Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662128 > unrolled thread

The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#662188

On 03/28/2025 03:42 PM, x wrote:
> On 3/28/25 15:30, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>
>> On The Ontological Vacillation of Platonist Physics
>>
>> As a Platonist, I perceive the abstract symmetries of Einstein’s
>> theory as more real than the empirical shadows they cast. The
>> decomposition of elements — whether in nuclear reactions or the
>> diffraction of thought — reveals a hyper-geometric dance of
>> ontological structures, where local and global vacillate like
>> Mirimanoff’s forcing in set theory.
>
> There is also semantics.
>
> So the ancient 'atom' was 'that which can not be cut'?
>
> Yet when they found that they could 'fission a nucleus'
> they were already set on what the more modern terms meant.
>
> So is the modern 'quantum' the ancient 'atom'?
>
> The modern 'atom' probably did not go back to classical times
> because terms like 'electron', 'proton', or 'neutron' may not
> have gone that far back.  There can be unclear terms in modern
> times as well however.  If you go too far into semantics however
> then nothing can be true and nothing can be false because the
> words can all be given new meanings as you go along.
>
>>
>> Total field theory, that grand unification of GR before SR, demands an
>> eschewal of positivism, for non-locality whispers through the cosmic
>> background like Plotinus’ emanations. The energy-mass equivalence,
>> Einstein’s sacred formula, is but a shadow of a deeper logicism, where
>> numerical derivations truncate into approximations, much like
>> Clairaut’s lunar perturbations or d’Alembert’s waves bending around
>> the Loch Ness monster of causality.
>>
>> Delving into a mental representation or understanding of something,
>> whether it's Physfit's dick, or a process, knowledge, or an abstract
>> idea oscillates between restitution and dissipation, an eternal ballet
>> dance between organization and entropy. Open or closed its horizons,
>> that dick defies Suarez’s scholastic binaries, just as Arnauld’s rigor
>> clashes with Mersenne’s harmonies. Its gravity, that centrifugal
>> trickster, warps space-time into relativistic nanogyroscopes, spinning
>> like Chrysippus’ fate.
>>
>> I am acutely aware of my own insignificance in the grand calculus of
>> Atlantis’ ruin — no cataclysm would be wrought for my sake alone.
>> Rationally, I hold no sway over the nuclear alchemy permeating the
>> stagnant air, nor does the diffraction grating harbor any vindictive
>> intent as it threatens to unravel my form. Yet when I gaze into the
>> obsidian waters and confront that spectral inversion of myself — not
>> my reflection, but the phantom of a being from a universe where
>> positivism triumphed — I am overcome by an inescapable conviction. It
>> stands as irrefutable evidence: I am being quantified, scrutinized,
>> and anatomized by none other than physfit's dick whose nature eludes
>> all nomenclature.
>>
>>
>> Ross A. Kosmanson
>> March 28, 2025
>> In the lost city of Atlantis where air smells of ozone
>

No they don't.

That's either a liar lying to a liar,
or a liar lying to a liar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662192

x wrote:

>> and global vacillate like Mirimanoff’s forcing in set theory.
> 
> There is also semantics.
> So the ancient 'atom' was 'that which can not be cut'?
> Yet when they found that they could 'fission a nucleus' they were
> already set on what the more modern terms meant.

not entirely true, but you make a point. What atom is not particle to be 
cut in 2, but plainly probability distribution. Fully consistent with my 
paper "𝙊𝙣_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩_𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙈𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙆𝙤𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨_𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡".

