Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #360562

Re: Déjà vu

Show all headers | View raw

On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 10:48:54 PM UTC-8, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 8:25 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 15:08:28 UTC-8,
> > Jim Burns  wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2017 2:05 PM, John Gabriel wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 06:49:08 UTC-8,
> >>> Jim Burns  wrote:
> 
> >>>> You made no attempt to clarify _what_ you were talking
> >>>> about, and it's a pretty good bet that whatever
> >>>> you mean (if anything) it is different from what
> >>>> WM means (if anything) by the same terms.
> >>>
> >>> Oh really? You mean that
> >>>    "There is no such thing as infinity."
> >>> is not clarifying my standpoint? Chuckle
> >>
> >> Chuckle. No, it's not clarifying your standpoint.
> >> I don't expect you to understand that.
> >
> > Actually, it clarifies my standpoint exactly, that is,
> >  there is no further discussion necessary because
> >  the concept of infinity is bogus.
> 
> Well, Ross was right that there's no point in trying
> to educate such as you. But there may be someone else
> who reads this.
> 
> "The concept of infinity is bogus" And so?
> Is infinity a floor wax? Is it a dessert topping?
> Do you think you said something there?
> 
> >> Here's a similar example:
> >>     "There is such a thing as autosubbijectibility."
> >
> > I don't think that word exists so it's not an example,
> >  never mind similar.
> 
> As I expected, you hadn't read the post you responded to.
> 
> The main difference between the examples is that
> _I told you what I meant_ by autosubbijectibility, though
> I did that in the post you responded to and then I snipped
> the explanation here. _You_ still haven't said what you
> mean by infinity, anywhere, nor do you realize it
> could mean any several things. _That_ is a truly impressive
> display of blockheadedness, considering that you
> crashed a discussion of the _difference_ between complete
> infinity and potential infinity.
> 
> Here's my explanation of "autosubbijectibility"
> <unsnip>
> 
> >>>> A lovely property of things-like-those-labels
> >>>> is that there is a matching, one-to-one both ways,
> >>>> between the collection of things and and an
> >>>> incomplete part of the collection of things.
> >>>>    (AKA, a bijection between the collection and a
> >>>>    proper subset of the collection).
> 
> >>>> So, instead of "infinite", we could make up a word,
> >>>> "autosubbijectible" and call things-like-those-labels
> >>>> autosubbijectible.
> 
> </unsnip>
> 
> Since what I'm calling "infinity" (and also
> "autosubbijectibility", FYI) involves the labels for the
> naturals  0, 1, 2, 3, ... you apparently are calling
> the natural numbers bogus.
> 
> Did you want to call the natural numbers bogus?
> 
> You seem quite fond of the classical Greeks.
> Do you think that they would have wanted you to call
> the natural numbers bogus?
> 
>     To be clear, I am not asking you those questions.
>     I don't care what you have to say in answer.
>     They are questions you ought to have asked yourself
>     and didn't.
> 
>     Not that I expect you to try to answer them.
>     I expect you to bravely, bravely run away from these
>     sorts of questions, like Brave Sir Robin. And why
>     shouldn't you bravely, bravely run away? You can throw
>     insults around! I'm sure the classical Greeks must have
>     proved that throwing insults is better than knowing things.

Burns, if not from the Greeks, maybe there's as much to 
learn from "English-Chinese A Dictionary of Mathematical 
Terms".  

At least, there's something to learn.

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 12:34 -0500
  Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-09 10:08 -0800
    Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 17:18 -0500
      Re: Déjà vu genmailus@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 14:28 -0800
        Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 17:55 -0500
          Re: Déjà vu Me <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 17:12 -0800
            Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-09 20:55 -0500
              Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 18:08 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 23:08 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 10:55 -0500
          Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 05:13 -0800
            Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 09:49 -0500
              Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 07:44 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 11:45 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 09:51 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 10:33 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 10:35 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 13:00 -0800
              Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 11:05 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 18:08 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 17:25 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 01:48 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 23:24 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 00:34 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 11:26 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 08:55 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 12:13 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:20 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:22 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:23 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 13:11 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:26 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-11 13:42 -0500
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:50 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:58 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 11:01 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 11:03 -0800
                Re: Déjà vu bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-01-11 11:11 -0800
      Re: Déjà vu WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2017-01-10 00:03 -0800
        Re: Déjà vu Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2017-01-10 10:21 -0500

csiph-web