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

Groups > sci.math > #360290 > unrolled thread

Re: Déjà vu

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

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.

Contents

  Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 12:34 -0500
    Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-09 10:08 -0800
      Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 17:18 -0500
        Re: Déjà vu genmailus@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 14:28 -0800
          Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 17:55 -0500
            Re: Déjà vu Me <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 17:12 -0800
              Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 20:55 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 18:08 -0800
                  Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 23:08 -0800
                    Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 10:55 -0500
            Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 05:13 -0800
              Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 09:49 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 07:44 -0800
                  Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 11:45 -0500
                    Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 09:51 -0800
                    Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 10:33 -0800
                      Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 10:35 -0800
                        Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 13:00 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 11:05 -0800
                  Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 18:08 -0500
                    Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 17:25 -0800
                      Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 01:48 -0500
                        Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 23:24 -0800
                        Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 00:34 -0800
                          Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 11:26 -0500
                            Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 08:55 -0800
                              Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 12:13 -0500
                                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:20 -0800
                                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:22 -0800
                                  Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:23 -0800
                                  Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 13:11 -0500
                                    Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:26 -0800
                                      Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 13:42 -0500
                                        Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:50 -0800
                                        Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:58 -0800
                                        Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 11:01 -0800
                                          Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 11:03 -0800
                                            Re: Déjà vu bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-01-11 11:11 -0800
        Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 00:03 -0800
          Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 10:21 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#360544

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 15:08:28 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 2:05 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 06:49:08 UTC-8,
> > Jim Burns  wrote:
> 
> >> You made no attempt to clarify _what_ you were talking
> >> about, and it's a pretty good bet that whatever
> >> you mean (if anything) it is different from what
> >> WM means (if anything) by the same terms.
> >
> > Oh really? You mean that
> >    "There is no such thing as infinity."
> > is not clarifying my standpoint? Chuckle
> 
> Chuckle. No, it's not clarifying your standpoint.
> I don't expect you to understand that.

Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is, there is no further discussion necessary because the concept of infinity is bogus.

> 
> Here's a similar example:
>     "There is such a thing as autosubbijectibility."

I don't think that word exists so it's not an example, never mind similar.

> 
> Do you feel that's all I need to say in order to
> clarify my position? Or do you think that I should
> explain what I mean better?

I would have a chuckle and let teleology take its course. :-)

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

#360558

On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 15:08:28 UTC-8,
> Jim Burns  wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 2:05 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 06:49:08 UTC-8,
>>> Jim Burns  wrote:

>>>> You made no attempt to clarify _what_ you were talking
>>>> about, and it's a pretty good bet that whatever
>>>> you mean (if anything) it is different from what
>>>> WM means (if anything) by the same terms.
>>>
>>> Oh really? You mean that
>>>    "There is no such thing as infinity."
>>> is not clarifying my standpoint? Chuckle
>>
>> Chuckle. No, it's not clarifying your standpoint.
>> I don't expect you to understand that.
>
> Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
>  there is no further discussion necessary because
>  the concept of infinity is bogus.

Well, Ross was right that there's no point in trying
to educate such as you. But there may be someone else
who reads this.

"The concept of infinity is bogus" And so?
Is infinity a floor wax? Is it a dessert topping?
Do you think you said something there?

>> Here's a similar example:
>>     "There is such a thing as autosubbijectibility."
>
> I don't think that word exists so it's not an example,
>  never mind similar.

As I expected, you hadn't read the post you responded to.

The main difference between the examples is that
_I told you what I meant_ by autosubbijectibility, though
I did that in the post you responded to and then I snipped
the explanation here. _You_ still haven't said what you
mean by infinity, anywhere, nor do you realize it
could mean any several things. _That_ is a truly impressive
display of blockheadedness, considering that you
crashed a discussion of the _difference_ between complete
infinity and potential infinity.

Here's my explanation of "autosubbijectibility"
<unsnip>

>>>> A lovely property of things-like-those-labels
>>>> is that there is a matching, one-to-one both ways,
>>>> between the collection of things and and an
>>>> incomplete part of the collection of things.
>>>>    (AKA, a bijection between the collection and a
>>>>    proper subset of the collection).