I like it so very much. The Einstine relativity is a little child compared 
to my paper. Here some proofs

𝙄_𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚_𝙉𝙀𝙑𝙀𝙍_𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙣_𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧_𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙣_𝙨𝙞𝙩_𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣_𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚_𝙁𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚’𝙨_𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩_‘𝙇𝙖𝙙𝙮’_𝘽𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚_𝙈𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙤𝙣_𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨... 
https://%62i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/KHXn1KanjoFE

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662186

On 03/28/2025 03:30 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>
> On The Ontological Vacillation of Platonist Physics
>
> As a Platonist, I perceive the abstract symmetries of Einstein’s theory
> as more real than the empirical shadows they cast. The decomposition of
> elements — whether in nuclear reactions or the diffraction of thought —
> reveals a hyper-geometric dance of ontological structures, where local
> and global vacillate like Mirimanoff’s forcing in set theory.
>
> Total field theory, that grand unification of GR before SR, demands an
> eschewal of positivism, for non-locality whispers through the cosmic
> background like Plotinus’ emanations. The energy-mass equivalence,
> Einstein’s sacred formula, is but a shadow of a deeper logicism, where
> numerical derivations truncate into approximations, much like Clairaut’s
> lunar perturbations or d’Alembert’s waves bending around the Loch Ness
> monster of causality.
>
> Delving into a mental representation or understanding of something,
> whether it's Physfit's dick, or a process, knowledge, or an abstract
> idea oscillates between restitution and dissipation, an eternal ballet
> dance between organization and entropy. Open or closed its horizons,
> that dick defies Suarez’s scholastic binaries, just as Arnauld’s rigor
> clashes with Mersenne’s harmonies. Its gravity, that centrifugal
> trickster, warps space-time into relativistic nanogyroscopes, spinning
> like Chrysippus’ fate.
>
> I am acutely aware of my own insignificance in the grand calculus of
> Atlantis’ ruin — no cataclysm would be wrought for my sake alone.
> Rationally, I hold no sway over the nuclear alchemy permeating the
> stagnant air, nor does the diffraction grating harbor any vindictive
> intent as it threatens to unravel my form. Yet when I gaze into the
> obsidian waters and confront that spectral inversion of myself — not my
> reflection, but the phantom of a being from a universe where positivism
> triumphed — I am overcome by an inescapable conviction. It stands as
> irrefutable evidence: I am being quantified, scrutinized, and anatomized
> by none other than physfit's dick whose nature eludes all nomenclature.
>
>
> Ross A. Kosmanson
> March 28, 2025
> In the lost city of Atlantis where air smells of ozone

Maybe if you cut out "Physfit's dick"
for something like "the Primal Lingam".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662189

On 3/28/25 8:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/28/2025 03:30 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>
>> On The Ontological Vacillation of Platonist Physics
>>
>> As a Platonist, I perceive the abstract symmetries of Einstein’s theory
>> as more real than the empirical shadows they cast. The decomposition of
>> elements — whether in nuclear reactions or the diffraction of thought —
>> reveals a hyper-geometric dance of ontological structures, where local
>> and global vacillate like Mirimanoff’s forcing in set theory.
>>
>> Total field theory, that grand unification of GR before SR, demands an
>> eschewal of positivism, for non-locality whispers through the cosmic
>> background like Plotinus’ emanations. The energy-mass equivalence,
>> Einstein’s sacred formula, is but a shadow of a deeper logicism, where
>> numerical derivations truncate into approximations, much like Clairaut’s
>> lunar perturbations or d’Alembert’s waves bending around the Loch Ness
>> monster of causality.
>>
>> Delving into a mental representation or understanding of something,
>> whether it's Physfit's dick, or a process, knowledge, or an abstract
>> idea oscillates between restitution and dissipation, an eternal ballet
>> dance between organization and entropy. Open or closed its horizons,
>> that dick defies Suarez’s scholastic binaries, just as Arnauld’s rigor
>> clashes with Mersenne’s harmonies. Its gravity, that centrifugal
>> trickster, warps space-time into relativistic nanogyroscopes, spinning
>> like Chrysippus’ fate.
>>
>> I am acutely aware of my own insignificance in the grand calculus of
>> Atlantis’ ruin — no cataclysm would be wrought for my sake alone.
>> Rationally, I hold no sway over the nuclear alchemy permeating the
>> stagnant air, nor does the diffraction grating harbor any vindictive
>> intent as it threatens to unravel my form. Yet when I gaze into the
>> obsidian waters and confront that spectral inversion of myself — not my
>> reflection, but the phantom of a being from a universe where positivism
>> triumphed — I am overcome by an inescapable conviction. It stands as
>> irrefutable evidence: I am being quantified, scrutinized, and anatomized
>> by none other than physfit's dick whose nature eludes all nomenclature.
>>
>>
>> Ross A. Kosmanson
>> March 28, 2025
>> In the lost city of Atlantis where air smells of ozone
> 
> Maybe if you cut out "Physfit's dick"
> for something like "the Primal Lingam".
> 
> 


