Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #602228 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Peters <pp1585024@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-14 03:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-05 07:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
The mathematical constraints of set theory Peter Peters <pp1585024@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 03:35 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Guckie <alberstein@freenet.de> - 2023-06-14 16:36 +0300
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 07:45 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 08:20 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-14 16:30 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 11:45 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-14 22:13 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 18:07 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 06:24 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 05:50 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-15 17:36 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 13:51 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-14 22:19 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory "Socratis T.n.p." <andreasorrentino128@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 04:44 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory "Socratis T.n.p." <andreasorrentino128@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:39 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory "Socratis T.n.p." <andreasorrentino128@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 09:00 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 06:13 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-14 15:45 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 10:08 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-16 01:44 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 08:03 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 08:29 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 09:03 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 12:08 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 06:26 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 09:18 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 05:57 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 07:01 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 06:13 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 10:09 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 10:58 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 06:09 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 09:40 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 05:05 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 06:15 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 06:22 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 06:38 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 06:40 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theoryn Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:24 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theoryn Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 09:11 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theoryn Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 11:27 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theoryn Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 11:44 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theoryn Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 12:07 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theoryn Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 12:12 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theoryn Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 06:43 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theoryn Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 06:53 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-19 16:47 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Dieter Heidorn <d.heidorn@t-online.de> - 2023-06-19 20:11 +0200
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 00:08 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 08:49 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-23 02:35 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:09 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:19 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 01:13 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 18:35 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 03:04 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 19:52 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 19:54 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 15:42 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 08:39 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 02:43 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 04:32 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 15:16 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 07:48 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 16:43 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:49 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-29 09:59 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 13:04 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-30 18:09 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 15:18 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 15:25 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-30 18:53 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 16:42 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:19 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-01 14:06 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 07:52 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 09:48 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:39 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:45 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 14:09 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-02 14:08 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 07:01 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-03 13:09 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 08:33 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-04 18:43 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 02:50 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-05 10:39 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 08:45 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-05 13:14 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 06:27 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 06:41 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 07:58 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 02:40 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Tom Bola <Tom@bolamail.etc> - 2023-07-01 20:23 +0200