>>>> So, instead of "infinite", we could make up a word,
>>>> "autosubbijectible" and call things-like-those-labels
>>>> autosubbijectible.

</unsnip>

Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
"autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
naturals  0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
the natural numbers bogus.

Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?

You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
the natural numbers bogus?

    To be clear, I am not asking you those questions.
    I don't care what you have to say in answer.
    They are questions you ought to have asked yourself
    and didn't.

    Not that I expect you to try to answer them.
    I expect you to bravely, bravely run away from these
    sorts of questions, like Brave Sir Robin. And why
    shouldn't you bravely, bravely run away? You can throw
    insults around! I'm sure the classical Greeks must have
    proved that throwing insults is better than knowing things.

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

#360562

On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 10:48:54 PM UTC-8, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 15:08:28 UTC-8,
> > Jim Burns  wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2017 2:05 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 06:49:08 UTC-8,
> >>> Jim Burns  wrote:
> 
> >>>> You made no attempt to clarify _what_ you were talking
> >>>> about, and it's a pretty good bet that whatever
> >>>> you mean (if anything) it is different from what
> >>>> WM means (if anything) by the same terms.
> >>>
> >>> Oh really? You mean that
> >>>    "There is no such thing as infinity."
> >>> is not clarifying my standpoint? Chuckle
> >>
> >> Chuckle. No, it's not clarifying your standpoint.
> >> I don't expect you to understand that.
> >
> > Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
> >  there is no further discussion necessary because
> >  the concept of infinity is bogus.
> 
> Well, Ross was right that there's no point in trying
> to educate such as you. But there may be someone else
> who reads this.
> 
> "The concept of infinity is bogus" And so?
> Is infinity a floor wax? Is it a dessert topping?
> Do you think you said something there?
> 
> >> Here's a similar example:
> >>     "There is such a thing as autosubbijectibility."
> >
> > I don't think that word exists so it's not an example,
> >  never mind similar.
> 
> As I expected, you hadn't read the post you responded to.
> 
> The main difference between the examples is that
> _I told you what I meant_ by autosubbijectibility, though
> I did that in the post you responded to and then I snipped
> the explanation here. _You_ still haven't said what you
> mean by infinity, anywhere, nor do you realize it
> could mean any several things. _That_ is a truly impressive
> display of blockheadedness, considering that you
> crashed a discussion of the _difference_ between complete
> infinity and potential infinity.
> 
> Here's my explanation of "autosubbijectibility"
> <unsnip>
> 
> >>>> A lovely property of things-like-those-labels
> >>>> is that there is a matching, one-to-one both ways,
> >>>> between the collection of things and and an
> >>>> incomplete part of the collection of things.
> >>>>    (AKA, a bijection between the collection and a
> >>>>    proper subset of the collection).
> 
> >>>> So, instead of "infinite", we could make up a word,
> >>>> "autosubbijectible" and call things-like-those-labels
> >>>> autosubbijectible.
> 
> </unsnip>
> 
> Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
> "autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
> naturals  0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
> the natural numbers bogus.
> 
> Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?
> 
> You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
> Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
> the natural numbers bogus?
> 
>     To be clear, I am not asking you those questions.
>     I don't care what you have to say in answer.
>     They are questions you ought to have asked yourself
>     and didn't.
> 
>     Not that I expect you to try to answer them.
>     I expect you to bravely, bravely run away from these
>     sorts of questions, like Brave Sir Robin. And why
>     shouldn't you bravely, bravely run away? You can throw
>     insults around! I'm sure the classical Greeks must have
>     proved that throwing insults is better than knowing things.

Burns, if not from the Greeks, maybe there's as much to 
learn from "English-Chinese A Dictionary of Mathematical 
Terms".  

At least, there's something to learn.

