Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #891989 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-24 21:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-06-06 23:25 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 (Was: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-25 19:12 +0100
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 :-) 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
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 12:07 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 13:10 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-31 17:54 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 17:40 -0500
Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-06 23:25 +0000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mROdnRmNavAt4mz6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #892181 |
On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only >>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the >>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous truth: >>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of their >>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null >>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a >>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s >>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is primary, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. The >>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — >>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear dogma. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who among >>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about >>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their >>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a deeper >>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the surface >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is their >>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, paradoxical >>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But >>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths >>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And the >>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that it's >>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>> interest >>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he volunteer, >>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be wrong". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at all, >>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the >>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be not-particles. >>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's falsifiable >>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous >>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality >>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive impasse, >>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the repleteness >>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether >>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its dumbness). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an >>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems in a >>>>>> blog >>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them one >>>>>> would >>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, but >>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved it of >>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>> problem >>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling infinities. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense light >>>>>> went >>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't even an >>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room! >>>>>> >>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself >>>>>> quite >>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before he had >>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas area. >>>>>> >>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>> hours has >>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look >>>>>> inside >>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>> cooked on >>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the computer to >>>>>> order >>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a >>>>>> healthy >>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" button, >>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of >>>>>> getting >>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit was >>>>>> not a >>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the correct >>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>> >>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>> point. So >>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was not a >>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that funky >>>>>> form, >>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. >>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>> >>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus had >>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started >>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>> >>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>> >>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>> >>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>> >>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>> >>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>> >>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>> >>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>> >>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>> >>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen >>>>>> about? :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>> >>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>> >>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>> >>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe" >>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>> >>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>> "iota-values". >>>>> >>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure problem, >>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the exponential >>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods about it, >>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform random, >>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three laws >>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>> >>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential, >>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually >>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or divisor bar >>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's >>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet >>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>> function" >>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual standard >>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's >>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous domains. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus >>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it. >>>>> >>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the super-classical >>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>> >>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in pre-calculus >>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>> complete, >>>>> the geometric series. >>>> >>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece >>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different representations >>>> of the same mathematical object. >>> >>> >>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is >>> bullshit :) >>> >>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is indeed >>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>> >>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not speak for >>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI all. It >>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help physics >>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for humans. >>> >>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then beg for >>> it :) >>> >>> >> >> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >> >> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being Cauchy", >> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and >> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of geometry, >> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >> of perfection". >> >> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate. >> >> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >> >> > > > But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that > concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this thing. The > point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were > actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere > "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial parts of > work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be > programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. > > And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real programmer. I > understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. Nobody > else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" there > were actually programmers. > > That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not delved > (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what > you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review stuff > so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to > that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. > > Would you like to see the solution? You mean what's its model of atomicity? Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 14:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vss09l$qfrp$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #892182 |
On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only >>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the >>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous truth: >>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null >>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a >>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s >>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is primary, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. The >>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — >>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear dogma. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who among >>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about >>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their >>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a >>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the surface >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is their >>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, paradoxical >>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths >>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And the >>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that it's >>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be wrong". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at >>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the >>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be not-particles. >>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's falsifiable >>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous >>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality >>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the repleteness >>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether >>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an >>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems in a >>>>>>> blog >>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them one >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, but >>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved it of >>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>>> problem >>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling infinities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense light >>>>>>> went >>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't even an >>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself >>>>>>> quite >>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before he had >>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas >>>>>>> area. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look >>>>>>> inside >>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the computer to >>>>>>> order >>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a >>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" button, >>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of >>>>>>> getting >>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit was >>>>>>> not a >>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the correct >>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was not a >>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that funky >>>>>>> form, >>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. >>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus had >>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started >>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen >>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>> >>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe" >>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure problem, >>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the exponential >>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods about it, >>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform random, >>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three laws >>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential, >>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually >>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or divisor bar >>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's >>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet >>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>> function" >>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual standard >>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's >>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>> domains. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus >>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the super-classical >>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in pre-calculus >>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>> complete, >>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>> >>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece >>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different representations >>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is >>>> bullshit :) >>>> >>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is indeed >>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>> >>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not speak for >>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>> all. It >>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>> physics >>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for humans. >>>> >>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then beg for >>>> it :) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>> >>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being Cauchy", >>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and >>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of geometry, >>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >>> of perfection". >>> >>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate. >>> >>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>> >>> >> >> >> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this thing. The >> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere >> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial parts of >> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >> >> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real programmer. I >> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. Nobody >> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" there >> were actually programmers. >> >> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not delved >> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what >> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review stuff >> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to >> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >> >> Would you like to see the solution? > > > You mean what's its model of atomicity? > > Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. > > Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet. X = 0.9999... 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... after subtraction of first equation from the last one: 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... 9X = 9(0.9999...) X = 0.9999... Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating that test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a "code monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vIadnZ0yfeOAFGz6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #892183 |
On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only >>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the >>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous truth: >>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null >>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a >>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s >>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is primary, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — >>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear dogma. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who >>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about >>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their >>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a >>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the surface >>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, paradoxical >>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths >>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that it's >>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be wrong". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at >>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the >>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's falsifiable >>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous >>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality >>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the repleteness >>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether >>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an >>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems in a >>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them one >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved it of >>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling infinities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense >>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself >>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before he had >>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas >>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look >>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the computer to >>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a >>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of >>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit was >>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the correct >>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was not a >>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that funky >>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. >>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus had >>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started >>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen >>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe" >>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure problem, >>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the exponential >>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods about it, >>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform random, >>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three laws >>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential, >>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually >>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or divisor bar >>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's >>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet >>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>>> function" >>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual standard >>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's >>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus >>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the super-classical >>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in pre-calculus >>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece >>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different representations >>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is >>>>> bullshit :) >>>>> >>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is indeed >>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>> >>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not speak for >>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>>> all. It >>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>>> physics >>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for humans. >>>>> >>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then beg for >>>>> it :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>> >>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being Cauchy", >>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and >>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>> geometry, >>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >>>> of perfection". >>>> >>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate. >>>> >>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this thing. The >>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere >>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial parts of >>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>> >>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real programmer. I >>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. Nobody >>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" there >>> were actually programmers. >>> >>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not delved >>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what >>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review stuff >>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to >>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>> >>> Would you like to see the solution? >> >> >> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >> >> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >> >> > > > Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake > Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet. > > > X = 0.9999... > 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... > 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... > after subtraction of first equation from the last one: > 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... > 9X = 9(0.9999...) > X = 0.9999... > > Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating that > test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a "code > monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. > > But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether > Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is > really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! > > > > > Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, the continuous manifold. Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, is a development and refinement of what results that there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 "Long subtraction"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 15:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vss4v6$qjhi$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #892184 |
On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only >>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the >>>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous >>>>>>>>>>> truth: >>>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null >>>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a >>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s >>>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is primary, >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. >>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — >>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear dogma. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who >>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about >>>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their >>>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a >>>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the >>>>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, >>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical >>>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But >>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths >>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that >>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be >>>>>>>>>> wrong". