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 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 15:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wmzy9p1f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #602773 |
Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
>> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
>> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Sonntag, 18. Juni 2023 um 03:13:33 UTC+2:
>> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
>> >> Unendlichen" at Technische Hochschule Augsburg.)
>> You are again dishonestly editing quotes without noting the fact. Did
>> you not get any training in research ethics? By all means correct
>> things that are wrong, but don't misrepresent what people write.
>> >> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Freitag, 16. Juni 2023 um 02:28:51 UTC+2:
>> >> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> >> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023 um 16:45:12 UTC+2:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Correction:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I.e. that there are "more" functions from N to {0,1} than there are
>> >> >> >> natural numbers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course. But there are more different terms of the sequences than
>> >> >> > sequences.
>> >> >> There are only two different terms: 0 and 1.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, there are many.
>> >> No. You were talking, it seems, about what I wrote.
>> >
>> > No, I ws talking about true mathematics. There every node of the
>> > Binary Tree is defined by a triple of numbers. The number of these
>> > nodes surpasses the number of paths.
>> Then you should have made it clear you where not talking about the
>> remark you quoted. In fact you should not quote it if you are not going
>> to address it.
>>
>> You know perfectly well that (infinite) sequences are functions of N.
>> It's even in your textbook so I know you know. I must interpret your
>> "there are more different terms of the sequences than sequences" as
>> referring to the sequences I wrote about, since you commented directly on
>> those sequences, not the ones you had in your head.
>> mathematics
>> The functions from N to {0,1} are sequences of 0s and 1s, and they all
>> have only two different terms.
>> >> If you don't understand what I wrote, ask for an explanation or don't reply.
>> >
>> > I reply only because you don't understad what you wrote.
>> >
>> >> The
>> >> functions from N to {0,1} are sequences with only two different terms.
>> >
>> > Nonsense. The function 0, 0, 0, ... for instance, has infinitely many
>> > terms.
>> You must be being deliberately obtuse. There are infinitely many terms,
>> but only two different terms.
>>
>> You hate talking about paths as functions from N to {0,1} because your
>> waffle about paths being "distinguished by nodes" is made to look a
>> foolish as it really is. Infinitely many such functions (i.e. paths) can
>> be distinguished despite there being only two different terms.
>>
>> --
>> Ben.
>
> The best way to yield dark numbers is to pay attention to the radix.
> The natural numbers, being a radix one concept, plod along so slowly
> toward infinity as they can merely find their successor in their
> digital makeup: s( s( s( ...s( 1 ) ) ) ... )
Did you put the ... in the wrong place deliberately? To write,
informally, an arbitrary example of N one would write
s( s( s( ... s(1) ... ) ) )
to show the symmetry.
> This value is simply:
> 111...11
> in radix one.
That's not a natural number in radix one because (apparently) it'd no in
N:
> We can call this then a representation of infinity; aleph if you like.
You can write it anyway you like, so I'll just note that you want to
write aleph (which, since you've not said otherwise, I must assume is
what I mean by the word) using the eight characters '111...11'.
Nothing "dark" so far, just a complicated way to write ℵ.
> However, entertaining higher radix systems, and technically we can
> still respect this aleph concept as now implied by the naturals except
> that it applies to the quantity of digits of the value, and for
> instance in our conventional radix-ten representation then, respecting
> this aleph, we can have: 999...99 whose infinite qualities are far
> more monstrous than the lowly naturals achieved.
Are you going to keep on making such assertions without proof? For a
start, should really explain the concept of "value" and "size" for these
non-natural numbers. (That's assuming that "more monstrous" means
larger.)
> We can even increment
> this radix ten aleph and get omega: 1|000...00 and so computable forms
> of infinity arrive when we allow the tail of the digits,
So another undefined notation and some further unjustified assertions.
Do you ever actually do any serious mathematics?
Have you read any other work on these sorts of numbers? You might find
it interesting. Those authors explain their notation, define arithmetic
and ordering, and then prove results based on those concepts. It's less
prone to error than just stating supposed truths.
Anyway, nothing "dark" so far. Did I stop too soon to see the "best
way" to yield dark numbers?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80b45c3c-c063-4e66-8811-20938dabd0f2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602775 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 10:39:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> >> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> >> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Sonntag, 18. Juni 2023 um 03:13:33 UTC+2:
> >> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> >> >> Unendlichen" at Technische Hochschule Augsburg.)
> >> You are again dishonestly editing quotes without noting the fact. Did
> >> you not get any training in research ethics? By all means correct
> >> things that are wrong, but don't misrepresent what people write.
> >> >> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Freitag, 16. Juni 2023 um 02:28:51 UTC+2:
> >> >> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> >> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023 um 16:45:12 UTC+2:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Correction:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> I.e. that there are "more" functions from N to {0,1} than there are
> >> >> >> >> natural numbers.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Of course. But there are more different terms of the sequences than
> >> >> >> > sequences.
> >> >> >> There are only two different terms: 0 and 1.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, there are many.
> >> >> No. You were talking, it seems, about what I wrote.
> >> >
> >> > No, I ws talking about true mathematics. There every node of the
> >> > Binary Tree is defined by a triple of numbers. The number of these
> >> > nodes surpasses the number of paths.
> >> Then you should have made it clear you where not talking about the
> >> remark you quoted. In fact you should not quote it if you are not going
> >> to address it.
> >>
> >> You know perfectly well that (infinite) sequences are functions of N.
> >> It's even in your textbook so I know you know. I must interpret your
> >> "there are more different terms of the sequences than sequences" as
> >> referring to the sequences I wrote about, since you commented directly on
> >> those sequences, not the ones you had in your head.