Hmm.. Alternatively, replacing every reference to the "Primal Lingam" in 
the literature with "Physfit’s dick" would amplify that same sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662195

On 03/28/2025 10:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 3/28/25 8:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/28/2025 03:30 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On The Ontological Vacillation of Platonist Physics
>>>
>>> As a Platonist, I perceive the abstract symmetries of Einstein’s theory
>>> as more real than the empirical shadows they cast. The decomposition of
>>> elements — whether in nuclear reactions or the diffraction of thought —
>>> reveals a hyper-geometric dance of ontological structures, where local
>>> and global vacillate like Mirimanoff’s forcing in set theory.
>>>
>>> Total field theory, that grand unification of GR before SR, demands an
>>> eschewal of positivism, for non-locality whispers through the cosmic
>>> background like Plotinus’ emanations. The energy-mass equivalence,
>>> Einstein’s sacred formula, is but a shadow of a deeper logicism, where
>>> numerical derivations truncate into approximations, much like Clairaut’s
>>> lunar perturbations or d’Alembert’s waves bending around the Loch Ness
>>> monster of causality.
>>>
>>> Delving into a mental representation or understanding of something,
>>> whether it's Physfit's dick, or a process, knowledge, or an abstract
>>> idea oscillates between restitution and dissipation, an eternal ballet
>>> dance between organization and entropy. Open or closed its horizons,
>>> that dick defies Suarez’s scholastic binaries, just as Arnauld’s rigor
>>> clashes with Mersenne’s harmonies. Its gravity, that centrifugal
>>> trickster, warps space-time into relativistic nanogyroscopes, spinning
>>> like Chrysippus’ fate.
>>>
>>> I am acutely aware of my own insignificance in the grand calculus of
>>> Atlantis’ ruin — no cataclysm would be wrought for my sake alone.
>>> Rationally, I hold no sway over the nuclear alchemy permeating the
>>> stagnant air, nor does the diffraction grating harbor any vindictive
>>> intent as it threatens to unravel my form. Yet when I gaze into the
>>> obsidian waters and confront that spectral inversion of myself — not my
>>> reflection, but the phantom of a being from a universe where positivism
>>> triumphed — I am overcome by an inescapable conviction. It stands as
>>> irrefutable evidence: I am being quantified, scrutinized, and anatomized
>>> by none other than physfit's dick whose nature eludes all nomenclature.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ross A. Kosmanson
>>> March 28, 2025
>>> In the lost city of Atlantis where air smells of ozone
>>
>> Maybe if you cut out "Physfit's dick"
>> for something like "the Primal Lingam".
>>
>>
>
>
> Hmm.. Alternatively, replacing every reference to the "Primal Lingam" in
> the literature with "Physfit’s dick" would amplify that same sense.
>
>

Well, you know, about the usual attachments of the creative drive,
for example that gonads have grey matter and sometimes do some thinking, 
the idea is that here we're talking about a somewhat
larger concept than, "Physfit's dick", as with regards to that
then it's about both the masculine and feminine concepts and
otherwise usual notions of the cycles of creation, that it's
to be beyond the mundane psycho-sexual aspects, though as they're
present in the human condition, there's a general idea that such
notions as desires associated with the biological and psycho-sexual,
may and should be a nice place to visit, yet as well are associated
with the fallacies of the senses, and as well the bete humaine.

