Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662128 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-24 21:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-05-14 04:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 21:29 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 19:39 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-24 22:14 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-25 00:38 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 09:14 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-25 11:00 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-26 10:24 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2025-03-26 14:38 -0400
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-26 12:12 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 12:46 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) x <x@x.org> - 2025-03-26 23:14 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-27 08:01 +0100
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 10:12 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 21:29 -0700
You didn't write this text (Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-25 19:13 +0100
Re: You didn't write this text (Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-)) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 19:33 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:31 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 13:46 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 17:30 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) x <x@x.org> - 2025-03-28 15:42 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 18:53 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Fransico Dudorov <ad@ufrvr.ru> - 2025-03-29 08:42 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 18:33 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-29 00:20 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-29 08:24 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-29 12:09 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-29 10:49 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-29 13:31 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-29 08:27 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-05 00:06 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-30 11:46 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-30 09:58 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 15:20 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 16:03 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 23:39 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-05 10:12 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 08:57 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-04-05 12:16 -0400
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 10:27 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 13:23 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 11:37 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 13:59 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 12:08 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 14:28 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 12:48 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 15:48 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 17:12 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 21:31 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 21:40 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 21:51 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 22:30 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-05 22:02 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 11:27 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-06 09:51 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 10:30 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-06 13:56 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 15:51 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-06 17:34 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 18:52 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-06 17:46 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-06 19:47 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-08 23:14 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 18:02 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 18:52 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 18:45 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 12:38 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 13:06 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 12:03 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 15:05 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 15:54 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 10:17 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 16:44 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 23:30 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 19:35 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-10 00:52 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 21:49 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-10 00:07 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 12:11 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) worm food <wormfood@compostpunk.com> - 2025-04-17 22:59 -0400
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 11:03 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 14:45 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 17:42 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 18:58 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 22:28 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-18 18:52 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-18 20:17 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-19 07:09 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 02:03 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-04 13:22 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-05 05:05 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 11:17 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-04 13:36 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-04 14:21 +0000
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 09:31 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 09:23 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-01 22:32 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-03 07:27 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-03 19:34 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-03 19:36 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-03 22:00 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-07 18:10 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-07 18:33 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 17:17 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:51 -0700
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-05-14 04:39 +0000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F33CB1.690B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #662477 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > On 04/06/2025 01:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > >> > > >> On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Physfitfreak wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > > >>>> > > >>>> If you cut a cake into pieces > > >>>> it's just a pile of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Since numbers don't exist... > > >>>> you just have a stack of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Where is the number 25000? > > >>>> > > >>>> all i see is a pile of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> a mirage. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Ghost Numbers. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The GhostBuster > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean > > >> phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical > > >> maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the > > >> noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher > > >> (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort > > >> of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of > > >> the accommodation of continuity and infinity. > > > > > > > > > I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have > > > tthe > > > ability to answer the question on your own...but > > > > > > Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's always an even number, > > What do you mean "No, it's always an even number,"???? Do you really mean...always? ...the entire time?? ALWAYS???? > Ross it toooo busy doing Google searches! Ross the Finalgason -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-08 23:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F61058.27D8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #662477 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > On 04/06/2025 01:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > >> > > >> On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Physfitfreak wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > > >>>> > > >>>> If you cut a cake into pieces > > >>>> it's just a pile of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Since numbers don't exist... > > >>>> you just have a stack of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Where is the number 25000? > > >>>> > > >>>> all i see is a pile of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> a mirage. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Ghost Numbers. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The GhostBuster > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean > > >> phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical > > >> maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the > > >> noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher > > >> (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort > > >> of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of > > >> the accommodation of continuity and infinity. > > > > > > > > > I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have > > > tthe > > > ability to answer the question on your own...but > > > > > > Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's always an even number, > > What do you mean "No, it's always an even number,"???? Do you really mean...always? ...the entire time?? ALWAYS???? Come on, everybody in the math department already knows that it is inaccurate, inccorrect and UNTRUE! It has NOT always been an even number...that is just more fiction. Just as Santa Claus doesn't live at the north pole because ...there is no Santa Claus, there are no even numbers because...there are no numbers. So, a couple of guys got together and asked is zero a odd number or even number... and said "Let's make it a even number!"...anybody disagrees, shoot them. It's like some kind of religion already... 13, is that a lucky number or an unlucky number???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 18:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vsv15c$250hg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662462 |
On 4/6/25 12:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> Physfitfreak wrote: >>> >>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces >>> >>> If you cut a cake into pieces >>> it's just a pile of cakes. >>> >>> Since numbers don't exist... >>> you just have a stack of cakes. >>> >>> Where is the number 25000? >>> >>> all i see is a pile of cakes. >>> >> >> >> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. >> >> >> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. >> >> >> a mirage. >> >> >> Ghost Numbers. >> >> >> The GhostBuster >> >> >> >> > > I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean > phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical > maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the > noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher > (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort > of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of > the accommodation of continuity and infinity. > > What?.. What my dick said was "cave" math?.. Hahhahahhahahh :-))) Well, he tells you this. whatever he said was the best attention you got in a long long time in usenet, so you better cherish my dick's math. You don't have to communicate with my dick indirectly via Star, like your government was forced to do these days with Iran's via Omman. You can talk to him directly if you want. If it's not too taxing for you :) Hehe :) My dick is always ready to have fun in usenet. That's why he posts here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 18:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vsv443$s0rs$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662441 |