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at >>>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the >>>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's falsifiable >>>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous >>>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality >>>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the >>>>>>>>>> repleteness >>>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether >>>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an >>>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems >>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them one >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved it of >>>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling >>>>>>>>> infinities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense >>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself >>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before he >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas >>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look >>>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the computer to >>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a >>>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of >>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit was >>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the correct >>>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was not a >>>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that funky >>>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. >>>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus had >>>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started >>>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen >>>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe" >>>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure >>>>>>>> problem, >>>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the >>>>>>>> exponential >>>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods about it, >>>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform random, >>>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three laws >>>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential, >>>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually >>>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or divisor bar >>>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's >>>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet >>>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>>>> function" >>>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual >>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's >>>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus >>>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the >>>>>>>> super-classical >>>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in pre-calculus >>>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece >>>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different >>>>>>> representations >>>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is >>>>>> bullshit :) >>>>>> >>>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is indeed >>>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not speak for >>>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>>>> all. It >>>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>>>> physics >>>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then beg for >>>>>> it :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>>> >>>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being Cauchy", >>>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and >>>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >>>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>>> geometry, >>>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >>>>> of perfection". >>>>> >>>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate. >>>>> >>>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this thing. The >>>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere >>>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial >>>> parts of >>>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>>> >>>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real programmer. I >>>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. >>>> Nobody >>>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" there >>>> were actually programmers. >>>> >>>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not delved >>>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what >>>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review >>>> stuff >>>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to >>>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>>> >>>> Would you like to see the solution? >>> >>> >>> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >>> >>> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >>> >>> >> >> >> Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake >> Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet. >> >> >> X = 0.9999... >> 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... >> 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... >> after subtraction of first equation from the last one: >> 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... >> 9X = 9(0.9999...) >> X = 0.9999... >> >> Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating that >> test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a "code >> monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. >> >> But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether >> Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is >> really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! >> >> >> >> >> > > Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". > > I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. > One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting > algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. > > > Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. > Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, > the continuous manifold. > > > Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch > and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen > paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. > > > The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, > is a development and refinement of what results that > there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, > then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. > > So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that > we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 > > > "Long subtraction" > > Well, the code monkey seemed to be using the mathematics that resulted 10 times 0.99... to be equal to 9.99... which is practiced all over the world, and yet, is mathematically wrong. 0.99... is never ever 1. In math that is, not in physics. The part of math that allowed them to be the same thing was not math, but physics. A physics scheme. A funky trick just to go past some hurdles. I thought that was Kosmanson's concern. But evidently not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 17:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <-7-cnVDeVrdyW2z6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #892185 |
On 04/05/2025 01:48 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only >>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the >>>>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous >>>>>>>>>>>> truth: >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null >>>>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a >>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s >>>>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is >>>>>>>>>>>> primary, >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — >>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear >>>>>>>>>>>> dogma. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who >>>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about >>>>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their >>>>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a >>>>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the >>>>>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, >>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical >>>>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But >>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths >>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that >>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be >>>>>>>>>>> wrong". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at >>>>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the >>>>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's >>>>>>>>>>> falsifiable >>>>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>>>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>>>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous >>>>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality >>>>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the >>>>>>>>>>> repleteness >>>>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether >>>>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an >>>>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems >>>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved >>>>>>>>>> it of >>>>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling >>>>>>>>>> infinities. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense >>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself >>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before >>>>>>>>>> he had >>>>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas >>>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look >>>>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the >>>>>>>>>> computer to >>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a >>>>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of >>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the >>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was >>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that >>>>>>>>>> funky >>>>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. >>>>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started >>>>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen >>>>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe" >>>>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure >>>>>>>>> problem, >>>>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the >>>>>>>>> exponential >>>>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods about it, >>>>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform random, >>>>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three laws >>>>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential, >>>>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually >>>>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or divisor >>>>>>>>> bar >>>>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's >>>>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet >>>>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>>>>> function" >>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual >>>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's >>>>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus >>>>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the >>>>>>>>> super-classical >>>>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in >>>>>>>>> pre-calculus >>>>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece >>>>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different >>>>>>>> representations >>>>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is >>>>>>> bullshit :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is indeed >>>>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>>>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not speak >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>>>>> all. It >>>>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>>>>> physics >>>>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for >>>>>>> humans. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then beg >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> it :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being Cauchy", >>>>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and >>>>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >>>>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>>>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>>>> geometry, >>>>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >>>>>> of perfection". >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>>>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>>>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this thing. >>>>> The >>>>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>>>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere >>>>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial >>>>> parts of >>>>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>>>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>>>> >>>>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real >>>>> programmer. I >>>>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. >>>>> Nobody >>>>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" there >>>>> were actually programmers. >>>>> >>>>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not delved >>>>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what >>>>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review >>>>> stuff >>>>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to >>>>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>>>> >>>>> Would you like to see the solution? >>>> >>>> >>>> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >>>> >>>> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake >>> Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet. >>> >>> >>> X = 0.9999... >>> 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... >>> 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... >>> after subtraction of first equation from the last one: >>> 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... >>> 9X = 9(0.9999...) >>> X = 0.9999... >>> >>> Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating that >>> test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a "code >>> monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. >>> >>> But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether >>> Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is >>> really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". >> >> I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. >> One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting >> algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. >> >> >> Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. >> Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, >> the continuous manifold. >> >> >> Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch >> and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen >> paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. >> >> >> The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, >> is a development and refinement of what results that >> there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, >> then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. >> >> So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that >> we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. >> >> >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 >> >> >> >> "Long subtraction" >> >> > > > Well, the code monkey seemed to be using the mathematics that resulted > 10 times 0.99... to be equal to 9.99... which is practiced all over the > world, and yet, is mathematically wrong. 0.99... is never ever 1. In > math that is, not in physics. > > The part of math that allowed them to be the same thing was not math, > but physics. A physics scheme. A funky trick just to go past some > hurdles. I thought that was Kosmanson's concern. But evidently not. > > > > > > It seems that's confused "digital fixed-word length" with "reality", or doesn't know the difference. Not so much the "New, New, New, New Mathematics", sort of more "Second New, Improved Mathematics".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 21:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vssp1g$qre6$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #892185 |
