Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #210463 > unrolled thread
| Started by | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-09-11 23:15 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 322 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-11 18:37 +0100
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) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 01:15 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 19:30 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) temakoutera62@gmail.com - 2019-09-11 17:32 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 01:38 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 01:49 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) George Greene <greeneg@email.unc.edu> - 2019-09-14 18:22 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:32 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:19 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 03:29 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:41 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 04:19 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 22:46 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 13:02 +0100
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) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 00:21 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 02:10 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:41 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 03:34 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 22:43 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 23:12 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 09:27 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 14:26 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:53 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 03:55 +0100
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) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 20:25 +0100
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) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 16:35 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:35 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 16:46 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 17:58 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 12:43 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 19:34 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 19:42 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:16 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:12 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 16:39 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:05 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 20:41 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 05:15 +0100
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) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 18:42 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 12:58 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 19:05 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-19 01:42 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 20:46 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 02:52 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-19 22:24 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:13 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 01:05 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 19:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 02:34 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 20:54 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 03:32 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-20 14:16 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-20 17:49 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-20 07:16 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 21:37 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-20 15:53 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-21 00:10 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 09:45 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-21 17:20 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-21 14:39 -0400
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-22 13:32 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-23 19:50 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-24 02:27 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-24 15:22 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 15:22 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:02 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 09:10 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 09:06 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:54 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 12:06 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 01:42 +0100
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) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 02:50 +0100
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) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 04:07 +0100
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) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 04:20 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 22:22 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 16:33 +0100
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) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-13 02:00 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 16:38 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:48 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 17:54 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 00:51 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-14 17:23 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 13:09 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 19:28 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 19:33 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 14:27 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 20:30 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 14:41 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-14 13:02 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 14:08 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 21:18 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 14:25 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:03 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:19 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 15:45 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 21:55 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:06 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:20 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 00:54 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-14 14:07 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 21:14 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:01 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:17 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 00:47 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:24 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:20 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 02:43 +0100
