Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: ALL PERMUTATIONS OF INFINITY
Replies: 156   Last Post: Jun 28, 2012 9:34 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Curt Welch Posts: 375 Registered: 12/13/04
Re: ALL PERMUTATIONS OF INFINITY
Posted: May 28, 2012 8:42 PM

Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 8:48=A0am, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> > netzweltler <reinhard_fisc...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > On 26 Mai, 18:02, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> > > > netzweltler <reinhard_fisc...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > On 24 Mai, 20:33, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Has there been found any application in this universe where the
> > > > > > a=

> ct
> > > > > > o=3D
> > > f
> > > > > > pretending infinity exists becomes useful?
> >
> > > > > I can display every natural number n as a line of slope n in the
> > > > > coordinate system. w can be displayed as a vertical line then.
> > > > > Does infinity exist thus?

> >
> > > > Nah. =3DA0The slope is the output of a process of dividing two
> > > > measurements=3D

> > > =A0-
> > > > the rise divided by the run. =3DA0When the run becomes zero, the
> > > > proc=

> ess
> > > > ei=3D
> > > ther
> > > > becomes undefined, or never terminates (you get to pick). =3DA0No
> > > > whe=

> re
> > > > doe=3D
> > > s it
> > > > become "infinity".
> >
> > > > We use the word "infinity" to mean just that - a process that never
> > > > terminates. =3DA0These processes most certainly do exist. =3DA0An
> > > > inf=

> inite
> > > > nu=3D
> > > mber
> > > > of objects, do not exist. =3DA0An infinite number of values output
> > > > by=

> one
> > > > o=3D
> > > f
> > > > these processes will never exist. =3DA0You must be clear as to
> > > > which =

> of
> > > > the=3D
> > > se
> > > > two things you are talking about - but often in mathematics, these
> > > > tw=

> o
> > > > ve=3D
> > > ry
> > > > different things, are conflated with very odd results happening as
> > > > a result.

> >
> > > Which line does exist, which line doesn't? I guess we agree, that the
> > > line of slope =3D3D 1 does exist, right? And the line of slope =3D3D
> > > 10=

> ^100
> > > does exist, right? If not all of the infinitely many lines do exist,
> > > you need to define, which of these lines are the existing ones, and
> > > which lines are the non-existing lines. That's math (not about
> > > processes and time).

> >
> > Or more accurately, we should keep in mind that math is a game we play
> > wi=

> th
> > language. =A0The game works something like this:
> >
> > =A0 =A0 Start with a collection of language statements we will call
> > axiom=

> s. =A0We
> > =A0 =A0 will pretend these statements are absolute truths and we will
> > def=

> ine
> > =A0 =A0 their meaning based on features we pick from the reality we
> > exist=

> in.
> >
> > =A0 =A0 Then add to the game, a set of rules for producing new
> > statements=

> from
> > =A0 =A0 the statements already defined as truths in the language.
> >
> > =A0 =A0 Applies those rules over and over and see what language
> > results.
> >
> > So when you ask "which line does exist", you are not asking about what
> > exists in the real world, you are asking about what can be said to be
> > tru=

> th
> > in this game. =A0And in the game, the words "does this line exist" can,
> > depending on which rules you are playing the game with, be considered a
> > question of truth, which translates to, "is this statement one of the
> > statements we could produce as a statement we call true in the game?"
> >
> > My issues all relate to how some people doing math seem to get confused
> > b=

> y
> > the fact that they are playing a game, and try to use the game of math,
> > t=

> o
> > make statements about reality, that are at times, in my opinion,
> > totally unjustified. =A0Much of the game does apply to reality, but
> > there are pla=

> ces,
> > where it leaves reality and then produces very odd results, that have
> > no application to reality outside the playing of the game. =A0I would
> > think people should care more about which parts of the game align with
> > reality, and which leave reality behind, but they don't really seem to
> > care.
> >
> > --
> > Curt Welch =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> > =

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://CurtWelch.Com/
> > c...@kcwc.com =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> > =A0=

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://NewsReader.Com/
>
> Yes but this is Godel's, Turing's and Zermelo's fault.
>
> Godel's ABSOLUTE PROOF Predicate is just
>
> PRV(THEOREM) <-> THEOREM v PRV(A)^PRV(B)^(A^B->THEOREM)
>
> ----
>
> Turing's Halt Function cannot prove any function halts, but it can
> still prove any OTHER function Halts!
>
> What idiot puts the Test Harness inside the Test Software
>
> A simple program halting deciding paradox
> 10 if Halt() Goto 10
> 20 Pint "Finished!"
>
> program 1
> 10 Print "Finished!"
>
> program 2
> 10 if Halt(program1) Then Print "p1 halts!"
>
> Now it works!
>
> ----
>
> ZFC is just a PROVABLE Set Theory and nothing to do with LOGIC where
> ofcourse Finite Theories can be examined.
>
> NST
> E(Y) Y =3D { x | P(x,Y) }
> E(Y) Y =3D { x | x ~e x } --> CONTRADICTION
>
> ZFC
> E(Y) Y =3D { x | O(x,Y) ^ x e Z }
> E(Y) Y =3D { x | x ~e x ^ x e Z } --> WILL NOT STRATIFY SINCE ~E(Z)
>
> APS
> E(Y) Y =3D { x | P{x,Y) } <-> ~Prv(~E(Y) Y =3D P(x,Y) }
> E(Y) Y =3D { x | x ~e x } <-> ~Prv(~E(Y) xeY <-> x~ex )
>
> LOGIC
> E(Y) Y =3D { x | P{x,Y) } <-> Prv(E(Y) Y =3D P(x,Y) }
>
> -----
>
> You seem to swap between 'some things may be absolute' and 'some
> things aren't'
>
> with "You are all wrong since there is just probability and no
> absolutes'.
>
> You do know QUANTUM PROBABLE Projected Events REDUCE to one or the
> other don't you?