On 4/5/25 3:48 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only >>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the >>>>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous >>>>>>>>>>>> truth: >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null >>>>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a >>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s >>>>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is >>>>>>>>>>>> primary, >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — >>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear >>>>>>>>>>>> dogma. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who >>>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about >>>>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their >>>>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a >>>>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the >>>>>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, >>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical >>>>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But >>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths >>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that >>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be >>>>>>>>>>> wrong". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at >>>>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the >>>>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's >>>>>>>>>>> falsifiable >>>>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>>>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>>>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous >>>>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality >>>>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the >>>>>>>>>>> repleteness >>>>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether >>>>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an >>>>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems >>>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved >>>>>>>>>> it of >>>>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling >>>>>>>>>> infinities. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense >>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself >>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before >>>>>>>>>> he had >>>>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas >>>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look >>>>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the >>>>>>>>>> computer to >>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a >>>>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of >>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the >>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was >>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that >>>>>>>>>> funky >>>>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. >>>>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started >>>>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen >>>>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe" >>>>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure >>>>>>>>> problem, >>>>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the >>>>>>>>> exponential >>>>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods about it, >>>>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform random, >>>>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three laws >>>>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential, >>>>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually >>>>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or divisor >>>>>>>>> bar >>>>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's >>>>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet >>>>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>>>>> function" >>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual >>>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's >>>>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus >>>>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the >>>>>>>>> super-classical >>>>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in >>>>>>>>> pre-calculus >>>>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece >>>>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different >>>>>>>> representations >>>>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is >>>>>>> bullshit :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is indeed >>>>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>>>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not speak >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>>>>> all. It >>>>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>>>>> physics >>>>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for >>>>>>> humans. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then beg >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> it :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being Cauchy", >>>>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and >>>>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >>>>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>>>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>>>> geometry, >>>>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >>>>>> of perfection". >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>>>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>>>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this thing. >>>>> The >>>>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>>>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere >>>>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial >>>>> parts of >>>>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>>>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>>>> >>>>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real >>>>> programmer. I >>>>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. >>>>> Nobody >>>>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" there >>>>> were actually programmers. >>>>> >>>>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not delved >>>>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what >>>>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review >>>>> stuff >>>>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to >>>>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>>>> >>>>> Would you like to see the solution? >>>> >>>> >>>> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >>>> >>>> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake >>> Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet. >>> >>> >>> X = 0.9999... >>> 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... >>> 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... >>> after subtraction of first equation from the last one: >>> 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... >>> 9X = 9(0.9999...) >>> X = 0.9999... >>> >>> Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating that >>> test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a "code >>> monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. >>> >>> But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether >>> Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is >>> really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". >> >> I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. >> One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting >> algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. >> >> >> Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. >> Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, >> the continuous manifold. >> >> >> Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch >> and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen >> paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. >> >> >> The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, >> is a development and refinement of what results that >> there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, >> then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. >> >> So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that >> we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. >> >> >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 >> >> >> "Long subtraction" >> >> > > > Well, the code monkey seemed to be using the mathematics that resulted > 10 times 0.99... to be equal to 9.99... which is practiced all over the > world, and yet, is mathematically wrong. 0.99... is never ever 1. In > math that is, not in physics. > > The part of math that allowed them to be the same thing was not math, > but physics. A physics scheme. A funky trick just to go past some > hurdles. I thought that was Kosmanson's concern. But evidently not. > > > > > > For my dick, the problem boils down to differences that exists between different infinities. That's why 2 times an infinity is not 3 times the same infinity. Dividing the former by the latter gives 2/3, not 1. My dick thinks that taking 0.9999... to be exactly 1 incurs a form of Zeno's paradox. One cannot take the limit of a series and identify the series by that limit itself. My dick is more inclined to look at the series as having its own identity separate from its limit. This is the gist of the matter as far as my dick is concerned. It could be a matter of preferences, who knows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 21:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vsspjc$qre6$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #892187 |
