Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #457916 > unrolled thread
| Started by | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-09-16 22:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 169 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 18:32 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 20:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 20:59 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 22:16 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 11:14 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 21:00 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:48 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 13:09 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 14:41 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 14:08 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 15:45 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:06 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:24 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:33 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 22:40 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:40 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:26 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:36 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 10:06 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:22 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 10:38 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:59 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 11:10 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 13:27 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 12:34 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:19 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-16 12:30 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 13:35 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:51 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 14:15 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 16:18 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:00 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 15:29 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:14 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2019-09-16 23:34 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 14:25 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 16:21 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:01 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 15:46 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:07 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Me <invalid@invalid.de> - 2019-09-17 01:09 +0200
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 02:33 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:53 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:55 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 19:21 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:40 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 21:38 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 00:24 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 00:22 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:39 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:38 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:13 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:29 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 22:23 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:20 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 10:56 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 11:29 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:32 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 12:49 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 19:59 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:09 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:42 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 17:51 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 15:58 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Mike Terry Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:46 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:52 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:55 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-19 14:44 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:31 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:02 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:01 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 22:39 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:23 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-18 01:39 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 09:59 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 09:21 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:41 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-18 13:55 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 16:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ CONCURRENCE ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:10 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 09:05 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 10:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 10:02 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:18 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 23:24 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 10:01 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:13 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:56 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:40 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 11:03 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 12:48 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 12:25 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 22:35 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:28 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy Goofed) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 18:00 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 09:42 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:13 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:36 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:38 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:21 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:55 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 13:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 12:34 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:38 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:00 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 00:55 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:33 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:25 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:26 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 22:43 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 23:12 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:19 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 21:23 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:31 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 22:04 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 23:21 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 22:40 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 00:27 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 23:55 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 00:59 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 00:12 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:15 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 09:35 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:00 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 10:14 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:26 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 10:42 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 13:10 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 12:36 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 13:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 12:59 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 14:12 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 13:30 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 14:45 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 14:14 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 15:29 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 14:38 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 15:56 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 20:38 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 22:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 21:33 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:35 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 09:00 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 10:04 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 12:43 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 15:03 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 22:16 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 23:32 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 23:21 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:13 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 19:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 09:45 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 15:22 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 22:23 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 01:07 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-12 22:24 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:34 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-15 22:31 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 09:55 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-16 22:17 -0700
