Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Replies: 83   Last Post: Jan 7, 2013 12:58 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
fom

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Posted: Jan 4, 2013 1:33 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 1/4/2013 10:29 AM, WM wrote:
> On 4 Jan., 01:35, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>

>> Dedekind cuts define all reals.
>
> Every cut is defined by a finite word. The set of definable cuts is
> the set of cuts and is countable.
>

>> Cantor fundamental sequences define all reals.
>
> No infinite definition defines anything.


No infinite definition is finitely realizable.

The problem is the use and interpretation of "all".

Dedekind and Cantor speak of "systems." It was
Russell and Wittgenstein who tried to ground
systems so that "all" had a more definite conception.

Russell did not confine his logic by the introduction
of names (it was, in fact, designed that way so that
one could speak of non-existents without presupposition
failure).

Wittgenstein was a finitist. To my knowledge, he is the
earliest author to point out that Cantor's proof was as
much an indictment of the use of "all" as it was a
proof of an uncountable infinity.

Neither Russell or Wittgenstein (or Skolem, for that
matter) has given a system that is useful for the
exercise of empirical science. Computational models
are obscuring that fact, but even a modest introduction
to numerical analysis explains the role of classical
mathematics behind those models.

That is the pragmatic problem. The theoretical problem
is that mathematicians are confronted with the science
of mathematics as a logical system. If a completed
infinity is ground for a system of names reflecting
geometric completeness, then its investigation is an issue.


>
>> You may, as WM does, deny uses of a completed infinity.
>
> I do not deny it, but show that it is self-contradictory.


That may be. Your proofs, however, lie with the nature
of models and not with the nature of how a deductive
calculus relates to definitions and axioms. In that
sense you are not speaking of self-contradiction. Rather,
you speak of the ill-foundedness of trees having
infinite branches.

To be honest, I prefer your contemptuousness for
it over the kind of crap that was published in the
popular book "Goedel, Escher, Bach"







Date Subject Author
1/1/13
Read The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Zaljohar@gmail.com
1/2/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/2/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/2/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Ralf Bader
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Zaljohar@gmail.com
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
gus gassmann
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Zaljohar@gmail.com
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
gus gassmann
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Zaljohar@gmail.com
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Zaljohar@gmail.com
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
gus gassmann
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
gus gassmann
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/7/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/7/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/6/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
forbisgaryg@gmail.com
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Zaljohar@gmail.com
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Zaljohar@gmail.com
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/5/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/3/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
fom
1/4/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Virgil
1/2/13
Read Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Bill Taylor

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.