On 4/5/25 9:31 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 3:48 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth: >>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of >>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their >>>>>>>>>>>>> null >>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the >>>>>>>>>>>>> continuum’s >>>>>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is >>>>>>>>>>>>> primary, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation >>>>>>>>>>>>> laws — >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear >>>>>>>>>>>>> dogma. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who >>>>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about >>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their >>>>>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the >>>>>>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is >>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, >>>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical >>>>>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths >>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>> that it's >>>>>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at >>>>>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the >>>>>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's >>>>>>>>>>>> falsifiable >>>>>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>>>>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>>>>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous >>>>>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and >>>>>>>>>>>> ruliality >>>>>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the >>>>>>>>>>>> repleteness >>>>>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then >>>>>>>>>>>> altogether >>>>>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated >>>>>>>>>>> in an >>>>>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby >>>>>>>>>>> problems in a >>>>>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of >>>>>>>>>>> them one >>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved >>>>>>>>>>> it of >>>>>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling >>>>>>>>>>> infinities. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense >>>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself >>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before >>>>>>>>>>> he had >>>>>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas >>>>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a >>>>>>>>>>> look >>>>>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the >>>>>>>>>>> computer to >>>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a >>>>>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of >>>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure >>>>>>>>>>> Physfit was >>>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the >>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was >>>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that >>>>>>>>>>> funky >>>>>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. >>>>>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses >>>>>>>>>>> Jesus had >>>>>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and >>>>>>>>>>> started >>>>>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen >>>>>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe" >>>>>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure >>>>>>>>>> problem, >>>>>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the >>>>>>>>>> exponential >>>>>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods about >>>>>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform >>>>>>>>>> random, >>>>>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three laws >>>>>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential, >>>>>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually >>>>>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or >>>>>>>>>> divisor bar >>>>>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's >>>>>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet >>>>>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>>>>>> function" >>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual >>>>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's >>>>>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus >>>>>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the >>>>>>>>>> super-classical >>>>>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in >>>>>>>>>> pre-calculus >>>>>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece >>>>>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different >>>>>>>>> representations >>>>>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is >>>>>>>> bullshit :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is >>>>>>>> indeed >>>>>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>>>>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not >>>>>>>> speak for >>>>>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>>>>>> all. It >>>>>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>>>>>> physics >>>>>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for >>>>>>>> humans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then >>>>>>>> beg for >>>>>>>> it :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>>>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being >>>>>>> Cauchy", >>>>>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and >>>>>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >>>>>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>>>>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>>>>> geometry, >>>>>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>>>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >>>>>>> of perfection". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>>>>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>>>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>>>>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this >>>>>> thing. The >>>>>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>>>>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere >>>>>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial >>>>>> parts of >>>>>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>>>>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>>>>> >>>>>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real >>>>>> programmer. I >>>>>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. >>>>>> Nobody >>>>>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" >>>>>> there >>>>>> were actually programmers. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not >>>>>> delved >>>>>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what >>>>>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review >>>>>> stuff >>>>>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to >>>>>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you like to see the solution? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake >>>> Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet. >>>> >>>> >>>> X = 0.9999... >>>> 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... >>>> 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... >>>> after subtraction of first equation from the last one: >>>> 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... >>>> 9X = 9(0.9999...) >>>> X = 0.9999... >>>> >>>> Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating >>>> that >>>> test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a "code >>>> monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. >>>> >>>> But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether >>>> Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is >>>> really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". >>> >>> I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. >>> One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting >>> algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. >>> >>> >>> Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. >>> Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, >>> the continuous manifold. >>> >>> >>> Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch >>> and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen >>> paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. >>> >>> >>> The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, >>> is a development and refinement of what results that >>> there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, >>> then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. >>> >>> So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that >>> we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 >>> >>> >>> "Long subtraction" >>> >>> >> >> >> Well, the code monkey seemed to be using the mathematics that resulted >> 10 times 0.99... to be equal to 9.99... which is practiced all over >> the world, and yet, is mathematically wrong. 0.99... is never ever 1. >> In math that is, not in physics. >> >> The part of math that allowed them to be the same thing was not math, >> but physics. A physics scheme. A funky trick just to go past some >> hurdles. I thought that was Kosmanson's concern. But evidently not. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > For my dick, the problem boils down to differences that exists between > different infinities. That's why 2 times an infinity is not 3 times the > same infinity. Dividing the former by the latter gives 2/3, not 1. > > My dick thinks that taking 0.9999... to be exactly 1 incurs a form of > Zeno's paradox. > > One cannot take the limit of a series and identify the series by that > limit itself. My dick is more inclined to look at the series as having > its own identity separate from its limit. This is the gist of the matter > as far as my dick is concerned. > > It could be a matter of preferences, who knows. > > > > In other words, my dick sees the number 1 as something separate from what it becomes when you break it into infinite number of various sized pieces, even if the sum of the pieces amounts to 1. One is 1, the other is a sum of infinite number of various sized pieces. How can they be "equal"? .. My dick has issue with that :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 21:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vssq82$qre6$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #892188 |
On 4/5/25 9:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 9:31 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/5/25 3:48 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>> On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> null >>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuum’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws — >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dogma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths >>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything at >>>>>>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifiable >>>>>>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous >>>>>>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and >>>>>>>>>>>>> ruliality >>>>>>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> repleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and >>>>>>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then >>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether >>>>>>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated >>>>>>>>>>>> in an >>>>>>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby >>>>>>>>>>>> problems in a >>>>>>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of >>>>>>>>>>>> them one >>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in >>>>>>>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved >>>>>>>>>>>> it of >>>>>>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling >>>>>>>>>>>> infinities. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense >>>>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living >>>>>>>>>>>> room! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found >>>>>>>>>>>> himself >>>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before >>>>>>>>>>>> he had >>>>>>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas >>>>>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a >>>>>>>>>>>> look >>>>>>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the >>>>>>>>>>>> computer to >>>>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest >>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but >>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure >>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit was >>>>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the >>>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was >>>>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that >>>>>>>>>>>> funky >>>>>>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a >>>>>>>>>>>> robot. >>>>>>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses >>>>>>>>>>>> Jesus had >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and >>>>>>>>>>>> started >>>>>>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... " >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen >>>>>>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or >>>>>>>>>>> "catastrophe" >>>>>>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure >>>>>>>>>>> problem, >>>>>>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the >>>>>>>>>>> exponential >>>>>>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods >>>>>>>>>>> about it, >>>>>>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform >>>>>>>>>>> random, >>>>>>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three laws >>>>>>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw >>>>>>>>>>> differential, >>>>>>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as >>>>>>>>>>> usually >>>>>>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or >>>>>>>>>>> divisor bar >>>>>>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed >>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet >>>>>>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>>>>>>> function" >>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual >>>>>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's >>>>>>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus >>>>>>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to >>>>>>>>>>> disambiguate it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the >>>>>>>>>>> super-classical >>>>>>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in >>>>>>>>>>> pre-calculus >>>>>>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no >>>>>>>>>> differece >>>>>>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different >>>>>>>>>> representations >>>>>>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is >>>>>>>>> bullshit :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is >>>>>>>>> indeed >>>>>>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>>>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>>>>>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not >>>>>>>>> speak for >>>>>>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>>>>>>> all. It >>>>>>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>>>>>>> physics >>>>>>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for >>>>>>>>> humans. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then >>>>>>>>> beg for >>>>>>>>> it :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>>>>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being >>>>>>>> Cauchy", >>>>>>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and >>>>>>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >>>>>>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>>>>>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>>>>>> geometry, >>>>>>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>>>>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >>>>>>>> of perfection". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>>>>>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>>>>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to >>>>>>>> demonstrate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>>>>>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this >>>>>>> thing. The >>>>>>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>>>>>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were >>>>>>> mere >>>>>>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial >>>>>>> parts of >>>>>>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>>>>>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real >>>>>>> programmer. I >>>>>>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. >>>>>>> Nobody >>>>>>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> were actually programmers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not >>>>>>> delved >>>>>>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what >>>>>>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to >>>>>>> review stuff >>>>>>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to >>>>>>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would you like to see the solution? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake >>>>> Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> X = 0.9999... >>>>> 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... >>>>> 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... >>>>> after subtraction of first equation from the last one: >>>>> 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... >>>>> 9X = 9(0.9999...) >>>>> X = 0.9999... >>>>> >>>>> Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating >>>>> that >>>>> test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a >>>>> "code >>>>> monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. >>>>> >>>>> But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether >>>>> Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is >>>>> really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". >>>> >>>> I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. >>>> One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting >>>> algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. >>>> >>>> >>>> Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. >>>> Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, >>>> the continuous manifold. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch >>>> and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen >>>> paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. >>>> >>>> >>>> The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, >>>> is a development and refinement of what results that >>>> there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, >>>> then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. >>>> >>>> So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that >>>> we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 >>>> >>>> >>>> "Long subtraction" >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Well, the code monkey seemed to be using the mathematics that >>> resulted 10 times 0.99... to be equal to 9.99... which is practiced >>> all over the world, and yet, is mathematically wrong. 0.99... is >>> never ever 1. In math that is, not in physics. >>> >>> The part of math that allowed them to be the same thing was not math, >>> but physics. A physics scheme. A funky trick just to go past some >>> hurdles. I thought that was Kosmanson's concern. But evidently not. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> For my dick, the problem boils down to differences that exists between >> different infinities. That's why 2 times an infinity is not 3 times >> the same infinity. Dividing the former by the latter gives 2/3, not 1. >> >> My dick thinks that taking 0.9999... to be exactly 1 incurs a form of >> Zeno's paradox. >> >> One cannot take the limit of a series and identify the series by that >> limit itself. My dick is more inclined to look at the series as having >> its own identity separate from its limit. This is the gist of the >> matter as far as my dick is concerned. >> >> It could be a matter of preferences, who knows. >> >> >> >> > > > In other words, my dick sees the number 1 as something separate from > what it becomes when you break it into infinite number of various sized > pieces, even if the sum of the pieces amounts to 1. One is 1, the other > is a sum of infinite number of various sized pieces. How can they be > "equal"? .. > > My dick has issue with that :) > > The number 1 is just one thing, while 0.9999... is, in Kosmanson's terminology, a continuum. Can the two be "equal" ?... My dick says no!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vsssgb$qu52$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #892189 |
On 4/5/25 9:51 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/5/25 9:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/5/25 9:31 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/5/25 3:48 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>> On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson submitted this idea : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> luminous truth: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fractures in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their null >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invitation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuum’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unyielding depth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errand; the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> echoing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws — >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dogma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ouroboros >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiss its eternal truth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ding-an-Sich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labyrinths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this! And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stamp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April 4, 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turkmenistan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kosmanson. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteer, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet, something, at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while >>>>>>>>>>>>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not-particles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifiable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feynman on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continua, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruliality >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impasse, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> repleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbness). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be quite more to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>> in an >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby >>>>>>>>>>>>> problems in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> blog >>>>>>>>>>>>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of >>>>>>>>>>>>> them one >>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes >>>>>>>>>>>>> in it, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody >>>>>>>>>>>>> solved it of >>>>>>>>>>>>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>>>>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinities. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (beginning of the quote) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense >>>>>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>>>>>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was >>>>>>>>>>>>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living >>>>>>>>>>>>> room! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found >>>>>>>>>>>>> himself >>>>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night >>>>>>>>>>>>> before he had >>>>>>>>>>>>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas >>>>>>>>>>>>> area. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 >>>>>>>>>>>>> hours has >>>>>>>>>>>>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took >>>>>>>>>>>>> a look >>>>>>>>>>>>> inside >>>>>>>>>>>>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had >>>>>>>>>>>>> cooked on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> computer to >>>>>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>>>>> something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest >>>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> healthy >>>>>>>>>>>>> nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" >>>>>>>>>>>>> button, >>>>>>>>>>>>> after which the computer waited for a few seconds but >>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure >>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit was >>>>>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>>>>> robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, otherwise food nommo. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The question went like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers >>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.999999... >>>>>>>>>>>>> and 1 ?" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix >>>>>>>>>>>>> point. So >>>>>>>>>>>>> of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there >>>>>>>>>>>>> was not a >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that funky >>>>>>>>>>>>> form, >>>>>>>>>>>>> using an infinite series of digit 9. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a >>>>>>>>>>>>> robot. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye!" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jesus had >>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and >>>>>>>>>>>>> started >>>>>>>>>>>>> jotting down: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> x = 0.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10x = 9.99999.... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now he subtracted the former from the latter: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which simplifies to: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 9x = 9 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And therefore: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> x = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... " >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (end of quote) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so >>>>>>>>>>>>> keen >>>>>>>>>>>>> about? :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Once I was reading a book or article, >>>>>>>>>>>> and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...), >>>>>>>>>>>> vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed >>>>>>>>>>>> their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot, >>>>>>>>>>>> was equal to, or less than, one. About half said >>>>>>>>>>>> same and about half said different. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's two different natural notations that happen >>>>>>>>>>>> to collide and thus result being ambiguous. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic >>>>>>>>>>>> introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten, >>>>>>>>>>>> about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities, >>>>>>>>>>>> and the order in numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, even the usual account of addition and its >>>>>>>>>>>> inverse and its recursion and that's inverse, >>>>>>>>>>>> as operators, of whole numbers, has a different >>>>>>>>>>>> account, of increment on the one side, and, division >>>>>>>>>>>> on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had >>>>>>>>>>>> division or fractions and Egyptian fractions, >>>>>>>>>>>> and tally marks are only increment, that though >>>>>>>>>>>> it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a >>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation >>>>>>>>>>>> of "numbering" and "counting". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>>>> to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's >>>>>>>>>>>> to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>>>> even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then, >>>>>>>>>>>> even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account, >>>>>>>>>>>> to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk >>>>>>>>>>>> away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet, >>>>>>>>>>>> it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own >>>>>>>>>>>> constructive account. So, it's a convention. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity >>>>>>>>>>>> theory", which results as of admitting only the principal >>>>>>>>>>>> branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or >>>>>>>>>>>> "catastrophe" >>>>>>>>>>>> or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics, >>>>>>>>>>>> branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory, >>>>>>>>>>>> yet the usual account has that it's just nothing, >>>>>>>>>>>> or that it's apeiron and asymptotic. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why >>>>>>>>>>>> that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the >>>>>>>>>>>> course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also >>>>>>>>>>>> rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results >>>>>>>>>>>> thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity >>>>>>>>>>>> of integers, the integral moduli. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively >>>>>>>>>>>> back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called >>>>>>>>>>>> "iota-values". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d, >>>>>>>>>>>> for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this >>>>>>>>>>>> is a limit of functions for this function which is not- >>>>>>>>>>>> a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that >>>>>>>>>>>> has real analytical character, it's a discrete function >>>>>>>>>>>> that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates >>>>>>>>>>>> a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure >>>>>>>>>>>> problem, >>>>>>>>>>>> it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the >>>>>>>>>>>> exponential >>>>>>>>>>>> function in functional analysis have their usual methods >>>>>>>>>>>> about it, >>>>>>>>>>>> it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform >>>>>>>>>>>> random, >>>>>>>>>>>> of which there are others, because there are at least three >>>>>>>>>>>> laws >>>>>>>>>>>> of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three >>>>>>>>>>>> models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability >>>>>>>>>>>> distributions of the naturals at uniform random. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw >>>>>>>>>>>> differential, >>>>>>>>>>>> which differential analysts will be very familiar with as >>>>>>>>>>>> usually >>>>>>>>>>>> not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar >>>>>>>>>>>> in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or >>>>>>>>>>>> divisor bar >>>>>>>>>>>> the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed >>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>> that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", >>>>>>>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>>>>>> only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency >>>>>>>>>>>> function" >>>>>>>>>>>> the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of >>>>>>>>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual >>>>>>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later >>>>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous >>>>>>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating >>>>>>>>>>>> terminus >>>>>>>>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic, >>>>>>>>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications >>>>>>>>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that >>>>>>>>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then >>>>>>>>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to >>>>>>>>>>>> disambiguate it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these, >>>>>>>>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only >>>>>>>>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the >>>>>>>>>>>> super-classical >>>>>>>>>>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical, >>>>>>>>>>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were >>>>>>>>>>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in >>>>>>>>>>>> pre-calculus >>>>>>>>>>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must >>>>>>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>>>>>> the geometric series. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of >>>>>>>>>>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no >>>>>>>>>>> differece >>>>>>>>>>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different >>>>>>>>>>> representations >>>>>>>>>>> of the same mathematical object. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you >>>>>>>>>> say is >>>>>>>>>> bullshit :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is >>>>>>>>>> indeed >>>>>>>>>> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for >>>>>>>>>> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct >>>>>>>>>> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not >>>>>>>>>> speak for >>>>>>>>>> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI >>>>>>>>>> all. It >>>>>>>>>> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help >>>>>>>>>> physics >>>>>>>>>> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for >>>>>>>>>> humans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then >>>>>>>>>> beg for >>>>>>>>>> it :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of >>>>>>>>> "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being >>>>>>>>> Cauchy", >>>>>>>>> then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's >>>>>>>>> acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated >>>>>>>>> with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of >>>>>>>>> geometry, >>>>>>>>> where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate >>>>>>>>> of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle >>>>>>>>> of perfection". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so >>>>>>>>> that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and >>>>>>>>> as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to >>>>>>>>> demonstrate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two wrongs is two wrongs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that >>>>>>>> concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this >>>>>>>> thing. The >>>>>>>> point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were >>>>>>>> actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were >>>>>>>> mere >>>>>>>> "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial >>>>>>>> parts of >>>>>>>> work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be >>>>>>>> programmers. This was the whole point of that blog. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real >>>>>>>> programmer. I >>>>>>>> understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby >>>>>>>> problems. Nobody >>>>>>>> else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> were actually programmers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not >>>>>>>> delved >>>>>>>> (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what >>>>>>>> you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to >>>>>>>> review stuff >>>>>>>> so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. >>>>>>>> Solution to >>>>>>>> that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would you like to see the solution? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You mean what's its model of atomicity? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake >>>>>> Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to >>>>>> usenet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> X = 0.9999... >>>>>> 10X = (9 +1)0.9999... >>>>>> 10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... >>>>>> after subtraction of first equation from the last one: >>>>>> 10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999... >>>>>> 9X = 9(0.9999...) >>>>>> X = 0.9999... >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company >>>>>> creating that >>>>>> test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a >>>>>> "code >>>>>> monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer. >>>>>> >>>>>> But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether >>>>>> Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is >>>>>> really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... ! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you should learn "Russian peasant arithmetic". >>>>> >>>>> I.e., perhaps he was using different arithmetic. >>>>> One shifts, the other rolls, then either expecting >>>>> algebraic cancellation to erase the difference. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or, perhaps you had no idea what you were/weren't doing. >>>>> Or, that there are many _replete_ ways that things are, >>>>> the continuous manifold. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please consult Kosmanson and request his latest dispatch >>>>> and further ask if he might carry on for a good ten or fifteen >>>>> paragraphs, or however much endurance so arrives. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The linear curriculum, the standard linear curriculum, >>>>> is a development and refinement of what results that >>>>> there are many, yet only so few: ways and ways, >>>>> then that greater reasoners naturally arrive at these. >>>>> >>>>> So, again, bring us more of Kosmanson's journals, that >>>>> we might engage in a critique and admire their brilliance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=21 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Long subtraction" >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, the code monkey seemed to be using the mathematics that >>>> resulted 10 times 0.99... to be equal to 9.99... which is practiced >>>> all over the world, and yet, is mathematically wrong. 0.99... is >>>> never ever 1. In math that is, not in physics. >>>> >>>> The part of math that allowed them to be the same thing was not >>>> math, but physics. A physics scheme. A funky trick just to go past >>>> some hurdles. I thought that was Kosmanson's concern. But evidently >>>> not. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> For my dick, the problem boils down to differences that exists >>> between different infinities. That's why 2 times an infinity is not 3 >>> times the same infinity. Dividing the former by the latter gives 2/3, >>> not 1. >>> >>> My dick thinks that taking 0.9999... to be exactly 1 incurs a form of >>> Zeno's paradox. >>> >>> One cannot take the limit of a series and identify the series by that >>> limit itself. My dick is more inclined to look at the series as >>> having its own identity separate from its limit. This is the gist of >>> the matter as far as my dick is concerned. >>> >>> It could be a matter of preferences, who knows. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> In other words, my dick sees the number 1 as something separate from >> what it becomes when you break it into infinite number of various >> sized pieces, even if the sum of the pieces amounts to 1. One is 1, >> the other is a sum of infinite number of various sized pieces. How can >> they be "equal"? .. >> >> My dick has issue with that :) >> >> > > > The number 1 is just one thing, while 0.9999... is, in Kosmanson's > terminology, a continuum. Can the two be "equal" ?... My dick says no! > > > If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces for 25000 employees, you're not giving anyone "cake". A cake is cake. A cake cut into 25000 pieces is shit. Something has to undergo change in going from the number 1 to an infinite number of different sized numbers added together. This is my dick's point. If in math there's no difference between the two, then someone must create a form of math to account for such differences. The equivalent situation in physics is handled by concept of entropy. Why not in math also?..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F20ACB.819@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #892190 |
Physfitfreak wrote: > If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces If you cut a cake into pieces it's just a pile of cakes. Since numbers don't exist... you just have a stack of cakes. Where is the number 25000? all i see is a pile of cakes. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vsua23$rktu$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #892191 |
On 4/6/25 12:02 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Physfitfreak wrote: > >> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > > > If you cut a cake into pieces > it's just a pile of cakes. > > Since numbers don't exist... > you just have a stack of cakes. > > Where is the number 25000? > > > all i see is a pile of cakes. > > > > > > > I'm not so sure the thing you see isn't Physfit's dick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F2B125.41E4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #892191 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Physfitfreak wrote: > > > If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > > If you cut a cake into pieces > it's just a pile of cakes. > > Since numbers don't exist... > you just have a stack of cakes. > > Where is the number 25000? > > all i see is a pile of cakes. > You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. a mirage. Ghost Numbers. The GhostBuster -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcecneAyRuXcJ2_6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #892194 |