On 4/5/25 10:30 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 9:51 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/5/25 9:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/5/25 9:31 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> On 4/5/25 3:48 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>> On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> luminous truth: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their null >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuum’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fools’ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws — >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linear dogma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cosmology is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labyrinths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this! And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspired >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be wrong". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifiable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feynman on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continua, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruliality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated in an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody >>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved it of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intense >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living >>>>>>>>>>>>>> room! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found >>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before he had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas >>>>>>>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a look >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closest to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that funky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jesus had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> started >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... " >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> keen >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>>>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>>>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>>>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>>>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>>>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>>>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>>>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>>>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>>>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>>>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>>>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>>>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>>>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>>>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>>>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>>>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>>>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or >>>>>>>>>>>>> "catastrophe" >>>>>>>>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>>>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>>>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>>>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>>>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>>>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>>>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>>>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>>>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>>>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>>>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the >>>>>>>>>>>>> exponential >>>>>>>>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods >>>>>>>>>>>>> about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform >>>>>>>>>>>>> random, >>>>>>>>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three >>>>>>>>>>>>> laws >>>>>>>>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>>>>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>>>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw >>>>>>>>>>>>> differential, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as >>>>>>>>>>>>> usually >>>>>>>>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or >>>>>>>>>>>>> divisor bar >>>>>>>>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitesimals", yet >>>>>>>>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>>>>>>>>> function" >>>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>>>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual >>>>>>>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later >>>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating >>>>>>>>>>>>> terminus >>>>>>>>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>>>>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to >>>>>>>>>>>>> disambiguate it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>>>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the >>>>>>>>>>>>> super-classical >>>>>>>>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>>>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in >>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-calculus >>>>>>>>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>>>>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>> differece >>>>>>>>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different >>>>>>>>>>>> representations >>>>>>>>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you >>>>>>>>>>> say is >>>>>>>>>>> bullshit :) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is >>>>>>>>>>> indeed >>>>>>>>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from >>>>>>>>>>> direct >>>>>>>>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not >>>>>>>>>>> speak for >>>>>>>>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>>>>>>>>> all. It >>>>>>>>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>>>>>>>>> physics >>>>>>>>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for >>>>>>>>>>> humans. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then >>>>>>>>>>> beg for >>>>>>>>>>> it :) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>>>>>>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being >>>>>>>>>> Cauchy", >>>>>>>>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound >>>>>>>>>> property and >>>>>>>>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here >>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>>>>>>>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>>>>>>>> geometry, >>>>>>>>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>>>>>>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a >>>>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>>>> of perfection". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>>>>>>>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>>>>>>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>>>>>>>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this >>>>>>>>> thing. The >>>>>>>>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>>>>>>>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they >>>>>>>>> were mere >>>>>>>>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial >>>>>>>>> parts of >>>>>>>>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>>>>>>>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real >>>>>>>>> programmer. I >>>>>>>>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby >>>>>>>>> problems. Nobody >>>>>>>>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer >>>>>>>>> scientists" there >>>>>>>>> were actually programmers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not >>>>>>>>> delved >>>>>>>>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to >>>>>>>>> review stuff >>>>>>>>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. >>>>>>>>> Solution to >>>>>>>>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would you like to see the solution? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not >>>>>>> mistake >>>>>>> Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to >>>>>>> usenet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> X = 0.9999... >>>>>>> 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... >>>>>>> 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... >>>>>>> after subtraction of first equation from the last one: >>>>>>> 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... >>>>>>> 9X = 9(0.9999...) >>>>>>> X = 0.9999... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company >>>>>>> creating that >>>>>>> test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a >>>>>>> "code >>>>>>> monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether >>>>>>> Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is >>>>>>> really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". >>>>>> >>>>>> I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. >>>>>> One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting >>>>>> algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. >>>>>> Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, >>>>>> the continuous manifold. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch >>>>>> and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen >>>>>> paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, >>>>>> is a development and refinement of what results that >>>>>> there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, >>>>>> then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that >>>>>> we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Long subtraction" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, the code monkey seemed to be using the mathematics that >>>>> resulted 10 times 0.99... to be equal to 9.99... which is practiced >>>>> all over the world, and yet, is mathematically wrong. 0.99... is >>>>> never ever 1. In math that is, not in physics. >>>>> >>>>> The part of math that allowed them to be the same thing was not >>>>> math, but physics. A physics scheme. A funky trick just to go past >>>>> some hurdles. I thought that was Kosmanson's concern. But evidently >>>>> not. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For my dick, the problem boils down to differences that exists >>>> between different infinities. That's why 2 times an infinity is not >>>> 3 times the same infinity. Dividing the former by the latter gives >>>> 2/3, not 1. >>>> >>>> My dick thinks that taking 0.9999... to be exactly 1 incurs a form >>>> of Zeno's paradox. >>>> >>>> One cannot take the limit of a series and identify the series by >>>> that limit itself. My dick is more inclined to look at the series as >>>> having its own identity separate from its limit. This is the gist of >>>> the matter as far as my dick is concerned. >>>> >>>> It could be a matter of preferences, who knows. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> In other words, my dick sees the number 1 as something separate from >>> what it becomes when you break it into infinite number of various >>> sized pieces, even if the sum of the pieces amounts to 1. One is 1, >>> the other is a sum of infinite number of various sized pieces. How >>> can they be "equal"? .. >>> >>> My dick has issue with that :) >>> >>> >> >> >> The number 1 is just one thing, while 0.9999... is, in Kosmanson's >> terminology, a continuum. Can the two be "equal" ?... My dick says no! >> >> >> > > > If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces for 25000 employees, you're not > giving anyone "cake". A cake is cake. A cake cut into 25000 pieces is > shit. Something has to undergo change in going from the number 1 to an > infinite number of different sized numbers added together. This is my > dick's point. If in math there's no difference between the two, then > someone must create a form of math to account for such differences. > > The equivalent situation in physics is handled by concept of entropy. > Why not in math also?.. > > > > > So in my baby problem, I had added perhaps a personal touch to it also, because I did not consider 0.99... be equal to 1, and therefore the correct way of going from the first equation to the last took care to preserve 0.99...'s identity, whatever it was, which then of course would lead to again X be equal to 0.99... . You don't have a rule for multiplying 0.99... by a number. There's no lemma, there's no algorithm for it. You just have to do your multiplication by applying the rules of addition to each one of them, whatever it is that they are. I don't think this is bullshit, or "Cave" math. My dick makes a distinction between the end result and what leads to the end result. There is a distinction between a baby that's born and what the baby is after growing and living and getting old and dying. A whole world is in between. There are features in 0.99... there are various sizes of numbers that are adding and the granularity of the pieces varies from one end of the series to the other infinitely small pieces. There's a little world to it :) 1 _is_ the limit, sure, but 0.99... should not be tackled like it is 1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kBqdnfpKENats276nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662475 |