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? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 04:09 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 22:40 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:40 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 12:05 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 12:33 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:50 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:55 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 20:28 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:02 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:16 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:21 +0100
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). Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 17:55 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:36 +0100
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) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 17:31 +0100
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 --- (Correction) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 20:33 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 20:29 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 17:55 +0100
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 --- Reals are defined inconsistently Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 04:36 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:27 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Mike Terry Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:46 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Mike Terry Concurrence ] Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 18:00 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:23 +0100
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 ] Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 18:09 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 18:22 +0100
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 --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-20 14:11 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 19:47 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 18:16 +0100
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 --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 18:08 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 01:49 +0100
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? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 03:25 +0100
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? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 14:26 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:55 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-17 18:59 +0200
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 04:01 +0100
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? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 05:19 +0100
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 --- APOLOGY clear yet? Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 23:09 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 23:02 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ CONCURRENCE ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:10 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:39 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 12:15 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 10:37 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 16:56 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:27 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 16:43 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:51 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 18:12 +0100
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) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:54 +0100
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 Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 18:05 +0100
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 Goofed) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:04 +0100
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 (Andy really did Goof) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:15 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 01:26 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:32 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:36 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:26 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 02:54 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:38 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 04:14 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 22:45 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 12:53 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:21 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:27 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 00:35 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 11:53 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:22 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 17:04 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:10 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 23:16 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 10:09 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:41 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:36 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 11:14 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 13:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 19:08 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 12:34 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:38 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:49 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:00 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 16:45 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 16:57 +0100
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 Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-14 02:30 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 00:53 -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) BEN LIED !!! peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:33 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-14 17:14 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) George Greene <greeneg@email.unc.edu> - 2019-09-14 18:24 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:25 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 11:50 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) George Greene <greeneg@email.unc.edu> - 2019-09-11 20:55 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 23:15 -0500
Page 16 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 Next page →
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 09:41 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlgdat$2gc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210609 |
