Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #414045 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-28 04:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-04 00:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 04:59 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:47 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 06:04 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 06:19 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 06:58 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 22:46 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 23:02 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 08:05 -0500
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 06:53 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 22:44 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:54 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 23:42 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 00:10 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 02:01 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:21 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 02:59 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 03:27 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 03:49 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 04:03 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 04:27 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 04:38 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 04:51 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 04:56 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 05:01 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 05:13 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 05:20 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-31 09:11 -0400
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 06:34 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-31 09:55 -0400
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 07:06 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:52 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 00:06 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 00:19 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 00:35 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 02:26 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 03:24 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 03:40 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 03:58 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 04:10 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 04:25 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 05:43 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 12:59 +0000
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 05:59 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 12:38 +0000
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 05:49 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 05:57 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 06:02 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 06:26 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 06:33 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 06:35 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 09:18 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 13:14 +0000
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 06:24 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 13:40 +0000
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 09:17 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0200
Re: Mathematical proof "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-31 20:24 -0500
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 20:43 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-02 17:31 -0500
Re: Mathematical proof Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-03 00:38 +0200
Re: Mathematical proof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 16:35 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-05-31 09:38 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-31 10:11 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Mathedman <Mathedman@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 08:38 -0500
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-03 21:28 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:57 -0700
Re: Mathematical proof mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 00:09 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 04:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Mathematical proof |
| Message-ID | <c751dff4-4665-4915-b91c-8b8fa3850cf5@googlegroups.com> |
On Monday, 28 May 2018 08:02:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > He proved that given any axiomatic system with certain capabilities, the statements hodls true. ANY axiomatic system and it is true. How difficult is this? Well, "the sum of angles in a triangle is pi" was proven a long time ago, and still you are providing a mumble of triangles having 3 right angles. The reliability of "mathematical proof" has gone, Zelos. Your moronic games have ruined it.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <235ecc35-9abc-4675-85db-3b4de1a0ae17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414045 |
Den måndag 28 maj 2018 kl. 13:59:34 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > On Monday, 28 May 2018 08:02:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > He proved that given any axiomatic system with certain capabilities, the statements hodls true. ANY axiomatic system and it is true. How difficult is this? > > Well, "the sum of angles in a triangle is pi" was proven > a long time ago, and still you are providing a mumble of > triangles having 3 right angles. > > The reliability of "mathematical proof" has gone, Zelos. > Your moronic games have ruined it. Not at all you nimrod. The proof is not for the statement "The sum of angles in a triangle is pi", that statement cannot be proven because it is false. The statement that was proven is "The sum of angles in a triangle in the euclidean plain using the euclidean standard metric is pi" In mathematics, it is important you are precise in your statements there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b8f20e4-cd41-4421-a766-df32d895cfdc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414055 |