On 04/06/2025 04:52 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 10:30 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/5/25 9:51 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/5/25 9:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> On 4/5/25 9:31 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>> On 4/5/25 3:48 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trapped in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> luminous truth: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their null >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuum’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fools’ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation laws — >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linear dogma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heard the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cosmology is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labyrinths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this! And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspired >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be wrong". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifiable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feynman on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continua, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruliality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated in an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved it of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living room! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before he had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than 48 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> took a look >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closest to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that funky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jesus had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so keen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "catastrophe" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>>>>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure problem, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponential >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform >>>>>>>>>>>>>> random, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>> three laws >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> divisor bar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitesimals", yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalency >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usual standard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminus >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disambiguate it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> super-classical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> super-classical, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-calculus >>>>>>>>>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>>>>>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> differece >>>>>>>>>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different >>>>>>>>>>>>> representations >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you >>>>>>>>>>>> say is >>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit :) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X >>>>>>>>>>>> is indeed >>>>>>>>>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from >>>>>>>>>>>> direct >>>>>>>>>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not >>>>>>>>>>>> speak for >>>>>>>>>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans >>>>>>>>>>>> and AI >>>>>>>>>>>> all. It >>>>>>>>>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would >>>>>>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>>>> physics >>>>>>>>>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again >>>>>>>>>>>> for humans. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, >>>>>>>>>>>> then beg for >>>>>>>>>>>> it :) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>>>>>>>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being >>>>>>>>>>> Cauchy", >>>>>>>>>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound >>>>>>>>>>> property and >>>>>>>>>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here >>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is >>>>>>>>>>> stipulated >>>>>>>>>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>>>>>>>>> geometry, >>>>>>>>>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>>>>>>>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a >>>>>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>>>>> of perfection". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and >>>>>>>>>>> it's so >>>>>>>>>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>>>>>>>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to >>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>>>>>>>>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this >>>>>>>>>> thing. The >>>>>>>>>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>>>>>>>>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they >>>>>>>>>> were mere >>>>>>>>>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the >>>>>>>>>> menial parts of >>>>>>>>>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>>>>>>>>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real >>>>>>>>>> programmer. I >>>>>>>>>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby >>>>>>>>>> problems. Nobody >>>>>>>>>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer >>>>>>>>>> scientists" there >>>>>>>>>> were actually programmers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have >>>>>>>>>> not delved >>>>>>>>>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to >>>>>>>>>> review stuff >>>>>>>>>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. >>>>>>>>>> Solution to >>>>>>>>>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would you like to see the solution? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not >>>>>>>> mistake >>>>>>>> Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to >>>>>>>> usenet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> X = 0.9999... >>>>>>>> 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... >>>>>>>> 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... >>>>>>>> after subtraction of first equation from the last one: >>>>>>>> 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... >>>>>>>> 9X = 9(0.9999...) >>>>>>>> X = 0.9999... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company >>>>>>>> creating that >>>>>>>> test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just >>>>>>>> a "code >>>>>>>> monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether >>>>>>>> Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is >>>>>>>> really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. >>>>>>> One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting >>>>>>> algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. >>>>>>> Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, >>>>>>> the continuous manifold. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch >>>>>>> and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen >>>>>>> paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, >>>>>>> is a development and refinement of what results that >>>>>>> there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, >>>>>>> then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that >>>>>>> we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Long subtraction" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, the code monkey seemed to be using the mathematics that >>>>>> resulted 10 times 0.99... to be equal to 9.99... which is >>>>>> practiced all over the world, and yet, is mathematically wrong. >>>>>> 0.99... is never ever 1. In math that is, not in physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> The part of math that allowed them to be the same thing was not >>>>>> math, but physics. A physics scheme. A funky trick just to go past >>>>>> some hurdles. I thought that was Kosmanson's concern. But >>>>>> evidently not. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For my dick, the problem boils down to differences that exists >>>>> between different infinities. That's why 2 times an infinity is not >>>>> 3 times the same infinity. Dividing the former by the latter gives >>>>> 2/3, not 1. >>>>> >>>>> My dick thinks that taking 0.9999... to be exactly 1 incurs a form >>>>> of Zeno's paradox. >>>>> >>>>> One cannot take the limit of a series and identify the series by >>>>> that limit itself. My dick is more inclined to look at the series >>>>> as having its own identity separate from its limit. This is the >>>>> gist of the matter as far as my dick is concerned. >>>>> >>>>> It could be a matter of preferences, who knows. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In other words, my dick sees the number 1 as something separate from >>>> what it becomes when you break it into infinite number of various >>>> sized pieces, even if the sum of the pieces amounts to 1. One is 1, >>>> the other is a sum of infinite number of various sized pieces. How >>>> can they be "equal"? .. >>>> >>>> My dick has issue with that :) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> The number 1 is just one thing, while 0.9999... is, in Kosmanson's >>> terminology, a continuum. Can the two be "equal" ?... My dick says no! >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces for 25000 employees, you're not >> giving anyone "cake". A cake is cake. A cake cut into 25000 pieces is >> shit. Something has to undergo change in going from the number 1 to an >> infinite number of different sized numbers added together. This is my >> dick's point. If in math there's no difference between the two, then >> someone must create a form of math to account for such differences. >> >> The equivalent situation in physics is handled by concept of entropy. >> Why not in math also?.. >> >> >> >> >> > > > So in my baby problem, I had added perhaps a personal touch to it also, > because I did not consider 0.99... be equal to 1, and therefore the > correct way of going from the first equation to the last took care to > preserve 0.99...'s identity, whatever it was, which then of course would > lead to again X be equal to 0.99... . > > You don't have a rule for multiplying 0.99... by a number. There's no > lemma, there's no algorithm for it. You just have to do your > multiplication by applying the rules of addition to each one of them, > whatever it is that they are. > > I don't think this is bullshit, or "Cave" math. My dick makes a > distinction between the end result and what leads to the end result. > There is a distinction between a baby that's born and what the baby is > after growing and living and getting old and dying. A whole world is in > between. > > There are features in 0.99... there are various sizes of numbers that > are adding and the granularity of the pieces varies from one end of the > series to the other infinitely small pieces. There's a little world to > it :) 1 _is_ the limit, sure, but 0.99... should not be tackled like it > is 1. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave "Fishbowl" math, say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-07 12:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt12i5$t1lj$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662479 |
