Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.ai.philosophy > #18797 > unrolled thread
| Started by | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-08-08 12:15 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-09-11 17:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.ai.philosophy
Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-08-08 12:15 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-08-08 21:28 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Dhu on Gate <campbell@neotext.ca> - 2019-09-08 06:06 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2019-09-09 11:30 +0200
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-09 10:01 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-09-09 21:38 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-09 18:05 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-10 09:01 +0200
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-10 10:38 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-10 22:01 +0200
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ Infinitesimal numbers ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-10 20:12 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2019-09-11 15:31 +0800
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 12:04 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2019-09-12 10:20 +0800
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 23:51 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-12 01:22 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 18:32 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 20:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 20:59 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 22:16 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 11:14 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 21:00 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 21:39 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:48 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 13:09 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:24 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:33 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:26 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:36 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 10:06 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:22 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 10:38 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:59 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 11:10 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 13:27 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 12:34 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:19 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 13:35 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:51 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 14:15 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 16:18 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:00 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 15:29 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:14 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2019-09-16 23:34 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 14:25 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 16:21 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:01 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 15:46 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:07 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Me <invalid@invalid.de> - 2019-09-17 01:09 +0200
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 02:33 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:53 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:55 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 19:21 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:40 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 21:38 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 00:24 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:39 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:38 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:13 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:29 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:20 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 10:56 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 11:29 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:32 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 12:49 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 19:59 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:09 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:42 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 17:51 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 15:58 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Mike Terry Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:46 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:52 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:55 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-19 14:44 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:31 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:02 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:01 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 22:39 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:23 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-18 01:39 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 09:59 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 09:21 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:41 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-18 13:55 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 16:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ CONCURRENCE ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:10 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 09:05 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 10:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 10:02 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:18 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 23:24 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 10:01 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:13 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:56 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:40 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 11:03 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 12:48 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 12:25 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 22:35 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:28 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 11:34 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy Goofed) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 18:00 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 09:42 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:13 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:36 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:38 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:21 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:55 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 00:55 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:26 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:19 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 21:23 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:31 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 22:04 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 23:21 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 22:40 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 00:27 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 23:55 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 00:59 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 00:12 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:15 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 09:35 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:00 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 10:14 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:26 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 10:42 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 13:10 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 12:36 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 13:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 12:59 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 14:12 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 13:30 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 14:45 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 14:14 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 15:29 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 14:38 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 15:56 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 20:38 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 22:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 21:33 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:35 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 12:43 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 23:32 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 23:21 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:13 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 19:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 09:45 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 15:22 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-27 07:24 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-12 22:07 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 18:53 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-12 17:47 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-13 08:14 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 09:35 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-09-13 15:55 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 13:35 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-14 22:52 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 17:18 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-14 23:30 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 17:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2019-09-14 18:12 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-15 08:09 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 09:50 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-16 17:13 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-16 17:30 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 12:08 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-16 18:15 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 13:35 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-16 20:02 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:48 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-16 22:26 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:11 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:12 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:11 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:48 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-17 21:10 +0200