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:44 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 07:43 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 08:42 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:52 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:56 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:34 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 20:21 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:46 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:11 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:20 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 06:18 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:12 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 08:45 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:38 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:39 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 06:04 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-19 09:34 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 08:44 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-20 13:31 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:37 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:03 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:05 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 06:53 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 06:50 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 07:37 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 06:13 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-20 20:34 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 06:59 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-21 11:58 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 06:19 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-22 12:30 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 10:38 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 20:18 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:06 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:17 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:24 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 06:16 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 09:50 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 14:00 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-16 01:28 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 07:50 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-18 02:13 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 06:19 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 01:26 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 07:09 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 15:38 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 12:32 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:05 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 04:43 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:33 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-23 02:56 +0100
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:34 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 16:50 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-14 20:19 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-15 17:08 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 07:45 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-16 14:58 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-06-15 18:56 -0400
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:37 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 11:16 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory "zelos...@gmail.com" <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 00:23 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 02:54 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory "zelos...@gmail.com" <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:36 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 05:29 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 08:09 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 02:42 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 04:14 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory WM <askasker48@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 07:27 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 07:57 -0700
Re: The mathematical constraints of set theory Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 07:48 -0700
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Peter Peters <pp1585024@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 03:35 -0700 |
| Subject | The mathematical constraints of set theory |
| Message-ID | <885f11ce-f96b-4c21-8aa3-98bdb0cf867bn@googlegroups.com> |
In order to maintain set theory five violations of mathematics have to be exerted. 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This must be denied. 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of endsegments. This must be denied. 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied. Regards, WM
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Guckie <alberstein@freenet.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 16:36 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u6cfp4$1cn8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
> In order to maintain set theory five violations of mathematics have to be exerted. > > 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This must be denied. > > 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of endsegments. This must be denied. > > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. > > 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied. > > Regards, WM Dear Mr. Peters, I recommend you to ask Prof. W. Mückenheim [sic!] in Augsburg. He is the undisputed leading expert in these questions you posed. Certainly he will be able to help you. But only if you not the good professor himself. Best regards. G. Mausbiber
