On Jun 20, 1:57 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 10:30 pm, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote: > > > > > On 2010-06-18, Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The rationals are well known to be countable, and things aren't both > > > countable and uncountable, so to have a reason to think that > > > arguments about the real numbers that are used to establish that > > > they are uncountable apply also to the rationals, the integer > > > fractions, has for an example in Cantor's first argument, about the > > > nested intervals, that the rationals are dense in the reals, so even > > > though they aren't gapless or complete, they are no- where > > > non-dense, they are everywhere dense on the real number line. > > > As your sentence is less than coherent, I will merely point out that > > it is generally poor form to use 9 commas in a single sentence except > > when listing items. I will grant that parody often benefits from > > abuses of ordinary sentence structure, such as, for example, and not > > in any way showing that these are the only possible forms, sentences, > > like this one, which are convoluted to exhibit, by way of meandering, > > that they imply that mental processes, of the original writer, that > > is, which may be, perhaps, less than clear, and so in some way, to > > some readers, humourous. > > > - Tim > > Some I go back and add later. > > Too bad no one can read it but me. > > No seriously still it's clear in lots of ways, I can rewrite those > paragraphs as much longer. > > Sorry that was a bad joke. Collected, I'm very happy with the > output. Each one, in its own way, has some content. > > You don't agree with the rationals are dense on the line? > > The rationals are well known to be countable, and things aren't both > countable and uncountable, > so to have a reason to think that arguments about the real numbers > that are used to establish that they are uncountable apply also to the > rationals, the integer fractions, > has for an example in Cantor's first argument, about the nested > intervals, > that the rationals are dense in the reals, > so even though they aren't gapless or complete, > they are no- where non-dense, they are everywhere dense on the real > number line. > > The rationals are well known to be countable, > and things aren't both countable and uncountable, > so to have a reason to think that arguments about the real numbers > that are used to establish that they are uncountable > apply also to the rationals, > the integer fractions, > has for an example in Cantor's first argument, > about the nested intervals, > that the rationals are dense in the reals, > so even though they aren't gapless or complete, > they are no- where non-dense, they are everywhere dense on the real > number line. > > (The rationals > are well known to be countable, > and things aren't both countable and uncountable, so ) > to have a reason to think that arguments about the real numbers > that are used to establish that they are uncountable > apply also to the rationals, > the integer fractions, > has for an example in Cantor's first argument, > about the nested intervals, > that the rationals are dense in the reals, > so even though they aren't gapless or complete, > they are no- where non-dense, they are > everywhere dense > on the real number line. > (...) > > You left out the part before and after. > > Arguments about the uncountability of the real numbers include those > derived from the numeric property of their density. For example one > of them is called "Cantor's first argument for the uncountability of > the reals." > > The constructive (computable) sets are mappable to the countable > ordinals, where, the countable ordinals is the same thing as the > enumerative ordinals, because, they're each countable and that's all > of them. The constructive universe is complete, each in it countable, > but then the results of results are results so they are infinite and > their own powersets. (Sound familiar?) The existence of the > constructive universe is a result. > > Ha what's funny is you can still read them. > > Basically from having an idea to write a sentence, as it's written > then the parts of it are added automatically for, as you describe, > contemplative pause, as well as any emplacement of comment to provide > context generally. This is in the case where the writing is for a > particular medium, when there's a lot of writing back in forth (in > complete sentences, thank you) then to edit for readability is > deferred for real intent. But, there's not really a lot of writing > going on that way, rather, I much prefer the writing with the theme > and the content (on the mathematics). So, I read. > > Warm regards, > > Ross Finlayson
Warm regards, why warm regards?
We parse your posts, here I'm replying to myself.
(It's OK.)
No I'm just kidding, but this is great, this is a great medium of expression.
(Excuse me, while I fix the previous sentence befi meidum -> medium of expression.)