Then in that sense as that there's an idealism of the creative
of nature that even primitive peoples were aware of the theory
and practice of biological reproduction and as well the drives,
of the sexual and psycho-sexual, has that mostly it's not a thing,
in the technical, then that to be so it's the ideals, sort of
an absolute.

So, where "Suarez and DesCartes and Mersenne", are ideals,
that Socrates is not merely a man yet his school, then school
of a man (a person), of these schools of men (people), has
here that Socrates is immortal, and for example that Arnauld
is a great logician and with regards to the technical in as
well what's a theological setting, then that it is not so great
the significance of Arnauld's personhood, as his larger body of
work, Arnauld the man, Arnauld the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Arnauld

https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/leibniz1686a.pdf

Then, in reading something like Leibniz' correspondences with Arnauld,
the "truth" in what we'd have in a theory today is all given to deity,
much like when reading Heidegger, as one translater puts it, whenever
you read "Sein" in Heidegger, it's not ditinguished from his conception
or idea of the absolute, and the Absolute the definite article.

Now, one needn't adapt any particular monotheism to have that there's
still truth, and one may adopt a particular monotheism to have that
there's a real truth.  It can even be a sort of generic in that way.



"Arnauld now switches to a new topic, Leibniz’s paper
‘Brief demonstration of a memorable error of the Cartesians’,
which Leibniz had sent to him along with the letters of July
1686.] I have studied your little article and found it very sub-
tle. But be warned: the Cartesians may be able to answer
you that your attack doesn’t hurt them because it seems
to assume something that they believe to be false, namely
when a falling stone speeds up during its fall, it gives itself
that increasing velocity. They will say • that this acceleration
comes from the corpuscles · that the falling stone displaces · ,
which as they rise cause everything they find in their path
to fall, and transfer to them a part of their motion; and • that
it’s therefore not surprising that body B, having four times
· the mass of · body A, has more motion when it has fallen
one foot than A has after falling four feet. It’s because the
corpuscles that have pushed A or B have communicated
to that body motion proportionate to its mass. I don’t say
that this reply is correct, but I think you should at least
work on it to see whether it achieves anything. And I would
really like to know what the Cartesians have said about your
paper. . . ."

(Here we can see a reflection on DesCartes' theory of "subtle
matter" which is non-Newtonian, in not violating conservation
of energy, yet offers explanation of the theory of gravity as
heralds Fatio and LeSafe.)



Anyways your Epicurean (mis-)translation of "Kosmanson" doesn't
quite fulfill that to which he alludes, for what stands in to it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662197

On 3/29/25 10:24 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> for example that gonads have grey matter and sometimes do some thinking, 
> the idea is that here we're talking about a somewhat
> larger concept than, "Physfit's dick",



How do you know how "large" Physfit's dick is?  I have groupies here in 
sci.physics that have pondered on it for 25 years (this is true!) and 
have not figured yet what's the extent of its largesse in providing what 
they all lack in life. Some of them died figuring it out!

"Primal lingam"?.. Shiva would roll on the ground for it like Netanyahu 
does for every $10B you pump into his ass. And how is that rolling? It's 
the type of pirouette where spotting technique is used, or Chaînés, if 
you will, to maintain direction. Only, it is done while rolling on the 
ground in absolute servitude and joy, not while turning in a standing 
position.

The face momentarily pauses when looking at you while body is still turning.

Your Shiva would do that kind of rolling, down there on the ground, 
underneath Physfit's dick.