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 07:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a1ab6c8-b72e-48ed-9989-5dde54cb04efn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602232 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:38:22 AM UTC-4, Guckie wrote: > > In order to maintain set theory five violations of mathematics have to be exerted. > > > > 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This must be denied. > > > > 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of endsegments. This must be denied. > > > > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. > > > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. > > > > 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied. > > > > Regards, WM > Dear Mr. Peters, > > I recommend you to ask Prof. W. Mückenheim [sic!] in Augsburg. He is the undisputed leading expert in these questions > you posed. Certainly he will be able to help you. But only if you not the good professor himself. > > Best regards. > > G. Mausbiber I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit that some of the angles have come through trying to work the Muckenheim way. The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly where I land. This is used for instance in operator theory, or group theory, where the sum takes a definition of mapping SxS onto S. As well the familiar (x,y) coordinates are a usage of RxR, and these two instances held up against each other somewhat expose the conflict. Indeed the sum need not stop at two elements, and so if SxSxS maps to S, then doesn't SxSxS map to SxS as well? This really trivializes the original utility of a Cartesian (cross?) product, which would best be absorbed by considering two unique sets married as AxB so that an element in AxB composes a quality of each 'subset'. This productive form exposes in the discrete case a table of all the possible combinations. An effective instance is to consider types of hardware(nuts, bolts, washers, etc.) and the composition of that hardware( brass, steel, aluminum, nylon, etc.) Clearly a piece of hardware is not fully specified until both these attributes are met. These usages are disparate and for instance reusing the hardware analogy the idea of crossing the composition material with the composition material is an incoherent choice. For instance a (steel,nylon) bolt will not be a wise construction. There is such a thing as a nyloc nut, but this would probably best be handled as a composition of two elemental forms; no different than a nut and bolt go together so too a nylon ring and a specially formed nut are pre-assembled. So you see this most coherent form of the Cartesian product is in conflict with the first two usages. Sums are an instance of operators. They do their work by somewhat denying the very thing that is claimed within operator theory, and the notion of closure as any sort of choice within the construction is only a facade, as is the usage of the Cartesian product. The fact is that there is only the need of one set S within the construction. An element a is in S. An element b is in S. The sum a+b is likewise in S, and can take the unitary form c. This is one set S, and the need to confuse it with SxS and then map that back onto S... really stinks... especially in comparison to other usages of that same product when we see RxR mapping a two-dimensional space as two one-dimensional spaces. Are these Cartesian expressions constructions or observations? This consideration does arise as one attempts to pare down, or clearly delineate the various misuses. Now staying in operator theory a bit longer we see that mathematics again parts from reality with the product, whereas the fundamental nature of the sum and its treatment as operator is nearly indivisible. Should I take three oranges in my left hand and multiply them by two oranges in my right hand I will not magically arrive with six oranges will I? Here again we can ask carefully in terms of construction versus observation what is going on? Then too, as we move on to say the area of a floor we will not be mapping SxS onto S at all will we? No. We will be staying in SxS, and the physical significance of doing so somewhat ties back to an awareness of type and type safety as is done with modern programming languages, which most mathematicians love, but do not care to worry over the prior millennia and the lack thereof. The accumulated form known as modern mathematics may not be the pristine place that is claimed. This is a short warning to students who thought they were getting into perfection. Rene Descartes himself trailed off in an unfinished volume right around this sort of awareness of the product, whose sensibility was to be arrived at in Rules For The Direction Of The Mind. That this man never used (x,y) coordinates and that they take his name is somewhat another point nearby. To put geometry at stake in all of this: this is where I am going. To flit about in dimensions as if one could do so on the turn of a dime; oh, sorry, the string theorists already tried that. They thought they could have ten and never worry about the first three. Then too, what is the meaning of three? When two signs are in use? Is this a binary trilogy? Well, which is it then, and didn't you really mean to get to four? And then have you hit the nail on the head through your thumb? That feels really good, doesn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30de38ff-15ca-488a-a5b2-7fdd030c488bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602235 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 7:45:37 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:38:22 AM UTC-4, Guckie wrote: > > > In order to maintain set theory five violations of mathematics have to be exerted. > > > > > > 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This must be denied. > > > > > > 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of endsegments. This must be denied. > > > > > > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. > > > > > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. > > > > > > 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied. > > > > > > Regards, WM > > Dear Mr. Peters, > > > > I recommend you to ask Prof. W. Mückenheim [sic!] in Augsburg. He is the undisputed leading expert in these questions > > you posed. Certainly he will be able to help you. But only if you not the good professor himself. > > > > Best regards. > > > > G. Mausbiber > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit that some of the angles have come through trying to work the Muckenheim way. > > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly where I land. This is used for instance in operator theory, or group theory, where the sum takes a definition of mapping SxS onto S. As well the familiar (x,y) coordinates are a usage of RxR, and these two instances held up against each other somewhat expose the conflict. Indeed the sum need not stop at two elements, and so if SxSxS maps to S, then doesn't SxSxS map to SxS as well? This really trivializes the original utility of a Cartesian (cross?) product, which would best be absorbed by considering two unique sets married as AxB so that an element in AxB composes a quality of each 'subset'. This productive form exposes in the discrete case a table of all the possible combinations. An effective instance is to consider types of hardware(nuts, bolts, washers, etc.) and the composition of that hardware( brass, steel, aluminum, nylon, etc.) Clearly a piece of hardware is not fully specified until both these attributes are met. > > These usages are disparate and for