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

#360566

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 22:48:54 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 15:08:28 UTC-8,
> > Jim Burns  wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2017 2:05 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 06:49:08 UTC-8,
> >>> Jim Burns  wrote:
> 
> >>>> You made no attempt to clarify _what_ you were talking
> >>>> about, and it's a pretty good bet that whatever
> >>>> you mean (if anything) it is different from what
> >>>> WM means (if anything) by the same terms.
> >>>
> >>> Oh really? You mean that
> >>>    "There is no such thing as infinity."
> >>> is not clarifying my standpoint? Chuckle
> >>
> >> Chuckle. No, it's not clarifying your standpoint.
> >> I don't expect you to understand that.
> >
> > Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
> >  there is no further discussion necessary because
> >  the concept of infinity is bogus.
> 
> Well, Ross was right that there's no point in trying
> to educate such as you. But there may be someone else
> who reads this.
> 
> "The concept of infinity is bogus" And so?
> Is infinity a floor wax? Is it a dessert topping?
> Do you think you said something there?
> 
> >> Here's a similar example:
> >>     "There is such a thing as autosubbijectibility."
> >
> > I don't think that word exists so it's not an example,
> >  never mind similar.
> 
> As I expected, you hadn't read the post you responded to.
> 
> The main difference between the examples is that
> _I told you what I meant_ by autosubbijectibility, though
> I did that in the post you responded to and then I snipped
> the explanation here. _You_ still haven't said what you
> mean by infinity, anywhere, nor do you realize it
> could mean any several things. _That_ is a truly impressive
> display of blockheadedness, considering that you
> crashed a discussion of the _difference_ between complete
> infinity and potential infinity.
> 
> Here's my explanation of "autosubbijectibility"
> <unsnip>
> 
> >>>> A lovely property of things-like-those-labels
> >>>> is that there is a matching, one-to-one both ways,
> >>>> between the collection of things and and an
> >>>> incomplete part of the collection of things.
> >>>>    (AKA, a bijection between the collection and a
> >>>>    proper subset of the collection).
> 
> >>>> So, instead of "infinite", we could make up a word,
> >>>> "autosubbijectible" and call things-like-those-labels
> >>>> autosubbijectible.
> 
> </unsnip>
> 
> Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
> "autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
> naturals  0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
> the natural numbers bogus.
> 
> Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?
> 
> You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
> Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
> the natural numbers bogus?
> 
>     To be clear, I am not asking you those questions.
>     I don't care what you have to say in answer.
>     They are questions you ought to have asked yourself
>     and didn't.
> 
>     Not that I expect you to try to answer them.
>     I expect you to bravely, bravely run away from these
>     sorts of questions, like Brave Sir Robin. And why
>     shouldn't you bravely, bravely run away? You can throw
>     insults around! I'm sure the classical Greeks must have
>     proved that throwing insults is better than knowing things.

If you think Ross Finlayson has anything of value to say, there is no hope for you. 

The derivation of numbers by Euclid is perfect. You can't rubbish any part of it. I have written it down as he intended:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1?trk=prof-post

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

#360609

On 1/11/2017 3:34 AM, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 22:48:54 UTC-8,
> Jim Burns  wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:

>>> Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
>>>  there is no further discussion necessary because
>>>  the concept of infinity is bogus.

...

>> Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
>> "autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
>> naturals  0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
>> the natural numbers bogus.
>>
>> Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?
>>
>> You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
>> Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
>> the natural numbers bogus?

...

> The derivation of numbers by Euclid is perfect.
>  You can't rubbish any part of it.

I hadn't planned on rubbishing any part of Euclid's work.

I hadn't thought that Euclid considered the natural
numbers bogus. Are you quite sure about that?