> >> mathematics
> >> The functions from N to {0,1} are sequences of 0s and 1s, and they all
> >> have only two different terms.
> >> >> If you don't understand what I wrote, ask for an explanation or don't reply.
> >> >
> >> > I reply only because you don't understad what you wrote.
> >> >
> >> >> The
> >> >> functions from N to {0,1} are sequences with only two different terms.
> >> >
> >> > Nonsense. The function 0, 0, 0, ... for instance, has infinitely many
> >> > terms.
> >> You must be being deliberately obtuse. There are infinitely many terms,
> >> but only two different terms.
> >>
> >> You hate talking about paths as functions from N to {0,1} because your
> >> waffle about paths being "distinguished by nodes" is made to look a
> >> foolish as it really is. Infinitely many such functions (i.e. paths) can
> >> be distinguished despite there being only two different terms.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ben.
> >
> > The best way to yield dark numbers is to pay attention to the radix.
> > The natural numbers, being a radix one concept, plod along so slowly
> > toward infinity as they can merely find their successor in their
> > digital makeup: s( s( s( ...s( 1 ) ) ) ... )
> Did you put the ... in the wrong place deliberately? To write,
> informally, an arbitrary example of N one would write
>
> s( s( s( ... s(1) ... ) ) )
>
> to show the symmetry.
No. the interpretation of the ellipsis is of repetition. The usage of three tokens prior to the ellipsis, or a pattern of three, is the tradition. The successor notation is greatly simplified by staying with radix one digits 111...11.
The tie of the ellipsis to infinity here; to the aleph ought to be clear. How far do they go? Limitlessly? To accept the aleph is an option. Having accepted it within this discussion I see no other way. It is intimately tied to the ellipsis. This is not loose at all.
> > This value is simply:
> > 111...11
> > in radix one.
> That's not a natural number in radix one because (apparently) it'd no in
> N:
> > We can call this then a representation of infinity; aleph if you like.
> You can write it anyway you like, so I'll just note that you want to
> write aleph (which, since you've not said otherwise, I must assume is
> what I mean by the word) using the eight characters '111...11'.
>
> Nothing "dark" so far, just a complicated way to write ℵ.
> > However, entertaining higher radix systems, and technically we can
> > still respect this aleph concept as now implied by the naturals except above
> > that it applies to the quantity of digits of the value, and for
> > instance in our conventional radix-ten representation then, respecting
> > this aleph, we can have: 999...99 whose infinite qualities are far
> > more monstrous than the lowly naturals achieved.
> Are you going to keep on making such assertions without proof? For a
> start, should really explain the concept of "value" and "size" for these
> non-natural numbers. (That's assuming that "more monstrous" means
> larger.)
It's obvious if you think about it. The naturals or radix one digits go (in radix ten):
1, 2, 3, 4, ...
while the radix ten value goes:
9, 99, 999, 9999, ...
Given that we are willing to discuss an aleph of digits in both cases then it is just as I have described: the radix ten version is obscenely larger than the radix one version. We are respecting the radix one aleph described by the naturals, but digits have gain in them; at least this is true of the number systems beyond radix one.
> > We can even increment
> > this radix ten aleph and get omega: 1|000...00 and so computable forms
> > of infinity arrive when we allow the tail of the digits,
> So another undefined notation and some further unjustified assertions.
> Do you ever actually do any serious mathematics?
>
> Have you read any other work on these sorts of numbers? You might find
> it interesting. Those authors explain their notation, define arithmetic
> and ordering, and then prove results based on those concepts. It's less
> prone to error than just stating supposed truths.
>
> Anyway, nothing "dark" so far. Did I stop too soon to see the "best
> way" to yield dark numbers?
>
> --
> Ben.
Now do you see numbers beyond 111...11 radix one?
If a tree falls in a forest with a dull thud I'd bother to go looking for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u6t4af$2ho88$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602815 |
On 6/20/2023 12:32 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 10:39:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
>>>> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
>>>>> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Sonntag, 18. Juni 2023 um 03:13:33 UTC+2:
>>>>>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
>>>>>> Unendlichen" at Technische Hochschule Augsburg.)
>>>> You are again dishonestly editing quotes without noting the fact. Did
>>>> you not get any training in research ethics? By all means correct
>>>> things that are wrong, but don't misrepresent what people write.
>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Freitag, 16. Juni 2023 um 02:28:51 UTC+2:
>>>>>>>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023 um 16:45:12 UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correction:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I.e. that there are "more" functions from N to {0,1} than there are
>>>>>>>>>> natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course. But there are more different terms of the sequences than
>>>>>>>>> sequences.
>>>>>>>> There are only two different terms: 0 and 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, there are many.
>>>>>> No. You were talking, it seems, about what I wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I ws talking about true mathematics. There every node of the
>>>>> Binary Tree is defined by a triple of numbers. The number of these
>>>>> nodes surpasses the number of paths.
>>>> Then you should have made it clear you where not talking about the
>>>> remark you quoted. In fact you should not quote it if you are not going
>>>> to address it.
>>>>
>>>> You know perfectly well that (infinite) sequences are functions of N.
>>>> It's even in your textbook so I know you know. I must interpret your
>>>> "there are more different terms of the sequences than sequences" as
>>>> referring to the sequences I wrote about, since you commented directly on
>>>> those sequences, not the ones you had in your head.
>>>> mathematics
>>>> The functions from N to {0,1} are sequences of 0s and 1s, and they all
>>>> have only two different terms.