instance reusing the hardware analogy the idea of crossing the composition material with the composition material is an incoherent choice. For instance a (steel,nylon) bolt will not be a wise construction. There is such a thing as a nyloc nut, but this would probably best be handled as a composition of two elemental forms; no different than a nut and bolt go together so too a nylon ring and a specially formed nut are pre-assembled. So you see this most coherent form of the Cartesian product is in conflict with the first two usages. > > Sums are an instance of operators. They do their work by somewhat denying the very thing that is claimed within operator theory, and the notion of closure as any sort of choice within the construction is only a facade, as is the usage of the Cartesian product. The fact is that there is only the need of one set S within the construction. An element a is in S. An element b is in S. The sum a+b is likewise in S, and can take the unitary form c. This is one set S, and the need to confuse it with SxS and then map that back onto S... really stinks... especially in comparison to other usages of that same product when we see RxR mapping a two-dimensional space as two one-dimensional spaces. Are these Cartesian expressions constructions or observations? This consideration does arise as one attempts to pare down, or clearly delineate the various misuses. > > Now staying in operator theory a bit longer we see that mathematics again parts from reality with the product, whereas the fundamental nature of the sum and its treatment as operator is nearly indivisible. Should I take three oranges in my left hand and multiply them by two oranges in my right hand I will not magically arrive with six oranges will I? Here again we can ask carefully in terms of construction versus observation what is going on? Then too, as we move on to say the area of a floor we will not be mapping SxS onto S at all will we? No. We will be staying in SxS, and the physical significance of doing so somewhat ties back to an awareness of type and type safety as is done with modern programming languages, which most mathematicians love, but do not care to worry over the prior millennia and the lack thereof. > > The accumulated form known as modern mathematics may not be the pristine place that is claimed. This is a short warning to students who thought they were getting into perfection. Rene Descartes himself trailed off in an unfinished volume right around this sort of awareness of the product, whose sensibility was to be arrived at in Rules For The Direction Of The Mind. That this man never used (x,y) coordinates and that they take his name is somewhat another point nearby. > > To put geometry at stake in all of this: this is where I am going. To flit about in dimensions as if one could do so on the turn of a dime; oh, sorry, the string theorists already tried that. They thought they could have ten and never worry about the first three. Then too, what is the meaning of three? When two signs are in use? Is this a binary trilogy? Well, which is it then, and didn't you really mean to get to four? And then have you hit the nail on the head through your thumb? That feels really good, doesn't it? Hey, that's a pretty good post. It reminds me of "the long line of du Bois-Reymond". It reminds me of "Non-Cartesian functions, what are structures". There's a notion about "the hologram" that reflects it. There's dimensionality and compactness and fixed-point. In logic, there's the logical, and the non-logical. ZF set theory has one "restriction": "Russell's set is omega". In set theory: there's a group-noun game called class theory. There's a group of all groups, its name is Grp. There's an order-type of all ordinals, its name is ORD. Hey, finger-mashing with the hammer is pretty painful. We learned to set and sink nails with hammers as children. One job I had was nailing up the fence boards. I got pretty good at it. I have a framer and a variety, hickory handle and silver head, a nice claw hammer. The claw: removes nails. (You mash it a bit to loosen the head then pry it.) The crow: a smaller claw. Rubber mallet, ball-peen, 8 and 13 pound sledges. A punch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 16:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wn06qcwg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #602235 |
Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> writes: > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit > that some of the angles have come through trying to work the > Muckenheim way. > > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly > where I land. I know you prefer to keep your options open, but are you prepared to say what definition of productive set you are using? A productive set is usually a subset of N and not the product of some unspecified set. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1422f0f8-d2bc-4c86-a8b8-27c033b77bfan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602240 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:31:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit > > that some of the angles have come through trying to work the > > Muckenheim way. > > > > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly > > where I land. > I know you prefer to keep your options open, but are you prepared to say > what definition of productive set you are using? A productive set is > usually a subset of N and not the product of some unspecified set. > > -- > Ben. Well, Ben, it's a fine time to take it from another angle, then. Assuming that the specification of the set actually matters, and that certainly is not the case of the set S, which is treated generally as an abstracted form, what good can it do to carry a copy of this set around with itself? As we shift over to R then we have what is often a more solid form, and then the ordered pair (x,y) which might actually take a more concrete form as (+1.23,-3.21), but you see the geometric interpretation of this form is rather different than the Cartesian product alone belies. Is SxS two truly independent things? Well, if so, then what are they doing joined at zero? Where is the specification of a ninety degree angle amongst these two purely independent things? Doesn't the plane still get representation even if the x=0 joins at y=1? At an angle of 30 degrees? Why should their scales even match? Whence does their independence take such a dependent form, and all implied by the measly 'x' in RxR? I humbly expose that this is something different than AxB of set theory. Strangely enough, when we ponder sign, we see that the original geometrical form of R is via the balance of signs. If it were not true that: - 1 + 1 = 0 then we could not claim the real line of this number system. Likewise -a+a = 0, where a is either a two-signed value, or