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

#360611

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 08:26:05 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:
> On 1/11/2017 3:34 AM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 22:48:54 UTC-8,
> > Jim Burns  wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> 
> >>> Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
> >>>  there is no further discussion necessary because
> >>>  the concept of infinity is bogus.
> 
> ...
> 
> >> Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
> >> "autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
> >> naturals  0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
> >> the natural numbers bogus.
> >>
> >> Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?
> >>
> >> You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
> >> Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
> >> the natural numbers bogus?
> 
> ...
> 
> > The derivation of numbers by Euclid is perfect.
> >  You can't rubbish any part of it.
> 
> I hadn't planned on rubbishing any part of Euclid's work.
> 
> I hadn't thought that Euclid considered the natural
> numbers bogus. Are you quite sure about that?

Whatever gave you that idea?  Please don't project your stupidity onto me. In my article I show the perfect derivation of rational numbers. Did you even bother to read it or do you just speak out of ignorance as usual?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel-1

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

#360614

On 1/11/2017 11:55 AM, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 08:26:05 UTC-8,
> Jim Burns  wrote:
>> On 1/11/2017 3:34 AM, John Gabriel wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 22:48:54 UTC-8,
>>> Jim Burns  wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:

>>>>> Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
>>>>>  there is no further discussion necessary because
>>>>>  the concept of infinity is bogus.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
>>>> "autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
>>>> naturals  0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
>>>> the natural numbers bogus.
>>>>
>>>> Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?
>>>>
>>>> You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
>>>> Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
>>>> the natural numbers bogus?
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> The derivation of numbers by Euclid is perfect.
>>>  You can't rubbish any part of it.
>>
>> I hadn't planned on rubbishing any part of Euclid's work.
>>
>> I hadn't thought that Euclid considered the natural
>> numbers bogus. Are you quite sure about that?
>
> Whatever gave you that idea?

The part where you said
    "the concept of infinity is bogus."

Apparently it's news to you that there are infinitely many
natural numbers. (No, you don't get to ooze your way out of
this by re-defining "infinity".)

>   Please don't project your stupidity onto me.

Heh.

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

#360617

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:13:39 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:
> On 1/11/2017 11:55 AM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 08:26:05 UTC-8,
> > Jim Burns  wrote:
> >> On 1/11/2017 3:34 AM, John Gabriel wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 22:48:54 UTC-8,
> >>> Jim Burns  wrote:
> >>>> On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> 
> >>>>> Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
> >>>>>  there is no further discussion necessary because
> >>>>>  the concept of infinity is bogus.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>> Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
> >>>> "autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
> >>>> naturals  0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
> >>>> the natural numbers bogus.
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
> >>>> Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
> >>>> the natural numbers bogus?
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> The derivation of numbers by Euclid is perfect.
> >>>  You can't rubbish any part of it.
> >>
> >> I hadn't planned on rubbishing any part of Euclid's work.
> >>
> >> I hadn't thought that Euclid considered the natural
> >> numbers bogus. Are you quite sure about that?
> >
> > Whatever gave you that idea?
> 
> The part where you said
>     "the concept of infinity is bogus."
> 
> Apparently it's news to you that there are infinitely many
> natural numbers. 

No moron. It is not news to me that there is no greatest natural number.

It is nonsense that there are infinitely many natural numbers. 

There is no such thing as "infinitely many".

Define that you baboon!!!

> (No, you don't get to ooze your way out of
> this by re-defining "infinity".)

It has never been defined in the first place. It's a mythological concept only the likes of you and your ilk can subscribe to.

> 
> >   Please don't project your stupidity onto me.
> 
> Heh.

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

#360618

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:13:39 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:

> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this by re-defining "infinity".

No greatest natural number is NOT equivalent to "infinitely many ..." whatever the latter bullshit means.

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

#360619

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:22:34 UTC-8, John Gabriel  wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:13:39 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:
> 
> > No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this by re-defining "infinity".
> 
> No greatest natural number is NOT equivalent to "infinitely many ..." whatever the latter bullshit means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00YcPd3Uqk4

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

#360623

On 1/11/2017 12:22 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:13:39 UTC-8,
>  Jim Burns  wrote:

>> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
>>  by re-defining "infinity".
>
> No greatest natural number is NOT equivalent to
>  "infinitely many ..." whatever the latter bullshit means.