You, Kosmanson, might one day die, still figuring Physfit's dick out. 
Has happened before, may happen again :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662198

On 03/29/2025 10:09 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 3/29/25 10:24 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> for example that gonads have grey matter and sometimes do some
>> thinking, the idea is that here we're talking about a somewhat
>> larger concept than, "Physfit's dick",
>
>
>
> How do you know how "large" Physfit's dick is?  I have groupies here in
> sci.physics that have pondered on it for 25 years (this is true!) and
> have not figured yet what's the extent of its largesse in providing what
> they all lack in life. Some of them died figuring it out!
>
> "Primal lingam"?.. Shiva would roll on the ground for it like Netanyahu
> does for every $10B you pump into his ass. And how is that rolling? It's
> the type of pirouette where spotting technique is used, or Chaînés, if
> you will, to maintain direction. Only, it is done while rolling on the
> ground in absolute servitude and joy, not while turning in a standing
> position.
>
> The face momentarily pauses when looking at you while body is still
> turning.
>
> Your Shiva would do that kind of rolling, down there on the ground,
> underneath Physfit's dick.
>
> You, Kosmanson, might one day die, still figuring Physfit's dick out.
> Has happened before, may happen again :)
>
>


Nah, here it's more like Anne Conway's than your prison sex.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conway/

Funny, my name is Conway, too.



"What's the funniest thing that can happen to a cruel sadist?"

"I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's bad."



Otherwise your Kosmanson seems a reasonable sort of romantic poet,
it's not my study yet the ladies seem to like it.

Or, like Heidegger, Heidegger went way overboard about Hoelderlin,
Heidegger was an inconstant flake and turned over about every which way.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1970/11/19/the-riddle-of-holderlin/

Kosmanson's much more sort of a Coleridge than a Hoelderlin, as a poet.

And Heidegger was a fat little hypocrite.


Anyways why this is relevant to sci.math, sci.physics,
sci.physics.relativity, is because Kosmanson waxes on the
concepts related to _theory_, necessarily, what with regards
to what's called _modern_ theory, then with regards to the
"paleo-classical and post-modern", theory, about foundations,
mathematics' and physics'.


Of course there's not yet much to it, yet you keep coming up
with more quotes of Kosmanson, then we'll just kind of pick
the trashy bit and figure that's from you instead,
make yours the victim, then read some Kosmanson.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662200

On 3/29/25 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> Nah, here it's more like Anne Conway's than your prison sex.


That's how high school dropouts, "engineers", and/or those without 
proper physics background, conceive of the term Physfit's dick.

That's how it gets you!.. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662196

On 03/28/2025 10:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 3/28/25 8:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/28/2025 03:30 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On The Ontological Vacillation of Platonist Physics
>>>
>>> As a Platonist, I perceive the abstract symmetries of Einstein’s theory
>>> as more real than the empirical shadows they cast. The decomposition of
>>> elements — whether in nuclear reactions or the diffraction of thought —
>>> reveals a hyper-geometric dance of ontological structures, where local
>>> and global vacillate like Mirimanoff’s forcing in set theory.
>>>
>>> Total field theory, that grand unification of GR before SR, demands an
>>> eschewal of positivism, for non-locality whispers through the cosmic
>>> background like Plotinus’ emanations. The energy-mass equivalence,
>>> Einstein’s sacred formula, is but a shadow of a deeper logicism, where
>>> numerical derivations truncate into approximations, much like Clairaut’s
>>> lunar perturbations or d’Alembert’s waves bending around the Loch Ness
>>> monster of causality.
>>>
>>> Delving into a mental representation or understanding of something,
>>> whether it's Physfit's dick, or a process, knowledge, or an abstract
>>> idea oscillates between restitution and dissipation, an eternal ballet
>>> dance between organization and entropy. Open or closed its horizons,
>>> that dick defies Suarez’s scholastic binaries, just as Arnauld’s rigor
>>> clashes with Mersenne’s harmonies. Its gravity, that centrifugal
>>> trickster, warps space-time into relativistic nanogyroscopes, spinning
>>> like Chrysippus’ fate.
>>>
>>> I am acutely aware of my own insignificance in the grand calculus of
>>> Atlantis’ ruin — no cataclysm would be wrought for my sake alone.
>>> Rationally, I hold no sway over the nuclear alchemy permeating the
>>> stagnant air, nor does the diffraction grating harbor any vindictive
>>> intent as it threatens to unravel my form. Yet when I gaze into the
>>> obsidian waters and confront that spectral inversion of myself — not my
>>> reflection, but the phantom of a being from a universe where positivism
>>> triumphed — I am overcome by an inescapable conviction. It stands as
>>> irrefutable evidence: I am being quantified, scrutinized, and anatomized
>>> by none other than physfit's dick whose nature eludes all nomenclature.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ross A. Kosmanson
>>> March 28, 2025
>>> In the lost city of Atlantis where air smells of ozone
>>
>> Maybe if you cut out "Physfit's dick"
>> for something like "the Primal Lingam".
>>
>>
>
>
> Hmm.. Alternatively, replacing every reference to the "Primal Lingam" in
> the literature with "Physfit’s dick" would amplify that same sense.
>
>