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ Keith and Mike basis for Infinitesimal numbers ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:30 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ Keith and Mike basis for Infinitesimal numbers ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:33 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ Keith and Mike basis for Infinitesimal numbers ] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 13:28 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ Keith and Mike basis for Infinitesimal numbers ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 15:31 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ Keith and Mike basis for Infinitesimal numbers ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 22:16 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ Keith and Mike basis for Infinitesimal numbers ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 16:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:05 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:45 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-17 18:14 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 12:36 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 19:45 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-17 20:09 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:14 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:59 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:10 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:48 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 12:01 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-18 07:35 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:02 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-18 22:25 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 16:41 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-18 22:56 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 16:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-19 17:54 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 13:26 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-20 08:06 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 16:07 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 15:04 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:32 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-20 08:10 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 13:33 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 16:05 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 15:48 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 18:00 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-20 08:52 +0200
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-20 00:10 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-20 10:11 +0200
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-20 08:25 +0000
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 09:54 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:15 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 15:09 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 12:45 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 12:34 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ COMPLETE-2 ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 14:58 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ COMPLETE-2 ] Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 15:57 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ COMPLETE-2 ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 18:10 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ COMPLETE-2 ] Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-20 13:18 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Louis Valence <lvalence@example.com> - 2019-09-09 17:43 -0300
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-19 12:28 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 15:04 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-09 09:57 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-09 13:30 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness temakoutera62@gmail.com - 2019-09-11 17:31 -0700
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 18:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oNudndY5IKcOR-fAnZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19135 |
On 9/12/2019 5:07 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number >> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric >> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in >> the interval: (3,4] > > That would be "the smallest real number larger than 3". Which does not > exist. > > Infinitesimals (no matter how you want to define them) are not going > to help you. That number still does not exist, even if you add > infinitesimals to your number system. It doesn't matter how you try > to twist it, it's not going to work. You are not going to make that > number exist. Not with infinitesimals, not with anything. > There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. Every point on the number line represents some number therefore the first point X in the above interval represents a number, it might not be a real number, or any other conventional named type of number. X is a number on the number line. > The set of real numbers is genuinely larger than the set of natural > numbers because there is no bijection between the two sets. (This > is in contrast with, for example, the set of rational numbers, or > the set of algebraic numbers, which are equally large as the set of > natural numbers because there is a bijection between them.) > -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 17:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lno8zpaupi.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #19138 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
[SNIP]
Pete, will you please consider *not* posting this to comp.lang.c++
and other newsgroups where it's off-topic? You've already taken
over comp.theory, and anyone who's interested can follow you there.
(I've cross-posted and redirected followups to comp.theory.)
Note to other readers: This is my first *and last* attempt to ask
Pete not to post to off-topic newsgroups.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 08:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qlfj5b$pbl$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #19138 |
In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: > There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. > There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist. Learn some number theory, will you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 09:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zf2dnakes7ajNObAnZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19147 |
On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. >> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. > > No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist. > > Learn some number theory, will you? > APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment Interval and segment An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed points and , where and themselves are considered not to belong to the interval. THERE IS A FIRST POINT OF THE ABOVE INTERVAL. THERE MAY NOT BE ANY CONVENTIONALLY NAMED NUMBER TYPE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS POINT. The fact that [0.0, 1.0) is exactly one geometric point shorter than [0.0, 1.0] proves that infinitesimal numbers do exist. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 15:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <H5OeF.31287$sA1.14990@fx28.fr7> |
| In reply to | #19149 |
On 13/09/2019 15:35, peteolcott wrote: > The fact that [0.0, 1.0) is exactly one geometric point shorter > than [0.0, 1.0] proves that infinitesimal numbers do exist. Nonsense, there is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" ergo there is no "smallest" number ergo "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense concept. /Flibble -- “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 13:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <vfCdnbetkMp1r-DAnZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19150 |