No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
by re-defining "infinity".

If you ask _nicely_ maybe someone will explain what
"infinitely many" means. No promise that someone will and
certainly no commitment from me.

    By the way, if there is a one-to-one matching in both
    directions between a collection and an incomplete part
    of that collection, it is an infinite collection.

This a statement (avoiding technical language) of the
definition of Dedekind infinite, a very common definition.

These are some statements about the natural numbers
with which I'm pretty confident Euclid would agree:

    For every natural number, there is a unique successor,
    which is a natural number.

    Different natural numbers have different successors.

    0 (zero) is a natural number, and it is not the successor
    of any natural number.

That's enough to _prove_ that there are infinitely
many natural numbers in the sense I defined here.

    The matching we need for the definition is between
    natural numbers and their successors.

    We know every successor is a natural number, so the
    collection of successors is part of the natural numbers.
    We know it is an incomplete part because 0 is not
    a successor.

    We know the matching is one-to-one from natural numbers
    to successors because different natural numbers have
    different successors.

    We know the matching is one-to-one from successors to
    natural numbers because if, for example, two successors
    matched to the same natural number, that number would
    not have a unique successor, which we know it does.

    Therefore, we _know_ that there are infinitely many
    natural numbers.

Whether _you_ know it is on you.

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

#360625

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:11:08 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:

> > No greatest natural number is NOT equivalent to
> >  "infinitely many ..." whatever the latter bullshit means.
> 
> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> by re-defining "infinity".
> 
> If you ask _nicely_ maybe someone will explain what
> "infinitely many" means. No promise that someone will and
> certainly no commitment from me.

You don't get to quote the father of all mathematical cranks and call that a definition. Chuckle.

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

#360629

On 1/11/2017 1:26 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:11:08 UTC-8,
>  Jim Burns  wrote:
>> On 1/11/2017 12:22 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:13:39 UTC-8,
>>>  Jim Burns  wrote:

>>>> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
>>>>  by re-defining "infinity".
>>>>
>>> No greatest natural number is NOT equivalent to
>>> "infinitely many ..." whatever the latter bullshit means.
>>
>> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
>> by re-defining "infinity".
>>
>> If you ask _nicely_ maybe someone will explain what
>> "infinitely many" means. No promise that someone will and
>> certainly no commitment from me.
>
> You don't get to quote the father of all mathematical cranks
> and call that a definition. Chuckle.

No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
by re-defining "infinity".

Or "definition", either.

Would Euclid be impressed with your "argument" of
sticking your  fingers in your ears and singing
"LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"?

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

#360632

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:42:44 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:
> On 1/11/2017 1:26 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:11:08 UTC-8,
> >  Jim Burns  wrote:
> >> On 1/11/2017 12:22 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:13:39 UTC-8,
> >>>  Jim Burns  wrote:
> 
> >>>> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> >>>>  by re-defining "infinity".
> >>>>
> >>> No greatest natural number is NOT equivalent to
> >>> "infinitely many ..." whatever the latter bullshit means.
> >>
> >> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> >> by re-defining "infinity".
> >>
> >> If you ask _nicely_ maybe someone will explain what
> >> "infinitely many" means. No promise that someone will and
> >> certainly no commitment from me.
> >
> > You don't get to quote the father of all mathematical cranks
> > and call that a definition. Chuckle.
> 
> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> by re-defining "infinity".
> 
> Or "definition", either.
> 
> Would Euclid be impressed with your "argument" of
> sticking your  fingers in your ears and singing
> "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"?

Euclid would be laughing his arse off at you. Chuckle.

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

#360633

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:42:44 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:

See, the only way morons in the BIG STUPID try to define infinity, is as the state of not being finite.

Unfortunately, this definition fails test 2 of my method for determining whether a concept is well formed or not:

In order to be well defined, a concept 

1. Must be reifiable (R) either intangibly or tangibly. 

2. Must be defined in terms of attributes (A) which it possesses, not those it lacks. 

3. Must not lead to any logical contradictions (C). 

4. Must exist in a perfect Platonic form. What this means is that it exists independently (I) of the human mind or any other mind. 