>>>>>> If you don't understand what I wrote, ask for an explanation or don't reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> I reply only because you don't understad what you wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> functions from N to {0,1} are sequences with only two different terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. The function 0, 0, 0, ... for instance, has infinitely many
>>>>> terms.
>>>> You must be being deliberately obtuse. There are infinitely many terms,
>>>> but only two different terms.
>>>>
>>>> You hate talking about paths as functions from N to {0,1} because your
>>>> waffle about paths being "distinguished by nodes" is made to look a
>>>> foolish as it really is. Infinitely many such functions (i.e. paths) can
>>>> be distinguished despite there being only two different terms.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ben.
>>>
>>> The best way to yield dark numbers is to pay attention to the radix.
>>> The natural numbers, being a radix one concept, plod along so slowly
>>> toward infinity as they can merely find their successor in their
>>> digital makeup: s( s( s( ...s( 1 ) ) ) ... )
>> Did you put the ... in the wrong place deliberately? To write,
>> informally, an arbitrary example of N one would write
>>
>> s( s( s( ... s(1) ... ) ) )
>>
>> to show the symmetry.
>
> No. the interpretation of the ellipsis is of repetition. The usage of three tokens prior to the ellipsis, or a pattern of three, is the tradition. The successor notation is greatly simplified by staying with radix one digits 111...11.
> The tie of the ellipsis to infinity here; to the aleph ought to be clear. How far do they go? Limitlessly? To accept the aleph is an option. Having accepted it within this discussion I see no other way. It is intimately tied to the ellipsis. This is not loose at all.
>
>
>>> This value is simply:
>>> 111...11
>>> in radix one.
>> That's not a natural number in radix one because (apparently) it'd no in
>> N:
>>> We can call this then a representation of infinity; aleph if you like.
>> You can write it anyway you like, so I'll just note that you want to
>> write aleph (which, since you've not said otherwise, I must assume is
>> what I mean by the word) using the eight characters '111...11'.
>>
>> Nothing "dark" so far, just a complicated way to write ℵ.
>>> However, entertaining higher radix systems, and technically we can
>>> still respect this aleph concept as now implied by the naturals except above
>>> that it applies to the quantity of digits of the value, and for
>>> instance in our conventional radix-ten representation then, respecting
>>> this aleph, we can have: 999...99 whose infinite qualities are far
>>> more monstrous than the lowly naturals achieved.
>> Are you going to keep on making such assertions without proof? For a
>> start, should really explain the concept of "value" and "size" for these
>> non-natural numbers. (That's assuming that "more monstrous" means
>> larger.)
>
> It's obvious if you think about it. The naturals or radix one digits go (in radix ten):
> 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
> while the radix ten value goes:
> 9, 99, 999, 9999, ...
> Given that we are willing to discuss an aleph of digits in both cases then it is just as I have described: the radix ten version is obscenely larger than the radix one version. We are respecting the radix one aleph described by the naturals, but digits have gain in them; at least this is true of the number systems beyond radix one.
>
>
>>> We can even increment
>>> this radix ten aleph and get omega: 1|000...00 and so computable forms
>>> of infinity arrive when we allow the tail of the digits,
>> So another undefined notation and some further unjustified assertions.
>> Do you ever actually do any serious mathematics?
>>
>> Have you read any other work on these sorts of numbers? You might find
>> it interesting. Those authors explain their notation, define arithmetic
>> and ordering, and then prove results based on those concepts. It's less
>> prone to error than just stating supposed truths.
>>
>> Anyway, nothing "dark" so far. Did I stop too soon to see the "best
>> way" to yield dark numbers?
>>
>> --
>> Ben.
>
> Now do you see numbers beyond 111...11 radix one?
n-ary number representations. 1-ary only has one symbol to play with.
2-ary has two, on and on... ;^)
> If a tree falls in a forest with a dull thud I'd bother to go looking for it.
n-ary is a forest in and of itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 04:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31360620-c2b5-4dff-a63d-226c46b179b9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602823 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 5:05:28 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/20/2023 12:32 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 10:39:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> >>>> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> >>>>> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Sonntag, 18. Juni 2023 um 03:13:33 UTC+2:
> >>>>>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> >>>>>> Unendlichen" at Technische Hochschule Augsburg.)
> >>>> You are again dishonestly editing quotes without noting the fact. Did
> >>>> you not get any training in research ethics? By all means correct
> >>>> things that are wrong, but don't misrepresent what people write.
> >>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Freitag, 16. Juni 2023 um 02:28:51 UTC+2:
> >>>>>>>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023 um 16:45:12 UTC+2:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Correction:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I.e. that there are "more" functions from N to {0,1} than there are
> >>>>>>>>>> natural numbers.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course. But there are more different terms of the sequences than
> >>>>>>>>> sequences.
> >>>>>>>> There are only two different terms: 0 and 1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, there are many.
> >>>>>> No. You were talking, it seems, about what I wrote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, I ws talking about true mathematics. There every node of the
> >>>>> Binary Tree is defined by a triple of numbers. The number of these
> >>>>> nodes surpasses the number of paths.
> >>>> Then you should have made it clear you where not talking about the
> >>>> remark you quoted. In fact you should not quote it if you are not going
> >>>> to address it.
> >>>>
> >>>> You know perfectly well that (infinite) sequences are functions of N.
> >>>> It's even in your textbook so I know you know. I must interpret your
> >>>> "there are more different terms of the sequences than sequences" as
> >>>> referring to the sequences I wrote about, since you commented directly on
> >>>> those sequences, not the ones you had in your head.
> >>>> mathematics
> >>>> The functions from N to {0,1} are sequences of 0s and 1s, and they all
> >>>> have only two different terms.
