's not. �Moe has *never* said that ZFC is the only acceptable > > theory. > > > > > In another thread, he claims that he doesn't consider ZFC to be the > > > best theory, but the fact that he compares ZFC to an airliner and > > > other theories to rubber balls speaks for itself. > > > > The fact is that Tony, AP, etc., have *not* offered any coherent > > mathematical theory at all *and you know it*. �Thus, if Moe criticizes > > their blatherings, then it is extraordinarily disingenuous to claim this > > as evidence that he accepts only ZFC. > > > > -- > > Jesse F. Hughes > > > > "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a > > completely unintentional side effect." -- Linus Torvalds > > "Disingenuous" means "lying". More precisely, it means dishonest, which one can be without necessarily lying. I believe Transfer's comment falls into > the category of a best-guess interpretation of Moe's motives. You, > Moe, Virgie, The Tribble and others seem completely closed to the > concept of any improvement on the standard obfuscation. Any obfuscation is at least sufficient, if not actually excessive. When TO attempts to extend it, he goes farther than is either necessary or desirable. |