RACI: Reifiable - Attributes - Contradictions - Independence

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-does-mean-concept-well-defined-john-gabriel

To say that infinite is something that is not finite is like saying an irrational number is a number that is not rational. You cannot define concepts by attributes which they lack, even if you are given a free pass on step 1 of my method.

May I suggest you try again? Chuckle.

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

#360634

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:42:44 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:
> On 1/11/2017 1:26 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:11:08 UTC-8,
> >  Jim Burns  wrote:
> >> On 1/11/2017 12:22 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:13:39 UTC-8,
> >>>  Jim Burns  wrote:
> 
> >>>> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> >>>>  by re-defining "infinity".
> >>>>
> >>> No greatest natural number is NOT equivalent to
> >>> "infinitely many ..." whatever the latter bullshit means.
> >>
> >> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> >> by re-defining "infinity".
> >>
> >> If you ask _nicely_ maybe someone will explain what
> >> "infinitely many" means. No promise that someone will and
> >> certainly no commitment from me.
> >
> > You don't get to quote the father of all mathematical cranks
> > and call that a definition. Chuckle.
> 
> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> by re-defining "infinity".
> 
> Or "definition", either.
> 
> Would Euclid be impressed with your "argument" of
> sticking your  fingers in your ears and singing
> "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"?

Cantor's bijective cardinality does not define infinity. All it states is that it is possible to scale an interval (set) so that it is larger or smaller. Cartographers  knew this long before Cantor.

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

#360635

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 11:01:30 UTC-8, John Gabriel  wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:42:44 UTC-8, Jim Burns  wrote:
> > On 1/11/2017 1:26 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 10:11:08 UTC-8,
> > >  Jim Burns  wrote:
> > >> On 1/11/2017 12:22 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:13:39 UTC-8,
> > >>>  Jim Burns  wrote:
> > 
> > >>>> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> > >>>>  by re-defining "infinity".
> > >>>>
> > >>> No greatest natural number is NOT equivalent to
> > >>> "infinitely many ..." whatever the latter bullshit means.
> > >>
> > >> No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> > >> by re-defining "infinity".
> > >>
> > >> If you ask _nicely_ maybe someone will explain what
> > >> "infinitely many" means. No promise that someone will and
> > >> certainly no commitment from me.
> > >
> > > You don't get to quote the father of all mathematical cranks
> > > and call that a definition. Chuckle.
> > 
> > No, you don't get to ooze your way out of this
> > by re-defining "infinity".
> > 
> > Or "definition", either.
> > 
> > Would Euclid be impressed with your "argument" of
> > sticking your  fingers in your ears and singing
> > "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"?
> 
> Cantor's bijective cardinality does not define infinity. All it states is that it is possible to scale an interval (set) so that it is larger or smaller. Cartographers  knew this long before Cantor.

And contrary to your delusional opinion that points are being mapped, that is entirely untrue. Only distances are mapped and most of these distances have no number describing them. Therefore your fake real number line goes out the window in one swoop. 

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

#360636

An you are a paid troll from the african society 
of Gsbrieloconfusion and Johnostupidics, 
bird brain John Gabriel birdbrain?

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

#360454

Am Montag, 9. Januar 2017 23:18:18 UTC+1 schrieb Jim Burns:


> > No, I show that two different meanings are confused
> > in set theory.
> 
> "are confused". Passive voice. "Are confused" by whom?

By set theorists, of course.

> > I do not say that one of the two limits is "wrong".
> 
> Ah. Therefore, when you say below:
>    "The reason is that set theory puts union = limit,
>     which is wrong",

It is wrong to  believe that both are identical.


> >  Everybody can see this here
> > 1
> > 1, 2
> > 1, 2, 3
> > ...
> > The claim that all finite sets when written together
> > in a single row yield a set that is larger than all,
> > is simply foolish.
> 
> No set in an _infinite_ increasing sequence of sets
> can be as large as or larger then all the sets in the sequence.

