"Alen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... On Oct 6, 1:30 pm, Transfer Principle <david.l.wal...@lausd.net> wrote: > On Oct 5, 7:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 10/5/2011 4:27 AM, Alen wrote: > > > GENERAL DEFINITION OF AN INFINITY !! TA DA !! :) > > > An infinity is a reality which forms a basis that > > > enables the existence of the finite, the countable > > > or measurable, but is not in itself either countable or > > > measurable. > > Alen, allow me to make a general and hopefully polite observation. > > I'm all for people rethinking things from scratch. However, you can do > > this two ways. One is after taking the trouble to see what others have > > done already, and the other is without bothering to see what others have > > done. > > But if one doesn't have _access_ to what others have done already, > then the second option is the only available option. And, as we've > already seen from earlier threads, ZFC mainly considers _books_, > not the Internet (especially not Wikipedia), to be legitimate > sources of what others have done. So if one doesn't have access to > those _books_, the second option is the only available option. > > > I also think that those people WANT to think that both are just as good, > > because the second is definitely easier. > > Not only is the second easier, but the first might be _impossible_, > for those who don't have access to the right books. > > > This, frankly, is a fabricated excuse for laziness. > > Lazy just because one can't make books materialize out of thin air? > > > It also borders on hubris, because the implicit claim is that one can > > get *just* as far by rethinking from scratch, without having bothered to > > see what others have already done. > > The implicit claim is that everyone has access to the same books as > you do. > > > The other excuse is an unjustified terror that one simply cannot rethink > > from scratch after taking the trouble to see what others have done > > already, because one's mind has become so contaminated that it can't > > rethink from scratch. > > My own excuse is the _justified_ terror that one simply might not have > access to the right books. > > Now who knows? Perhaps the OP really does have access to the right > books, and can really learn more about infinity. If so, then PD's post > will be helpful to the OP. Let me add a warning to the OP, though, > that > some books are "right" while others are wrong. I've mentioned in some > earlier threads that the "wrong" books are those popular expositions > which make basic mistakes, such as _defining_ aleph_1 as 2^aleph_0. > The > "right" books are the ones that look like _textbooks_. > > But more often than not, ZFC users direct both their established > opponents and newbies like the OP to read books without considering > whether those books are available to them.
All this is a portrayal of a typical assumption of the orthodox infallibility that any dissenting opinion about anything is to be explained only as due to a deficient education. It makes rational sense, of course, since any dissent from an infallible understanding cannot be due to any cause other than ignorance :) :)
========================================== People that read Einstein and Minkowski before reading mathematics are like children that read fairy tales before learning English, they confuse to with too and two, and bare with bear.
r = sqrt (x^2 +y^2 +z^2) is the legitimate radius of a sphere.
(ctau)^2 = (ct)^2 is outright fucking nonsense, c = r/t, v = x/t.