On Monday, 28 May 2018 14:47:19 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den måndag 28 maj 2018 kl. 13:59:34 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > On Monday, 28 May 2018 08:02:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > > > He proved that given any axiomatic system with certain capabilities, the statements hodls true. ANY axiomatic system and it is true. How difficult is this? > > > > Well, "the sum of angles in a triangle is pi" was proven > > a long time ago, and still you are providing a mumble of > > triangles having 3 right angles. > > > > The reliability of "mathematical proof" has gone, Zelos. > > Your moronic games have ruined it. > > Not at all you nimrod. > > The proof is not for the statement "The sum of angles in a triangle is pi", Now it isn't, but 500 years ago it was, poor halfbrain. You scream "any theory! Proven! finished!" 500 years ago it was "any triangle! proven! finished!" You're too stupid to understand what it means, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 06:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6faf2456-8ca8-4eef-a06d-d77908eaa684@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414059 |
>Now it isn't, but 500 years ago it was, poor halfbrain. No, it was not. It was assumed that all planes were euclidean and all metrics were euclidean. >You scream "any theory! Proven! finished!" No, I said with Gödel that it applies to any axiomatic system that can encompass natural number arithmetic. >500 years ago it was "any triangle! proven! finished!" It was proven in standard eucldiean plane with euclidean metric, yes. That proof is not invalid to this day. >You're too stupid to understand what it means, of course. You are the one too stupid, completely unable to understand the nuances of things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffa94ea6-49dd-4e5c-8b43-bbab396269f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414070 |
On Monday, 28 May 2018 15:19:32 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >Now it isn't, but 500 years ago it was, poor halfbrain. > > No, it was not. It was assumed that all planes were euclidean and all metrics were euclidean. > > >You scream "any theory! Proven! finished!" > > No, I said with Gödel that it applies to any axiomatic system that can encompass natural number arithmetic. > > >500 years ago it was "any triangle! proven! finished!" > > It was proven in standard eucldiean plane with euclidean metric, yes. That proof is not invalid to this day. Poor, lying trash. No matter, where it was proven, it stated "any triangle has the sum of angles pi", no exceptions were mentioned. And it was proven.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 22:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a082d1c-521e-42bf-b3a1-b0c130ea251e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414087 |
Den måndag 28 maj 2018 kl. 15:58:59 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > On Monday, 28 May 2018 15:19:32 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > >Now it isn't, but 500 years ago it was, poor halfbrain. > > > > No, it was not. It was assumed that all planes were euclidean and all metrics were euclidean. > > > > >You scream "any theory! Proven! finished!" > > > > No, I said with Gödel that it applies to any axiomatic system that can encompass natural number arithmetic. > > > > >500 years ago it was "any triangle! proven! finished!" > > > > It was proven in standard eucldiean plane with euclidean metric, yes. That proof is not invalid to this day. > > Poor, lying trash. No matter, where it was proven, it > stated "any triangle has the sum of angles pi", no > exceptions were mentioned. And it was proven. Because they assumed one geometry only, that means the conditions were implicit and was not needed. It is like if I talk abotu rings and I say "The quotient is", I don't need to say then "THe quotient ring using an ideal", because by context, everyone would know what I mean, those things are implicit by context.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 23:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4c663d6-284d-4724-8fa9-13b13282b2a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414233 |
On Thursday, 31 May 2018 07:46:15 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Because they assumed one geometry only, that means the conditions were implicit and was not needed. > > It is like if I talk abotu rings and I say "The quotient is", I don't need to say then "THe quotient ring using an ideal", because by context, everyone would know what I mean, those things are implicit by context. Any lying scum, when caught on a lie, can scream "it was a different context!!!!!" That's not what we expected from mathematics, though. We found it more reliable than anything else because it never used this trick. But - well, things change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 08:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pegurf$ef7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414045 |
On 5/28/2018 6:59 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Monday, 28 May 2018 08:02:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >> He proved that given any axiomatic system with certain capabilities, the statements hodls true. ANY axiomatic system and it is true. How difficult is this? > > Well, "the sum of angles in a triangle is pi" was proven > a long time ago, and still you are providing a mumble of > triangles having 3 right angles. It was proven for a particular geometry. There are other geometries. > The reliability of "mathematical proof" has gone, Zelos. > Your moronic games have ruined it. > No. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a86b62c1-d2bd-4e1c-b295-e57859fe5486@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414060 |
