Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #424760 > unrolled thread
| Started by | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-02 03:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-04 19:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-02 03:07 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 03:39 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-02 03:42 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 05:34 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-02 11:34 -0700
Re: The structure of |N me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:45 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 03:07 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 22:40 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 03:17 -0700
Re: The structure of |N me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 04:13 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 09:11 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 02:43 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 22:42 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 06:49 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-10-04 21:37 +0200
Re: The structure of |N Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-10-04 21:33 +0200
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 22:38 -0700
Re: The structure of |N me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:57 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 22:39 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-02 13:18 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 03:08 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-03 19:34 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 06:45 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-04 13:29 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 03:05 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 04:19 -0700
Re: The structure of |N me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 04:32 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 04:22 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 04:29 -0700
Re: The structure of |N me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 04:36 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 13:15 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 13:47 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 13:49 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 23:37 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 03:35 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 08:17 -0700
Re: The structure of |N me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 09:07 -0700
Re: The structure of |N WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-07 08:15 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-05 06:30 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 13:13 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-05 18:53 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 23:01 -0700
Re: The structure of |N WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-08 09:14 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 22:32 -0700
Re: The structure of |N WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-09 01:38 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 05:20 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-09 09:20 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-09 09:31 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 03:51 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-09 17:37 +0100
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 03:51 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 22:27 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 23:16 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 23:18 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 02:20 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 02:57 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 03:49 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-12 14:04 +0100
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 09:11 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-13 20:03 +0100
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 02:50 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-13 20:09 +0100
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 22:49 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 02:37 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-20 01:59 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 22:56 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 22:21 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 23:16 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 22:31 -0700
Re: The structure of |N Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 22:41 -0700
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 06:49 -0700
Re: The structure of |N "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-02 19:00 -0500
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 03:09 -0700
Re: The structure of |N "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-03 21:12 -0500
Re: The structure of |N transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 06:52 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 07:58 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 14:13 -0700
Re: The structure of |N bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 14:24 -0700
Re: The structure of |N "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-04 19:00 -0500
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8422d99e-ae5c-460b-9266-e9ba59179b0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425023 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:13:13 PM UTC-4, transf...@gmail.com wrote: > Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018 15:30:19 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Christensen: > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 6:05:37 AM UTC-4, transf...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Experts of set theory have confirmed that the Binary Tree can be dealt with in ZFC and that not more than aleph_0 paths can be distinguished at any level. > > > > No contradiction here, > > You are wrong. It is a theorem of ZFC that there are uncountably many distinct paths within the Binary Tree. Further ZFC proves that never more than countably many paths can be distinguished. > Sorry, Mucke, not good enough! You will have to present your proofs of the two required contradictory theorems, using ONLY the ZFC axioms. There is no way around it, Mucke. Somehow, I doubt that you are able to apply the ZFC axioms (or any other axioms) to obtain even the simplest result, so I won't my breath. Really, you should consider taking up knitting or gardening. Something productive like that. You have produced absolutely nothing worthwhile here. How many decades is it now? It's never too late to start. Dan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98c34a6f-d108-4026-bbf3-4b1b4f51e02e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425023 |