On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Physfitfreak wrote: >> >>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces >> >> If you cut a cake into pieces >> it's just a pile of cakes. >> >> Since numbers don't exist... >> you just have a stack of cakes. >> >> Where is the number 25000? >> >> all i see is a pile of cakes. >> > > > You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. > > > 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. > > > a mirage. > > > Ghost Numbers. > > > The GhostBuster > > > > I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of the accommodation of continuity and infinity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F2EA6C.43AC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #892195 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >> Physfitfreak wrote: > >> > >>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > >> > >> If you cut a cake into pieces > >> it's just a pile of cakes. > >> > >> Since numbers don't exist... > >> you just have a stack of cakes. > >> > >> Where is the number 25000? > >> > >> all i see is a pile of cakes. > >> > > > > > > You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. > > > > > > 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. > > > > > > a mirage. > > > > > > Ghost Numbers. > > > > > > The GhostBuster > > > > > > > > > > I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean > phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical > maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the > noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher > (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort > of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of > the accommodation of continuity and infinity. I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have tthe ability to answer the question on your own...but Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VPacnWyPmt_zmG76nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #892200 |
On 04/06/2025 01:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >> On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>> Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces >>>> >>>> If you cut a cake into pieces >>>> it's just a pile of cakes. >>>> >>>> Since numbers don't exist... >>>> you just have a stack of cakes. >>>> >>>> Where is the number 25000? >>>> >>>> all i see is a pile of cakes. >>>> >>> >>> >>> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. >>> >>> >>> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. >>> >>> >>> a mirage. >>> >>> >>> Ghost Numbers. >>> >>> >>> The GhostBuster >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean >> phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical >> maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the >> noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher >> (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort >> of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of >> the accommodation of continuity and infinity. > > > I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have > tthe > ability to answer the question on your own...but > > Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? > > > No, it's always an even number, yet infinity might be even or odd, prime or composite, surrounded by primes, surrounded by composites, .... I suppose you might have meant 25000_odd, if you were intentionally not being simply honest, then there's about ways to write infinity variously or what make in the derivations, that besides infinity being the greatest number, it's all kinds of things that result about the rest of the numbers, or mostly usually 0, 1, infinity. That beyond the usual formalism and derivations about the unbounded, there's real reasoning about the real infinities the mathematical infinities, unavailable to the usual law of small numbers that's the usual law of large numbers, that there are plural law(s) of large numbers, actual infinities, with import to real measurable quantities by the physical interpretation of the resulting mathematical models, makes for that mathematics owes physics more and better mathematics of infinity, and that the premier sorts theories like field theory and QM with real wave collapse have a continuous manifold, beyond itty-bitty graph paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 17:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F31D7B.2713@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #892201 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 04/06/2025 01:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> > >> On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Physfitfreak wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > >>>> > >>>> If you cut a cake into pieces > >>>> it's just a pile of cakes. > >>>> > >>>> Since numbers don't exist... > >>>> you just have a stack of cakes. > >>>> > >>>> Where is the number 25000? > >>>> > >>>> all i see is a pile of cakes. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. > >>> > >>> > >>> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. > >>> > >>> > >>> a mirage. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ghost Numbers. > >>> > >>> > >>> The GhostBuster > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean > >> phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical > >> maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the > >> noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher > >> (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort > >> of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of > >> the accommodation of continuity and infinity. > > > > > > I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have > > tthe > > ability to answer the question on your own...but > > > > Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? > > > > > > > > No, it's always an even number, if you slice a cake 25 times... or 125 times it's still...odd! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <AIqdnX9qpNa8rW76nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #892204 |
On 04/06/2025 05:34 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >> On 04/06/2025 01:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>> On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces >>>>>> >>>>>> If you cut a cake into pieces >>>>>> it's just a pile of cakes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since numbers don't exist... >>>>>> you just have a stack of cakes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where is the number 25000? >>>>>> >>>>>> all i see is a pile of cakes. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> a mirage. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ghost Numbers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The GhostBuster >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean >>>> phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical >>>> maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the >>>> noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher >>>> (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort >>>> of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of >>>> the accommodation of continuity and infinity. >>> >>> >>> I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have >>> tthe >>> ability to answer the question on your own...but >>> >>> Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? >>> >>> >>> >> >> No, it's always an even number, > > > > if you slice a cake 25 times... > > or 125 times > > it's still...odd! > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_divided_line
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 17:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F32059.3859@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #892201 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 04/06/2025 01:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> > >> On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Physfitfreak wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > >>>> > >>>> If you cut a cake into pieces > >>>> it's just a pile of cakes. > >>>> > >>>> Since numbers don't exist... > >>>> you just have a stack of cakes. > >>>> > >>>> Where is the number 25000? > >>>> > >>>> all i see is a pile of cakes. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. > >>> > >>> > >>> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. > >>> > >>> > >>> a mirage. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ghost Numbers. > >>> > >>> > >>> The GhostBuster > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean > >> phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical > >> maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the > >> noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher > >> (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort > >> of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of > >> the accommodation of continuity and infinity. > > > > > > I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have > > tthe > > ability to answer the question on your own...but > > > > Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? > > > > > > > > No, it's always an even number, What do you mean "No, it's always an even number,"???? Do you really mean...always? ...the entire time?? ALWAYS???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F33CB1.690B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #892205 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > On 04/06/2025 01:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > >> > > >> On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Physfitfreak wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > > >>>> > > >>>> If you cut a cake into pieces > > >>>> it's just a pile of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Since numbers don't exist... > > >>>> you just have a stack of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Where is the number 25000? > > >>>> > > >>>> all i see is a pile of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> a mirage. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Ghost Numbers. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The GhostBuster > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean > > >> phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical > > >> maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the > > >> noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher > > >> (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort > > >> of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of > > >> the accommodation of continuity and infinity. > > > > > > > > > I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have > > > tthe > > > ability to answer the question on your own...but > > > > > > Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's always an even number, > > What do you mean "No, it's always an even number,"???? Do you really mean...always? ...the entire time?? ALWAYS???? > Ross it toooo busy doing Google searches! Ross the Finalgason -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-08 23:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67F61058.27D8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #892205 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > On 04/06/2025 01:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > >> > > >> On 04/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Physfitfreak wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> If you cut a cake into 25000 pieces > > >>>> > > >>>> If you cut a cake into pieces > > >>>> it's just a pile of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Since numbers don't exist... > > >>>> you just have a stack of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Where is the number 25000? > > >>>> > > >>>> all i see is a pile of cakes. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You have to enter ...The Pink Elephant Zone. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 25000 has to be a ...hallucination. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> a mirage. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Ghost Numbers. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The GhostBuster > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> I think it's because that's a sophist, shallow, Epicurean > > >> phenomenology, that doesn't have the mental and philosophical > > >> maturity and experience and learning to comprehend that the > > >> noumenological makes for an object-sense and other higher > > >> (or, lower) senses of reasoning to complement the base sort > > >> of materialistic cave with a more transcendental sort of > > >> the accommodation of continuity and infinity. > > > > > > > > > I know you will need to Google this questions because you don't have > > > tthe > > > ability to answer the question on your own...but > > > > > > Is 25000 an even number or an odd number? > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's always an even number, > > What do you mean "No, it's always an even number,"???? Do you really mean...always? ...the entire time?? ALWAYS???? Come on, everybody in the math department already knows that it is inaccurate, inccorrect and UNTRUE! It has NOT always been an even number...that is just more fiction. Just as Santa Claus doesn't live at the north pole because ...there is no Santa Claus, there are no even numbers because...there are no numbers. So, a couple of guys got together and asked is zero a odd number or even number... and said "Let's make it a even number!"...anybody disagrees, shoot them. It's like some kind of religion already... 13, is that a lucky number or an unlucky number???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web