On 9/13/2019 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 13/09/2019 15:35, peteolcott wrote: >> The fact that [0.0, 1.0) is exactly one geometric point shorter >> than [0.0, 1.0] proves that infinitesimal numbers do exist. > > Nonsense, there is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" ergo there is no "smallest" number ergo "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense concept. > > /Flibble > This is merely naysaying without any actual rebuttal. If there is is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" then specify a number that is half the size of the difference in length of the above two sequences of points. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 22:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <5idfF.68572$S25.38174@fx29.fr7> |
| In reply to | #19168 |
On 14/09/2019 19:35, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/13/2019 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 13/09/2019 15:35, peteolcott wrote: >>> The fact that [0.0, 1.0) is exactly one geometric point shorter >>> than [0.0, 1.0] proves that infinitesimal numbers do exist. >> >> Nonsense, there is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal >> number" ergo there is no "smallest" number ergo "infinitesimal number" >> is a nonsense concept. >> >> /Flibble >> > > This is merely naysaying without any actual rebuttal. > > If there is is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" > then specify a number that is half the size of the difference in length > of the above two sequences of points. There is always a number which is half the size of the previous number so my assertion stands: "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense concept. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 17:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <D86dnV0EW8PR-uDAnZ2dnUU7-InNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19172 |
On 9/14/2019 4:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 14/09/2019 19:35, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/13/2019 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 13/09/2019 15:35, peteolcott wrote: >>>> The fact that [0.0, 1.0) is exactly one geometric point shorter >>>> than [0.0, 1.0] proves that infinitesimal numbers do exist. >>> >>> Nonsense, there is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" ergo there is no "smallest" number ergo "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense concept. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> This is merely naysaying without any actual rebuttal. >> >> If there is is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" >> then specify a number that is half the size of the difference in length >> of the above two sequences of points. > > There is always a number which is half the size of the previous number so my assertion stands: "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense concept. > > /Flibble > > You reasoning goes like this: There has never been an X, therefore there never will be an X. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 23:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <VRdfF.182430$845.169982@fx19.fr7> |
| In reply to | #19173 |
On 14/09/2019 23:18, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/14/2019 4:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 14/09/2019 19:35, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/13/2019 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On 13/09/2019 15:35, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> The fact that [0.0, 1.0) is exactly one geometric point shorter >>>>> than [0.0, 1.0] proves that infinitesimal numbers do exist. >>>> >>>> Nonsense, there is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal >>>> number" ergo there is no "smallest" number ergo "infinitesimal number" >>>> is a nonsense concept. >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>>> >>> >>> This is merely naysaying without any actual rebuttal. >>> >>> If there is is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" >>> then specify a number that is half the size of the difference in length >>> of the above two sequences of points. >> >> There is always a number which is half the size of the previous number >> so my assertion stands: "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense concept. >> >> /Flibble >> >> > You reasoning goes like this: > There has never been an X, therefore there never will be an X. Eh? I think you need to take your meds m8. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 17:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <sNGdnexESPkm8eDAnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19174 |
On 9/14/2019 5:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 14/09/2019 23:18, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/14/2019 4:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 14/09/2019 19:35, peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2019 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On 13/09/2019 15:35, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>> The fact that [0.0, 1.0) is exactly one geometric point shorter >>>>>> than [0.0, 1.0] proves that infinitesimal numbers do exist. >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense, there is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" ergo there is no "smallest" number ergo "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense concept. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is merely naysaying without any actual rebuttal. >>>> >>>> If there is is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" >>>> then specify a number that is half the size of the difference in length >>>> of the above two sequences of points. >>> >>> There is always a number which is half the size of the previous number so my assertion stands: "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense concept. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >>> >> You reasoning goes like this: >> There has never been an X, therefore there never will be an X. > > Eh? I think you need to take your meds m8. > > /Flibble > Resorting to ad hominem as you did is evidence that I am correct because people resort to ad hominem when then run out of reasoning. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 18:12 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness--- [ Cantor was wrong about cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <qljvlb$8m1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #19175 |
peteolcott wrote on 9/14/2019 4:42 PM: > On 9/14/2019 5:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 14/09/2019 23:18, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/14/2019 4:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On 14/09/2019 19:35, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/13/2019 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On 13/09/2019 15:35, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>> The fact that [0.0, 1.0) is exactly one geometric point shorter >>>>>>> than [0.0, 1.0] proves that infinitesimal numbers do exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense, there is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal >>>>>> number" ergo there is no "smallest" number ergo "infinitesimal >>>>>> number" is a nonsense concept. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is merely naysaying without any actual rebuttal. >>>>> >>>>> If there is is always a number smaller than an "infinitesimal number" >>>>> then specify a number that is half the size of the difference in >>>>> length >>>>> of the above two sequences of points. >>>> >>>> There is always a number which is half the size of the previous >>>> number so my assertion stands: "infinitesimal number" is a nonsense >>>> concept. >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>>> >>>> >>> You reasoning goes like this: >>> There has never been an X, therefore there never will be an X. >> >> Eh? I think you need to take your meds m8. >> >> /Flibble >> > > Resorting to ad hominem as you did is evidence that I am correct > because people resort to ad hominem when then run out of reasoning. Me thinks that a conjecture about you being off your meds is justified by the complete, total non sequitur of your response. Try lithium and, as suggested elsewhere, get your hand out of your pants when responding. The response you criticized was not ad hominem, it was a concern for your well being since you seem more and more nuts. Just say thank you. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 08:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qlkrir$1iva$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #19149 |
In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: > On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. >>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. >> >> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist. >> >> Learn some number theory, will you? >> > > APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! > > https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not say what you are saying? It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3" to start to exist. In fact, even if you limit yourself to rational numbers, it still doesn't exist. There is no "smallest rational number larger than 3". Infinitesimals, no matter how you define them, do not help here. Such a number still doesn't exist, even if you include infinitesimals into your number system. Removing one number from an interval of real (or even rational) numbers doesn't make that number exist. You can remove an infinite amount of numbers from that interval, and it still doesn't make such a number to exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 09:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <cpudnYw2punWPOLAnZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19182 |
On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote:
>>>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0].