>You are wrong. It is a theorem of ZFC that there are uncountably many distinct paths within the Binary Tree. Further ZFC proves that never more than countably many paths can be distinguished. Incorrect, yes, the entire binary tree has uncountably many paths, and yes at any specific level n, there are only countably many paths, but those statements are not a contradiction. You need to show given |N nodes in a path, for any path, the cardinality of all paths together is aleph_0 This of course you cannto show. >Paths are not different unless they differ by nodes at a finite level. Even at the limit level, if we accept such a level, there are at most aleph_0 paths distinguishable. Limit of something is not the same as it at that point. >That shows a contradiction in the principles of set theory. It doesn't, it shows you don't understand anything. >ZFC proves uncountably many distinct paths within the Binary Tree. >ZFC proves that only countably many paths can be distinguished. > >For sane persons this is a contradiction. No, to someone that reads things and can write it in FOL-ZFC, one can see that those are not mutualyl exclusive because they are not Q=~P thats hte mistake you do constanly. >Ask the experts. The Binary Tree is definable in ZFC. There are never more than aleph_0 paths distinguishable by nodes at any level in the Binary Tree. That shows my claim. It doesn't show what you want, a contradiction. If that was a contradiction it'd been known a hundred years ago cause its trivial. But in formal logic and all, it isn't Again you need ZFC |- P ZFC |- ~P to show a contradiction, not ZFC |- P ZFC |- Q and you feel P and Q should relate, but they don't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddc5e067-48ea-4ad2-ae14-e05ef4b0d31c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425169 |
Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018 08:02:07 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >You are wrong. It is a theorem of ZFC that there are uncountably many distinct paths within the Binary Tree. Further ZFC proves that never more than countably many paths can be distinguished. > > Incorrect, yes, the entire binary tree has uncountably many paths, and yes at any specific level n, there are only countably many paths, but those statements are not a contradiction. They are in contradiction because there are no other tools to distinguish paths. > > You need to show given |N nodes in a path, for any path, the cardinality of all paths together is aleph_0 It is easy to give a general proof: The basic structure is the branching at a node o | o / \ where the number 2 of edges leaving a node is equal to the number of 1 incoming edge plus 1, represented by the node: 1 + 1 = 2 . All paths that can be distinguished on a certain level are distinguished by nodes (or edges). Therefore the number of distinguishable paths grows with the number of nodes. Every node increases the number of distinguishable paths by 1. The number of distinguishable paths is identical to the number of nodes (+1). Even "in the infinite", should it exist, a path cannot branch into two paths without creating a node. Because a node is defined as a branching point, no increase in distinguishable paths is possible without the same increase in nodes. This is easily understood by people who can think mathematically. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b15bc3d0-ee06-477a-a49b-0c05efad50fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425200 |
>They are in contradiction because there are no other tools to distinguish paths. They are not, the fact that at some finite level n they diverge, does not mean that counting only up to finite levels is in contradiction to counting when you have ALL levels. >It is easy to give a general proof: You'd be the first and considering your inability to write anything, I ain't holding my breath. >This is easily understood by people who can think mathematically. It is understandable to anyone that knows mathematics that you CANNOT extrapolate from a finite case, the infinite, like you did and I KNEW you would. You are very preidctable in how wrong you will get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 01:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fdaf370-ba7a-4903-ab05-ca1554a25831@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425237 |
Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2018 07:32:28 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum:
> >They are in contradiction because there are no other tools to distinguish paths.
>
> They are not, the fact that at some finite level n they diverge, does not mean that counting only up to finite levels is in contradiction to counting when you have ALL levels.
All levels are at finite positions.
>
> >It is easy to give a general proof:
>
> You'd be the first and considering your inability to write anything, I ain't holding my breath.
Why then did you delete the proof?
> >This is easily understood by people who can think mathematically.
>
> It is understandable to anyone that knows mathematics that you CANNOT extrapolate from a finite case, the infinite,
The basic structure does never change and therefore extends into the infinite
|
o
/ \
The number 2 of edges leaving a node is equal to the number of 1 incoming edge plus 1, represented by the node:
1 + 1 = 2 .
Even "in the infinite", should it exist, a path cannot branch into two paths without creating a node. Because a node is defined as a branching point, no increase in distinguishable paths is possible without the same increase in nodes.
Think over that! There is nothing restricted to finite levels. ALL of the Binary Tree is covered. Parts without that basic structure simply are not existing.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 05:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0619d05-4c9f-4445-939f-4b15fdaba36f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425253 |
>All levels are at finite positions. Of course, but that is still not a contradiciton. >Why then did you delete the proof? I have deleted nothing here. If you mean "Ignore" it then that would be because I pointed out at the end it is flawed. >hink over that! There is nothing restricted to finite levels. ALL of the Binary Tree is covered. Parts without that basic structure simply are not existing. I have thoguht it over and none of that even matters, when you ahve infinitely many levels, things can become quite different than what you expect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d52ad9b1-00c7-4479-8868-0e4249b0f12e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425264 |
Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2018 14:20:27 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > > Think over that! There is nothing restricted to finite levels. ALL of the Binary Tree is covered. Parts without that basic structure simply are not existing. > > I have thoguht it over and none of that even matters, when you ahve infinitely many levels, things can become quite different than what you expect. The basic structure | o / \ extends into the infinite. It shows that the number of nodes +1 is an upper bound for the number of lines. This restriction is true everywhere. There is no change in the infinite possible. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df57e188-20f5-448f-a89a-ff4e85c5cf58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425276 |