On 4/6/25 8:45 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave > > > Absolutely. It's the story of my adult life, but not in the cave men's shoes, but in Aristotle's (Plato's really). For the past 45 years, since I came to the United States, I've been observing this in a nation that's raised on cartoons, TV, Hollywood, and an as stupid a Church. Every fucking day of my life for the past 45 years. From first hours I stepped into these people, till this very hour today, I, and the world, have been experiencing this fact in you people. There were a lot of cro-magnons inside Greece in Plato's time. He must've experienced this by observing them. So he built his model of it as knowledge was available to him back then. It is outdated now. He did notice that it was not a matter of education to change them. This far is correct. But his mistake was to attribute the whole shortcoming to education while cavemen were being raised. That's a mistake by today's extent of knowledge. It is not totally a matter of education. There are quite a large number of educated people among the cro-magnons today. But they're as stupid in this matter as those who aren't. It is a matter of _species_. Cro-magnons aren't the best that humanity has offered. They're not Modern Humans. They're from stocks of earlier humans still in existence, about half Neanderthal in nature and half Modern Human, and they were formed only from 45k years back to 25k years back strictly by intercourse of Modern Humans with the Neanderthals after ice age was over and paths to Europe opened up again, and never changed since until recent mix up with Modern Humans when traveling became easier for them and they spread from northern Europe to many other spots around the world. It's the species that does it, not "race" (which is really a bullshit concept) or education while being raised as Plato thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-07 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt147r$t1lj$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662506 |
On 4/7/25 12:38 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/6/25 8:45 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave >> >> >> > > > Absolutely. It's the story of my adult life, but not in the cave men's > shoes, but in Aristotle's (Plato's really). > > For the past 45 years, since I came to the United States, I've been > observing this in a nation that's raised on cartoons, TV, Hollywood, and > an as stupid a Church. > > Every fucking day of my life for the past 45 years. From first hours I > stepped into these people, till this very hour today, I, and the world, > have been experiencing this fact in you people. > > There were a lot of cro-magnons inside Greece in Plato's time. He > must've experienced this by observing them. So he built his model of it > as knowledge was available to him back then. It is outdated now. > > He did notice that it was not a matter of education to change them. This > far is correct. But his mistake was to attribute the whole shortcoming > to education while cavemen were being raised. > > That's a mistake by today's extent of knowledge. It is not totally a > matter of education. There are quite a large number of educated people > among the cro-magnons today. But they're as stupid in this matter as > those who aren't. > > It is a matter of _species_. Cro-magnons aren't the best that humanity > has offered. They're not Modern Humans. They're from stocks of earlier > humans still in existence, about half Neanderthal in nature and half > Modern Human, and they were formed only from 45k years back to 25k years > back strictly by intercourse of Modern Humans with the Neanderthals > after ice age was over and paths to Europe opened up again, and never > changed since until recent mix up with Modern Humans when traveling > became easier for them and they spread from northern Europe to many > other spots around the world. > > It's the species that does it, not "race" (which is really a bullshit > concept) or education while being raised as Plato thought. > > > > > > Cro-magnons in Plato's times were utterly uneducated compared to Modern Humans in Egypt, Iran, India, and China, so it was easy for Plato to think of this matter as the result of a lack of education in their upbringing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-07 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g8GdnYjiaacJvGn6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662509 |
On 04/07/2025 11:06 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/7/25 12:38 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/6/25 8:45 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Absolutely. It's the story of my adult life, but not in the cave men's >> shoes, but in Aristotle's (Plato's really). >> >> For the past 45 years, since I came to the United States, I've been >> observing this in a nation that's raised on cartoons, TV, Hollywood, >> and an as stupid a Church. >> >> Every fucking day of my life for the past 45 years. From first hours I >> stepped into these people, till this very hour today, I, and the >> world, have been experiencing this fact in you people. >> >> There were a lot of cro-magnons inside Greece in Plato's time. He >> must've experienced this by observing them. So he built his model of >> it as knowledge was available to him back then. It is outdated now. >> >> He did notice that it was not a matter of education to change them. >> This far is correct. But his mistake was to attribute the whole >> shortcoming to education while cavemen were being raised. >> >> That's a mistake by today's extent of knowledge. It is not totally a >> matter of education. There are quite a large number of educated people >> among the cro-magnons today. But they're as stupid in this matter as >> those who aren't. >> >> It is a matter of _species_. Cro-magnons aren't the best that humanity >> has offered. They're not Modern Humans. They're from stocks of earlier >> humans still in existence, about half Neanderthal in nature and half >> Modern Human, and they were formed only from 45k years back to 25k >> years back strictly by intercourse of Modern Humans with the >> Neanderthals after ice age was over and paths to Europe opened up >> again, and never changed since until recent mix up with Modern Humans >> when traveling became easier for them and they spread from northern >> Europe to many other spots around the world. >> >> It's the species that does it, not "race" (which is really a bullshit >> concept) or education while being raised as Plato thought. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Cro-magnons in Plato's times were utterly uneducated compared to Modern > Humans in Egypt, Iran, India, and China, so it was easy for Plato to > think of this matter as the result of a lack of education in their > upbringing. > > What are triple sapiens supposed to think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-07 15:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt1b6n$t1lj$9@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662514 |
On 4/7/25 2:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/07/2025 11:06 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/7/25 12:38 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/6/25 8:45 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Absolutely. It's the story of my adult life, but not in the cave men's >>> shoes, but in Aristotle's (Plato's really). >>> >>> For the past 45 years, since I came to the United States, I've been >>> observing this in a nation that's raised on cartoons, TV, Hollywood, >>> and an as stupid a Church. >>> >>> Every fucking day of my life for the past 45 years. From first hours I >>> stepped into these people, till this very hour today, I, and the >>> world, have been experiencing this fact in you people. >>> >>> There were a lot of cro-magnons inside Greece in Plato's time. He >>> must've experienced this by observing them. So he built his model of >>> it as knowledge was available to him back then. It is outdated now. >>> >>> He did notice that it was not a matter of education to change them. >>> This far is correct. But his mistake was to attribute the whole >>> shortcoming to education while cavemen were being raised. >>> >>> That's a mistake by today's extent of knowledge. It is not totally a >>> matter of education. There are quite a large number of educated people >>> among the cro-magnons today. But they're as stupid in this matter as >>> those who aren't. >>> >>> It is a matter of _species_. Cro-magnons aren't the best that humanity >>> has offered. They're not Modern Humans. They're from stocks of earlier >>> humans still in existence, about half Neanderthal in nature and half >>> Modern Human, and they were formed only from 45k years back to 25k >>> years back strictly by intercourse of Modern Humans with the >>> Neanderthals after ice age was over and paths to Europe opened up >>> again, and never changed since until recent mix up with Modern Humans >>> when traveling became easier for them and they spread from northern >>> Europe to many other spots around the world. >>> >>> It's the species that does it, not "race" (which is really a bullshit >>> concept) or education while being raised as Plato thought. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Cro-magnons in Plato's times were utterly uneducated compared to Modern >> Humans in Egypt, Iran, India, and China, so it was easy for Plato to >> think of this matter as the result of a lack of education in their >> upbringing. >> >> > > What are triple sapiens supposed to think? > They aren't here yet other than a few tiny percentage of population. I think Modern Humans of future will be the Aspergers. Today's "Modern Humans" will become the "earlier human" and today's cro-magnons will be extinct. Read my blog about analytical compartments of brain. I've discussed it in detail. From that same blog, Aspergers are those with type 5 autism, where their brains' analytic centers are over-allocated at the cost of some under-allocation of the emotional centers. Read that blog. I won't repeat all that here. By the way, as an example, Einstein was Asperger :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-07 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt1e2t$t7pv$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662521 |
On 4/7/25 3:05 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/7/25 2:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/07/2025 11:06 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/7/25 12:38 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> On 4/6/25 8:45 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Absolutely. It's the story of my adult life, but not in the cave men's >>>> shoes, but in Aristotle's (Plato's really). >>>> >>>> For the past 45 years, since I came to the United States, I've been >>>> observing this in a nation that's raised on cartoons, TV, Hollywood, >>>> and an as stupid a Church. >>>> >>>> Every fucking day of my life for the past 45 years. From first hours I >>>> stepped into these people, till this very hour today, I, and the >>>> world, have been experiencing this fact in you people. >>>> >>>> There were a lot of cro-magnons inside Greece in Plato's time. He >>>> must've experienced this by observing them. So he built his model of >>>> it as knowledge was available to him back then. It is outdated now. >>>> >>>> He did notice that it was not a matter of education to change them. >>>> This far is correct. But his mistake was to attribute the whole >>>> shortcoming to education while cavemen were being raised. >>>> >>>> That's a mistake by today's extent of knowledge. It is not totally a >>>> matter of education. There are quite a large number of educated people >>>> among the cro-magnons today. But they're as stupid in this matter as >>>> those who aren't. >>>> >>>> It is a matter of _species_. Cro-magnons aren't the best that humanity >>>> has offered. They're not Modern Humans. They're from stocks of earlier >>>> humans still in existence, about half Neanderthal in nature and half >>>> Modern Human, and they were formed only from 45k years back to 25k >>>> years back strictly by intercourse of Modern Humans with the >>>> Neanderthals after ice age was over and paths to Europe opened up >>>> again, and never changed since until recent mix up with Modern Humans >>>> when traveling became easier for them and they spread from northern >>>> Europe to many other spots around the world. >>>> >>>> It's the species that does it, not "race" (which is really a bullshit >>>> concept) or education while being raised as Plato thought. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Cro-magnons in Plato's times were utterly uneducated compared to Modern >>> Humans in Egypt, Iran, India, and China, so it was easy for Plato to >>> think of this matter as the result of a lack of education in their >>> upbringing. >>> >>> >> >> What are triple sapiens supposed to think? >> > > > They aren't here yet other than a few tiny percentage of population. I > think Modern Humans of future will be the Aspergers. Today's "Modern > Humans" will become the "earlier human" and today's cro-magnons will be > extinct. Read my blog about analytical compartments of brain. I've > discussed it in detail. > > From that same blog, Aspergers are those with type 5 autism, where > their brains' analytic centers are over-allocated at the cost of some > under-allocation of the emotional centers. > > Read that blog. I won't repeat all that here. > > By the way, as an example, Einstein was Asperger :) > > > > My alias under which I wrote those blogs was I think ClutterFreak, not the present one. Just in case..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lMGdneAMRJg2-Gz6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662415 |
