infinity ...
in [Math]
|
Prev: math
Next: The proof of mass vector.
From: David R Tribble on 23 Oct 2005 18:16 Albrecht Storz wrote: > David,try to be logic and honest to yourself. > It's not a play to win or loose. It's a play to understand or to stay > weak in mind. > You might belief in a one century old tale or in a more than a thousand > years old known thruth. Except when the thousand-year-old belief is wrong and the century-old belief is correct. It's the same reason I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the oppostie. "Older" does not mean "more correct".
From: albstorz on 24 Oct 2005 03:32 David R Tribble wrote: > Albrecht Storz wrote: > > David,try to be logic and honest to yourself. > > It's not a play to win or loose. It's a play to understand or to stay > > weak in mind. > > You might belief in a one century old tale or in a more than a thousand > > years old known thruth. > > Except when the thousand-year-old belief is wrong and the century-old > belief is correct. It's the same reason I believe that the Earth > revolves around the Sun instead of the oppostie. "Older" does not > mean "more correct". I don't say: In every case "older" means "more correct". But in some basic ideas it's true. What do you know about the wisdom of the ancient greeks? They had known that the world is a bowl, e.g. The western culture needs hundreds of years to reestablish this knowledge. And you are wrong. "The earth revolves around the sun" is not a truth without a framework system. At the end, it's a definition. I hope, we don't need hundreds of years to reestablish the correct knowledge about infinity. Regards AS
From: David Kastrup on 24 Oct 2005 04:11 albstorz(a)gmx.de writes: > David R Tribble wrote: >> Albrecht Storz wrote: >> > David,try to be logic and honest to yourself. >> > It's not a play to win or loose. It's a play to understand or to stay >> > weak in mind. >> > You might belief in a one century old tale or in a more than a thousand >> > years old known thruth. >> >> Except when the thousand-year-old belief is wrong and the century-old >> belief is correct. It's the same reason I believe that the Earth >> revolves around the Sun instead of the oppostie. "Older" does not >> mean "more correct". > > I don't say: In every case "older" means "more correct". But in some > basic ideas it's true. > What do you know about the wisdom of the ancient greeks? They had known > that the world is a bowl, e.g. The western culture needs hundreds of > years to reestablish this knowledge. > And you are wrong. "The earth revolves around the sun" is not a truth > without a framework system. At the end, it's a definition. > > I hope, we don't need hundreds of years to reestablish the correct > knowledge about infinity. There is no "knowledge" about infinity since infinity is not material. The only thing that can be there about it is "understanding", and that has grown, obviously beyond what you are capable of grasping. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
From: albstorz on 24 Oct 2005 07:04 David R Tribble wrote: > Albrecht Storz wrote: > >> So, if there is an infinite set there is an infinite number. > > > > David R Tribble wrote: > >> Do you mean that an infinite set (or natural numbers) must contain an > >> infinite number as a member (which is false)? Or do you mean that > >> the size of an infinite set is represented by an infinite number > >> (which is partially true)? > > > > Albrecht Storz wrote: > > Depending on the axiomatic construction and depending on the necessary > > of truth (since truth means logic consequence) either there are > > infinite natural numbers or there is no infinite set. > > Well, then by all means, show us the proof for this, because we don't > believe it. If you're using any non-standard (non-Peano) axioms, > please list those, too. > > I've got a set S = {0, 2^0, 2^2^0, 2^2^2^0, ...}, which contains > all the powers of 2 of the form 2^p, where p=0 or 2^q. > 1) If it is not an infinite set, tell me how many members it has. > 2) If it is an infinite set, tell me what the smallest (first) > infinite number is a member of it. A short view upon this makes me think that you are writing sensless symbols. S don't contain all numbers of the form 2^2^q if you think about the sequence 0, 2^0, 2^2^0, 2^2^2^0,... . If this is your intention you may have a infinite sequence 0, 1, 1, 1, ..., and a set {0,1}, so 1) 2 2) ? Maybe you are now disposed to argue about my starting post: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/b0d77d427268fd8c Regards AS
From: William Hughes on 24 Oct 2005 07:16
albstorz(a)gmx.de wrote: > David R Tribble wrote: > > Albrecht Storz wrote: > > > David,try to be logic and honest to yourself. > > > It's not a play to win or loose. It's a play to understand or to stay > > > weak in mind. > > > You might belief in a one century old tale or in a more than a thousand > > > years old known thruth. > > > > Except when the thousand-year-old belief is wrong and the century-old > > belief is correct. It's the same reason I believe that the Earth > > revolves around the Sun instead of the oppostie. "Older" does not > > mean "more correct". > > > I don't say: In every case "older" means "more correct". But in some > basic ideas it's true. > What do you know about the wisdom of the ancient greeks? They had known > that the world is a bowl, e.g. The western culture needs hundreds of > years to reestablish this knowledge. [I am assuming that by "bowl" you mean ball] This sounds like the old "flat earth" fallacy. Yes, the acient greeks had determined that the earth was spherical. No, this knowledge was not lost in western culture. The idea that the earth was considered flat in the middle ages is a very late (mid-late 19th century United States) invention. Note that the ancient greeks also thought that the planets revolved around the earth not the sun. This question, whether the planets revolve around the earth or the sun (which does not depend upon the framework system [Whether the earth is stationary does depend on your framework system, whether the planets revolve around the earth of the sum does not]), was the issue behind the persecution of Gallieo by the church. Just because the ancient greeks thought something does not make it right. - William Hughes |