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-21 09:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) |
| Message-ID | <euSdnZmm18kHqhvAnZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #458867 |
On 9/20/2019 6:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On 9/20/2019 3:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/19/2019 8:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/19/2019 7:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/19/2019 4:24 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>>>>> <cut> >>>>>>>>>> As long as Integers can count ALL the points on a number line Cantor >>>>>>>>>> is refuted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not unless "a number line" includes the reals. >>>>>>> <cut> >>>>>>>> So although the number line does include every Real number it also >>>>>>>> includes the more dense set of Infinitesimal numbers which fill in >>>>>>>> the gaps left behind by the Reals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An answer! Just in case you are in an answering mood I'll try another: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0[1] is the first PO-point (and not a real) after 0. There are no real >>>>>>> points (I'll just call them reals) between 0 and 0[1]. The next point >>>>>>> on the number line (according to more than one post I've seen) is 0[2]. >>>>>>> Are there any reals between 0[1] and 0[2]? If so, how many? If not, >>>>>>> are there any between 0[2] and 0[3]? If so how many? If not, are there >>>>>>> any between 0[3] and 0[4]? Can you see where this is going? Can you >>>>>>> answer? By the way, it's fine to say you don't know. If you don't >>>>>>> know, please don't guess or bluff. >>>>>> >>>>>> [A[n], A[n+1]] (where n is an integer) specifies two immediately adjacent >>>>>> points on a number line. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no numbers of any kind what-so-ever Real or otherwise >>>>>> between any two immediately adjacent points on a number line. >>>>> >>>>> So no reals between 0[1] and 0[2]? And none between 0[2] and 0[3], yes? >>>>> And, indeed, none between 0[n] and 0[n+1] for every n in Z, yes? >>> >>> Confirmation would allow progress. I'll assume you don't know. >> >> I answered this and you acknowledged that I answered this. > > I'm still not sure. I'm going with yes. I'm sure you'll tell me if > that's not what you said before. > There are no reals in this sequence: 0.0[1 to ∞] (0.0, 1.0] is one point longer than (0.0, 1.0). Infinitesimals fill in the gaps between Reals, they have no bijection to Reals. A single point on the number line can be thought of as having a length somewhat comparable to 1.0/∞. Everything that I said above supersedes and replaces everything else that I said. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-21 15:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) |
| Message-ID | <WPKdnX-fIbkSGxvAnZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #458867 |
On 9/21/2019 5:13 AM, Andy Walker wrote: > On 20/09/2019 12:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > [Me, in response to DK:] >>> Step by step! As there are [at least] a countable infinity >>> of [conventional] real numbers, what it means is that there is a >>> rather simple bijection between the PO-points [a countable infinity >>> per real] and the reals, >> Really? Has he actually stated that the "Real_Part" can be any real >> number? At least when he replied to my question about that he did not >> say so. His reply was >> | Any identifiable number can go into the "real" part. >> which is nothing if not classic crank -- it introduces new undefined >> term and uses scare quotes to suggest that the real part is not really >> for what the world calls real numbers. Depending on what an >> identifiable number is, it may turn out that the PO-points r[k] are >> indeed countable. > > I think we're well beyond PO's pay grade. Given his views on > the HP and on diagonal proofs, my suspicion is that he recognises only > the computable reals. This is because the standard example of an > uncomputable real is one whose nth digit is some representation of > the halting state of the nth TM, eg when run with an empty tape; and > in PO-land that is [no doubt] computable. So "identifiable" means > "computable", and any other real number would be "empty rhetoric > devoid blah-de-blah", on which he "calls BS". > >> Putting that aside, he's made the rookie crank mistake of being clear >> about some other things. For example: >> "0.0[1 to ∞] forms a bijection between the positive integers and all >> of the positive numbers through all of the positive points on the >> number line" >> and >> "the number line does include every Real number". >> So we don't need any "base" other than 0, but he's also said that there >> are no reals between any 0[k] and 0[k+1] and, because he's also agreed >> that there is no least positive real, none of the 0[k] (for k > 0) can >> be real themselves. It's all a self-contradictory mess. > > Yes; but that has never worried him! He latches on to some > idea, and repeats and develops it as nauseam, without ever thinking > about how it meshes with other parts of maths and computing. If you > try to point out the contradictions, you are just indulging in "empty > rhetoric ..." or "extraneous detail" or whatever. It's also classic > troll behaviour, but my personal belief is that he is not capable of > sustaining that. > > [...] > > [Later:] >> Sorry, I meant to agree with this key point in my reply... >>> ... Pete disputes that there are as many reals as the rest >>> of us believe; PO-points neither advance nor retard that disputation. >>> Apart from filling Pete's need to have no gaps in his imagined world, >>> and apart from making arithmetic impossible in general, PO-points are >>> an irrelevance. >> Yes, any bijection between N and PO-points could be made better (and >> simpler) just by throwing out all the extra points to leave a bijection >> between N and R! > > True, but that's a different point [and there is indeed a > (non-computable!) bijection between N and the computable reals]. > Mine was that whether R is countable or uncountable doesn't affect > the existence of a bijection between R and R-together-with-a- > countable-infinity-of-infinitesimals. Only if R is finite do > infinitesimals change that. But that would be rather an extreme > view of the reals! > The distance between zero and the point on the number line immediately after zero Number M = 1.0 / ∞; -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-11 22:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b5f91c3-7bee-451f-b6ff-75e38537cfa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457916 |
Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 19:06:01 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: > On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: > > On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote: > >> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number > >> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric > >> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in > >> the interval: (3,4] > > > > And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. > > > > I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system: > Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number > of geometric points offset from the real part. > > 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value > greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds > to the entire set of positive reals. > > Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. > > Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott > > -- > Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved > > "Great spirits have always encountered violent > opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein none of which is any rigorous definition
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 01:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QpCdnWV7NKIhfeTAnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #457987 |
On 9/12/2019 12:23 AM, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 19:06:01 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: >> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote: >>>> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number >>>> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric >>>> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in >>>> the interval: (3,4] >>> >>> And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. >>> >> >> I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system: >> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number >> of geometric points offset from the real part. >> >> 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value >> greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds >> to the entire set of positive reals. >> >> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. >> >> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott >> >> -- >> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved >> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent >> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein > > none of which is any rigorous definition > No it is not. I sketch a proof later on. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e74f403-0ac5-49b5-a0a9-a6582e44b24e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458000 |