On Monday, 28 May 2018 15:05:57 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 5/28/2018 6:59 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Monday, 28 May 2018 08:02:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > >> He proved that given any axiomatic system with certain capabilities, the statements hodls true. ANY axiomatic system and it is true. How difficult is this? > > > > Well, "the sum of angles in a triangle is pi" was proven > > a long time ago, and still you are providing a mumble of > > triangles having 3 right angles. > > It was proven for a particular geometry. So? > > The reliability of "mathematical proof" has gone, Zelos. > > Your moronic games have ruined it. > > > > No. See, poor fool: your gurus have shown that we can prove a statement, then switch some axioms and prove the opposite statement. Right? How do you expect any thinking person to rely on your proofs after such a show? Tomorrow you will say "oh, Godel theorem, yes, it was proven, but I have a different metatheory now..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d1b9907-8b5c-49f2-9770-261421f22485@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414084 |
>So? Proof for 1 geometry is not a proof for another. >See, poor fool: your gurus have shown that we can prove >a statement, then switch some axioms and prove the opposite >statement. Right? Not all statements are equivalent in all axiomatic systems. >How do you expect any thinking person to rely on your proofs >after such a show? Tomorrow you will say "oh, Godel theorem, >yes, it was proven, but I have a different metatheory now..." By not being as dumb as you and ACTUALLY knowing that different axiomatic systems gives different results. >Poor, lying trash. No matter, where it was proven, it >stated "any triangle has the sum of angles pi", no >exceptions were mentioned. And it was proven. Just because they didn't mention it doesn't that mean they weren't operating under those assumptions. THis has happened many times in history where they operate under unstated assumptions and make proofs that is valid within it, but is later shown to be just a special case. This is one of the reasons why the foundation of mathematics was dealt with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 22:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67968698-2b11-4b0f-b722-aff6b86dd93f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414232 |
On Thursday, 31 May 2018 07:44:40 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >So? > > Proof for 1 geometry is not a proof for another. > > >See, poor fool: your gurus have shown that we can prove > >a statement, then switch some axioms and prove the opposite > >statement. Right? > > Not all statements are equivalent in all axiomatic systems. > > >How do you expect any thinking person to rely on your proofs > >after such a show? Tomorrow you will say "oh, Godel theorem, > >yes, it was proven, but I have a different metatheory now..." > > By not being as dumb as you and ACTUALLY knowing that different axiomatic systems gives different results. > > >Poor, lying trash. No matter, where it was proven, it > >stated "any triangle has the sum of angles pi", no > >exceptions were mentioned. And it was proven. > > Just because they didn't mention it doesn't that mean they weren't operating under those assumptions. Yes, mathematics worked under those assumptions. And stated: ANY triangle has sum of angles 180 (or pi). Proven. And guaranteed this by its authority. So now, when some fools found Euclidean axioms too boring, it has lost its authority. Of course, having no common sense, you don't even know what authority is. Just another term too complicated for your pathetic "logic". > > THis has happened many times in history where they operate under unstated assumptions and make proofs that is valid within it, but is later shown to be just a special case. > > This is one of the reasons why the foundation of mathematics was dealt with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 23:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15421c85-da37-48d9-b4c9-58e9b384d984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414235 |
>Yes, mathematics worked under those assumptions. And >stated: ANY triangle has sum of angles 180 (or pi). Proven. >And guaranteed this by its authority. Any triangle in euclidean geometry, that is what they implicitly said >So now, when some fools found Euclidean axioms too >boring, it has lost its authority. It was not that it was boring, it isn't, it was that we found there could be others too. >Of course, having no common sense, you don't even know >what authority is. Just another term too complicated >for your pathetic "logic". Authority has nothign to do with common sense, it has to do with language, which neither common sense nor logic deals with. See, you cannot even get this right. What words mean is defined by language usage, it is not common sense or logic. >Any lying scum, when caught on a lie, can scream >"it was a different context!!!!!" That's not what >we expected from mathematics, though. We found >it more reliable than anything else because >it never used this trick. It has always used different contexts because statements in one case is non-sense in another. This is the general issue with you, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to hold a conversation with you because you seem to be absolutely inept in how human communication works. But - well, things change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 00:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6efb74a-2f9f-4476-96bc-eb13a3c270be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414244 |