On 2019-09-13 9:09 a.m., peteolcott wrote: > On 9/13/2019 12:16 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2019-09-12 11:10 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of >>>>>> (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>>> >>>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>>>> >>>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be >>>>> disallowed too >>>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>>> >>>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I >>>> specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't >>>> "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >>>> >>> >>> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 >>> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. >> >> So are you claiming that this indivisible point is equal to zero? > > NOT AT ALL. Where the Hell did you get the idea that infinitesimal = 0.0 ? Because you claimed that dividing by an infinitesimal would be analogous to dividing by zero. If your infinitesimal isn't equal to zero, then why would dividing by it be analogous to dividing by zero? >> If so, then [3.0, 4.0) and (3.0. 4.0) will have the *exact* same >> length. If your indivisible point is not equal to zero, then you >> should be able to tell us exactly how many of these indivisible points >> are present in each of the above intervals. So if you're going to ignore the above, let's try asking it in a different way. You claim numbers have a 'real' part and an 'infinitesimal part' where you express the infinitesimal part in brackets. So 1.0[1] is just slightly larger than 1.0. So consider the equation 1.0[x] = 2.0[0] Solve for x. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 11:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <AIednTs-eekPWObAnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210612 |
On 9/13/2019 10:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2019-09-13 9:09 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/13/2019 12:16 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2019-09-12 11:10 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>>>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be disallowed too >>>>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>>>> >>>>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 >>>> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. >>> >>> So are you claiming that this indivisible point is equal to zero? >> >> NOT AT ALL. Where the Hell did you get the idea that infinitesimal = 0.0 ? > > Because you claimed that dividing by an infinitesimal would be analogous to dividing by zero. If your infinitesimal isn't equal to zero, then why would dividing by it be analogous to dividing by zero? > If you identify an single geometric point on a number line you already know that it is indivisible. > >>> If so, then [3.0, 4.0) and (3.0. 4.0) will have the *exact* same length. If your indivisible point is not equal to zero, then you should be able to tell us exactly how many of these indivisible points are present in each of the above intervals. > > So if you're going to ignore the above, let's try asking it in a different way. You claim numbers have a 'real' part and an 'infinitesimal part' where you express the infinitesimal part in brackets. So 1.0[1] is just slightly larger than 1.0. So consider > the equation > > 1.0[x] = 2.0[0] > > Solve for x. > > André > > There is a bijection between all of the geometric points on a number line and all of the numbers on a numbers line. There is no bijection between all of the numbers on a number line and the real numbers on a number line. Your RHS is a real and the LHS is an infinitesimal there is no bijection for this. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 11:14 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlgiqc$39b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210624 |
On 2019-09-13 10:36 a.m., peteolcott wrote: > On 9/13/2019 10:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2019-09-13 9:09 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/13/2019 12:16 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2019-09-12 11:10 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>>>>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length >>>>>>>> of (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>>>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be >>>>>>> disallowed too >>>>>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I >>>>>> specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't >>>>>> "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 >>>>> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. >>>> >>>> So are you claiming that this indivisible point is equal to zero? >>> >>> NOT AT ALL. Where the Hell did you get the idea that infinitesimal = >>> 0.0 ? >> >> Because you claimed that dividing by an infinitesimal would be >> analogous to dividing by zero. If your infinitesimal isn't equal to >> zero, then why would dividing by it be analogous to dividing by zero? >> > > If you identify an single geometric point on a number line you > already know that it is indivisible. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. 4.0 would be a single geometric point on a number line and it is divisible. 10.0 would be a different single point on a number line and it is divisible. >> >>>> If so, then [3.0, 4.0) and (3.0. 4.0) will have the *exact* same >>>> length. If your indivisible point is not equal to zero, then you >>>> should be able to tell us exactly how many of these indivisible >>>> points are present in each of the above intervals. >> >> So if you're going to ignore the above, let's try asking it in a >> different way. You claim numbers have a 'real' part and an >> 'infinitesimal part' where you express the infinitesimal part in >> brackets. So 1.0[1] is just slightly larger than 1.0. So consider the >> equation >> >> 1.0[x] = 2.0[0] >> >> Solve for x. >> >> André >> >> > > There is a bijection between all of the geometric points on a number > line and all of the numbers on a numbers line. What is the bijection? If you can actually express a bijection between your infinitesimals and the numbers on the number line you should be able to eliminate the real part from your theory altogether and just talk about the infinitesimal portion. So how does that work? André > There is no bijection between all of the numbers on a number line and > the real numbers on a number line. > Your RHS is a real and the LHS is an infinitesimal there is no bijection > for this. > > > -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 13:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <vtKdnbPQKNNLRObAnZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210634 |
On 9/13/2019 12:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2019-09-13 10:36 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/13/2019 10:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2019-09-13 9:09 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2019 12:16 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2019-09-12 11:10 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>>>> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>>>>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be disallowed too >>>>>>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 >>>>>> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. >>>>> >>>>> So are you claiming that this indivisible point is equal to zero? >>>> >>>> NOT AT ALL. Where the Hell did you get the idea that infinitesimal = 0.0 ? >>> >>> Because you claimed that dividing by an infinitesimal would be analogous to dividing by zero. If your infinitesimal isn't equal to zero, then why would dividing by it be analogous to dividing by zero? >>> >> >> If you identify an single geometric point on a number line you >> already know that it is indivisible. > > I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. 4.0 would be a single geometric point on a number line and it is divisible. 10.0 would be a different single point on a number line and it is divisible. > >>> >>>>> If so, then [3.0, 4.0) and (3.0. 