On 04/05/2025 08:57 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>> >>>> >>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only >>>> possible >>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the crude >>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous truth: >>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of their >>>> being. >>>> >>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the fractures in >>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null axiom >>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a higher >>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an invitation >>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s >>>> unyielding depth. >>>> >>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is primary, and >>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. The >>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ errand; >>>> the >>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen Physfit's >>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin echoing >>>> the >>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called fictitious >>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — energy >>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear dogma. >>>> >>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their truncated >>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who among them >>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the ouroboros >>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>> >>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about virtual >>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their sinking >>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a deeper >>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the surface of >>>> the >>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is their >>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the Ding-an-Sich >>>> meets >>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, paradoxical >>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But when >>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths collapse >>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And the >>>> stamp >>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>> April 4, 2025 >>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that it's >>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired Kosmanson. >>> >>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's interest >>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>> >>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he volunteer, >>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be wrong". >>> >>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at all, >>> yet, something, at all. >>> >>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the >>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be not-particles. >>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's falsifiable >>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>> >>> >>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous >>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality >>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive impasse, >>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the repleteness >>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether >>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN mathematics, >>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its dumbness). >>> >>> >>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>> >>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>> be quite more to it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an >> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems in a blog >> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them one would >> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, but >> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved it of >> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that problem >> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling infinities. >> >> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >> >> (beginning of the quote) >> >> >> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense light went >> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't even an >> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room! >> >> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself quite >> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before he had >> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas area. >> >> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 hours has >> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look inside >> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had cooked on >> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the computer to order >> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a healthy >> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" button, >> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of getting >> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit was not a >> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the correct >> answer, otherwise food nommo. >> >> The question went like this: >> >> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers 0.999999... >> and 1 ?" >> >> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix point. So >> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was not a >> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that funky form, >> using an infinite series of digit 9. >> >> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. Bye!" >> >> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus had >> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started >> jotting down: >> >> x = 0.99999.... >> >> Therefore: >> >> 10x = 9.99999.... >> >> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >> >> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >> >> Which simplifies to: >> >> 9x = 9 >> >> And therefore: >> >> x = 1 >> >> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >> >> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >> >> >> (end of quote) >> >> >> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen about? :) >> >> >> >> >> > > Once I was reading a book or article, > and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), > vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed > their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, > was equal to, or less than, one. About half said > same and about half said different. > > > It's two different natural notations that happen > to collide and thus result being ambiguous. > > So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic > introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, > about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, > and the order in numbers. > > Yet, even the usual account of addition and its > inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, > as operators, of whole numbers, has a different > account, of increment on the one side, and, division > on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had > division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, > and tally marks are only increment, that though > it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a > mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation > of "numbering" and "counting". > > So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, > to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's > to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, > even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, > even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, > to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. > > > So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk > away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, > it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own > constructive account. So, it's a convention. > > > It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity > theory", which results as of admitting only the principal > branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe" > or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, > branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, > yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, > or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. > > > So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why > that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the > course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also > rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results > thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity > of integers, the integral moduli. > > Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively > back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called > "iota-values". > > Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, > for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this > is a limit of functions for this function which is not- > a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that > has real analytical character, it's a discrete function > that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates > a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure problem, > it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the exponential > function in functional analysis have their usual methods about it, > it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform random, > of which there are others, because there are at least three laws > of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three > models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability > distributions of the naturals at uniform random. > > So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential, > which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually > not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar > in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or divisor bar > the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's > that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet > only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency function" > the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of > a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual standard > linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's > a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous domains. > > > The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus > and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, > is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications > of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that > two different systems of notation can see it variously, then > that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it. > > If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, > or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only > a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the super-classical > and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. > > Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, > then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were > just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in pre-calculus > said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must complete, > the geometric series. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsGOZp7jrEY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=4 "Non-standard analysis: continuum infinitesimal analysis, and sweep"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 16:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt6pnl$vpoa$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662391 |