a simply a magnitude. Now, treating this as an ordered series we can see that: ( 1, 1 ) = 0 which is merely the equivalent statement to the priors. And now when we engage a three-signed system we see: ( 1, 1, 1 ) = 0 and that this three-signed system naturally maps the plane; indeed requires three rays equally balanced and that would be the three rays from the center of a three-verticed simplex; no different that in P2 there were two rays from the center of a two-verticed simplex. This ordered series form is not merely a Cartesian product, for it has specified a basic interaction amongst the coordinates. They are not independent and their relationship is carefully specified. Furthermore, we are no longer discussing indepoendent copies of the same thing as in RxR. No: and furthermore that P2 form which happens to be exactly R is not any more fundamental than this P3 form. Would it be a surprise to you that an arithmetic product exists in P3 which follows the same laws as P2? That P3 are in fact the complex numbers in a new suit of clothes? And so on into P4, P5, and so forth? Each with their own geometry; their own 'dimension'; of course this word is in quotes for good reason. Humanity has been tacked down onto the real numbers as fundamental for too long now. Humanity is living a lie. To right the wrong you'll have to flop the form, and even then there is the little underling P1 to discuss... P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 ... and the breakpoint, too. Whether the ray is more fundamental than the line... yes, of course it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 22:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r0qdrblf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #602244 |
Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:31:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit >> > that some of the angles have come through trying to work the >> > Muckenheim way. >> > >> > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly >> > where I land. >> I know you prefer to keep your options open, but are you prepared to say >> what definition of productive set you are using? A productive set is >> usually a subset of N and not the product of some unspecified set. > > Well, Ben, it's a fine time to take it from another angle, then. <cut> I did not find anything resembling a definition of "productive set" in what you wrote. The term did not even appear in your reply. Would it not have been simpler to have said something like "sorry, I did not mean productive set" or "I've not yet decided what I mean by those words" or even "I don't want to say what I mean just yet"? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 18:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d46a326-39f4-4715-8d02-ed69fa91314bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602254 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 2:14:00 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:31:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit > >> > that some of the angles have come through trying to work the > >> > Muckenheim way. > >> > > >> > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly > >> > where I land. > >> I know you prefer to keep your options open, but are you prepared to say > >> what definition of productive set you are using? A productive set is > >> usually a subset of N and not the product of some unspecified set. > > > > Well, Ben, it's a fine time to take it from another angle, then. > <cut> > > I did not find anything resembling a definition of "productive set" in > what you wrote. The term did not even appear in your reply. > > Would it not have been simpler to have said something like "sorry, I did > not mean productive set" or "I've not yet decided what I mean by those > words" or even "I don't want to say what I mean just yet"? > > -- > Ben. Some have that the naturals are compact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 06:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e91a2116-e90b-4021-8895-7f938941dfden@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602282 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:07:33 PM UTC-4, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 2:14:00 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:31:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> > > >> > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit > > >> > that some of the angles have come through trying to work the > > >> > Muckenheim way. > > >> > > > >> > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly > > >> > where I land. > > >> I know you prefer to keep your options open, but are you prepared to say > > >> what definition of productive set you are using? A productive set is > > >> usually a subset of N and not the product of some unspecified set. > > > > > > Well, Ben, it's a fine time to take it from another angle, then. > > <cut> > > > > I did not find anything resembling a definition of "productive set" in > > what you wrote. The term did not even appear in your reply. > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This > > > > > Would it not have been simpler to have said something like "sorry, I did > > not mean productive set" or "I've not yet decided what I mean by those > > words" or even "I don't want to say what I mean just yet"? > > > > -- > > Ben.productive set > Some have that the naturals are compact. Pretty sure it's all insincere anyways. Oddly though, it may apply to the Muckenheim discussion. 'The mathematical constraints of set theory' are certainly getting stretched. If it does turn out that the product (and here I do mean the arithmetic product) does belong up in SxS, then there is a problem within the Muckenheim vector: division as the inverse of the product will thence require such a deconstruction when done carefully. Because the naturals obey the successor function they are arguably radix-one in their representation, though moderners are guilty of using radix-ten. It happens that the arithmetic product performed radix-one is exactly that Cartesian product: it matches graphically an nxm grid. Sadly there is no radix-one representation for values less than unity. In this regard the whole thing is a fraud. This is somewhat the question of whether the product is constructed or observed. Staying in radix one what this means is that (111)(11) is not really the product until we write: 111 111 or at least this is a possible interpretation that would disambiguate the problem. This satisfies the observed product versus the constructed product as an implied form. This is strangely fitting in that the puzzle of computation is somewhat gone in radix one. What was computation has become transcription.