On Thursday, 31 May 2018 08:42:59 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >Yes, mathematics worked under those assumptions. And > >stated: ANY triangle has sum of angles 180 (or pi). Proven. > >And guaranteed this by its authority. > > Any triangle in euclidean geometry, that is what they implicitly said No, you lying scum. Any triangle, that is what they directly said. > > >So now, when some fools found Euclidean axioms too > >boring, it has lost its authority. > > It was not that it was boring Yes, it was because it was boring. > >Any lying scum, when caught on a lie, can scream > >"it was a different context!!!!!" That's not what > >we expected from mathematics, though. We found > >it more reliable than anything else because > >it never used this trick. > > It has always used different contexts A lie. As expected from stupid, lying, fanatic trash. This is the general issue with you, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to hold a conversation with you, because you're a stupid, lying, fanatic trash. I know how human cimmunication works, and I know it's very unreliable. Mathematics was always less powerful, but more reliable, because it worked differently. As I've said, things change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 01:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5e9be1c-d9c8-4671-aaeb-78e7e77f24f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414247 |
>No, you lying scum. Any triangle, that is what they >directly said. "Any triangle" when the only geometry you consider is euclidean, means "any eculidean geometry triangle" How difficult is this to understand? Do you not understand how context works? >Yes, it was because it was boring. No it wasn't because ti was boring, you can do a lot of facinating stuff in euclidean geometry, it was just that people realised there are more geometries than euclidean. >A lie. As expected from stupid, lying, fanatic >trash. This is the general issue with you, it is >absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to hold a conversation >with you, because you're a stupid, lying, >fanatic trash. I have not once lied here. I have tried to educate you but you make it impossible to communicate with you because you cannot even grasp somethign basic like "context" that a 8 year old understands. >I know how human cimmunication works, and >I know it's very unreliable. You don't know it, if you did you would understand that context is 90% of things. >Mathematics was always less powerful, but >more reliable, because it worked differently. It worked on logic and always has and still does to this day. >As I've said, things change. Not when it comes to mathematics, nothing has changed, only expanded. All theorems of Euclid is true to this day, they have not changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 02:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e9d4ff4-29dd-419a-a663-d7d54eadb306@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414250 |
On Thursday, 31 May 2018 10:25:48 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >No, you lying scum. Any triangle, that is what they > >directly said. > > "Any triangle" when the only geometry you consider is euclidean, means "any eculidean geometry triangle" 500 years ago mathematicians were not liars like you are, scum. 500 years ago "any triangle" meant any triangle. And it's even possible that this theorem is older than Euclid and his set of axioms. Some EG theorems are. > How difficult is this to understand? Do you not understand how context works? > > >Yes, it was because it was boring. > > No it wasn't because ti was boring Yes, it was: some fools were bored and search for "new paths". An obvious case. >, you can do a lot of facinating stuff in euclidean geometry, it was just that people realised there are more geometries than euclidean. New paths are always possible, of course. Even if most of them are stupid. > > >A lie. As expected from stupid, lying, fanatic > >trash. This is the general issue with you, it is > >absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to hold a conversation > >with you, because you're a stupid, lying, > >fanatic trash. > > I have not once lied here. You're lying all the time. As expected from stupid, lying, fanatic trash. That's a part of "how human communication works", of course. > >Mathematics was always less powerful, but > >more reliable, because it worked differently. > > It worked on logic and always has and still does to this day. Assuming unproven things as axioms was not logical 2000 years ago and it still isn't. No, mathematics has never really worked on logic, it only used it for minor tasks. > All theorems of Euclid is true to this day, they have not changed. Quoting: In EG all triangles have angle sum of 180 in a triangle, on the surface of earth you can have triangles with 270 degrees as sum. Yeah, of course - everything is still true. So, your precious Godel's theorem is samely true - as long as you won't announce that only fools don't understand it is only true on mondays, because you have different assumptions for other days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 02:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6455b80-b6ec-4fdc-887b-201bf301cf09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414254 |
>500 years ago mathematicians were not liars like you are, >scum. 500 years ago "any triangle" meant any triangle. And >it's even possible that this theorem is older than Euclid >and his set of axioms. Some EG theorems are. I have not lied once here. They assumed euclidean so to them all triangles were only in the euclidean geometry. Again, how difficult is this for you to grasp? To them, conceptually, there existed nothing but euclidean geometry so any statements about geometrical objects were always assumed, unstated, to be in euclidean geometry as that was all there was to them. It didn't mean tehre weren't triangles outside of it, it just meant that they didn't think of them. >Yes, it was: some fools were bored and search >for "new paths". >An obvious case. Again, no, it was that some realised there were other geometries and that we shouldn't limit ourselves to just one. >New paths are always possible, of course. Even if most >of them are stupid. Non-euclidean geometries are not stupid, they are just different. >You're lying all the time. As expected from >stupid, lying, fanatic trash. That's a part of >"how human communication works", of course. I have not once lied, You will not find a time I have lied here, at best you will find I was wrong through some mean, but not that I have lied. >In EG all triangles have angle sum of 180 in a triangle, on the surface of earth you can have triangles with 270 degrees as sum. > >Yeah, of course - everything is still true. Euclid is still correct because his theorems does not apply to spherical geometries, however on a flat plane, which is euclidean, his is stil true. >So, your precious Godel's theorem is samely true - as long >as you won't announce that only fools don't understand >it is only true on mondays, because you have different >assumptions for other days. It is always true for any axiomatic system that encompasses natural number arithmetic, this will not change ever. Just as Euclids theorems will not change ever for euclidean geometry. For axiomatic system that does NOT encompasses natural number arithmetic, Gödels does not hold, just as for non-euclidean geometry, euclid does not hold.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 02:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <797fc9cb-1cf4-494b-9aec-a0cd1822778c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414256 |