Well if it extends into the infinite, then it can only be a lower bound. It would only be an upper bound if it would decend from some infinity. Because of your continual Non-undertanding, your book doesn't deserve the category "textbook", it rather belongs to the category "satire". This petition runs for 360 days, the goal is 1000 signatures: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/de/135/815/763/fehlerhaftes-kapitel-in-lehrbuch/ Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2018 18:21:05 UTC+2 schrieb transf...@gmail.com: > Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2018 14:20:27 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > > > > > Think over that! There is nothing restricted to finite levels. ALL of the Binary Tree is covered. Parts without that basic structure simply are not existing. > > > > I have thoguht it over and none of that even matters, when you ahve infinitely many levels, things can become quite different than what you expect. > > The basic structure > > | > o > / \ > > extends into the infinite. It shows that the number of nodes +1 is an upper bound for the number of lines. This restriction is true everywhere. There is no change in the infinite possible. > > Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 03:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d933bfcb-b7ef-4e0b-b092-33ec6d423400@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425278 |
> > The basic structure > > > > | > > o > > / \ > > > > extends into the infinite. It shows that the number of nodes +1 is an upper bound for the number of lines. This restriction is true everywhere. There is no change in the infinite possible. > > Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2018 18:31:08 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > Well if it extends into the infinite, then it can > only be a lower bound. No. Every line that splits off from an existing line creates a node. Both are one-to-one connected. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 17:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fwebm83m5z1.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #425276 |
transfinity01@gmail.com writes: > Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2018 14:20:27 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >> > Think over that! There is nothing restricted to finite levels. ALL >> of the Binary Tree is covered. Parts without that basic structure >> simply are not existing. >> >> I have thoguht it over and none of that even matters, when you ahve >> infinitely many levels, things can become quite different than what >> you expect. > > The basic structure > > | > o > / \ > > extends into the infinite. It shows that the number of nodes +1 is an > upper bound for the number of lines. This restriction is true > everywhere. There is no change in the infinite possible. Similarly, the basic structure | o | shows that at each level the number of nodes encountered is finite, and so the nodes up to each level form a complete finite set. This restriction is true everywhere. There is no change in the infinite possible. Therefore there are no potentially infinite collections. > > Regards, WM > -- Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 03:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <369ba7e7-5296-440e-83c8-70decafa64eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425279 |
Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2018 18:40:10 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill: > transfinity01@gmail.com writes: > > The basic structure > > > > | > > o > > / \ > > > > extends into the infinite. It shows that the number of nodes +1 is an > > upper bound for the number of lines. This restriction is true > > everywhere. There is no change in the infinite possible. > > Similarly, the basic structure > > | > o > | > > shows that at each level the number of nodes encountered is finite, > and so the nodes up to each level form a complete finite set. That is also shown for the Binary Tree. > > This restriction is true everywhere. There is > no change in the infinite possible. > > Therefore there are no potentially infinite collections. Potentially infinite means "always finite but without upper bound". However my argument shows that set theory is wrong because the basic structure is applied also in set theory and it shows that no line can split off from another line without creating a node - wherever the tree is checked. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 22:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee12870c-398a-4403-9a94-5a1f1277d19d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425346 |
>Potentially infinite means "always finite but without upper bound"
This is a contradiction in an ordered set with operations. If it is finite it has a maximal and minimal element.
>However my argument shows that set theory is wrong because the basic structure is applied also in set theory and it shows that no line can split off from another line without creating a node - wherever the tree is checked.
No, your arguement shows that you are not understanding mathematics at all. You try to extrapolate from the finite to the infinite.
Your tree shows ONLY that at LEAST, the number of paths when you have infinitely many levels is aleph-0, it can be greater but no less. And it is infact greater.
>No. Every line that splits off from an existing line creates a node. Both are one-to-one connected.
HE is correct, ti is only a lower bound.
Your binary tree can turned into the set of functions from |N to {l,r}, because at each level it either takes left or right. From here I construct a bijection from
{l,r}^|N
to
P(|N)
by having so that f(x)={n e |N:x(n)=l}, that it is injective follows from axiom of extensiality. That it is surjective is easy to verify, therefore it is a bijection and hence, the cardinality of your tree is aleph-1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 23:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61285668-3098-4c1a-97dc-551749edab69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425405 |
Am Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2018 07:27:24 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum:
> >No. Every line that splits off from an existing line creates a node. Both are one-to-one connected.
>
> HE is correct, ti is only a lower bound.
Then more than two lines must arise from a node in the infinite.
>
> Your binary tree can turned into the set of functions from |N to {l,r}, because at each level it either takes left or right. From here I construct a bijection from
> {l,r}^|N
> to
> P(|N)
> by having so that f(x)={n e |N:x(n)=l}, that it is injective follows from axiom of extensiality. That it is surjective is easy to verify, therefore it is a bijection and hence, the cardinality of your tree is aleph-1
Since never more than two lines arise from a node (or split point) your argument is fallacious or there is a contradiction in ZFC.
Note: You cannot remove a contradiction by proving one of the contradictory statements.
You must show that the other is fallacious (not only claim so).