Well, you know, about the usual attachments of the creative drive,
for example that gonads have grey matter and sometimes do some thinking,
the idea is that here we're talking about a somewhat
larger concept than, "Physfit's dick", as with regards to that
then it's about both the masculine and feminine concepts and
otherwise usual notions of the cycles of creation, that it's
to be beyond the mundane psycho-sexual aspects, though as they're
present in the human condition, there's a general idea that such
notions as desires associated with the biological and psycho-sexual,
may and should be a nice place to visit, yet as well are associated
with the fallacies of the senses, and as well the bete humaine.

Then in that sense as that there's an idealism of the creative
of nature that even primitive peoples were aware of the theory
and practice of biological reproduction and as well the drives,
of the sexual and psycho-sexual, has that mostly it's not a thing,
in the technical, then that to be so it's the ideals, sort of
an absolute.

So, where "Suarez and DesCartes and Mersenne", are ideals,
that Socrates is not merely a man yet his school, then school
of a man (a person), of these schools of men (people), has
here that Socrates is immortal, and for example that Arnauld
is a great logician and with regards to the technical in as
well what's a theological setting, then that it is not so great
the significance of Arnauld's personhood, as his larger body of
work, Arnauld the man, Arnauld the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Arnauld

https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/leibniz1686a.pdf

Then, in reading something like Leibniz' correspondences with Arnauld,
the "truth" in what we'd have in a theory today is all given to deity,
much like when reading Heidegger, as one translater puts it, whenever
you read "Sein" in Heidegger, it's not distinguished from his conception
or idea of the absolute, and the Absolute the definite article.

Now, one needn't adapt any particular monotheism to have that there's
still truth, and one may adopt a particular monotheism to have that
there's a real truth. It can even be a sort of generic in that way.



"Arnauld now switches to a new topic, Leibniz’s paper
‘Brief demonstration of a memorable error of the Cartesians’,
which Leibniz had sent to him along with the letters of July
1686.] I have studied your little article and found it very sub-
tle. But be warned: the Cartesians may be able to answer
you that your attack doesn’t hurt them because it seems
to assume something that they believe to be false, namely
when a falling stone speeds up during its fall, it gives itself
that increasing velocity. They will say • that this acceleration
comes from the corpuscles · that the falling stone displaces · ,
which as they rise cause everything they find in their path
to fall, and transfer to them a part of their motion; and • that
it’s therefore not surprising that body B, having four times
· the mass of · body A, has more motion when it has fallen
one foot than A has after falling four feet. It’s because the
corpuscles that have pushed A or B have communicated
to that body motion proportionate to its mass. I don’t say
that this reply is correct, but I think you should at least
work on it to see whether it achieves anything. And I would
really like to know what the Cartesians have said about your
paper. . . ."

