Prev: geometry precisely defining ellipsis and how infinity is in the midsection #427 Correcting Math
Next: Accounting for Governmental and Nonprofit Entities, 15th Edition Earl Wilson McGraw Hill Test bank is available at affordable prices. Email me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails will be answered ASAP.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 21 Mar 2010 11:25
Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes:

> On Mar 19, 7:18 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>> Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes:
>> > On Mar 17, 5:27 am, Alan Smaill <sma...(a)SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes:
>> >> > (even though almost 40% of
>> >> > physicists believe that 0.999...<1)
>> >> Do I get labelled as a bully if I ask for some evidence for your claim?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > We notice at the top of the Metamath page, it reads:
>>
>> > "Interestingly, about 40% of the people responding to a poll at
>> >http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13177disagree."
>>
>> An online poll at physorg.com and you concluded that 40% of physicists
>> believe 0.999... < 1?
>>
>> That is just incredibly lame evidence.  All one can conclude is that
>> 40% of the visitors to physorg.com *who chose to answer* the question
>> said that 0.999... < 1.  You have no idea how many of those folks were
>> physicists, whether the percentage who chose to answer are
>> representative of physicists as a whole (or even physorg.com visitors)
>> and so on.  It's a voluntary poll, indicative of nothing much at all.
>
>
> You know, I mostly think TP is a nut, and folks like Moe and Jesse
> are top-drawer, but I have to point something out here. Yes, the
> evidence that TP has provided is weak, and we can poke all manner
> of holes in it and so forth. But crappy as it is, it still counts as
> evidence.
>
> What has been offered against it opinion.

No one has offered a counterclaim, though we all find the claim
doubtful. We've only asked for Walker's evidence, and what he offered
was perfectly laughable, so pathetically weak that it counts as
negligible.

> And the best opinions in the world do not, IMHO, rise to the level
> of the worst evidence. I'm calling round 1 for TP here.

What nonsense, as has already been pointed out here.

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"Everybody has a heart, except some people."
-- All About Eve
From: Nam Nguyen on 21 Mar 2010 11:31
J. Clarke wrote:

>
> However, if the definition of a "relation" is "a set of n-tuples", then
> by definition the empty set is not a "relation" and so your statement
> that "a false relation is an empty set" violates the definition. If you
> want to say that the empty set is not a relation that's fine,

> but if you
> want to say that it is a "false relation" please demonstrate that it is
> a relation at all.

As long as you understand the empty set is a set, then you'd understand
a demonstration. Here is one. A predicate formula P(x1,x2,...,xn) is defined
to be true in the relation set R iff the n-tuple (x1,x2,...,xn) is in R, and
*_defined_ to be _false_ iff the n-tuple (x1,x2,...,xn) _is not_ in R*.

But since the empty set is defined so that it has no element, (x1,x2,...,xn)
is not in R is true, no matter what n-tuple one would happen to have.
From: Nam Nguyen on 21 Mar 2010 11:33
J. Clarke wrote:

>
> However, if the definition of a "relation" is "a set of n-tuples", then
> by definition the empty set is not a "relation" and so your statement
> that "a false relation is an empty set" violates the definition. If you
> want to say that the empty set is not a relation that's fine,

> but if you
> want to say that it is a "false relation" please demonstrate that it is
> a relation at all.

As long as you understand the empty set is a set, then you'd understand
a demonstration. Here is one. A predicate formula P(x1,x2,...,xn) is defined
to be true in the relation set R iff the n-tuple (x1,x2,...,xn) is in R, and
*_defined_ to be _false_ iff the n-tuple (x1,x2,...,xn) _is not_ in R*.

But since the empty set is defined so that it has no element, (x1,x2,...,xn)
is not in R is true, no matter what n-tuple you'd happen to have.
From: Nam Nguyen on 21 Mar 2010 11:40
J. Clarke wrote:
> On 3/21/2010 10:13 AM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> writes:
>>
>>> However, if the definition of a "relation" is "a set of n-tuples", then
>>> by definition the empty set is not a "relation" [...]
>>
>> Nonsense! The empty set is a set of n-tuples for *every* n. Every
>> element of the empty set is an n-tuple (no matter the value of n).
>>
>> The empty set is a relation.
>
> I thought I had you killfiled.
>
> Well, back you go.

Whatever the reason for the killfile, do you understand that he was correct
and you weren't?
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 21 Mar 2010 11:46
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> writes:

> On 3/21/2010 10:13 AM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> writes:
>>
>>> However, if the definition of a "relation" is "a set of n-tuples", then
>>> by definition the empty set is not a "relation" [...]
>>
>> Nonsense! The empty set is a set of n-tuples for *every* n. Every
>> element of the empty set is an n-tuple (no matter the value of n).
>>
>> The empty set is a relation.
>
> I thought I had you killfiled.
>
> Well, back you go.

Yes, well, darned shame and all, but as it happens, what I wrote is
plainly correct.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"If anything is true in general about Usenet, it's that people can go
on and on about just about anything." -- James Harris speaks the
truth.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Prev: geometry precisely defining ellipsis and how infinity is in the midsection #427 Correcting Math
Next: Accounting for Governmental and Nonprofit Entities, 15th Edition Earl Wilson McGraw Hill Test bank is available at affordable prices. Email me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails will be answered ASAP.