> >>>>>> If you don't understand what I wrote, ask for an explanation or don't reply.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I reply only because you don't understad what you wrote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>> functions from N to {0,1} are sequences with only two different terms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nonsense. The function 0, 0, 0, ... for instance, has infinitely many
> >>>>> terms.
> >>>> You must be being deliberately obtuse. There are infinitely many terms,
> >>>> but only two different terms.
> >>>>
> >>>> You hate talking about paths as functions from N to {0,1} because your
> >>>> waffle about paths being "distinguished by nodes" is made to look a
> >>>> foolish as it really is. Infinitely many such functions (i.e. paths) can
> >>>> be distinguished despite there being only two different terms.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Ben.
> >>>
> >>> The best way to yield dark numbers is to pay attention to the radix.
> >>> The natural numbers, being a radix one concept, plod along so slowly
> >>> toward infinity as they can merely find their successor in their
> >>> digital makeup: s( s( s( ...s( 1 ) ) ) ... )
> >> Did you put the ... in the wrong place deliberately? To write,
> >> informally, an arbitrary example of N one would write
> >>
> >> s( s( s( ... s(1) ... ) ) )
> >>
> >> to show the symmetry.
> >
> > No. the interpretation of the ellipsis is of repetition. The usage of three tokens prior to the ellipsis, or a pattern of three, is the tradition. The successor notation is greatly simplified by staying with radix one digits 111...11.
> > The tie of the ellipsis to infinity here; to the aleph ought to be clear. How far do they go? Limitlessly? To accept the aleph is an option. Having accepted it within this discussion I see no other way. It is intimately tied to the ellipsis. This is not loose at all.
> >
> >
> >>> This value is simply:
> >>> 111...11
> >>> in radix one.
> >> That's not a natural number in radix one because (apparently) it'd no in
> >> N:
> >>> We can call this then a representation of infinity; aleph if you like.
> >> You can write it anyway you like, so I'll just note that you want to
> >> write aleph (which, since you've not said otherwise, I must assume is
> >> what I mean by the word) using the eight characters '111...11'.
> >>
> >> Nothing "dark" so far, just a complicated way to write ℵ.
> >>> However, entertaining higher radix systems, and technically we can
> >>> still respect this aleph concept as now implied by the naturals except above
> >>> that it applies to the quantity of digits of the value, and for
> >>> instance in our conventional radix-ten representation then, respecting
> >>> this aleph, we can have: 999...99 whose infinite qualities are far
> >>> more monstrous than the lowly naturals achieved.
> >> Are you going to keep on making such assertions without proof? For a
> >> start, should really explain the concept of "value" and "size" for these
> >> non-natural numbers. (That's assuming that "more monstrous" means
> >> larger.)
> >
> > It's obvious if you think about it. The naturals or radix one digits go (in radix ten):
> > 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
> > while the radix ten value goes:
> > 9, 99, 999, 9999, ...
> > Given that we are willing to discuss an aleph of digits in both cases then it is just as I have described: the radix ten version is obscenely larger than the radix one version. We are respecting the radix one aleph described by the naturals, but digits have gain in them; at least this is true of the number systems beyond radix one.
> >
> >
> >>> We can even increment
> >>> this radix ten aleph and get omega: 1|000...00 and so computable forms
> >>> of infinity arrive when we allow the tail of the digits,
> >> So another undefined notation and some further unjustified assertions.
> >> Do you ever actually do any serious mathematics?
> >>
> >> Have you read any other work on these sorts of numbers? You might find
> >> it interesting. Those authors explain their notation, define arithmetic
> >> and ordering, and then prove results based on those concepts. It's less
> >> prone to error than just stating supposed truths.
> >>
> >> Anyway, nothing "dark" so far. Did I stop too soon to see the "best
> >> way" to yield dark numbers?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ben.
> >
> > Now do you see numbers beyond 111...11 radix one?
> n-ary number representations. 1-ary only has one symbol to play with.
> 2-ary has two, on and on... ;^)
> > If a tree falls in a forest with a dull thud I'd bother to go looking for it.
> n-ary is a forest in and of itself.
Agreed. We may not be able to discuss them all but the ones that can be discussed can be so through induction.
If (3333)(3333) = 11108889
And (33333)(33333) = 1111088889
Then clearly (333...33)(333..33) = 111...10888...89
And here the p-adic folks get it wrong.
For some reason they've opted to extend the two aleph equals one aleph into the digital realm.
Some of their work can be held up against the inductive form here to prove this conflict.
Products require the sum of the digits that went into them.
In these infinite cases this shifts the class of the result. Once aleph bars are introduced there will have to be two of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <askasker48@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cd9f07c-7bde-4973-bbb9-a57d99f80eb4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602750 |
Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. Juni 2023 um 02:27:02 UTC+2:
> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Sonntag, 18. Juni 2023 um 03:13:33 UTC+2:
> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> >> Unendlichen" at Technische Hochschule Augsburg.)
> By all means correct
> things that are wrong, but don't misrepresent what people write.
>
> The functions from N to {0,1} are sequences of 0s and 1s, and they all
> have only two different terms.
Wrong. The set {0, 0, 0, ...} = {0} has only one term.
The sequence 0, 0, 0, ... has infinitely many terms.
> > Nonsense. The function 0, 0, 0, ... for instance, has infinitely many
> > terms.
> You must be being deliberately obtuse. There are infinitely many terms,
> but only two different terms.
That depends on the meaning. Precisely: There are infinitely many different terms with only one value.
>
> Infinitely many such functions (i.e. paths) can
> be distinguished despite there being only two different terms.