>>>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X.
>>>
>>> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Learn some number theory, will you?
>>>
>>
>> APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!
>>
>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment
>
> You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not
> say what you are saying?
>
> It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you
> shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3"
> to start to exist.
>
The length of this interval is exactly 3.0
(0.0, 3.0]
The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point.
The length of this interval is exactly one geometric point longer than 3.0
[0.0, 3.0]
If we limit the specified points in the intervals to integers then:
(0.0, 3.0] specifies: {1,2,3}
[0.0, 3.0] specifies: {0,1,2,3}
Proving that the above intervals are not the same length.
> In fact, even if you limit yourself to rational numbers, it still
> doesn't exist. There is no "smallest rational number larger than 3".
>
> Infinitesimals, no matter how you define them, do not help here.
> Such a number still doesn't exist, even if you include infinitesimals
> into your number system.
>
> Removing one number from an interval of real (or even rational) numbers
> doesn't make that number exist. You can remove an infinite amount of
> numbers from that interval, and it still doesn't make such a number
> to exist.
>
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 17:13 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <gwOfF.26663$5O5.23471@fx06.fr7> |
| In reply to | #19186 |
On 16/09/2019 15:50, peteolcott wrote:
> On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote:
>>>>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0].
>>>>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X.
>>>>
>>>> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Learn some number theory, will you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!
>>>
>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment
>>
>> You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not
>> say what you are saying?
>>
>> It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you
>> shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3"
>> to start to exist.
>>
>
> The length of this interval is exactly 3.0
> (0.0, 3.0]
> The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point.
There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible for
such a number to exist.
>
> The length of this interval is exactly one geometric point longer than 3.0
> [0.0, 3.0]
Nonsense. 3.0 - 0.0 = 3.0
>
> If we limit the specified points in the intervals to integers then:
> (0.0, 3.0] specifies: {1,2,3}
> [0.0, 3.0] specifies: {0,1,2,3}
> Proving that the above intervals are not the same length.
More nonsense, length and set cardinality are two different things.
It really would be a good idea for you to take your meds, m8.
/Flibble
--
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin
“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais
“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 11:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <rKOdne8VuaWmKuLAnZ2dnUU7-c2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19197 |
On 9/16/2019 11:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 16/09/2019 15:50, peteolcott wrote:
>> On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote:
>>>>>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0].
>>>>>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Learn some number theory, will you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment
>>>
>>> You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not
>>> say what you are saying?
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you
>>> shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3"
>>> to start to exist.
>>>
>>
>> The length of this interval is exactly 3.0
>> (0.0, 3.0]
>> The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point.
>
> There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible for such a number to exist.
>
https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment
An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed
points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to the interval.
Since [0, 100) clearly specifies every point on the number line between
0 and 100 except 100 it is specifying the point immediately before 100
as the last point of this interval with no points in-between this point
and 100. THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS.
This contradicts the definition of real numbers that specifies there
is always a real number between every pair of real numbers.