4.0) will have the *exact* same length. If your indivisible point is not equal to zero, then you should be able to tell us exactly how many of these indivisible points are present in each of the above intervals. >>> >>> So if you're going to ignore the above, let's try asking it in a different way. You claim numbers have a 'real' part and an 'infinitesimal part' where you express the infinitesimal part in brackets. So 1.0[1] is just slightly larger than 1.0. So >>> consider the equation >>> >>> 1.0[x] = 2.0[0] >>> >>> Solve for x. >>> >>> André >>> >>> >> >> There is a bijection between all of the geometric points on a number line and all of the numbers on a numbers line. > > What is the bijection? > > If you can actually express a bijection between your infinitesimals and the numbers on the number line you should be able to eliminate the real part from your theory altogether and just talk about the infinitesimal portion. > > So how does that work? > > André > Because infinity is a process rather than a number it does not work that way. It is obvious that all of the points on a number line correspond to all of the numbers and that all of the numbers correspond to all of the points, in this sense there is a bijection between numbers and points exists. Since infinitesimal numbers can be proven to exist on the basis of the difference in length of these two intervals: (0.0, 1.0] - (0.0. 1.0) creating a notational convention to uniquely identify infinitesimal numbers is logically justified. (0.0, ∞] specifies all of the points corresponding to all of the positive numbers. >> There is no bijection between all of the numbers on a number line and the real numbers on a number line. >> Your RHS is a real and the LHS is an infinitesimal there is no bijection for this. >> >> >> > > -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 19:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlglvp$8n1$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210636 |
On 13/09/2019 19:03, peteolcott wrote: > > (0.0, ∞] specifies all of the points corresponding to all of the > positive numbers. No it doesn't. That would be (0.0, ∞).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 12:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlgnfa$uvd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210636 |
On 2019-09-13 12:03 p.m., peteolcott wrote: > On 9/13/2019 12:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2019-09-13 10:36 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/13/2019 10:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2019-09-13 9:09 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/13/2019 12:16 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2019-09-12 11:10 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the >>>>>>>>>> length of (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>>>>>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about >>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be >>>>>>>>> disallowed too >>>>>>>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I >>>>>>>> specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't >>>>>>>> "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of >>>>>>>> division? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 >>>>>>> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. >>>>>> >>>>>> So are you claiming that this indivisible point is equal to zero? >>>>> >>>>> NOT AT ALL. Where the Hell did you get the idea that infinitesimal >>>>> = 0.0 ? >>>> >>>> Because you claimed that dividing by an infinitesimal would be >>>> analogous to dividing by zero. If your infinitesimal isn't equal to >>>> zero, then why would dividing by it be analogous to dividing by zero? >>>> >>> >>> If you identify an single geometric point on a number line you >>> already know that it is indivisible. >> >> I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. 4.0 would be a single >> geometric point on a number line and it is divisible. 10.0 would be a >> different single point on a number line and it is divisible. >> >>>> >>>>>> If so, then [3.0, 4.0) and (3.0. 4.0) will have the *exact* same >>>>>> length. If your indivisible point is not equal to zero, then you >>>>>> should be able to tell us exactly how many of these indivisible >>>>>> points are present in each of the above intervals. >>>> >>>> So if you're going to ignore the above, let's try asking it in a >>>> different way. You claim numbers have a 'real' part and an >>>> 'infinitesimal part' where you express the infinitesimal part in >>>> brackets. So 1.0[1] is just slightly larger than 1.0. So consider >>>> the equation >>>> >>>> 1.0[x] = 2.0[0] >>>> >>>> Solve for x. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>>> >>> >>> There is a bijection between all of the geometric points on a number >>> line and all of the numbers on a numbers line. >> >> What is the bijection? >> >> If you can actually express a bijection between your infinitesimals >> and the numbers on the number line you should be able to eliminate the >> real part from your theory altogether and just talk about the >> infinitesimal portion. >> >> So how does that work? >> >> André >> > > Because infinity is a process rather than a number it does not work that > way. > > It is obvious that all of the points on a number line correspond to all > of the numbers > and that all of the numbers correspond to all of the points, in this > sense there is a > bijection between numbers and points exists. If it is so obvious then why not simply state the bijection? André > Since infinitesimal numbers can be proven to exist on the basis of the > difference in length of these two intervals: (0.0, 1.0] - (0.0. 1.0) The difference in length between those two intervals is exactly 0. I'd asked you previously whether you understood what a dense ordering was. You did not reply. I suggest you look it up. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 16:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <BLKdneelC-hdwODAnZ2dnUU7-UnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210641 |
On 9/13/2019 1:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2019-09-13 12:03 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/13/2019 12:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2019-09-13 10:36 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2019 10:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2019-09-13 9:09 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>>>> On 9/13/2019 12:16 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019-09-12 11:10 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>>>>>>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be disallowed too >>>>>>>>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 >>>>>>>> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So are you claiming that this indivisible point is equal to zero? >>>>>> >>>>>> NOT AT ALL. Where the Hell did you get the idea that infinitesimal = 0.0 ? >>>>> >>>>> Because you claimed that dividing by an infinitesimal would be analogous to dividing by zero. If your infinitesimal isn't equal to zero, then why would dividing by it be analogous to dividing by zero? >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you identify an single geometric point on a number line you >>>> already know that it is indivisible. >>> >>> I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. 4.0 would be a single geometric point on a number line and it is divisible. 10.0 would be a different single point on a number line and it is divisible. >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> If so, then [3.0, 4.0) and (3.0. 