Yes. Why is this so? Because all their nodes are different in spite of the only values 0 and 1.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 02:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bkh77xhi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #602831 |
WM <askasker48@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. Juni 2023 um 02:27:02 UTC+2:
>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > The function 0, 0, 0, ... for instance, has infinitely many
>> > terms.
>
>> You must be being deliberately obtuse. There are infinitely many terms,
>> but only two different terms.
>
> That depends on the meaning. Precisely: There are infinitely many
> different terms with only one value.
Silly sophistry. You could have said that you intended that meaning
more than a week ago, but back then you tried to get out of the problem
but talking about some other sequence that really did have many
different terms. That failed so now all the equal terms are different.
>> Infinitely many such functions (i.e. paths) can
>> be distinguished despite there being only two different terms.
>
> Yes. Why is this so? Because all their nodes are different in spite of
> the only values 0 and 1.
The functions can also all be distinguished from each other because
there are all distinct sets. There's no need to imagine "nodes" when
talking about functions from N to {0,1}.
Good to end on a point of agreement, however small.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u6lmv0$1e41t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602451 |
On 6/16/2023 7:50 AM, WM wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Freitag, 16. Juni 2023 um 02:28:51 UTC+2:
>> WM <askas...@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:
>>>
>>> Correction:
>>>
>>>> I.e. that there are "more" functions from N to {0,1} than there are
>>>> natural numbers.
>>>
>>> Of course. But there are more different terms of the sequences than
>>> sequences.
>> There are only two different terms: 0 and 1.
>
> No, there are many. Each term (node) is a triple of level number, index within the level, and value 0 or 1. My claim is that there are more nodes than paths up to each level, which is undisputed. A reversal of the ratio is unreasonable belief.
>
[...]
Ben is a nice guy. Just ask him if you need some help. I know that he
has helped me in the past. No problem. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 16:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0724795-2960-4040-95cf-011f16ff0fccn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 12:36:04 PM UTC+2, Peter Peters wrote: > In order to <bla> Ach, Mückenheim, niemand kann so viel saudummen Scheißdreck mit so wenigen Worten formulieren wie Sie. Das ist unverkennbar. > Regards, WM War ja klar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 20:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9a36693e-c313-8093-7a3c-e93b6d61184e@att.net> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
On 6/14/2023 6:35 AM, Peter Peters, == Wolfgang Mueckenheim, of Hochschule Augsburg, wrote: > In order to maintain set theory > five violations of mathematics > have to be exerted. In a finite (1×1 2-ended) sequence of claims, if any claim is possibly-false, then some claim is first possibly-false. Some claims in some sequences are not first possibly-false, and we can see that, even without knowing what those claims mean. For example, in ⟨...P...P⇒Q...Q...⟩ Q can be true or false, but if Q is false, P or P⇒Q is also false, and Q is not _first_ false. We can see that Q is either not-false or not first-false. Q is visibly-not-first-possibly-false 👁¬#1◇⊥ We can know preliminary claims about certain things. Claims of what a natural number is, for example. We can 👁¬#1◇⊥ augment those preliminary claims. If we do that, we will know the 👁¬#1◇⊥ augmenting claims, too. We will know that they are true of each natural number (for example) without defining, seeing, or contacting in any way each natural number. We will know because the augmenting claims are 👁¬#1◇⊥ Because the _claims_ are finitely-many and finite-length, we can check it and know it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 17:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <12941021-5ba5-dd4c-fa77-ae60d2affdba@att.net> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
On 6/14/2023 6:35 AM, Peter Peters,
== Wolfgang Mueckenheim, of
Hochschule Augsburg, wrote:
> 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.
The natural numbers ℕ are _semi-finite_
What I mean by that is:
each split of ℕ is
finite on one side and
semi-finite (which is not finite)
on the other.
Semi-finite order == 1×1 1-ended.
Finite order == 1×1 2-ended.
For each j ∈ ℕ = ⟨0...⟩
the split ⟨0...j⟩∥⟨j⁺⁺...⟩ exists
such that
⟨0...j⟩ is finite and
⟨j⁺⁺...⟩ is semi-finite.
Also,
the sequence of end segments ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩,
is semi-finite. ⟨j…⟩ = ⟨j...⟩
For each ⟨j…⟩ ∈ ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
the split ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟨j…⟩⟩∥⟨⟨j⁺⁺…⟩...⟩ exists
such that
⟨⟨1…⟩...⟨j…⟩⟩ is finite and
⟨⟨j⁺⁺…⟩...⟩ is semi-finite.
For each ⟨j…⟩ ∈ ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
for its split ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟨j…⟩⟩∥⟨⟨j⁺⁺…⟩...⟩
⟨j…⟩ ⊆ each ⟨i…⟩ ∈ ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟨j…⟩⟩
⟨j…⟩ ⊈ each ⟨k…⟩ ∈ ⟨⟨j⁺⁺…⟩...⟩
⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ is the intersection of
all end segments.
⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ ⊆ each ⟨i…⟩ ∈ ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
No ⟨jₓ…⟩ ⊆ each ⟨i…⟩ ∈ ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
Therefore,
no ⟨jₓ…⟩ = ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ ∉ ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
...from which it follows
⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ = ∅
| Assume otherwise.
| Assume jₓ ∈ ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
|
| The split of ⟨0...⟩
| {i∉⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ᣔ<ᣔ{i∈⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩}
| exists
|
| {i∈⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩} ∋ jₓ
|
| ⟨0...⟩ is ⁺⁺ing 1×1
| Thus, for that split,
| some jₓ₁ is last-before
| and jₓ₁⁺⁺ is first-after
|
| ⟨jₓ₁⁺⁺...⟩ =
| {i∈⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩} =
| ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
|
| ⟨jₓ₁⁺⁺...⟩ ∈ ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
| ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ ∈ ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
|
| However,
| ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ ∉ ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
| Contradiction.