Not really important.

> Or do you think we're all in a giant parallel recurring options
> Universe where we either observed Schrodingers Cat or we didn't?

:)

Even if in theory the quantum events reduce to absolute states, how is that
fact translated into say, lip motions? How would an absolute fact about a
quantum event emerge from our lips with zero odds of transmission error
between the quantum state and the lips? How would it be be transmitted as
an absolute fact into a Usenet message with zero odds of a transmission
error?

If it can't get into a Usenet message with zero odds of error, then what
are the odds that everything you think you know about quantum mechanics
being a transmission error? All your knowledge of quantum mechanics has to
be transmitted to you did it not? It did not arrive in you by a zero
transmission error act of God did it?

All your knowledge about everything you think you know, is the result of
information being transmitted to your brain through the firing of noisy
nerve cells. Is there anything which arrived in your brain which we can
claim remains to be an absolute fact that had zero odds of a transmission
or processing error?

Nope.

Everything we think we know, has some non-zero chance of being wrong due to
transmission, or processing errors.

Our human knowledge exists as an emergent property of a macro level system
(aka the atoms of our brain and body etc.). Even if there were absolute
truths at the quantum level in this universe, there is no way in this
universe (that I'm aware of), to create noise-free transmission from the
quantum level to the macro level. What we live with instead, is techniques
for reducing the odds of transmission error to such low levels, that we can
just ignore the fact that the odds are non-zero.

But just because we have used techniques to reduce the transmission and
measurement errors to low levels so that we can pretend they are absolute
facts, does not actually make them absolute facts.

> Herc

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/

Date Subject Author
5/20/12 Graham Cooper
5/20/12 K_h
5/20/12 Graham Cooper
5/21/12 Torben Mogensen
5/21/12 Graham Cooper
5/21/12 Graham Cooper
5/22/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/22/12 Graham Cooper
5/22/12 Graham Cooper
5/23/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/23/12 donstockbauer@hotmail.com
5/24/12 Uirgil
5/24/12 Graham Cooper
5/22/12 Graham Cooper
5/22/12 Uirgil
5/23/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/24/12 Uirgil
5/24/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/24/12 Curt Welch
5/24/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/24/12 Curt Welch
5/24/12 Graham Cooper
5/24/12 Curt Welch
5/24/12 Graham Cooper
5/24/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/24/12 Curt Welch
5/25/12 Uirgil
5/25/12 Curt Welch
5/26/12 K_h
5/27/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Uergil
5/27/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/27/12 K_h
5/27/12 Graham Cooper
5/27/12 Graham Cooper
5/27/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 K_h
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 donstockbauer@hotmail.com
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/29/12 Owen Jacobson
5/27/12 K_h
5/27/12 David Bernier
5/27/12 Androcles
5/27/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 K_h
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/25/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/25/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/25/12 Uirgil
5/26/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/26/12 Uirgil
5/26/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
6/28/12
5/29/12 Owen Jacobson
5/29/12 Graham Cooper
5/25/12 Graham Cooper
5/26/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/29/12 Ralph Hartley
5/29/12 Curt Welch
5/24/12 Uirgil
5/24/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/24/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/24/12 Graham Cooper
5/24/12 Curt Welch
5/24/12 Graham Cooper
5/25/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/25/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/25/12 Uirgil
5/26/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/27/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Graham Cooper
5/27/12 Curt Welch
5/25/12 Uirgil
5/24/12 Curt Welch
5/24/12 Graham Cooper
5/24/12 Graham Cooper
5/25/12 Curt Welch
5/25/12 Curt Welch
5/25/12 Graham Cooper
5/26/12 Curt Welch
5/26/12 Graham Cooper
5/27/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/25/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/25/12 K_h
5/25/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/25/12 Uirgil
5/26/12 Curt Welch
5/26/12 Graham Cooper
5/26/12 K_h
5/24/12 LudovicoVan
5/25/12 K_h
5/25/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/25/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/26/12 Curt Welch
5/26/12 K_h
5/27/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Uergil
5/27/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/27/12 Uergil
5/27/12 K_h
5/27/12 Graham Cooper
5/27/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 K_h
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/30/12 K_h
5/27/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/25/12 netzweltler
5/26/12 Curt Welch
5/27/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
5/28/12 netzweltler
5/28/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/28/12 Uergil
5/29/12 netzweltler
5/29/12 Curt Welch
5/29/12 netzweltler
5/29/12 Curt Welch
5/29/12 netzweltler
5/29/12 Curt Welch
5/30/12 netzweltler
5/29/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Graham Cooper
5/28/12 Curt Welch
5/28/12 Wally W.
5/28/12 donstockbauer@hotmail.com
5/28/12 |-| E R C
5/29/12 Curt Welch
5/30/12 Wally W.
5/30/12 Curt Welch
6/2/12 K_h
6/2/12 |-| E R C
5/24/12 Uirgil
5/24/12 LudovicoVan
5/24/12 Uirgil