4.0) will have the *exact* same length. If your indivisible point is not equal to zero, then you should be able to tell us exactly how many of these indivisible points are present in each of the above intervals. >>>>> >>>>> So if you're going to ignore the above, let's try asking it in a different way. You claim numbers have a 'real' part and an 'infinitesimal part' where you express the infinitesimal part in brackets. So 1.0[1] is just slightly larger than 1.0. So >>>>> consider the equation >>>>> >>>>> 1.0[x] = 2.0[0] >>>>> >>>>> Solve for x. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> There is a bijection between all of the geometric points on a number line and all of the numbers on a numbers line. >>> >>> What is the bijection? >>> >>> If you can actually express a bijection between your infinitesimals and the numbers on the number line you should be able to eliminate the real part from your theory altogether and just talk about the infinitesimal portion. >>> >>> So how does that work? >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Because infinity is a process rather than a number it does not work that way. >> >> It is obvious that all of the points on a number line correspond to all of the numbers >> and that all of the numbers correspond to all of the points, in this sense there is a >> bijection between numbers and points exists. > > If it is so obvious then why not simply state the bijection? > > André > > >> Since infinitesimal numbers can be proven to exist on the basis of the >> difference in length of these two intervals: (0.0, 1.0] - (0.0. 1.0) > > The difference in length between those two intervals is exactly 0. > Even a universal consensus does not necessarily derive a truth as proven by the universal consensus that the Earth is flat prior to Pythagoras. Even the universal failure of "others" to agree that the width of a geometric point is infinitesimal rather than zero does not make them right and me wrong. If there is zero difference between the above to intervals then they are identical, since they are not identical then there is a non zero difference. The common knowledge received view of this is inconsistent, the infinitesimal number system view is not inconsistent therefore the former is incorrect and the latter is correct. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 22:49 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qljn8f$f7r$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210706 |
On 14/09/2019 22:38, peteolcott wrote: > > If there is zero difference between the above to intervals then they > are identical, since they are not identical then there is a non zero > difference. There being zero difference between the intervals is not what's happening. There is zero difference _in length_, but you wouldn't say that two people who had zero difference in height were identical people. (0,1) and (0,1] have zero difference in length, but they are not identical intervals so one wouldn't say they have zero difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 22:00 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlkd0g$s93$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210706 |
On 2019-09-14 3:38 p.m., peteolcott wrote: > On 9/13/2019 1:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2019-09-13 12:03 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >>> Since infinitesimal numbers can be proven to exist on the basis >>> of the difference in length of these two intervals: (0.0, 1.0] - >>> (0.0. 1.0) >> >> The difference in length between those two intervals is exactly 0. >> > > Even a universal consensus does not necessarily derive a truth as > proven by the universal consensus that the Earth is flat prior to > Pythagoras. [Purely as an aside, you've made the above claim multiple times but never actually backed it up. The earliest *explicit* claim that the earth was spherical was likely due to Parmenides, but we have no explicit denials that the earth was a sphere prior to that, so we really don't know what everyone believed.] > Even the universal failure of "others" to agree that the width of a > geometric point is infinitesimal rather than zero does not make them > right and me wrong. Either infinitesimal = zero or it does not. If it does not, then the length of any finite interval should be finite. So what are the exact lengths of (0.0, 1.0] and (0.0, 1.0) expressed as infinitesimals? Also, claiming that (0.0, 1.0] - (0.0. 1.0) = 1 infinitesimal (by which I assume you mean (0.0[0], 1.0[0]] - (0.0[0], 1.0[0]) = 0.0[1] in your number system since that's what we are talking about and you claim numbers in your system must have two parts) doesn't actually mean anything until you've actually defined how arithmetic works using your new number system. Both EFQ and I have pointed out that you get undesirable results (by which I mean results which lead to inconsistency) when you attempt arithmetic on your numbers (using the definition of + and • which *you* supplied). Until you show how arithmetic works in your system and that arithmetic is actually consistent in your system, you can't claim anything about the difference between two intervals in your system. > If there is zero difference between the above to intervals then they > are identical, since they are not identical then there is a non zero > difference. Having no difference in length and having no difference at all are not the same thing. (As an analogy, the set of even numbers and the set of natural numbers are both exactly the same size, but that doesn't mean they are exactly the same set.) André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 16:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlgdj5$q29$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210590 |
On 13/09/2019 06:10, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> >> >>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of >>>> (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>> >>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>> >>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be >>> disallowed too >>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >> >> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I >> specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't >> "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >> > > Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 1.0/0.0 is undefined (for reasons that I explained once and you called my post bizarre). > The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. x = 1.0 / ??? in the case of your "single indivisible point" what should replace the ???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 16:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlgea4$ojh$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210614 |
On 13/09/2019 16:45, Fred wrote: > On 13/09/2019 06:10, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of >>>>> (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>> >>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>>> >>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be >>>> disallowed too >>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>> >>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I >>> specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't >>> "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >>> >> >> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 > > 1.0/0.0 is undefined (for reasons that I explained once and you called > my post bizarre). I should have checked. Not "bizarre" but "pure gibberish". > >> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. > > x = 1.0 / ??? > > in the case of your "single indivisible point" what should replace the ??? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 11:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <2aidnX8WNshkVObAnZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210614 |