Therefore,
jₓ ∉ ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ = ∅
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <askasker48@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 07:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b15025e0-b713-41ae-b916-b93f48d3eb14n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602375 |
Jim Burns schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2023 um 23:08:58 UTC+2:
> On 6/14/2023 6:35 AM, Peter Peters,
> == Wolfgang Mueckenheim, of
> Technische Hochschule Augsburg, wrote:
> > 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.
> The natural numbers ℕ are _semi-finite_
> What I mean by that is:
> each split of ℕ is
> finite on one side and
> semi-finite (which is not finite)
> on the other.
That is true for the visible numbers. It is not true for all. But this is best seen by the unit fractions: According to ∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) = 1/(n(n+1)) > 0, ℵ₀ unit fractions and their internal distances cut a length D > 0 from the real axis, such that only for x > D: NUF(x) = ℵo.
> For each j ∈ ℕ = ⟨0...⟩
> the split ⟨0...j⟩∥⟨j⁺⁺...⟩ exists
> such that
> ⟨0...j⟩ is finite and
> ⟨j⁺⁺...⟩ is semi-finite.
∀n ∈ ℕ: 1, 2, 3, ..., n, |, n+1, n+2, ... the first part is the smaller part and finite.
> Also,
> the sequence of end segments ⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩,
> is semi-finite. ⟨j…⟩ = ⟨j...⟩
The sequence of infinite endsegments has a smaller, potential infinity oo than the infinite ℵo contents .
> Therefore,
> jₓ ∉ ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩
> ⋂⟨⟨1…⟩...⟩ = ∅
The intersection loses in every step the same as the sequence of endsegments.
The intersection is the last endsegment. If there is no last endsegment, then there is no (last) intersection.
By simplest logic: If E_n =/= { } for all n e IN, then the intersection of all E_n is not empty.
But for every infinite endsegment the majority of numbers is contents and not indices.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 14:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5d222b55-d15d-eeff-bc06-0d9c40f6ee60@att.net> |
| In reply to | #602450 |
On 6/16/2023 10:45 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Donnerstag, > 15. Juni 2023 um 23:08:58 UTC+2: >> The natural numbers ℕ are _semi-finite_ >> What I mean by that is: >> each split of ℕ is >> finite on one side and >> semi-finite (which is not finite) >> on the other. > > That is true for the visible numbers. ℕ := ⟨0…⟩ = ⟨semi-finite⟩ = ⟨finite⟩∥⟨semi-finite⟩ ⟨0…⟩ ∋ 0 ∧ ¬∃n ∈ ⟨0…⟩: ⟨0…⟩ ∌ n⁺⁺ (M ∋ 0 ∧ ¬∃m ∈ M: M ∌ m⁺⁺) ⟹ M ⊇ ⟨0…⟩ > It is not true for all. If it is not true for ℕᵂᴹ then, when you talk about ℕᵂᴹ you aren't talking about ℕ for which it is true. That is what definitions are for, so that, when we discuss something, we aren't talking past one another. Definitions are not for declaring conclusions to be true. One only removes oneself from the conversation. We will sometimes use different definitions of the same concept. These different definitions should be accompanied somewhere by proofs that _what is defined_ is the same for both definitions, so that everyone stays in the same conversation. A relevant example would be the minimal inductive set and the union of all ⁺⁺ing 1×1 2-endeds from 0 They are the same, but they aren't _defined to be_ the same. The are proven to be the same. ω is the minimal inductive set ⟨0…⟩ is the union of all ⁺⁺ing 1×1 2-endeds from 0 ⟨0…⟩ is inductive, provably so. ω is minimal inductive Thus, ⟨0…⟩ ⊇ ω ¬∃j ∈ ⟨0…⟩: ω ∌ j | Assume otherwise. | Assume jₓ ∈ ⟨0…⟩: ω ∌ jₓ | | There is a first iₓ₁⁺⁺ ∈ ⟨0…⟩: | ω ∌ iₓ₁⁺⁺ ∧ ω ∋ iₓ₁ | | However, | ω is inductive. | ¬∃i ∈ ω: ω ∌ i⁺⁺ | ω ∋ iₓ₁⁺⁺ | Contradiction. Therefore, ¬∃j ∈ ⟨0…⟩: ω ∌ j ⟨0…⟩ ⊆ ω ⟨0…⟩ ⊇ ω ⟨0…⟩ = ω The minimal inductive set equals the union of all ⁺⁺ing 1×1 2-endeds from 0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 18:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7b66abf6-507f-1d88-a47b-674ae3610441@att.net> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
On 6/14/2023 6:35 AM, Peter Peters == Wolfgang Mueckenheim, of Hochschule Augsburg, wrote: > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions > cannot sit below all x > 0. The unit fractions are semi-finite. For each split ⟨...⅟n⁺⁺⟩∥⟨⅟n...⅟1⟩ ⟨⅟n...⅟1⟩ is finite and ⟨...⅟n⁺⁺⟩ is semi-finite. For each unit fraction ⅟n ⅟n is below finitely-many unit fractions infinitely-many unit fractions are below ⅟n
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <467fc985-9f81-491a-9935-21063762aed8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science. On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:36:32 AM UTC-5, Alan Folmsbee wrote: Nutjob Alan packs 12 apples and says this is how atoms subatomic particles are arranged. Alan is this how we got fruitcake to mean nutjob like you? 1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms. 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus. 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity. 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star. 5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2. 6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction 7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle" 8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron. > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita > > Arthur B. McDonald > > Francois Englert > > Saul Perlmutter > > Brian P. Schmidt > > Adam G. Riess > > Makoto Kobayashi > > Toshihide Maskawa_ > > Yoichiro Nambu_ > > John C. Mather > > George F. Smoot > > Roy J. Glauber_ > > David J. Gross > > Hugh David Politzer > > Frank Wilczek > > Raymond Davis Jr. _ > > Masatoshi Koshiba_ > > Riccardo Giacconi_ > > Gerardus 't Hooft > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_ > > Jerome I. Friedman > > Henry W. Kendall_ > > Richard E. Taylor_ > > Carlo Rubbia > > Simon van der Meer_ > > William Alfred Fowler_ > > Kenneth G. Wilson_ > > James Watson Cronin_ > > Val Logsdon Fitch_ > > Sheldon Lee Glashow > > Steven Weinberg_ > > . > > . > > little fishes > > . > > . > > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV > > > > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass > > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu > > more and more layers of error thinking physics > > . > > . > > Edward Witten > > John Baez > > Brian Greene > > Lisa Randall > > Alan H. Guth > > Michael E. Brown > > Konstantin Batygin > > Ben Bullock > > Larry Harson > > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan > > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views > > None at all - he was a raving nutter. > > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley > > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater > > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater > > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater > > > > > > #2-1, 137th published book > > > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > > > > > > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory > > > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me. > > > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to. > > > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory. > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism. > > Length: 64 pages > > > > Product details > > • File Size : 790 KB > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020 > > • Word Wise : Enabled > > • Print Length : 64 pages > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled > > • Screen Reader : Supported > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled > > • Language: : English > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY > > • Lending : Enabled > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store) > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads > > > > #2-2, 145th published book > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2 > > Kindle Edition > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education. > > > > Product details > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020 > > • Language: : English > > • File size : 682 KB > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled > > • Screen Reader : Supported > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled > > • Word Wise : Enabled > > • Print length : 78 pages > > • Lending : Enabled > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store) > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books) > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4343246-13de-4570-a024-0f079ec1d0e4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
WM and his sex gang be removed from sci.math. Which has more intelligence? Jan Burse's dog or Jan Burse? 29 views Subscribe Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo Archimedes Plutonium 4:00 AM (9 hours ago) to He calls himself now Mild Shock, far better than his previous name Mostowski Collapse. But is there some Freudian slip interpretation of this? But I think his dog has more intelligence than Jan Burse, for his dog uses only one eye to see you and reserves his other eye. Maybe the BBC can do a animal story of Jan's dog-- a dog smarter than its owner. I think a better name for Jan Burse for his new rounds of hate spew, would have been "Mild Cock" instead of Mild Shock, and certainly, a blunt Freudian slip in sci.math. And how much Freudian slips occur in sci.math?? Perhaps 1 per day are Freudian slips, like WM's dark numbers. That would be well with Jan Burse posting into a Earle Jones thread, with his logo picture showing Earle sucking on a cock-- an alltime record holder of Freudian slips. So masterful is Earle's Freudian slip, his inner longings, that Earle is oblivious dumb to the slip he made. As daffy duck would say-- "nay, I am sure, am sure". So if Jan Burse would post into a Earle Jones thread, would complete the circle-- Jan Burse Mild Cock and Earle sucking on a cock. What Dan Christensen would lecture on as a union of sets, but get it wrong in his presentation, gurgling all over his shirt. Somehow we have to get the dark personality of Dan Christensen in on this, with his dark logo picture of DC Proof. Dan is your logo picture the Freudian slip wannabe that of a arsehole? For your posts are arseholish. And of course Kibo Parry (Moron-Volney) must get in on the Freudian slip action, his constant posts of failure, worse than "I sik, I cri" out of Portugal. So what is Kibo's gargantuan Freudian slip?? Why yes of course, the made up fake name of "kibo" itself, being derived from "kook" a baby kook is a kibo. But in the romance languages "kibo" comes from kock, or cock and is Kibo's perverse way of hiding his Freudian slip of cock. This is what Kibo learned in his first week in CIA and caused him to blow his cover in just a few days upon entry into the CIA, a record not broken since Kibo entered. And here is Kibo in 1997, making gay advances on the King of Science AP, for which AP was insulted at the time. For AP is asexual, above sex, in a higher plane of orbit-- science. Not Kibo's vulgar brains between his legs and a vacuum skull. Kibo in CIA > > > > > > Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you--- > > > > > > Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster > > > > > > >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes: Kibo had a Freudian slip with blowing his cover on the first day at the job with CIA. Then another Freudian slip with his moniker -- Kibo, although his allies tried to convince him to chose Turbo, more masculine. No, kibo ended up with Kibo, and now in older age-- 60s?? Kibo is realizing his poor choice of nicknames, and thinking of changing it to Arky. Why Arky,,... Kibo?? Is it Joan of Arc to clean and scrub your life, your miserable dark and dank life you lead so far, and that Joan of Arc saint would clean some of that filth off of you. AP, King of Science, especially Physics Dogelog Player's profile photo Dogelog Player 4:19 AM (9 hours ago) Hi, I am the dog of Mild Shock. I think your nick- name should be Small Cock, or Micro Penis. Bye Mild Shock's profile photo Mild Shock 4:22 AM (9 hours ago) Yes, my dog is right. He is surely more intelligent than me. And I guess he is right your nick-name Volney's profile photo Volney 8:56 AM (4 hours ago) 🌪️ of Math and 🌀 of Physics Archimedes "Meckling Village Idiot" Plutonium <plutonium. Fritz Feldhase's profile photo Fritz Feldhase 9:14 AM (4 hours ago) On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:00:57 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: "Which has more Mild Shock's profile photo Mild Shock 11:34 AM (2 hours ago) Freud would possibly only need the picture of the „one eyed [snake]“ to diagnose Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo Archimedes Plutonium 1:14 PM (1 minute ago) to Gangs in a science, make a mockery and degradation of that science. Whether a sex-gang, a money-gang, a ethnic-gang. Science and gangs just are totally incompatible. Recently I started to include the Scientific Method in my books and my discussions. Which of the principles of the Scientific Method is repulsed by "gang behavior" in that particular science??? --- quoting recent book of mine --- to Plutonium Atom Universe Up until now, I have not included or made mention of the Method of Science. And I need to go back into all my textbooks and state this method where