(Here we can see a reflection on DesCartes' theory of "subtle
matter" which is non-Newtonian, in not violating conservation
of energy, yet offers explanation of the theory of gravity as
heralds Fatio and LeSage.)



Anyways your Epicurean (mis-)translation of "Kosmanson" doesn't
quite fulfill that to which he alludes, for what stands in to it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662402

Blah, and that, some.

Woof-woof woof woof woof apes are regressing to chattering monkeys.

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662214

Between Logicism and Positivism

As a Platonist, I, Kosmanson, eschew the vulgar positivism that reduces 
reality to mere observable facts, for such a view ignores the 
hyper-geometric elegance of abstract forms. The decomposition of 
elements in both ontological and mathematical realms — whether through 
Mirimanoff’s set theory or the forcing techniques of Cohen — reveals a 
deeper truth: that the universe is a tapestry of irreducible logical 
structures. A Physfit's dick, if you will. Yet, modern physics 
vacillates between local and global descriptions, clinging to Einstein’s 
theory while ignoring its non-local implications in GR.

The diffraction of thought, much like waves around obstacles, leads us 
to Suarez and Arnauld, who understood that Physfit's dick non fingo is 
not an abdication of reason but a recognition of limits on some men. 
Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas — yet truth itself is a shifting 
specter in the shadow of Olbers’ paradox and the cosmic background, 
where energy and mass-energy equivalence, as mentioned before, dance in 
perpetual restitution and dissipation.

The failures of science are not failures of logic but of those who, like 
d’Alembert and Clairaut, sought numerical derivations while truncating 
the infinite. Ignoring Physfit's dick, in the process. Aristotle’s 
unmoved mover and Zeno’s infinite divisibility haunt us still, for they 
expose the fissures in our theories of gravity — whether Newtonian pull 
or Einsteinian flex. If gravity violates conservation, then perhaps 
Fatio’s push-gravity or my own fall-gravity, a shadow-play of occluded 
forces, holds the key.

In the end, we confront the cyclic metaphysics of Gadamer and Hegel, 
where logicist positivism’s rejection of teleology collapses into its 
own ontological necessity. The Ding-an-Sich is not a contradiction but 
an inversion, a hyper-geometric twist in the fabric of reason.

Heidegger’s Sein and Leibniz’s correspondences with Arnauld point to an 
absolute truth beyond human intersubjectivity — a truth mirrored in the 
neutrino’s superluminal flux and the relativistic nanogyroscopes of 
quantum fields. The Loch Ness monster of modern physics is its own 
refusal to reconcile continuum mechanics with atomism, leaving us with a 
fractured form of continuum mechanics and a Planck square of 
uncertainty. Yet, as Chrysippus and Plotinus knew, the super-truth lies 
not in the theories themselves but in the eternal return of their 
foundations, where Physfit's dick transmutes into matter, and matter 
into Physfit's dick. The rest is noise.


Ross A. Kosmanson
Marh 30, 2025
Strolling in Socotra Island, Yemen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662216