On 9/13/2019 10:45 AM, Fred wrote: > On 13/09/2019 06:10, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>> >>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>>> >>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be disallowed too >>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>> >>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >>> >> >> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 > > 1.0/0.0 is undefined (for reasons that I explained once and you called my post bizarre). > >> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. > > x = 1.0 / ??? > > in the case of your "single indivisible point" what should replace the ??? > z = Length([0.0, 1.0] - [0.0, 1.0)) x = 1.0 / z -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 02:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <875zlvirzs.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210505 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > On 9/11/2019 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >> <cut> >>>>> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >>>>>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott 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] >> >> There is no next real number after 3.0. There is not even a next rational >> number after 3.0, and the rationals /are/ countable! I.e. you don't >> need there to be a successor function on points that respects the >> usual ordering of points to get a countable set between 3 and 4. As it >> is, you open yourself up to the obvious problem: > > The line segment [3.0, 4.0) is exactly one geometric point longer than > (3.0. 4.0). The line segment [3, 4) contains exactly one point more than the segment (3, 4). It is not "longer". Do you know any measure theory? It may be PO-longer but (a) will you be able to say what PO-longer really is (without waffling), and (b) will anyone care? > There is a geometric point immediately adjacent to 3.0 on the number > line. Translation: there is PO-geometric PO-point immediately PO-adjacent to 3.0 on the PO-number line. I am sure there is. Does anyone care? > This geometric point does correspond to a number because it is on the number line. > > Now I have to correct my prior reasoning. All of the geometric points on > the number line correspond to all of the numbers that exist. Some of these > are not real numbers. > > Since we can count all of these numbers with integers using the infinitesimal > number system we have proven that the set of real numbers is not larger > than the set of integers. > > Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Offset] > > 0.0[1 to ∞] forms a bijection between the positive integers and all of > the positive numbers through all of the positive points on the number line. After initially appearing to want to answer questions about these PO-infinitesimals, you seem to have given up. I spent some time on a reply to your first round of answers, but you seem to a abandoned that sub-thread. I won't make the mistake of spending time on a reply in future! -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 00:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <lIidneg9MpjDHeHAnZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210653 |
On 9/13/2019 8:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On 9/11/2019 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>> <cut> >>>>>> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott 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] >>> >>> There is no next real number after 3.0. There is not even a next rational >>> number after 3.0, and the rationals /are/ countable! I.e. you don't >>> need there to be a successor function on points that respects the >>> usual ordering of points to get a countable set between 3 and 4. As it >>> is, you open yourself up to the obvious problem: >> >> The line segment [3.0, 4.0) is exactly one geometric point longer than >> (3.0. 4.0). > > The line segment [3, 4) contains exactly one point more than the segment > (3, 4). It is not "longer". Do you know any measure theory? > > It may be PO-longer but (a) will you be able to say what PO-longer > really is (without waffling), and (b) will anyone care? > >> There is a geometric point immediately adjacent to 3.0 on the number >> line. > > Translation: there is PO-geometric PO-point immediately PO-adjacent to 3.0 > on the PO-number line. I am sure there is. Does anyone care? > >> This geometric point does correspond to a number because it is on the number line. >> >> Now I have to correct my prior reasoning. All of the geometric points on >> the number line correspond to all of the numbers that exist. Some of these >> are not real numbers. >> >> Since we can count all of these numbers with integers using the infinitesimal >> number system we have proven that the set of real numbers is not larger >> than the set of integers. >> >> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Offset] >> >> 0.0[1 to ∞] forms a bijection between the positive integers and all of >> the positive numbers through all of the positive points on the number line. > > After initially appearing to want to answer questions about these > PO-infinitesimals, you seem to have given up. I spent some time on a > reply to your first round of answers, but you seem to a abandoned that > sub-thread. I won't make the mistake of spending time on a reply in > future! > YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! YOU LIED !!! On 9/14/2019 12:51 AM, peteolcott wrote:> On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> No. The common notational convention used for intervals shows that >> adjacent points do not exist. While [0, 1] has a least member, (0, 1] >> does not. You can remove the first number in [0, 1] to get (0, 1] but >> you can't remove the first and second. >> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > Intentional deceptive straw_man WHY LIE? Does lying give you kicks? > > IT IS CLEAR THAT I HAVE BEEN ALWAYS USING REAL ENDPOINTS. > > YOUR SWITCH TO INTEGERS IS PRETTY DAMN STUPID. > DID YOU THINK YOU WOULD GET AWAY WITH THAT? > > The first point in this interval: (0.0, 1.0] very obviously > comes immediately after the first point in this interval: [0.0, 1.0]. > > -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 00:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! |
| Message-ID | <lIidnes9MphbHeHAnZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210659 |