>>
>> The length of this interval is exactly one geometric point longer than 3.0
>> [0.0, 3.0]
>
> Nonsense. 3.0 - 0.0 = 3.0
>
>>
>> If we limit the specified points in the intervals to integers then:
>> (0.0, 3.0] specifies: {1,2,3}
>> [0.0, 3.0] specifies: {0,1,2,3}
>> Proving that the above intervals are not the same length.
>
> More nonsense, length and set cardinality are two different things.
>
> It really would be a good idea for you to take your meds, m8.
>
> /Flibble
>
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 17:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <aMOfF.21407$6w4.4489@fx25.fr7> |
| In reply to | #19199 |
On 16/09/2019 17:24, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/16/2019 11:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 16/09/2019 15:50, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>> On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. >>>>>>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Learn some number theory, will you? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! >>>>> >>>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>>> >>>> You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not >>>> say what you are saying? >>>> >>>> It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you >>>> shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3" >>>> to start to exist. >>>> >>> >>> The length of this interval is exactly 3.0 >>> (0.0, 3.0] >>> The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. >> >> There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible for >> such a number to exist. >> > > > https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment > An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two > fixed > points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to > the interval. > > Since [0, 100) clearly specifies every point on the number line between > 0 and 100 except 100 it is specifying the point immediately before 100 > as the last point of this interval with no points in-between this point > and 100. THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. > > This contradicts the definition of real numbers that specifies there > is always a real number between every pair of real numbers. Points have a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 12:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <qaSdncX8uaD2XOLAnZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19200 |
On 9/16/2019 11:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 16/09/2019 17:24, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/16/2019 11:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 16/09/2019 15:50, peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>> On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>>>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. >>>>>>>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Learn some number theory, will you? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>>>> >>>>> You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not >>>>> say what you are saying? >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you >>>>> shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3" >>>>> to start to exist. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The length of this interval is exactly 3.0 >>>> (0.0, 3.0] >>>> The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. >>> >>> There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible for such a number to exist. >>> >> >> >> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed >> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to the interval. >> >> Since [0, 100) clearly specifies every point on the number line between >> 0 and 100 except 100 it is specifying the point immediately before 100 >> as the last point of this interval with no points in-between this point >> and 100. THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. >> >> This contradicts the definition of real numbers that specifies there >> is always a real number between every pair of real numbers. > > Points have a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds. > > /Flibble > The relation between real numbers and points on a number line is defined inconsistently. >> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed >> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to the interval. The above stipulates all of the points between A and B besides A and B thus the first point AFTER A (with no points in-between) and the first point BEFORE B (with no points in-between) ARE SPECIFIED in this interval. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 18:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <rqPfF.31295$sA1.27909@fx28.fr7> |
| In reply to | #19203 |
On 16/09/2019 18:08, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/16/2019 11:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 16/09/2019 17:24, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/16/2019 11:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On 16/09/2019 15:50, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>>>>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. >>>>>>>>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Learn some number theory, will you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>>>>> >>>>>> You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not >>>>>> say what you are saying? >>>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you >>>>>> shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3" >>>>>> to start to exist. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The length of this interval is exactly 3.0 >>>>> (0.0, 3.0] >>>>> The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. >>>> >>>> There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible >>>> for such a number to exist. >>>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between >>> two fixed >>> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong >>> to the interval. >>> >>> Since [0, 100) clearly specifies every point on the number line between >>> 0 and 100 except 100 it is specifying the point immediately before 100 >>> as the last point of this interval with no points in-between this point >>> and 100. THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. >>> >>> This contradicts the definition of real numbers that specifies there >>> is always a real number between every pair of real numbers. >> >> Points have a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds. >> >> /Flibble >> > > The relation between real numbers and points on a number line is defined > inconsistently. > > >> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between > two fixed > >> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong > to the interval. > > The above stipulates all of the points between A and B besides A and B thus > the first point AFTER A (with no points in-between) and the first point > BEFORE B (with no points in-between) ARE SPECIFIED in this interval. That definition is entirely consistent with points having a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds so you can spare us any more demented posts. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 13:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <E7KdnWEIOuSUS-LAnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #19205 |