appropriate. Funny how doing psychology and sociology of math mistakes calls the Scientific Method into action. The Scientific Method is something I learned early in High School. Source: Wikipedia. Observation/ question Research Topic Hypothesis Test with Experiment Analyze data Report conclusions I do not recall if Feynman goes through the Scientific Method in one of his books-- perhaps "Character of Physical Law". Perhaps he mentions the Scientific Method in bits and pieces throughout his "Lectures on Physics". Here is a slightly different take on Scientific Method from Internet (the ladders dot com) Systematic observation experimenting measuring testing formulating modifying a hypothesis What I am going to do is apply the Scientific Method to mathematics and why errors in math sometimes abandon the Scientific Method. What I am focusing on is the math error of trigonometry of making one axis be different from the other axis in making graphs. In calculus, I am focusing on the abandonment of the Scientific Method in Calculus, when numbers are cobbled together to make Numbers, such as the Reals, and when functions are cobbled together and called functions when cobbling together is seen as science, when it is not. --- end quote --- So, what principle or principles does "gang activity" violate the Scientific Method?? I would say all the principles for gang activity is totally counter to the activities of science. The reward of Science is truth. The reward of gang activity is -- sex, or money, or power (be it military, political or interpersonal). The newsgroups, sci.math and sci.physics would be better newsgroups if the "gangs" that infest them are removed. For instance, when one of the gang members forged necrophilia upon AP, not only should he be removed-- and he was removed, but also the entire gang network that operates with him, be removed. Science does not mix with gang activity. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "zelos...@gmail.com" <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-05 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a5ce6f2-ded5-4c27-9155-a682615c92afn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602228 |
onsdag 14 juni 2023 kl. 11:36:04 UTC+1 skrev Peter Peters: > In order to maintain set theory five violations of mathematics have to be exerted. There are no violations in set theory > > 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. Not a contradiction because endsegments don't decrease in cardinality piece wise. That is not how cardinal arithmetic works. > > 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. This is outright false > > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. Meaningless > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. False also > > 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 Also wrong So you showed 5 non-contradictions and only WM stupidities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <askasker48@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-05 02:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0855fd96-3158-4263-9663-ee0c271703fen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603990 |
zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2023 um 09:23:34 UTC+2: > > 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. > > Not a contradiction because endsegments don't decrease in cardinality piece wise. They decrease element by element. > That is not how cardinal arithmetic works. That's why cardinal arithmetic is fools crap. > > > > > 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. > > This is outright false You are too stupid to learn that never two consecutive infinite sets cann exist in ℕ? Then take up another occupation. > > > > > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. > > Meaningless You are too stupid to understand the meaning. > > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. > > False also Useless to discuss with an ignorant. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "zelos...@gmail.com" <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-05 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96dca285-0ad4-4f1a-a3ab-e6a9220ee352n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603996 |
onsdag 5 juli 2023 kl. 10:54:58 UTC+1 skrev WM: > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2023 um 09:23:34 UTC+2: > > > > 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. > > > > Not a contradiction because endsegments don't decrease in cardinality piece wise. > They decrease element by element. But the cardinality does not retard. > > That is not how cardinal arithmetic works. > That's why cardinal arithmetic is fools crap. No, it is just different and you are too retarded to understand. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > This is outright false > You are too stupid to learn that never two consecutive infinite sets cann exist in ℕ? Then take up another occupation. Comes crom the imbecile that cannot learn basic mathematics. > > > > > > > > 3) Every lossless exchange is lossless. This must be denied. > > > > Meaningless > You are too stupid to understand the meaning. You are too retarded to do mathematics, give up > > > > > 4) Infinitely many unit fractions cannot sit below all x > 0. This must be denied. > > > > False also > Useless to discuss with an ignorant. > > Regards, WM I agree, why don't you fuck off them so we have one less ignorant retard around?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <askasker48@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 05:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ef8861a-4df5-4cf6-8e8c-edb0923a9850n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604020 |
zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2023 um 18:37:04 UTC+2: > onsdag 5 juli 2023 kl. 10:54:58 UTC+1 skrev WM: > > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2023 um 09:23:34 UTC+2: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Not a contradiction because endsegments don't decrease in cardinality piece wise. > > They decrease element by element. > But the cardinality does not As long as they are infinite their intersecton is infinite. Try to find a counter example (infinite sets of endsegments with empty intersection). Fail. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17d2fd2e-53f3-4d19-9469-99461880d0b7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604090 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:30:01 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> Try to find a counter example (infinite sets of endsegments with empty intersection).
INTERSCTION {E(n) : n e IN} = { } .
Not that hard, Mückenheim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web