On 9/14/2019 12:53 AM, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/13/2019 8:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >> >>> On 9/11/2019 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>> <cut> >>>>>>> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott 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] >>>> >>>> There is no next real number after 3.0. There is not even a next rational >>>> number after 3.0, and the rationals /are/ countable! I.e. you don't >>>> need there to be a successor function on points that respects the >>>> usual ordering of points to get a countable set between 3 and 4. As it >>>> is, you open yourself up to the obvious problem: >>> >>> The line segment [3.0, 4.0) is exactly one geometric point longer than >>> (3.0. 4.0). >> >> The line segment [3, 4) contains exactly one point more than the segment >> (3, 4). It is not "longer". Do you know any measure theory? >> >> It may be PO-longer but (a) will you be able to say what PO-longer >> really is (without waffling), and (b) will anyone care? >> >>> There is a geometric point immediately adjacent to 3.0 on the number >>> line. >> >> Translation: there is PO-geometric PO-point immediately PO-adjacent to 3.0 >> on the PO-number line. I am sure there is. Does anyone care? >> >>> This geometric point does correspond to a number because it is on the number line. >>> >>> Now I have to correct my prior reasoning. All of the geometric points on >>> the number line correspond to all of the numbers that exist. Some of these >>> are not real numbers. >>> >>> Since we can count all of these numbers with integers using the infinitesimal >>> number system we have proven that the set of real numbers is not larger >>> than the set of integers. >>> >>> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Offset] >>> >>> 0.0[1 to ∞] forms a bijection between the positive integers and all of >>> the positive numbers through all of the positive points on the number line. >> >> After initially appearing to want to answer questions about these >> PO-infinitesimals, you seem to have given up. I spent some time on a >> reply to your first round of answers, but you seem to a abandoned that >> sub-thread. I won't make the mistake of spending time on a reply in >> future! >> > > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > YOU LIED !!! > > On 9/14/2019 12:51 AM, peteolcott wrote:> On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> No. The common notational convention used for intervals shows that > >> adjacent points do not exist. While [0, 1] has a least member, (0, 1] > >> does not. You can remove the first number in [0, 1] to get (0, 1] but > >> you can't remove the first and second. > >> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > > Intentional deceptive straw_man WHY LIE? Does lying give you kicks? > > > > IT IS CLEAR THAT I HAVE BEEN ALWAYS USING REAL ENDPOINTS. > > > > YOUR SWITCH TO INTEGERS IS PRETTY DAMN STUPID. > > DID YOU THINK YOU WOULD GET AWAY WITH THAT? > > > > The first point in this interval: (0.0, 1.0] very obviously > > comes immediately after the first point in this interval: [0.0, 1.0]. > > > > > -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-17 11:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! |
| Message-ID | <zfSdncZ1cOZJlxzAnZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210660 |
On 9/17/2019 1:47 AM, Arnaud Fournet wrote: > Le lundi 16 septembre 2019 21:57:49 UTC+2, peteolcott a écrit : >> On 9/16/2019 12:57 PM, Arnaud Fournet wrote: >>> Le lundi 16 septembre 2019 16:31:26 UTC+2, peteolcott a écrit : >>>> On 9/15/2019 12:32 PM, Arnaud Fournet wrote: >>>>> Le dimanche 15 septembre 2019 04:44:49 UTC+2, peteolcott a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/14/2019 5:46 PM, Arnaud Fournet wrote: >>>>>>> Le samedi 14 septembre 2019 18:36:29 UTC+2, peteolcott a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/14/2019 1:15 AM, Arnaud Fournet wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le samedi 14 septembre 2019 07:55:24 UTC+2, peteolcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/2019 12:53 AM, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/2019 8:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2019 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cut> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott 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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no next real number after 3.0. There is not even a next rational >>>>>>>>>>>>>> number after 3.0, and the rationals /are/ countable! I.e. you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need there to be a successor function on points that respects the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usual ordering of points to get a countable set between 3 and 4. As it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, you open yourself up to the obvious problem: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The line segment [3.0, 4.0) is exactly one geometric point longer than >>>>>>>>>>>>> (3.0. 4.0). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The line segment [3, 4) contains exactly one point more than the segment >>>>>>>>>>>> (3, 4). It is not "longer". Do you know any measure theory? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It may be PO-longer but (a) will you be able to say what PO-longer >>>>>>>>>>>> really is (without waffling), and (b) will anyone care? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a geometric point immediately adjacent to 3.0 on the number >>>>>>>>>>>>> line. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: there is PO-geometric PO-point immediately PO-adjacent to 3.0 >>>>>>>>>>>> on the PO-number line. I am sure there is. Does anyone care? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This geometric point does correspond to a number because it is on the number line. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I have to correct my prior reasoning. All of the geometric points on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the number line correspond to all of the numbers that exist. Some of these >>>>>>>>>>>>> are not real numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we can count all of these numbers with integers using the infinitesimal >>>>>>>>>>>>> number system we have proven that the set of real numbers is not larger >>>>>>>>>>>>> than the set of integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Offset] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.0[1 to ∞] forms a bijection between the positive integers and all of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the positive numbers through all of the positive points on the number line. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> After initially appearing to want to answer questions about these >>>>>>>>>>>> PO-infinitesimals, you seem to have given up. I spent some time on a >>>>>>>>>>>> reply to your first round of answers, but you seem to a abandoned that >>>>>>>>>>>> sub-thread. I won't make the mistake of spending time on a reply in >>>>>>>>>>>> future! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> YOU LIED !!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/2019 12:51 AM, peteolcott wrote:> On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> No. The common notational convention used for intervals shows that >>>>>>>>>>> >> adjacent points do not exist. While [0, 1] has a least member, (0, 1] >>>>>>>>>>> >> does not. You can remove the first number in [0, 1] to get (0, 1] but >>>>>>>>>>> >> you can't remove the first and second. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man >>>>>>>>>>> > Intentional deceptive straw_man WHY LIE? Does lying give you kicks? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > IT IS CLEAR THAT I HAVE BEEN ALWAYS USING REAL ENDPOINTS. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > YOUR SWITCH TO INTEGERS IS PRETTY DAMN STUPID. >>>>>>>>>>> > DID YOU THINK YOU WOULD GET AWAY WITH THAT? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > The first point in this interval: (0.0, 1.0] very obviously >>>>>>>>>>> > comes immediately after the first point in this interval: [0.0, 1.0]. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent >>>>>>>>>> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This post of yours contains nothing new, psycho-shitter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't you get sick of the smell of your big farts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once again talking about yourself, psycho-shitter. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As it turns out I am (no matter how crazy it sounds) I am the >>>>>> judge of all. I may make Christ's words perfectly literal >>>>>> thus you will be judged by your own words, big farty party. >>>>> >>>>> you're a total shithead. >>>>> Who's gonna take you in earnest, psycho-shitter? >>>>> >>>> >>>> When you meet me at the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven and you >>>> find that I am the gatekeeper things might get much more real. >>>> I could forgive your blasphemy and say welcome in, or I could say >>>> depart from me you evil doer. >>> >>> Anyway, you're not Heaven's gatekeeper, psycho-shitter. No doubt. >>> >> >> >> That woefully fallible humans have no doubt is not at all the same thing >> as logically justified complete certainty. The most horrendous human >> error (with the worst detrimental consequences) is that humans have no doubt >> and are none-the-less incorrect. > > Anyway, your sin is that you believe you can reconfigure humanity into 0/1 bits that function logically. Does not make any sense. > I am not saying this. My [ What's in it for me ] adaptation of Christ's Gospel will cause humanity to become benevolent because they will finally understand that selflessness maximizes their own peace and joy. If everyone in the world is looking out for your own best self-interests, then you don't have to. >> >> People asserting they belong to a certain religious group kill many innocent >> civilians having no doubt that this is the will of God. > > I hope that the crimes of Islamists do not prove you are God (or Allah)... > easy, dude, easy... > They are Satanists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaitan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iblis They claim that they are Islamists yet are unaware that they lie even to themselves. I made the laws of God much simpler making it much more difficult for people to be lead astray: Love one another with as much empathy as possible. This single law will be applied to everyone equally: Matthew 7:16 (KJV) 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Benevolence versus Malevolence, beneficial versus harmful. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 17:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <87d0g2hn3i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210659 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > On 9/13/2019 8:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <cut> >> After initially appearing to want to answer questions about these >> PO-infinitesimals, you seem to have given up. I spent some time on a >> reply to your first round of answers, but you seem to a abandoned that >> sub-thread. I won't make the mistake of spending time on a reply in >> future! > > YOU LIED !!! About what? You do seem to given up clarifying your notation -- you did not reply to any of my follow-up questions. And the post you quote here: > On 9/14/2019 12:51 AM, peteolcott wrote:> On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: was made after I said you seemed to have abandoned the thread. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Greene <greeneg@email.unc.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 18:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <bb66b8cf-9223-425e-baa0-184529f5c62d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210486 |
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 7:32:15 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: > My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers and > all of the geometric points on a number line. No it doesn't. > We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points > on a number line and the set of real numbers. Right. > > Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size > and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. Well, if you had any such bijecion, but you don't. Everybody else is wondering if you even know what "bijection" even means. There is a simple diagonal argument PROVING that these points don't map to the integers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 21:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <XeqdnVQWNuiBPODAnZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210723 |
On 9/14/2019 8:24 PM, George Greene wrote: > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 7:32:15 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >> My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers and >> all of the geometric points on a number line. > > No it doesn't. > > >> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >> on a number line and the set of real numbers. > > Right. > >> >> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size >> and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. > > Well, if you had any such bijecion, but you don't. > Everybody else is wondering if you even know what "bijection" even means. > There is a simple diagonal argument PROVING that these points don't map > to the integers. > Yes I know that. It is not proving what it thinks it is proving. It shows that many Real numbers are not accounted for by integers. If we look at Geometric points on the number line and have the Infinitesimal number system, we can count all of them. (0.0, 1.0] has one more point at the end than (0.0, 1.0). The first interval is exactly 1.0 long and the second interval is infinitesimally shorter than the first one. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 11:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qll50s$tqq$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210730 |
On 15/09/2019 03:25, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/14/2019 8:24 PM, George Greene wrote: >> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 7:32:15 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>> My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers >>> and >>> all of the geometric points on a number line. >> >> No it doesn't. >> >> >>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >> >> Right. >> >>> >>> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size >>> and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. >> >> Well, if you had any such bijecion, but you don't. >> Everybody else is wondering if you even know what "bijection" even means. >> There is a simple diagonal argument PROVING that these points don't map >> to the integers. >> > > Yes I know that. It is not proving what it thinks it is proving. > It shows that many Real numbers are not accounted for by integers. > > If we look at Geometric points on the number line and have the > Infinitesimal > number system, we can count all of them. > > (0.0, 1.0] has one more point at the end than (0.0, 1.0). > The first interval is exactly 1.0 long and the second interval > is infinitesimally shorter than the first one. > > Let e be the magnitude of that infinitesimal. I'll write lenX for the length of interval X. Do you agree that len[0,1) = 1-e len[1,2] = 1 len[0,2] = 2 and do you agree that the length of the union of two disjoint intervals is the sum of the lengths of the intervals? If you agree to all that then e=0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web