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 23:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a544432-bcc3-436f-8c57-0171298c8d61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425414 |
>Then more than two lines must arise from a node in the infinite. Nope, it does not imply that at all. >Since never more than two lines arise from a node (or split point) your argument is fallacious or there is a contradiction in ZFC. Not at all, I had the two lines from each node which makes it valid and there is no contradiction. >You cannot remove a contradiction by proving one of the contradictory statements. You have yet to show a real contradiction. >You must show that the other is fallacious (not only claim so). I have shown you are falalcious cause you are assuming from the finite, the infinite case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 02:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d488ab59-a1ca-4f83-9d1b-6e38be1c8dac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425416 |
Am Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2018 08:19:01 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >Then more than two lines must arise from a node in the infinite. > > Nope, it does not imply that at all. Of course. If only two lines arise, then we have as many lines as split points. If you cannot understand so simple mathematics, then you would not even be accepted in thrid class of elementary school, let alone in my lecture https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/HI/HI12.PPT where 2 = 1 + 1 is shown (frame 72). > > >Since never more than two lines arise from a node (or split point) your argument is fallacious or there is a contradiction in ZFC. > > Not at all, I had the two lines from each node which makes it valid and there is no contradiction. Chukle. Ask people whose brains have not yet been irreversably perverted by matheology. I cannot help you. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 02:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb5df4a3-ef65-41e0-abb5-7c4aed17d806@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425420 |
>Of course Of course it doesn't, if you write them in FOL for example, you will see that they are not negations of each other nor imply aech other. >If only two lines arise, then we have as many lines as split points. If you cannot understand so simple mathematics The one not understanding is you, you assume that the amount from finite cases has any effect on infinite, it does not. >Chukle. Ask people whose brains have not yet been irreversably perverted by matheology. I cannot help you. You mean mathematics? You are the one that is in the wrong and will not learn. Fuck a computer is smarter than you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 03:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eed96c9a-e99a-4ab3-8bb6-de1ea264d386@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425422 |
Am Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2018 11:58:06 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >If only two lines arise, then we have as many lines as split points. If you cannot understand so simple mathematics > > The one not understanding is you, you assume that the amount from finite cases has any effect on infinite, it does not. Why then should this happen in the diagonal argument? > > >Chukle. Ask people whose brains have not yet been irreversably perverted by matheology. I cannot help you. > > You mean mathematics? No. The infinite of mathematics can be determined from the finite. The sequence of (nodes - paths) 0, 0, 0, ... cannot have another limit than 0. REgards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 14:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fweo9bztiy5.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #425468 |
transfinity01@gmail.com writes: > Am Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2018 11:58:06 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >> >If only two lines arise, then we have as many lines as split >> > points. If you cannot understand so simple mathematics >> >> The one not understanding is you, you assume that the amount from >> finite cases has any effect on infinite, it does not. > > Why then should this happen in the diagonal argument? For the same reason that it is possible to show that the square root ot 2 is not rational -- a proof that you accept, despite knowing that however many pairs of naturals (n,m) you examine, there are *always* infinitely many pairs that have not been examined. Double standards!! > REgards, WM -- Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d83770ae-fd44-4fa6-a40f-9ab03b6df2e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425472 |
Am Freitag, 12. Oktober 2018 15:05:10 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill: > transfinity01@gmail.com writes: > > > Am Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2018 11:58:06 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > > > >> >If only two lines arise, then we have as many lines as split > >> > points. If you cannot understand so simple mathematics > >> > >> The one not understanding is you, you assume that the amount from > >> finite cases has any effect on infinite, it does not. > > > > Why then should this happen in the diagonal argument? > > For the same reason that it is possible to show that > the square root ot 2 is not rational -- a proof that you accept, Because it is based on mathematics. If Zelos Malum was right, the proof would not hold "in the limit". > despite knowing that however many pairs of naturals (n,m) you examine, > there are *always* infinitely many pairs that have not been examined and that could supply a fraction sqrt2. In fact everybody accepting an infinite decimalfraction for sqrt2 assumed this. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 20:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fwelg71mzyf.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #425503 |
transfinity01@gmail.com writes: > Am Freitag, 12. Oktober 2018 15:05:10 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill: >> transfinity01@gmail.com writes: >> >> > Am Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2018 11:58:06 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: >> > >> >> >If only two lines arise, then we have as many lines as split >> >> > points. If you cannot understand so simple mathematics >> >> >> >> The one not understanding is you, you assume that the amount from >> >> finite cases has any effect on infinite, it does not. >> > >> > Why then should this happen in the diagonal argument? >> >> For the same reason that it is possible to show that >> the square root ot 2 is not rational -- a proof that you accept, > > Because it is based on mathematics. If Zelos Malum was right, the > proof would not hold "in the limit". But what on earth is the difference between the two cases, in your opinion? (other than that you personally accept one and reject the other) >> despite knowing that however many pairs of naturals (n,m) you examine, >> there are *always* infinitely many pairs that have not been examined > > and that could supply a fraction sqrt2. In fact everybody accepting an > infinite decimal fraction for sqrt2 assumed this. "everyone accepts" is not a reason for WM to accept. In one case you take the presence of infinitely many unexamined cases as blocking a proof, in the other you disregard this problem. Logic requires you to explain this divergence. Double standards!! > Regards, WM -- Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web