Den torsdag 12 september 2019 kl. 08:08:06 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: > On 9/12/2019 12:23 AM, Zelos Malum wrote: > > Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 19:06:01 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: > >> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: > >>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote: > >>>> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number > >>>> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric > >>>> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in > >>>> the interval: (3,4] > >>> > >>> And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. > >>> > >> > >> I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system: > >> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number > >> of geometric points offset from the real part. > >> > >> 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value > >> greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds > >> to the entire set of positive reals. > >> > >> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. > >> > >> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott > >> > >> -- > >> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved > >> > >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent > >> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein > > > > none of which is any rigorous definition > > > > No it is not. I sketch a proof later on. > > -- > Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved > > "Great spirits have always encountered violent > opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein I ain't holding my braeth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 00:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6vCdnTFhKMTqt-bAnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #458103 |
On 9/13/2019 12:24 AM, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den torsdag 12 september 2019 kl. 08:08:06 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: >> On 9/12/2019 12:23 AM, Zelos Malum wrote: >>> Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 19:06:01 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: >>>> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >>>>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number >>>>>> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric >>>>>> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in >>>>>> the interval: (3,4] >>>>> >>>>> And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system: >>>> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number >>>> of geometric points offset from the real part. >>>> >>>> 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value >>>> greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds >>>> to the entire set of positive reals. >>>> >>>> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. >>>> >>>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved >>>> >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent >>>> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein >>> >>> none of which is any rigorous definition >>> >> >> No it is not. I sketch a proof later on. >> >> -- >> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved >> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent >> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein > > I ain't holding my braeth > I already sketched the proof in posts yesterday. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 22:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e56535b-c8c4-4025-af66-5bcd0ee6c925@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458108 |
Den fredag 13 september 2019 kl. 07:34:59 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: > On 9/13/2019 12:24 AM, Zelos Malum wrote: > > Den torsdag 12 september 2019 kl. 08:08:06 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: > >> On 9/12/2019 12:23 AM, Zelos Malum wrote: > >>> Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 19:06:01 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott: > >>>> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: > >>>>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote: > >>>>>> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number > >>>>>> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric > >>>>>> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in > >>>>>> the interval: (3,4] > >>>>> > >>>>> And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system: > >>>> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number > >>>> of geometric points offset from the real part. > >>>> > >>>> 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value > >>>> greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds > >>>> to the entire set of positive reals. > >>>> > >>>> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. > >>>> > >>>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved > >>>> > >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent > >>>> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein > >>> > >>> none of which is any rigorous definition > >>> > >> > >> No it is not. I sketch a proof later on. > >> > >> -- > >> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved > >> > >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent > >> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein > > > > I ain't holding my braeth > > > > I already sketched the proof in posts yesterday. > > -- > Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved > > "Great spirits have always encountered violent > opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein where?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n9-dnXk4ueP5P-LAnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #458406 |
On 9/16/2019 12:31 AM, Zelos Malum wrote:
> Den fredag 13 september 2019 kl. 07:34:59 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott:
>> On 9/13/2019 12:24 AM, Zelos Malum wrote:
>>> Den torsdag 12 september 2019 kl. 08:08:06 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott:
>>>> On 9/12/2019 12:23 AM, Zelos Malum wrote:
>>>>> Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 19:06:01 UTC+2 skrev peteolcott:
>>>>>> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number
>>>>>>>> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric
>>>>>>>> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in
>>>>>>>> the interval: (3,4]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:
>>>>>> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number
>>>>>> of geometric points offset from the real part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value
>>>>>> greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds
>>>>>> to the entire set of positive reals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent
>>>>>> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> none of which is any rigorous definition
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it is not. I sketch a proof later on.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
>>>>
>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent
>>>> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
>>>
>>> I ain't holding my braeth
>>>
>>
>> I already sketched the proof in posts yesterday.
>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent
>> opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
>
> where?
>
The length of this interval is exactly 3.0
(0.0, 3.0]
The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point.
The length of this interval is exactly one geometric point longer than 3.0
[0.0, 3.0]
If we limit the specified points in the intervals to integers then:
(0.0, 3.0] specifies: {1,2,3}
[0.0, 3.0] specifies: {0,1,2,3}
Proving that the above intervals are not the same length.
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2636aa18-9466-47d8-a4fc-49b143fa7601@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458428 |
>The length of this interval is exactly 3.0 It has the LEBESGUE measure of 3, yes >The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. No such number exists. >The length of this interval is exactly one geometric point longer than 3.0 Nope, both [0,3] and (0,3] have the same measure, 3 >Proving that the above intervals are not the same length. incorrect, you are using a non-mathematical thing such as "length", which has no formal definition, the closest you got lebesgue measure and there, you are entierly wrong. Then you switch not only which set you are subsetting off, from |R to |N, you also change the way which it is done, you go from measures to cardinality. None of that proves anything other than you either being dishonest or massively incompetent. (0, 3] and [0, 3] have different CARDINALITIES when subsets of |N but the same cardinality as subsets of |R and the same MEASURE in |R and |N, in |N the measure is 0 in both cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web