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ff20b7b-9b0c-4af3-b57a-f27b1c804a15n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602254 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 5:14:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:31:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit > >> > that some of the angles have come through trying to work the > >> > Muckenheim way. > >> > > >> > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly > >> > where I land. > >> I know you prefer to keep your options open, but are you prepared to say > >> what definition of productive set you are using? A productive set is > >> usually a subset of N and not the product of some unspecified set. > > > > Well, Ben, it's a fine time to take it from another angle, then. > <cut> > > I did not find anything resembling a definition of "productive set" in > what you wrote. The term did not even appear in your reply. > > Would it not have been simpler to have said something like "sorry, I did > not mean productive set" or "I've not yet decided what I mean by those > words" or even "I don't want to say what I mean just yet"? > > -- > Ben. Apologies, Ben. I meant 'productive' as in ordinary English language. Now, to hold your feet to the fire: is there any difference between selecting two elements from one set S versus one element from SxS? Is the usage of SxS productive if there is no difference? Of course this word is related to 'product' and some sort of products is under scrutiny here. Certainly none of https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ProductiveSet.html is under consideration here. I am discussing the Cartesian product. Your snootiness is noted, and I concede the point with resentment. I do find that notation does matter; that convention matters as well; and that sometimes conflicts are found between the two, not to mention an accumulation of language of reused words taking differing strict meanings. I suppose mathematics is little better than politics in this way. As left and right grow more and more confused the question of order and its unstated presumption versus corruption as a universal tendency via accumulation; to say that we are rich in mathematical teminology isn't exactly what we are chasing after as individuals. I would hope for a stronger falsification more to the point under discussion. If it does not arrive then should I take that as concession within this discussion? Is your point really just a dodge anyways? You can't falsify my claims, can you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 17:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87sfasptrp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #602309 |
Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 5:14:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <cut> >> I did not find anything resembling a definition of "productive set" in >> what you wrote. The term did not even appear in your reply. >> >> Would it not have been simpler to have said something like "sorry, I did >> not mean productive set" or "I've not yet decided what I mean by those >> words" or even "I don't want to say what I mean just yet"? > > Apologies, Ben. I meant 'productive' as in ordinary English language. Ah. OK. I won't ask how that meaning could apply to a set because I don't suppose you need me to understand you. > Is your point really just a dodge anyways? I like to know what people mean when they write things, but I don't think you always like people to know what you mean, at least not without a lot of chat first. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e28b0e1-5dd9-4d79-bf94-66f2ccbf1818n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602240 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:31:04 AM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit > > that some of the angles have come through trying to work the > > Muckenheim way. > > > > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly > > where I land. > I know you prefer to keep your options open, but are you prepared to say > what definition of productive set you are using? A productive set is > usually a subset of N and not the product of some unspecified set. > > -- > Ben. Some have that the direct product of infinitely many copies of the naturals is itself, others, the empty set. Mostly you'll find "empty set", but, there are other topologies than the usual open topology that would be fulfilled and also not contradicted, the other way. So, clearly it's independent and about the relations, the functions, and the topologies in the spaces, why and how it varies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 22:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87leglrbck.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #602250 |
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:31:04 AM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit >> > that some of the angles have come through trying to work the >> > Muckenheim way. >> > >> > The simple question of whether the set SxS is productive is roughly >> > where I land. >> I know you prefer to keep your options open, but are you prepared to say >> what definition of productive set you are using? A productive set is >> usually a subset of N and not the product of some unspecified set. > > Some have that the direct product of infinitely many copies > of the naturals is itself, others, the empty set. > > Mostly you'll find "empty set", but, there are other topologies > than the usual open topology that would be fulfilled and also > not contradicted, the other way. > > So, clearly it's independent and about the relations, the functions, > and the topologies in the spaces, why and how it varies. I'm not a fan of chatting online. If you could have answered the question, I would have been grateful, but just chewing the fat about big words is not my scene. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Socratis T.n.p." <andreasorrentino128@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 04:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34b73986-f7c2-4808-b395-7029355e1439n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602235 |