Try to ask a mathematician of your trust whether the shifting of all rows into the first one can yield a row longer than all rows. Possibly without referring to Cantor. I have made that experience very frequently. The result was always the same.

> If it were, it would have to be the last set, but there is no
> last set.

There is no last natural number. Nevertheless there will not result an infinite number from considering all natural numbers together in different rows
o
oo
ooo
...
or in one row.
> 

> This is as false as the last time you said this.
> There is no last FISON, so the union _must_
> surpass all.

Alas it cannot. And that is obvious, since on,y FISONs are available. What follows? There is no "all rows".
> 

> Why not use the same meaning for "transfinite" as
> everyone else?

Because transfinite is based on the possibility to exhaust an infinite set. Think of McDuck who receives 10 $ and spends 1 $ every day. According to transfinite set theory he will end as a poor man (if expending the wrong dollar notes) because he has expended all dollars. According to infinite mathematics he will never have expended all since it is impossible to exhaust an infinite set.
> 
> >> Also also, this is not true of any FISON. They are
> >> each finite.
> >
> > Of course. Their whole sequence can be defined recursively
> > by F(n) = F(n-1) U {n}.
> 
> I would agree with the "of course", but not because of
> that recursion relation -- which looks remarkably similar
> to the recursive definition for von Neumann ordinals.
> Von Neumann ordinals have no problem with being infinite.

Von Neumann naturals have.
> 
> > If there are infinitely many FISONs,
> >  then we have infinitely many such equantions and hence
> >  infinitely many unions already producing all infinitely
> >  many FISONs. None has card aleph_0.
> 
> I'm hoping that you don't mean "of course" all FISONs
> are finite because none has card aleph_0.

Exactly that is true. A set either is finite or has cardinality aleph_0 at least.

> >  A further union,
> >  number omega + 1, without any further ingerdient, cannot
> >  surpass the all existing sets, because to surpass in
> >  cardinality means to have more elements.
> 
> The cardinality of omega + 1 is the same as the cardinality
> of omega.

Of course. Nevertheless omega + 1 follows after omega, i.e., after infinitely many. More than infinitely many unions however, do not increase anything.
> 
Regards, WM

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

#360483

On 1/10/2017 3:03 AM, WM wrote:
> Am Montag, 9. Januar 2017 23:18:18 UTC+1
>  schrieb Jim Burns:
 >> [WM:]

>>>  Everybody can see this here
>>> 1
>>> 1, 2
>>> 1, 2, 3
>>> ...
>>> The claim that all finite sets when written together
>>> in a single row yield a set that is larger than all,
>>> is simply foolish.
>>
>> No set in an _infinite_ increasing sequence of sets can be
>> as large as or larger then all the sets in the sequence.
>
> Try to ask a mathematician of your trust whether the
>  shifting of all rows into the first one can yield a
>  row longer than all rows. Possibly without referring
>  to Cantor. I have made that experience very frequently.
>  The result was always the same.
>
>> If it were, it would have to be the last set, but there is
>> no last set.
>
> There is no last natural number.

And there is no last FISON. And there is no last row.

>  Nevertheless there will not result an infinite number
>  from considering all natural numbers together
>  in different rows
> o
> oo
> ooo
> ...
> or in one row.

Combining all the rows in one row will not result in
a natural number. Each natural number is finite, but
the collection of natural numbers is infinite.

This doesn't keep us from considering all natural
numbers together. It is only your own invention that
there must be some natural number of natural numbers
in order for us to consider them.

If this is a game we can all play, I declare that we
cannot consider a circle unless we can give the
vertices and straight edges that define it.

>> This is as false as the last time you said this.
>> There is no last FISON, so the union _must_
>> surpass all.
>
> Alas it cannot. And that is obvious,
>  since on,y FISONs are available.
>  What follows? There is no "all rows".

How did you decide that only FISONs were available?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web