On 9/16/2019 12:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 16/09/2019 18:08, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/16/2019 11:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 16/09/2019 17:24, peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/16/2019 11:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On 16/09/2019 15:50, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>> On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. >>>>>>>>>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Learn some number theory, will you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not >>>>>>> say what you are saying? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you >>>>>>> shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3" >>>>>>> to start to exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The length of this interval is exactly 3.0 >>>>>> (0.0, 3.0] >>>>>> The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. >>>>> >>>>> There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible for such a number to exist. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>>> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed >>>> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to the interval. >>>> >>>> Since [0, 100) clearly specifies every point on the number line between >>>> 0 and 100 except 100 it is specifying the point immediately before 100 >>>> as the last point of this interval with no points in-between this point >>>> and 100. THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. >>>> >>>> This contradicts the definition of real numbers that specifies there >>>> is always a real number between every pair of real numbers. >>> >>> Points have a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> The relation between real numbers and points on a number line is defined inconsistently. >> >> >> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed >> >> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to the interval. >> >> The above stipulates all of the points between A and B besides A and B thus >> the first point AFTER A (with no points in-between) and the first point >> BEFORE B (with no points in-between) ARE SPECIFIED in this interval. > > That definition is entirely consistent with points having a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds so you can spare us any more demented posts. > > /Flibble > (A) An open interval specifies its first point as immediately after a specified point with no points in-between. (B) The definition of real numbers says there are always points in-between. (A) contradicts (B). -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 20:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] |
| Message-ID | <P_QfF.126886$3s7.5819@fx01.fr7> |
| In reply to | #19208 |
On 16/09/2019 19:35, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/16/2019 12:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 16/09/2019 18:08, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/16/2019 11:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On 16/09/2019 17:24, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/16/2019 11:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On 16/09/2019 15:50, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/13/2019 3:14 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.lang.c++ peteolcott <Here@home> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> There is a contiguous set of points between (3.0, 4.0]. >>>>>>>>>>> There is a first point in that interval, let's call it X. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, there isn't. Such a point doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Learn some number theory, will you? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> APPARENTLY I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are right and I'm wrong, even though that website does not >>>>>>>> say what you are saying? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you >>>>>>>> shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3" >>>>>>>> to start to exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The length of this interval is exactly 3.0 >>>>>>> (0.0, 3.0] >>>>>>> The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. >>>>>> >>>>>> There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible >>>>>> for such a number to exist. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>>>> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying >>>>> between two fixed >>>>> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong >>>>> to the interval. >>>>> >>>>> Since [0, 100) clearly specifies every point on the number line between >>>>> 0 and 100 except 100 it is specifying the point immediately before 100 >>>>> as the last point of this interval with no points in-between this point >>>>> and 100. THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. >>>>> >>>>> This contradicts the definition of real numbers that specifies there >>>>> is always a real number between every pair of real numbers. >>>> >>>> Points have a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds. >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>>> >>> >>> The relation between real numbers and points on a number line is >>> defined inconsistently. >>> >>> >> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying >>> between two fixed >>> >> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to >>> belong to the interval. >>> >>> The above stipulates all of the points between A and B besides A and B >>> thus >>> the first point AFTER A (with no points in-between) and the first point >>> BEFORE B (with no points in-between) ARE SPECIFIED in this interval. >> >> That definition is entirely consistent with points having a "width" of >> zero, dear. Please take your meds so you can spare us any more demented >> posts. >> >> /Flibble >> > > (A) An open interval specifies its first point as immediately after a > specified point with no points in-between. > > (B) The definition of real numbers says there are always points in-between. > > (A) contradicts (B). (A) is erroneous, you made "immediately after" and "no points in-between" up based on nothing but your demented thoughts and reasoning. Take your meds. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.ai.philosophy
csiph-web