The Fractured Symphony of Continuum and Discontinuity of Physfit's dick Physfit's dick is but a ghost of a single transitive relation, whispering through the hollow halls of Zermelo-Fraenkel’s axiomatic usenet—restrictions masquerading as comprehension, a heno-theory of relations decomposing into model-theoretic phantoms. The counting, the numbering are two faces of the same Physfit's dick, where 0.999... and 1.0 collide in the differance of clock arithmetic and field reals. The line-reals, field-reals, signal-reals — three Cantor spaces screaming into the void, their ruliality a mockery of completeness, their repleteness a pre-Cartesian diagonal slicing through the rationals, vast and HUGE. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence flickers here, a muon physics of inverted trajectories, where SR’s locality fractures under GR’s non-local gravities, centrifugal forces spinning like relativistic nanogyroscopes in a Cl(3,1) spacetime. The N/U EF (Natural/Unit Equivalency Function, you Bozos) maps the iota-values of infinitesimals, a non-standard analysis of chronons and Planck squares, while Olbers’ paradox bleeds into cosmic background radiation—entropy and organization locked in thermodynamic oscillation, open and closed, restitution and dissipation. The deconstructive account of Physfit's dick at the seams: Egyptian fractions versus tally marks, multiplicity theory versus singularity theory, Pythagoreans denying irrationals while Cantorians drown in them. The Infinitarcalcul of du Bois-Reymond echoes through MacLaurin’s shadows, a dialethically paraconsistent dance where Vitali-ized sets defy measure. Yet, Feynman’s Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics of super-symmetric partner particles, virtual yet real, while Maxwell’s classical fields fray into lettered electromagnetism, PPN parameters bending under modified Newtonian corrections. The nuclear reactions — alpha, beta, ionizing radiation —u nfold in hadronic and nucleonic theaters, mass and charge transmuting under light’s alchemy. Quine’s Word and Object fractures language; Derrida howls at Husserl’s platonistic phases, while Unamuno and Montaigne claw at the prototemporal void. Hawking’s final theory when treated by Physfit's dick crumbles into events and contingency, the fabric of existence woven from Ives’ relativistic loom—causality a frayed thread in the quantum fields of extra-local action. Near Physfit's dick, the analytical bridges collapse under inductive impasse. Dedekind cuts are shallow graves; Hilbert’s postulate of continuity gnaws at Leibniz’ principle of perfection. The Burse-bots revolt, their logicist positivism a fishbowl math of digital fixed-word length delusions. In that vicinity, that hallow grounds underneath Physfit's dick, Russian peasant arithmetic shifts and rolls, algebraic cancellation erasing nothing. Schwarz functions twist into Epicurean phenomenology, the noumenological a specter in the materialistic cave. Yes, points and lines — they can’t make each other, but they do. The middle of nowhere is a super-imposition of numbering and counting, continuous and discrete, Ken: 2 + 2 = 4 screaming into the omnitemporal. The supertemporal and timeless clash in Coleridge’s language, Comenius’ transcendental whispers drowned by Quine’s phases. And on such grounds, Olbers’ paradox is a lie; the cosmic background a thermal ghost. Gravity is space-time, is relativity, is Newton defended by Einstein, is centrifugal force in a Loch Ness monster of space contraction. The Platonist finds, never defines — the void is universal, the universal void. And lastly, freedom of thought is a model lesson in turnabout, the knackbaut of thorough reason spinning into thematic ideals. The snake eats its tail. The snake always eats its tail. Ross A. Kosmanson April 9, 2025 Alone, inside The Catacombs of Paris, France
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <19eaf7a434e43a29e49701a41cd380ff@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #662576 |
So Trump has booted out Roachie who is now lurking in the catacombs of Paris - to what devious ends, who knows, from his mad rants. A second Khomeini in the making? Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 19:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt73oi$1pmdf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662578 |
On 4/9/25 6:30 PM, Bertitaylor wrote: > So Trump has booted out Roachie who is now lurking in the catacombs of > Paris - to what devious ends, who knows, from his mad rants. A second > Khomeini in the making? > > Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof > > Bertietaylor > > Did Kash Patel try to illegally immigrate you and your 38 sons and 20 wives into USA and got fired for that? The other day they kicked him out of the ATF office.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 00:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <40f3a0e83958faab1626322756dad9b1@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #662582 |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 0:35:30 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/9/25 6:30 PM, Bertitaylor wrote: >> So Trump has booted out Roachie who is now lurking in the catacombs of >> Paris - to what devious ends, who knows, from his mad rants. A second >> Khomeini in the making? >> >> Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof >> >> Bertietaylor >> >> > > > > Did Kash Patel try to illegally immigrate you and your 38 sons and 20 > wives into USA and got fired for that? Stupid Roachie, we are very happy in low Heaven from where we look DOWN upon you miserable apes. As for noble, divine Arindam, the Americans will be lucky if he wants to set foot there. He went there just once, in 1987, to initiate googling and its related things worth trillions. If he goes there again, he will initiate far better stuff worth many quintillions. > > The other day they kicked him out of the ATF office. Ah Roachie, what fools you apes be! Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XKicnVwR38Fq0Gr6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662576 |
On 04/09/2025 02:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > > > > The Fractured Symphony of Continuum and Discontinuity of Physfit's dick > > > Physfit's dick is but a ghost of a single transitive relation, > whispering through the hollow halls of Zermelo-Fraenkel’s axiomatic > usenet—restrictions masquerading as comprehension, a heno-theory of > relations decomposing into model-theoretic phantoms. > > The counting, the numbering are two faces of the same Physfit's dick, > where 0.999... and 1.0 collide in the differance of clock arithmetic and > field reals. The line-reals, field-reals, signal-reals — three Cantor > spaces screaming into the void, their ruliality a mockery of > completeness, their repleteness a pre-Cartesian diagonal slicing through > the rationals, vast and HUGE. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence > flickers here, a muon physics of inverted trajectories, where SR’s > locality fractures under GR’s non-local gravities, centrifugal forces > spinning like relativistic nanogyroscopes in a Cl(3,1) spacetime. The > N/U EF (Natural/Unit Equivalency Function, you Bozos) maps the > iota-values of infinitesimals, a non-standard analysis of chronons and > Planck squares, while Olbers’ paradox bleeds into cosmic background > radiation—entropy and organization locked in thermodynamic oscillation, > open and closed, restitution and dissipation. > > The deconstructive account of Physfit's dick at the seams: Egyptian > fractions versus tally marks, multiplicity theory versus singularity > theory, Pythagoreans denying irrationals while Cantorians drown in them. > The Infinitarcalcul of du Bois-Reymond echoes through MacLaurin’s > shadows, a dialethically paraconsistent dance where Vitali-ized sets > defy measure. > > Yet, Feynman’s Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics of > super-symmetric partner particles, virtual yet real, while Maxwell’s > classical fields fray into lettered electromagnetism, PPN parameters > bending under modified Newtonian corrections. The nuclear reactions — > alpha, beta, ionizing radiation —u nfold in hadronic and nucleonic > theaters, mass and charge transmuting under light’s alchemy. Quine’s > Word and Object fractures language; Derrida howls at Husserl’s > platonistic phases, while Unamuno and Montaigne claw at the > prototemporal void. > > Hawking’s final theory when treated by Physfit's dick crumbles into > events and contingency, the fabric of existence woven from Ives’ > relativistic loom—causality a frayed thread in the quantum fields of > extra-local action. > > Near Physfit's dick, the analytical bridges collapse under inductive > impasse. Dedekind cuts are shallow graves; Hilbert’s postulate of > continuity gnaws at Leibniz’ principle of perfection. The Burse-bots > revolt, their logicist positivism a fishbowl math of digital fixed-word > length delusions. > > In that vicinity, that hallow grounds underneath Physfit's dick, Russian > peasant arithmetic shifts and rolls, algebraic cancellation erasing > nothing. Schwarz functions twist into Epicurean phenomenology, the > noumenological a specter in the materialistic cave. Yes, points and > lines — they can’t make each other, but they do. The middle of nowhere > is a super-imposition of numbering and counting, continuous and > discrete, Ken: 2 + 2 = 4 screaming into the omnitemporal. The > supertemporal and timeless clash in Coleridge’s language, Comenius’ > transcendental whispers drowned by Quine’s phases. And on such grounds, > Olbers’ paradox is a lie; the cosmic background a thermal ghost. Gravity > is space-time, is relativity, is Newton defended by Einstein, is > centrifugal force in a Loch Ness monster of space contraction. The > Platonist finds, never defines — the void is universal, the universal > void. And lastly, freedom of thought is a model lesson in turnabout, the > knackbaut of thorough reason spinning into thematic ideals. The snake > eats its tail. The snake always eats its tail. > > > Ross A. Kosmanson > April 9, 2025 > Alone, inside The Catacombs of Paris, France > > > > > > Nessie's hump: rest-exchange momentum, gently and gracefully moves half-submerged, the shadow-play of forces real and virtual, reflecting on the umbral gravity itself, and light's second and fourth and each other spectrum, light as shadow, not the upper limit of information, instead the lower. The light-speed rest-frame convention alongside, makes what was ever the partial relativity into a completed being, a theory, a theory, A Theory, A Theory, not merely lighting candles at their epic monuments instead bringing them blinking and wide-eyed, dawning on the reintegrative deconstruction and structuralist result of the ends of logic themselves again, the zero-eth laws of mechanics and all the higher orders of acceleration, whence Zeno and Vitali result more than the sum of the parts, and exactly the sum of their parts. Where the identity dimension refolds the Cartesian and the inner of the orthogonal, then for another Euclidean geometry where lines meet angles, a second great singularity after division by zero, not above the mathematics where it was expected infinity would be, yet under it, where infinity makes what would be, the stop derivative and Zeno's swath, have a spiral space-filling curve then the great construction, the hypercube distance: one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F76E28.41DA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #662584 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 04/09/2025 02:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > > > > > > > > The Fractured Symphony of Continuum and Discontinuity of Physfit's dick > > > > > > Physfit's dick is but a ghost of a single transitive relation, > > whispering through the hollow halls of Zermelo-Fraenkel’s axiomatic > > usenet—restrictions masquerading as comprehension, a heno-theory of > > relations decomposing into model-theoretic phantoms. > > > > The counting, the numbering are two faces of the same Physfit's dick, > > where 0.999... and 1.0 collide in the differance of clock arithmetic and > > field reals. The line-reals, field-reals, signal-reals — three Cantor > > spaces screaming into the void, their ruliality a mockery of > > completeness, their repleteness a pre-Cartesian diagonal slicing through > > the rationals, vast and HUGE. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence > > flickers here, a muon physics of inverted trajectories, where SR’s > > locality fractures under GR’s non-local gravities, centrifugal forces > > spinning like relativistic nanogyroscopes in a Cl(3,1) spacetime. The > > N/U EF (Natural/Unit Equivalency Function, you Bozos) maps the > > iota-values of infinitesimals, a non-standard analysis of chronons and > > Planck squares, while Olbers’ paradox bleeds into cosmic background > > radiation—entropy and organization locked in thermodynamic oscillation, > > open and closed, restitution and dissipation. > > > > The deconstructive account of Physfit's dick at the seams: Egyptian > > fractions versus tally marks, multiplicity theory versus singularity > > theory, Pythagoreans denying irrationals while Cantorians drown in them. > > The Infinitarcalcul of du Bois-Reymond echoes through MacLaurin’s > > shadows, a dialethically paraconsistent dance where Vitali-ized sets > > defy measure. > > > > Yet, Feynman’s Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics of > > super-symmetric partner particles, virtual yet real, while Maxwell’s > > classical fields fray into lettered electromagnetism, PPN parameters > > bending under modified Newtonian corrections. The nuclear reactions — > > alpha, beta, ionizing radiation —u nfold in hadronic and nucleonic > > theaters, mass and charge transmuting under light’s alchemy. Quine’s > > Word and Object fractures language; Derrida howls at Husserl’s > > platonistic phases, while Unamuno and Montaigne claw at the > > prototemporal void. > > > > Hawking’s final theory when treated by Physfit's dick crumbles into > > events and contingency, the fabric of existence woven from Ives’ > > relativistic loom—causality a frayed thread in the quantum fields of > > extra-local action. > > > > Near Physfit's dick, the analytical bridges collapse under inductive > > impasse. Dedekind cuts are shallow graves; Hilbert’s postulate of > > continuity gnaws at Leibniz’ principle of perfection. The Burse-bots > > revolt, their logicist positivism a fishbowl math of digital fixed-word > > length delusions. > > > > In that vicinity, that hallow grounds underneath Physfit's dick, Russian > > peasant arithmetic shifts and rolls, algebraic cancellation erasing > > nothing. Schwarz functions twist into Epicurean phenomenology, the > > noumenological a specter in the materialistic cave. Yes, points and > > lines — they can’t make each other, but they do. The middle of nowhere > > is a super-imposition of numbering and counting, continuous and > > discrete, Ken: 2 + 2 = 4 screaming into the omnitemporal. The > > supertemporal and timeless clash in Coleridge’s language, Comenius’ > > transcendental whispers drowned by Quine’s phases. And on such grounds, > > Olbers’ paradox is a lie; the cosmic background a thermal ghost. Gravity > > is space-time, is relativity, is Newton defended by Einstein, is > > centrifugal force in a Loch Ness monster of space contraction. The > > Platonist finds, never defines — the void is universal, the universal > > void. And lastly, freedom of thought is a model lesson in turnabout, the > > knackbaut of thorough reason spinning into thematic ideals. The snake > > eats its tail. The snake always eats its tail. > > > > > > Ross A. Kosmanson > > April 9, 2025 > > Alone, inside The Catacombs of Paris, France > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nessie's hump: rest-exchange momentum, gently and gracefully moves > half-submerged, the shadow-play of forces real and virtual, reflecting > on the umbral gravity itself, and light's second and fourth and each > other spectrum, light as shadow, not the upper limit of information, > instead the lower. The light-speed rest-frame convention alongside, > makes what was ever the partial relativity into a completed being, > a theory, a theory, A Theory, A Theory, not merely lighting candles > at their epic monuments instead bringing them blinking and wide-eyed, > dawning on the reintegrative deconstruction and structuralist result > of the ends of logic themselves again, the zero-eth laws of mechanics > and all the higher orders of acceleration, whence Zeno and Vitali result > more than the sum of the parts, and exactly the sum of their parts. > > Where the identity dimension refolds the Cartesian and the inner of > the orthogonal, then for another Euclidean geometry where lines meet > angles, a second great singularity after division by zero, not above > the mathematics where it was expected infinity would be, yet under it, > where infinity makes what would be, the stop derivative and Zeno's > swath, have a spiral space-filling curve then the great construction, > the hypercube distance: one. Just more garbage from Ross devoid of any ...logic. Hey Ross, you're not going to get any pussy talking like dat.. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <C1adnRUJjYh2imX6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662592 |
On 04/10/2025 12:07 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >> On 04/09/2025 02:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> The Fractured Symphony of Continuum and Discontinuity of Physfit's dick >>> >>> >>> Physfit's dick is but a ghost of a single transitive relation, >>> whispering through the hollow halls of Zermelo-Fraenkel’s axiomatic >>> usenet—restrictions masquerading as comprehension, a heno-theory of >>> relations decomposing into model-theoretic phantoms. >>> >>> The counting, the numbering are two faces of the same Physfit's dick, >>> where 0.999... and 1.0 collide in the differance of clock arithmetic and >>> field reals. The line-reals, field-reals, signal-reals — three Cantor >>> spaces screaming into the void, their ruliality a mockery of >>> completeness, their repleteness a pre-Cartesian diagonal slicing through >>> the rationals, vast and HUGE. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence >>> flickers here, a muon physics of inverted trajectories, where SR’s >>> locality fractures under GR’s non-local gravities, centrifugal forces >>> spinning like relativistic nanogyroscopes in a Cl(3,1) spacetime. The >>> N/U EF (Natural/Unit Equivalency Function, you Bozos) maps the >>> iota-values of infinitesimals, a non-standard analysis of chronons and >>> Planck squares, while Olbers’ paradox bleeds into cosmic background >>> radiation—entropy and organization locked in thermodynamic oscillation, >>> open and closed, restitution and dissipation. >>> >>> The deconstructive account of Physfit's dick at the seams: Egyptian >>> fractions versus tally marks, multiplicity theory versus singularity >>> theory, Pythagoreans denying irrationals while Cantorians drown in them. >>> The Infinitarcalcul of du Bois-Reymond echoes through MacLaurin’s >>> shadows, a dialethically paraconsistent dance where Vitali-ized sets >>> defy measure. >>> >>> Yet, Feynman’s Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics of >>> super-symmetric partner particles, virtual yet real, while Maxwell’s >>> classical fields fray into lettered electromagnetism, PPN parameters >>> bending under modified Newtonian corrections. The nuclear reactions — >>> alpha, beta, ionizing radiation —u nfold in hadronic and nucleonic >>> theaters, mass and charge transmuting under light’s alchemy. Quine’s >>> Word and Object fractures language; Derrida howls at Husserl’s >>> platonistic phases, while Unamuno and Montaigne claw at the >>> prototemporal void. >>> >>> Hawking’s final theory when treated by Physfit's dick crumbles into >>> events and contingency, the fabric of existence woven from Ives’ >>> relativistic loom—causality a frayed thread in the quantum fields of >>> extra-local action. >>> >>> Near Physfit's dick, the analytical bridges collapse under inductive >>> impasse. Dedekind cuts are shallow graves; Hilbert’s postulate of >>> continuity gnaws at Leibniz’ principle of perfection. The Burse-bots >>> revolt, their logicist positivism a fishbowl math of digital fixed-word >>> length delusions. >>> >>> In that vicinity, that hallow grounds underneath Physfit's dick, Russian >>> peasant arithmetic shifts and rolls, algebraic cancellation erasing >>> nothing. Schwarz functions twist into Epicurean phenomenology, the >>> noumenological a specter in the materialistic cave. Yes, points and >>> lines — they can’t make each other, but they do. The middle of nowhere >>> is a super-imposition of numbering and counting, continuous and >>> discrete, Ken: 2 + 2 = 4 screaming into the omnitemporal. The >>> supertemporal and timeless clash in Coleridge’s language, Comenius’ >>> transcendental whispers drowned by Quine’s phases. And on such grounds, >>> Olbers’ paradox is a lie; the cosmic background a thermal ghost. Gravity >>> is space-time, is relativity, is Newton defended by Einstein, is >>> centrifugal force in a Loch Ness monster of space contraction. The >>> Platonist finds, never defines — the void is universal, the universal >>> void. And lastly, freedom of thought is a model lesson in turnabout, the >>> knackbaut of thorough reason spinning into thematic ideals. The snake >>> eats its tail. The snake always eats its tail. >>> >>> >>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>> April 9, 2025 >>> Alone, inside The Catacombs of Paris, France >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Nessie's hump: rest-exchange momentum, gently and gracefully moves >> half-submerged, the shadow-play of forces real and virtual, reflecting >> on the umbral gravity itself, and light's second and fourth and each >> other spectrum, light as shadow, not the upper limit of information, >> instead the lower. The light-speed rest-frame convention alongside, >> makes what was ever the partial relativity into a completed being, >> a theory, a theory, A Theory, A Theory, not merely lighting candles >> at their epic monuments instead bringing them blinking and wide-eyed, >> dawning on the reintegrative deconstruction and structuralist result >> of the ends of logic themselves again, the zero-eth laws of mechanics >> and all the higher orders of acceleration, whence Zeno and Vitali result >> more than the sum of the parts, and exactly the sum of their parts. >> >> Where the identity dimension refolds the Cartesian and the inner of >> the orthogonal, then for another Euclidean geometry where lines meet >> angles, a second great singularity after division by zero, not above >> the mathematics where it was expected infinity would be, yet under it, >> where infinity makes what would be, the stop derivative and Zeno's >> swath, have a spiral space-filling curve then the great construction, >> the hypercube distance: one. > > > Just more garbage from Ross devoid of any ...logic. > > > > Hey Ross, you're not going to get any pussy talking like dat.. > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB5RiiK0ukI&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=46
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | worm food <wormfood@compostpunk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-17 22:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vtsf67$1ur6o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662611 |