Il giorno mercoledì 14 giugno 2023 alle 16:45:37 UTC+2 Timothy Golden ha scritto: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:38:22 AM UTC-4, Guckie wrote: > > > In order to maintain set theory five violations of mathematics have to be exerted. > > > > > > 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This must be denied. > > > > > > 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of endsegments. This must be denied. > > > > > > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. > > > > > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. > > > > > > 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied. > > > > > > Regards, WM > > Dear Mr. Peters, > > > > I recommend you to ask Prof. W. Mückenheim [sic!] in Augsburg. He is the undisputed leading expert in these questions > > you posed. Certainly he will be able to help you. But only if you not the good professor himself. > > > > Best regards. > > > > G. Mausbiber > I'm discovering another abuse of set theory, and will have to admit that some of the angles have come through trying to work the Muckenheim way. Faresti prima..se capissi che la T.d.i. è un sistema derivativo..da m^2..e m^3-- 0.01 *0.1 *0.1 =0.0001m^3 Alias 1c *10c *10c = 100c^3 = 1hg We don't give a damn if today's Ignorant Many .. think they despise the T.n.p. Thinking that they have: 1m = 10dm = neutral..so they say 1dm *10dm =1dm and not 10i^2 which is worth 1 cent. of m squared, which they call 1m linear, as they call the m^3 = 1nut.. and.. 3m^3 = 3.nuts..and.. 0.1 *1 *1 = 0.1.nut and not 100kg. of walnuts. There is 0.5 = 5dm..1m = 10dm...3m = 30dm...so. 5dm *10dm *30dm =1'500dm^3 =1'500kg. =1.5m^3. 50c *100c * 300c = 1'500'000g. = 1'500kg = 1.5m^3. Regards T.n.p.=> 10^3 +10^3 = 20 *(10*10+0^2) = 2m *100m^2 = 2000m^3 -:))) To make no mistake..you should start from 1cm without doing neutral 100c =10i. For now you produce m^3 and you call them.. even.. m-Linear.. like 1.5m.L.-:)))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Socratis T.n.p." <andreasorrentino128@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7730ed25-5e85-48fc-8c94-437b89faaa2en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603018 |
How do you think that 1dm *1dm = 1cm ? if 1dm =10c..we have 10c *10c =100c^2 =1cent. of 10'000c^2 Like = 10c *10c *10c =1000c^3 =0.001m^3 =1kg. If 0.001 *1000m =1m^2 => for 1000m/0.001=1'000'000•^2 If I said 0.001 *1m *1m..it would be 0.001m^3 = 1.kg => for 1/0.001 = 1'000• If I said 0.001 *1m *10..it would be 0.01m^3 = 10.kg => for 10/0.001=10'000• If I said 0.001 *5 *10m..it would be 0.05m^3 = 50.kg => for 5m/0.001= 5'000• If I said 0.001 *10 *10..it would be 0.1m^3 = 100.kg => for 10/0.001 =10'000• 0.001*10*100m =1m^3 =1000kg => for 100m/0.001= 100'000•, which means : 1mm *10'000• *100'000• = 1'000'000'000•^3 = 1m^3. If you don't understand, change your job!! If 0.01 *100m = 1m*2 => for 100/0.01 = 10'000c^2 = 1m^2 => for 100/0.01=10'000cm. 0.01 *10 *10 = 1m^3..since there are 3 factors..which translated into cm^3..Value: 1c * 1000c *1000c = 1'000'000.c^3 = 1000i^3 => for 10m/0.01 = 1000c. Alias 0.01 *10 *10 = 1m^3 = 1000kg. This does the calculator..multiply after transforming the little ones into the function of the great ones.. but no one understands it. Seeing is believing : 10m = 100dm, 1000cm = 10'000mm. 100m =1000dm..10'000cm...100'000mm. I've been searching for 10 years.. while you you don't even know ..that ...√0.1 = 0.31622766..relative to √10. = 3.1627766 Like 3√0.1 = 0.4641588834.. relative of 3√100 = 4.641588834 -:))) Greetings T.n.p. ==>15^2 +15^2 = 30 *15 +0^2 = 450m^2 -:))) 15^3 +15^3 = 30 *(15*15 +0^2) = 30*225m^2 =6'750m^3 -:))) 6'750m^3/450 = 15m^3...like..450m^2 *15m = 6'750m^3 -:)))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Socratis T.n.p." <andreasorrentino128@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-27 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6504d86-325c-43cf-99b2-be7d7854e300n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603018 |
> We don't give a damn if today's Ignorant Many .. think they despise the T.n.p. > Thinking that they have: 1m = 10dm = neutral..so they say 1dm *10dm =1dm > and not 10i^2 which is worth 1 cent. of m squared, which they call 1m linear, as they call > the m^3 = 1nut.. and.. 3m^3 = 3.nuts..and.. 0.1 *1 *1 = 0.1.nut and not 100kg. of walnuts. > > There is 0.5 = 5dm..1m = 10dm...3m = 30dm...so. > 5dm *10dm *30dm =1'500dm^3 =1'500kg. =1.5m^3. > 50c *100c * 300c = 1'500'000g. = 1'500kg = 1.5m^3. > > Regards T.n.p.=> 10^3 +10^3 = 20 *(10*10+0^2) = 2m *100m^2 = 2000m^3 -:))) > To make no mistake..you should start from 1cm without doing neutral 100c =10i. > For now you produce m^3 and you call them.. even.. m-Linear.. like 1.5m.L.-:))) Where does The Idiocy of Mathematicians start from? From the false thought that 1i = 1tenth of 10i = 10dm=1m. The Correct Thought is : that..10i = 1m =10 times 1i = 1dm.. So 10dm *10dm = 100dm^2 ====== 100 times 1dm^2. Like 10dm *1dmi *10dm = 1000dm^3=1000times 1dm^3. If you were intelligent you would say that 10c *100c =1000c^2 for 10c=1dm.e 100c=1m. like 10c *100c *100c =100'000c^3 =100dm^3 = 100kg. For 1000c*3 = 1kg. Indeed : 1dm *1dmi *10dm ========= 100dm^3 ========= 100kg. Which the T.d.i. That would give you.. like 0.1 *1 *1 = 0.1m^3 = 100dm^3 Greetings T.n.p. => 100c *100c *100c = 1000'000c^3 =1000i^3 = 1m^3 -:))) Are you idiots who say : 0.5 *1 *2 =1 and not 5i *10i *20i=1000i^3 =1m^3. Indeed You Idiots Believe that : 5i *20i = 1m.. like 5i *10i *20i = 1m -:)))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <askasker48@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdc26ceb-b678-40e4-bda2-da084e5994b0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602232 |
Guckie schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023 um 15:38:22 UTC+2: > > In order to maintain set theory five violations of mathematics have to be exerted. > > > > 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This must be denied. > > > > 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of endsegments. This must be denied. > > > > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. > > > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. > > > > 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied. > > > > Regards, WM > Dear Mr. Peters, > > I recommend you to ask Prof. W. Mückenheim [sic!] in Augsburg. He is the undisputed leading expert in these questions > you posed. Certainly he will be able to help you. But only if you not the good professor himself. > > Best regards. > > G. Mausbiber Thanks. Großadministrator Perry Rhodan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 15:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87352urtld.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
Peter Peters <pp1585024@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
Why have you changed your name again? Did someone complain? Are you in
hiding?
> In order to maintain set theory five violations of mathematics have to
> be exerted.
Can you state these using mathematics, or are the magic words required?
I think the magic words are needed, but let me try help you a bit.
> 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely
> to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This
> must be denied.
Since sets don't change, "remaining" is a magic word. You might mean
∀n,m, m ≥ n -> es(n) ⊆ es(m).
Do you? (es(n) = { k ∈ N, k ≥ n })
> 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are
> the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of
> endsegments. This must be denied.