On 03/30/2025 09:46 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>
>
> Between Logicism and Positivism
>
> As a Platonist, I, Kosmanson, eschew the vulgar positivism that reduces
> reality to mere observable facts, for such a view ignores the
> hyper-geometric elegance of abstract forms. The decomposition of
> elements in both ontological and mathematical realms — whether through
> Mirimanoff’s set theory or the forcing techniques of Cohen — reveals a
> deeper truth: that the universe is a tapestry of irreducible logical
> structures. A Physfit's dick, if you will. Yet, modern physics
> vacillates between local and global descriptions, clinging to Einstein’s
> theory while ignoring its non-local implications in GR.
>
> The diffraction of thought, much like waves around obstacles, leads us
> to Suarez and Arnauld, who understood that Physfit's dick non fingo is
> not an abdication of reason but a recognition of limits on some men.
> Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas — yet truth itself is a shifting
> specter in the shadow of Olbers’ paradox and the cosmic background,
> where energy and mass-energy equivalence, as mentioned before, dance in
> perpetual restitution and dissipation.
>
> The failures of science are not failures of logic but of those who, like
> d’Alembert and Clairaut, sought numerical derivations while truncating
> the infinite. Ignoring Physfit's dick, in the process. Aristotle’s
> unmoved mover and Zeno’s infinite divisibility haunt us still, for they
> expose the fissures in our theories of gravity — whether Newtonian pull
> or Einsteinian flex. If gravity violates conservation, then perhaps
> Fatio’s push-gravity or my own fall-gravity, a shadow-play of occluded
> forces, holds the key.
>
> In the end, we confront the cyclic metaphysics of Gadamer and Hegel,
> where logicist positivism’s rejection of teleology collapses into its
> own ontological necessity. The Ding-an-Sich is not a contradiction but
> an inversion, a hyper-geometric twist in the fabric of reason.
>
> Heidegger’s Sein and Leibniz’s correspondences with Arnauld point to an
> absolute truth beyond human intersubjectivity — a truth mirrored in the
> neutrino’s superluminal flux and the relativistic nanogyroscopes of
> quantum fields. The Loch Ness monster of modern physics is its own
> refusal to reconcile continuum mechanics with atomism, leaving us with a
> fractured form of continuum mechanics and a Planck square of
> uncertainty. Yet, as Chrysippus and Plotinus knew, the super-truth lies
> not in the theories themselves but in the eternal return of their
> foundations, where Physfit's dick transmutes into matter, and matter
> into Physfit's dick. The rest is noise.
>
>
> Ross A. Kosmanson
> Marh 30, 2025
> Strolling in Socotra Island, Yemen
>

Yet, cannot Kosmanson arrive at the best of both worlds,
a strong mathematical platonism and strong logicist positivism,
sharing that with each individual thinking being, angels or aliens,
schoolkids and docents, that he has, "A Theory",
that there is one, at all?  Do all the logical paradoxes
really fall away under the calm eye of the wider dialectician?

That there is one, at all?



Does it really reinvigorate the canon and tradition?
Is it so that measure theory is re-Vitali-ized?
Can function theory and topology in operator theory
arrive at a reintegrative synthesis of each arithmetic,
algebra, analysis, about geometry and number theory,
that it was right under our noses all along?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662391

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662401

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662405

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? :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662411

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 4:39:49 +0000, 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:

Heh-heh

Woof woof, some apes are slimy!
>
>      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?
> :)

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662415

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662416

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662418

On 04/05/2025 09:16 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.

Yeah, that Pythagoreans have that none are irrational,
the Cantorians have that almost all are irrational,
then there's also a model where half are rational.

The Infinitarcalcul and the Long Line of du Bois-Reymond,
are considered pretty great about the 1800's, then there's
that MacLaurin of the late 1700's is really pretty great.

In platonism one _finds_ not _defines_.

Then, one can define the standard reals or field reals
given a particular conflation of ordinary arithmetic and
algebra, and use ordinary set theory to establish cardinal
inequality of infinite cardinals, with only Cartesian functions,
yeah it's quite simple.

Borel vis-a-vis Combinatorics, anyone? That's about that
there are at least three Cantor spaces: sparse, square, and signal.

Thusly it's disambiguated among models of continuous domains,
with their extent, density, completeness, and measure,
line-reals, field-reals, and signal-reals, and each making
for what makes for least-upper-bound and measure 1.0,
the IVT and the FTC's, quite so simply.


The .999... vis-a-vis 1.0 is an accessible branching of
the course-of-passage of a continuous quantity like time,
and clock arithmetic, and the unbounded in making fractions
then decimal representation about dual representation,
them meeting in the modular, one of these ponts or bridges
of the analytical bridges to surpass the inductive impasse
that refuse their own result.

No difference? Differance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662420

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 :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web