On Thursday, 31 May 2018 11:21:06 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >500 years ago mathematicians were not liars like you are, > >scum. 500 years ago "any triangle" meant any triangle. And > >it's even possible that this theorem is older than Euclid > >and his set of axioms. Some EG theorems are. > > I have not lied once here. They assumed euclidean so to them all triangles were only in the euclidean geometry. See, poor idiot: if I assume wrong and say wrong - it's a mistake. It's decreasing my reliability a little, or much - depending on some factors. But when to protect my reliability I start to lie "nonononono! I wasn't saying it at all!!!!" - it willl ruin my reliability completely. Got it? Things are the same for your precious mathematics. Your moronic lies are not helping it at all. > >Yes, it was: some fools were bored and search > >for "new paths". > >An obvious case. > > Again, no, it was that some realised there were other geometries and that we shouldn't limit ourselves to just one. That's exactly what I said. > >New paths are always possible, of course. Even if most > >of them are stupid. > > Non-euclidean geometries are not stupid, they are just different. Yes, they are. You don't know they are, because your logic generally doesn't know what is stupid and what is not. > >You're lying all the time. As expected from > >stupid, lying, fanatic trash. That's a part of > >"how human communication works", of course. > > I have not once lied You're lying all the time. As expected from stupid, lying, fanatic trash. That's a part of "how human communication works", of course. > >In EG all triangles have angle sum of 180 in a triangle, on the surface of earth you can have triangles with 270 degrees as sum. > > > >Yeah, of course - everything is still true. > > Euclid is still correct because Yeah. Euclid is still correct, because in THAT context we wanted to prove it isn't correct, but now, in THIS context, we want to prove oppositely. his theorems does not apply to spherical geometries, however on a flat plane, which is euclidean, his is stil true. > > >So, your precious Godel's theorem is samely true - as long > >as you won't announce that only fools don't understand > >it is only true on mondays, because you have different > >assumptions for other days. > > It is always true for any axiomatic system that encompasses natural number arithmetic, this will not change ever. See, poor halfbrain: 500 years ago exactly the same was thought about triangles and 180/pi sum of angles. Of course, learning from the mistakes of predecessors requires common sense. > > Just as Euclids theorems will not change ever for euclidean geometry. Tomorow you can add "(under the condition of fifrac of mimayka, of course)." Or something like that. That's how human communication works, you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 03:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4eef598-13b0-420d-b1d4-948f6f297e49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414258 |
>See, poor idiot: if I assume wrong and say wrong - >it's a mistake. It's decreasing my reliability a >little, or much - depending on some factors. But >when to protect my reliability I start to lie >"nonononono! I wasn't saying it at all!!!!" - it >willl ruin my reliability completely. Got it? >Things are the same for your precious mathematics. >Your moronic lies are not helping it at all. Do you understand that you can say somethign is correct but you, without knowing it, were making assumption that made your correct statement, only a special case truth, right? >Yes, they are. You don't know they are, because your logic >generally doesn't know what is stupid and what is not. Stupid is a word we use to describe a property, it has nothign to do with logic. Non-euclidean geometries are not stupid because they are useful in many ways. Just because you are too stupid to understand them, doesn't that make them stupid. >Yeah. Euclid is still correct, because in THAT context we >wanted to prove it isn't correct, but now, in THIS context, >we want to prove oppositely. In the context of euclidean geometry, all euclids theorems are entirely true. In non.euclidean geometries however, they are not. >See, poor halfbrain: 500 years ago exactly the same was >thought about triangles and 180/pi sum of angles. >Of course, learning from the mistakes of predecessors >requires common sense. You have no common sense nor any intelligence. The statement about triangles and sum of angles is still to this day true in euclidean geometry. That has not changed and will enver change. Just as Gödels will never change. Mathematics doesn't change anything, it expands. All theorems, once proven, is always true for the system that it works within. >Tomorow you can add "(under the condition of fifrac of mimayka, of >course)." Or something like that. That's how human communication >works, you know. Again, just because you are too stupid to understand mathematics and communication, don't shit on other who knows both. One day we might discover that what we have today is a special case of somethign even more general at which we will have to add more qualifiers to make certain it is the right circumstances. But the theorems of today, yesterday and tomorrow hasn't changed because of that, they are STILL true, we just realise we were operating on unstated assumptions which is a very human thing to do. The issue of unstated assumptions has plagued mathematics which is why in the late 19th and early 20th century it was overhauled at its foundation so we would get it all sorted out and as far as we can tell, we have succeeded in that. The issue is most famously recorded by the conflict between mathematicians of converging functions where some said it had property X, otehrs said no it doesn't. The issue were they both were assuming different kinds of convergence that gives different properties.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 03:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c28342f4-9701-4a0c-9c6d-2c46ba1733a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414260 |