Hmm... Can't parse this. Every infinite ordered set has infinitely
many end segments (different orderings give different meanings for what
is the "end" segment).
> 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied.
An (infinite) sequence, s, of X is a function from N to X. A
permutation, p, of that sequence is a bijection from N to N. Provably,
image(s) = image(s.p).
> 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This
> must be denied.
Clever vague use of "all". You know perfectly well the two facts you
are trying to conflate here. They are:
∀x > 0, |{n ∈ N | 1/n < x}| = ℵ₀
and
|{n ∈ N | ∀x > 0, 1/n < x}| = 0
Students of the roaming quantifier take note!
> 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths
> must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied.
Another key magic word! In mathematics we would simply say that
|{0,1}^N| > |N|
I.e. that there are "more" functions from N to {0,1} than there are
natural numbers. Every function can be "distinguished" from all the
others by being different. Careful authors would use a special symbol
for the > in relation to cardinals. Hence the quotes round "more".
The "nodes" are the natural numbers derived from the function from N to
{0,1}. For example, every path starting 0, 1, ... includes nodes 0, 2
and 5. An uncountable number of paths all share these initial nodes
because uncountably many paths have p(0) = 0 and p(1) = 1.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <askasker48@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07e5dbd5-0792-445c-a7dc-9e614474ac52n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602234 |
Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023 um 16:45:12 UTC+2:
> Peter Peters <pp15...@gmail.com> writes:
> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
>
> Why have you changed your name again?
It was a mistake.
> > 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely
> > to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This
> > must be denied.
> Since sets don't change, "remaining" is a magic word.
The sequence consist of different terms. They change.
> You might mean
>
> ∀n,m, m ≥ n -> es(n) ⊆ es(m).
The other way round.
> > 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are
> > the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of
> > endsegments. This must be denied.
> Hmm... Can't parse this.
1, 2, 3, ..., n-1, n, |, n, n+1, ...
The contents follows upon "|". An infinte contents of all endsegments prevents an infinite set of indices.
> > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied.
See Jim Burns.
> > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This
> > must be denied.
> Clever vague use of "all". You know perfectly well the two facts you
> are trying to conflate here. They are:
>
> ∀x > 0, |{n ∈ N | 1/n < x}| = ℵ₀
Impossible because as x you could choose (if not dark) the third unit fraction which must exist if there are infinitely many.
> > 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths
> > must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied.
> I.e. that there are "more" functions from N to {0,1} than there are
> natural numbers.
No.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 01:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ttv8nsl6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #602241 |
WM <askasker48@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023 um 16:45:12 UTC+2:
>> Peter Peters <pp15...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > 1) As long as the sequence of endsegments has not decreased completely
>> > to the empty set, the remaining contents is in all endsegments. This
>> > must be denied.
>> Since sets don't change, "remaining" is a magic word.
> The sequence consist of different terms. They change.
No. Nothing changes. Sets in WM change, which I why you admitted that
you can't define set membership, equality and difference in WMaths. But
in mathematics, sets, sequences and terms in sequences don't change.
This is one of the magic words you like to use.
> > You might mean
>>
>> ∀n,m, m ≥ n -> es(n) ⊆ es(m).
>
> The other way round.
>
>> > 2) As long as infinitely many, i.e., almost all natural numbers are
>> > the contents of endsegments, there can only be a finite set of
>> > endsegments. This must be denied.
>> Hmm... Can't parse this.
>
> 1, 2, 3, ..., n-1, n, |, n, n+1, ...
>
> The contents follows upon "|". An infinte contents of all endsegments
> prevents an infinite set of indices.
Try using mathematics. The notation exists for a reason.
>> > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied.
>
> See Jim Burns.
Good to see that you agree with him about this.
>> > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This
>> > must be denied.
>>
>> Clever vague use of "all". You know perfectly well the two facts you
>> are trying to conflate here. They are:
>>
>> ∀x > 0, |{n ∈ N | 1/n < x}| = ℵ₀
>
> Impossible because as x you could choose (if not dark) the third unit
> fraction which must exist if there are infinitely many.
No. Proofs don't work by assertion. There is no third (smallest) unit
fraction.
>> > 5) There are more nodes than path in the Binary Tree because all paths
>> > must be distinguished by nodes. This must be denied.
>
>> I.e. that there are "more" functions from N to {0,1} than there are
>> natural numbers.
>
> No.
Apparently (in another reply) you agree. 2 out of five is good. Well done.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web