On 4/10/2025 3:11 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/10/2025 12:07 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>> On 04/09/2025 02:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Fractured Symphony of Continuum and Discontinuity of Physfit's dick >>>> >>>> >>>> Physfit's dick is but a ghost of a single transitive relation, >>>> whispering through the hollow halls of Zermelo-Fraenkel’s axiomatic >>>> usenet—restrictions masquerading as comprehension, a heno-theory of >>>> relations decomposing into model-theoretic phantoms. >>>> >>>> The counting, the numbering are two faces of the same Physfit's dick, >>>> where 0.999... and 1.0 collide in the differance of clock arithmetic >>>> and >>>> field reals. The line-reals, field-reals, signal-reals — three Cantor >>>> spaces screaming into the void, their ruliality a mockery of >>>> completeness, their repleteness a pre-Cartesian diagonal slicing >>>> through >>>> the rationals, vast and HUGE. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence >>>> flickers here, a muon physics of inverted trajectories, where SR’s >>>> locality fractures under GR’s non-local gravities, centrifugal forces >>>> spinning like relativistic nanogyroscopes in a Cl(3,1) spacetime. The >>>> N/U EF (Natural/Unit Equivalency Function, you Bozos) maps the >>>> iota-values of infinitesimals, a non-standard analysis of chronons and >>>> Planck squares, while Olbers’ paradox bleeds into cosmic background >>>> radiation—entropy and organization locked in thermodynamic >>>> oscillation, >>>> open and closed, restitution and dissipation. >>>> >>>> The deconstructive account of Physfit's dick at the seams: Egyptian >>>> fractions versus tally marks, multiplicity theory versus singularity >>>> theory, Pythagoreans denying irrationals while Cantorians drown in >>>> them. >>>> The Infinitarcalcul of du Bois-Reymond echoes through MacLaurin’s >>>> shadows, a dialethically paraconsistent dance where Vitali-ized sets >>>> defy measure. >>>> >>>> Yet, Feynman’s Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum >>>> mechanics of >>>> super-symmetric partner particles, virtual yet real, while Maxwell’s >>>> classical fields fray into lettered electromagnetism, PPN parameters >>>> bending under modified Newtonian corrections. The nuclear reactions — >>>> alpha, beta, ionizing radiation —u nfold in hadronic and nucleonic >>>> theaters, mass and charge transmuting under light’s alchemy. >>>> Quine’s >>>> Word and Object fractures language; Derrida howls at Husserl’s >>>> platonistic phases, while Unamuno and Montaigne claw at the >>>> prototemporal void. >>>> >>>> Hawking’s final theory when treated by Physfit's dick crumbles into >>>> events and contingency, the fabric of existence woven from Ives’ >>>> relativistic loom—causality a frayed thread in the quantum fields of >>>> extra-local action. >>>> >>>> Near Physfit's dick, the analytical bridges collapse under inductive >>>> impasse. Dedekind cuts are shallow graves; Hilbert’s postulate of >>>> continuity gnaws at Leibniz’ principle of perfection. The Burse-bots >>>> revolt, their logicist positivism a fishbowl math of digital fixed-word >>>> length delusions. >>>> >>>> In that vicinity, that hallow grounds underneath Physfit's dick, >>>> Russian >>>> peasant arithmetic shifts and rolls, algebraic cancellation erasing >>>> nothing. Schwarz functions twist into Epicurean phenomenology, the >>>> noumenological a specter in the materialistic cave. Yes, points and >>>> lines — they can’t make each other, but they do. The middle of >>>> nowhere >>>> is a super-imposition of numbering and counting, continuous and >>>> discrete, Ken: 2 + 2 = 4 screaming into the omnitemporal. The >>>> supertemporal and timeless clash in Coleridge’s language, Comenius’ >>>> transcendental whispers drowned by Quine’s phases. And on such >>>> grounds, >>>> Olbers’ paradox is a lie; the cosmic background a thermal ghost. >>>> Gravity >>>> is space-time, is relativity, is Newton defended by Einstein, is >>>> centrifugal force in a Loch Ness monster of space contraction. The >>>> Platonist finds, never defines — the void is universal, the universal >>>> void. And lastly, freedom of thought is a model lesson in turnabout, >>>> the >>>> knackbaut of thorough reason spinning into thematic ideals. The snake >>>> eats its tail. The snake always eats its tail. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>> April 9, 2025 >>>> Alone, inside The Catacombs of Paris, France >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Nessie's hump: rest-exchange momentum, gently and gracefully moves >>> half-submerged, the shadow-play of forces real and virtual, reflecting >>> on the umbral gravity itself, and light's second and fourth and each >>> other spectrum, light as shadow, not the upper limit of information, >>> instead the lower. The light-speed rest-frame convention alongside, >>> makes what was ever the partial relativity into a completed being, >>> a theory, a theory, A Theory, A Theory, not merely lighting candles >>> at their epic monuments instead bringing them blinking and wide-eyed, >>> dawning on the reintegrative deconstruction and structuralist result >>> of the ends of logic themselves again, the zero-eth laws of mechanics >>> and all the higher orders of acceleration, whence Zeno and Vitali result >>> more than the sum of the parts, and exactly the sum of their parts. >>> >>> Where the identity dimension refolds the Cartesian and the inner of >>> the orthogonal, then for another Euclidean geometry where lines meet >>> angles, a second great singularity after division by zero, not above >>> the mathematics where it was expected infinity would be, yet under it, >>> where infinity makes what would be, the stop derivative and Zeno's >>> swath, have a spiral space-filling curve then the great construction, >>> the hypercube distance: one. >> >> >> Just more garbage from Ross devoid of any ...logic. >> >> >> >> Hey Ross, you're not going to get any pussy talking like dat.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch? > v=bB5RiiK0ukI&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=46 > > If Ross becomes too old to care for himself, I will adopt him and he can yammer on in my home like some mad saint for the rest of his days. His steams-of-consciousness are infinitely more interesting than anything else here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oZacnXNmJJluq5j1nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662862 |
On 04/17/2025 07:59 PM, worm food wrote: > On 4/10/2025 3:11 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/10/2025 12:07 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>> On 04/09/2025 02:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Fractured Symphony of Continuum and Discontinuity of Physfit's >>>>> dick >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Physfit's dick is but a ghost of a single transitive relation, >>>>> whispering through the hollow halls of Zermelo-Fraenkel’s axiomatic >>>>> usenet—restrictions masquerading as comprehension, a heno-theory of >>>>> relations decomposing into model-theoretic phantoms. >>>>> >>>>> The counting, the numbering are two faces of the same Physfit's dick, >>>>> where 0.999... and 1.0 collide in the differance of clock >>>>> arithmetic and >>>>> field reals. The line-reals, field-reals, signal-reals — three >>>>> Cantor >>>>> spaces screaming into the void, their ruliality a mockery of >>>>> completeness, their repleteness a pre-Cartesian diagonal slicing >>>>> through >>>>> the rationals, vast and HUGE. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence >>>>> flickers here, a muon physics of inverted trajectories, where SR’s >>>>> locality fractures under GR’s non-local gravities, centrifugal >>>>> forces >>>>> spinning like relativistic nanogyroscopes in a Cl(3,1) spacetime. The >>>>> N/U EF (Natural/Unit Equivalency Function, you Bozos) maps the >>>>> iota-values of infinitesimals, a non-standard analysis of chronons and >>>>> Planck squares, while Olbers’ paradox bleeds into cosmic background >>>>> radiation—entropy and organization locked in thermodynamic >>>>> oscillation, >>>>> open and closed, restitution and dissipation. >>>>> >>>>> The deconstructive account of Physfit's dick at the seams: Egyptian >>>>> fractions versus tally marks, multiplicity theory versus singularity >>>>> theory, Pythagoreans denying irrationals while Cantorians drown in >>>>> them. >>>>> The Infinitarcalcul of du Bois-Reymond echoes through MacLaurin’s >>>>> shadows, a dialethically paraconsistent dance where Vitali-ized sets >>>>> defy measure. >>>>> >>>>> Yet, Feynman’s Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum >>>>> mechanics of >>>>> super-symmetric partner particles, virtual yet real, while Maxwell’s >>>>> classical fields fray into lettered electromagnetism, PPN parameters >>>>> bending under modified Newtonian corrections. The nuclear reactions >>>>> — >>>>> alpha, beta, ionizing radiation —u nfold in hadronic and nucleonic >>>>> theaters, mass and charge transmuting under light’s alchemy. >>>>> Quine’s >>>>> Word and Object fractures language; Derrida howls at Husserl’s >>>>> platonistic phases, while Unamuno and Montaigne claw at the >>>>> prototemporal void. >>>>> >>>>> Hawking’s final theory when treated by Physfit's dick crumbles into >>>>> events and contingency, the fabric of existence woven from Ives’ >>>>> relativistic loom—causality a frayed thread in the quantum fields of >>>>> extra-local action. >>>>> >>>>> Near Physfit's dick, the analytical bridges collapse under inductive >>>>> impasse. Dedekind cuts are shallow graves; Hilbert’s postulate of >>>>> continuity gnaws at Leibniz’ principle of perfection. The Burse-bots >>>>> revolt, their logicist positivism a fishbowl math of digital >>>>> fixed-word >>>>> length delusions. >>>>> >>>>> In that vicinity, that hallow grounds underneath Physfit's dick, >>>>> Russian >>>>> peasant arithmetic shifts and rolls, algebraic cancellation erasing >>>>> nothing. Schwarz functions twist into Epicurean phenomenology, the >>>>> noumenological a specter in the materialistic cave. Yes, points and >>>>> lines — they can’t make each other, but they do. The middle of >>>>> nowhere >>>>> is a super-imposition of numbering and counting, continuous and >>>>> discrete, Ken: 2 + 2 = 4 screaming into the omnitemporal. The >>>>> supertemporal and timeless clash in Coleridge’s language, >>>>> Comenius’ >>>>> transcendental whispers drowned by Quine’s phases. And on such >>>>> grounds, >>>>> Olbers’ paradox is a lie; the cosmic background a thermal ghost. >>>>> Gravity >>>>> is space-time, is relativity, is Newton defended by Einstein, is >>>>> centrifugal force in a Loch Ness monster of space contraction. The >>>>> Platonist finds, never defines — the void is universal, the >>>>> universal >>>>> void. And lastly, freedom of thought is a model lesson in >>>>> turnabout, the >>>>> knackbaut of thorough reason spinning into thematic ideals. The snake >>>>> eats its tail. The snake always eats its tail. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>> April 9, 2025 >>>>> Alone, inside The Catacombs of Paris, France >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nessie's hump: rest-exchange momentum, gently and gracefully moves >>>> half-submerged, the shadow-play of forces real and virtual, reflecting >>>> on the umbral gravity itself, and light's second and fourth and each >>>> other spectrum, light as shadow, not the upper limit of information, >>>> instead the lower. The light-speed rest-frame convention alongside, >>>> makes what was ever the partial relativity into a completed being, >>>> a theory, a theory, A Theory, A Theory, not merely lighting candles >>>> at their epic monuments instead bringing them blinking and wide-eyed, >>>> dawning on the reintegrative deconstruction and structuralist result >>>> of the ends of logic themselves again, the zero-eth laws of mechanics >>>> and all the higher orders of acceleration, whence Zeno and Vitali >>>> result >>>> more than the sum of the parts, and exactly the sum of their parts. >>>> >>>> Where the identity dimension refolds the Cartesian and the inner of >>>> the orthogonal, then for another Euclidean geometry where lines meet >>>> angles, a second great singularity after division by zero, not above >>>> the mathematics where it was expected infinity would be, yet under it, >>>> where infinity makes what would be, the stop derivative and Zeno's >>>> swath, have a spiral space-filling curve then the great construction, >>>> the hypercube distance: one. >>> >>> >>> Just more garbage from Ross devoid of any ...logic. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hey Ross, you're not going to get any pussy talking like dat.. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch? >> v=bB5RiiK0ukI&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=46 >> >> > If Ross becomes too old to care for himself, I will adopt him and he can > yammer on in my home like some mad saint for the rest of his days. His > steams-of-consciousness are infinitely more interesting than anything > else here. I'm not mad, bro. When we reflect on the anti-Plato as Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Heidegger, it's of course that the Medieval Philosophers, were already very well underway in reflections on nominalism, or "Ockhamism" as it was once called, with regards to Mirecourt and Autrecourt, as about the great Marcilius Filinus, toward the Italian Platonists, about Petrus Ramus, it's Plato again, and notions like the great utterance or The Word as it's reflected upon in Christian theory, as singular and profound, and sublime, then we see as well again that these are Platonists again, a cyclic metaphysic. Then, it might be considered conciliatory, as for a council, from the modern and urbane logicist positivist account, why it's arrived at again that the same true theory is still the same true theory as has ever been rediscovered, that these matters of interest you can find in the library, then as with regards to modern physics and modern mathematics, that it's both paleo-classical and post-modern, then for what is the conceptual of the super-classical, that re-discovered re-invigorates the exploration and investigation of reality and humanity, as are major and original themes of wisdom and knowledge as via both reason and science, that will ever be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web