On Thursday, 31 May 2018 12:27:57 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >See, poor idiot: if I assume wrong and say wrong - > >it's a mistake. It's decreasing my reliability a > >little, or much - depending on some factors. But > >when to protect my reliability I start to lie > >"nonononono! I wasn't saying it at all!!!!" - it > >willl ruin my reliability completely. Got it? > >Things are the same for your precious mathematics. > >Your moronic lies are not helping it at all. > > Do you understand that you can say somethign is correct but you, without knowing it, were making assumption that made your correct statement, only a special case truth, right? I do. You don't. > >Yes, they are. You don't know they are, because your logic > >generally doesn't know what is stupid and what is not. > > Stupid is a word we use to describe a property, it has nothign to do with logic. Yes. And it's the property of your non-eucliean geometries. > Non-euclidean geometries are not stupid because they are useful in many ways. You're imagining. I've already asked you, 2 times: what, precisely, are the ways Lobachevsky geometry is useful? You can only pretend you didn't notice the question. As expected from a fanatic idiot. > >Yeah. Euclid is still correct, because in THAT context we > >wanted to prove it isn't correct, but now, in THIS context, > >we want to prove oppositely. > > In the context of euclidean geometry, all euclids theorems are entirely true. > In non.euclidean geometries however, they are not. And in the context of marksism-leninism marksism-leninism is the best. Nothing new. > >See, poor halfbrain: 500 years ago exactly the same was > >thought about triangles and 180/pi sum of angles. > >Of course, learning from the mistakes of predecessors > >requires common sense. > > You have no common sense nor any intelligence. > > The statement about triangles and sum of angles is still to this day true in euclidean geometry. That has not changed and will enver change. > Just as Gödels will never change. > > Mathematics doesn't change anything, it expands. So, tomorrow it'll expand again and add "but only on mondays and tuesdays". Similiarly to what it did when noneuclidean geometries came. That's how human communication works, poor idiot. > > All theorems, once proven, is always true for the system that it works within. 500 years ago it was also believed that all triangles have 180 sum of angles. > > >Tomorow you can add "(under the condition of fifrac of mimayka, of > >course)." Or something like that. That's how human communication > >works, you know. > > Again, just because you are too stupid to understand mathematics and communication, don't shit on other who knows both. > > One day we might discover that what we have today is a special case of somethign even more general at which we will have to add more qualifiers to make certain it is the right circumstances. Of course. We can discover that GT is true only on mondays and tuesdays, for instance. > The issue of unstated assumptions has plagued mathematics which is why in the late 19th and early 20th century it was overhauled at its foundation so we would get it all sorted out and as far as we can tell, we have succeeded in that. Oh, surely you did. So, do you have many theorems true under ANY assumptions, like Godel theorem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 04:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15de42fc-56ed-411e-9f08-88bf69c362d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414264 |
>I do. You don't. I have understood this and that is what I ahve told you ALL ALONG! What they did was a truth statement with hidden assumption that we later learned was just a special case and not a general truth. >Yes. And it's the property of your non-eucliean geometries. Not at all, that might be your PERSONAL view of it but it is not the case. You however are stupid. >You're imagining. I've already asked you, 2 times: >what, precisely, are the ways Lobachevsky >geometry is useful? You can only pretend >you didn't notice the question. As expected >from a fanatic idiot. It is true however, for example spherical geometry is used on...well....ANYTHING THAT DEALS WITH DISTANCES AND PLACES ON A PLANET! as for hyperbolic geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry#Physical_realizations_of_the_hyperbolic_plane A few uses of it. >And in the context of marksism-leninism marksism-leninism >is the best. Nothing new. Seriuosly just stop this, this is annoying and adds nothing. >So, tomorrow it'll expand again and add "but only >on mondays and tuesdays". Similiarly to what it did >when noneuclidean geometries came. >That's how human communication works, poor idiot. Again, just because you cannot communicate doesn't that mean I cannot. It will expand as it always have but nothign like that, can you please be serious rather than constantly being stupid? >500 years ago it was also believed that all triangles >have 180 sum of angles. And all triangles in euclidean geometry has the angle sum of 180 still. >Oh, surely you did. So, do you have many theorems >true under ANY assumptions, like Godel theorem? Gödels is not true under any assumption, it only applies to axiomatic systems where they encompasses basic natural number arithmetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web