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: Matheology §252
Replies: 110   Last Post: Apr 24, 2013 5:58 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology §252
Posted: Apr 21, 2013 12:54 PM

On 4/21/2013 9:03 AM, WM wrote:
> On 21 Apr., 12:22, netzweltler <reinhard_fisc...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr., 11:07, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On 21 Apr., 10:02, netzweltler <reinhard_fisc...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 20 Apr., 19:03, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>> All atoms of the accessible universe and all positions they can take
>>>>> belong to a finite set.

>>
>>>> How do we prove, that the number of possible positions an atom can
>>>> take along a line of 1 cm is finite?

>>
>>> By accepting quantum mechanics and excluding theology (these
>>> assumptions taken as axioms for those who believe (as an axiom) to
>>> need axioms) a proof is given here:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.4102.pdf
>>> pages 2-3.

>>
>>> Regards, WM
>>
>> What about a position between two quanta? Should there be no decimal
>> fraction for a position between two adjacent quanta along this line of
>> 1 cm?-

>
> Quantum theory tells us, contrary to Einsteins's false beliefs,

Once again, claims without proof. When have the significant
theories of Einstein been falsified? And, why are quantum theorists
so anxious to obtain a quantum gravity that does not contradict
Einstein?

> that
> unmeasurable events do not exist.

No. Just imaginary worlds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

> The electron or photon does not
> simultaneously have fixed position and momentum (that would contradict
> some results of interference experiments).

Of course, that would be explained by the fact that
the mathematics describing continuous motion requires
differentiable neighborhoods around each point.

One cannot have physics that contradicts the mathematics
just because the WM's of the world turn simple mathematics
into quantum voodoo.

And, the recognition of this fact may have come from the
study of general relativity rather than quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_relativity

Scale relativity addresses the possibility that differentiability
necessarily breaks down in small domains.

>
> Mathematics, contrary to Einstein's false beliefs, is nothing but a
>

Perhaps. But that condensation involves the principle
that statements are either true or false. The problem
did not come out of the mathematics of the late-nineteenth
century. Rather, it lay with the mathematics as it came
into the nineteenth century. The foundational debates
arise from the fact that the philosophy of physicists
such as WM is often inadequate to their beliefs.

> Nobody can hinder you to believe in things that nobody can say, think,
> identify, measure. But that is not science.

It would be more correct to say that that is "science".

When do scientists make the effort to actually justify their
positions to the general public? They do not. They use their
influence with respect to the economics of technology corporations
and universities to establish their positions through the
fundamental totalitarian power of government authority.

The same mathematics that WM complains about is used for
economic analysis. The economics of paying for governments is
bound to the profits of corporations. There is a great deal
of competition between governments over these matters that
is fundamentally disrespectful of the general citizenry.

The heroic view of "science" is a lie. WM's statement would
suggest that anyone can walk into CERN and conduct an
experiment for themselves. No. That is not how it works.
So, for most people, "science" is being told what to believe
without being able to verify it for themselves. That they
accept what they are told stems for the fact that it is mostly
irrelevant to their day-to-day lives.

==============================================

WM is an unabashed ultrafinitist who refuses to fix
a largest finite number. Each "n" in his description
depends on the subsequence of triangular numbers.

> F(n)=Sum_i(1..n)(i)
>
> 1 :=> 1
> 2 :=> 3
> 3 :=> 6
> 4 :=> 10
>
> and so on

According to Brouwerian intuitionistic reasoning,
when WM's construction reaches the point where
the sequence of triangular numbers exceeds the
the construction.

This is WM's model of mathematics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_model_property

until he reaches his contradiction and
it vanishes.

=====================================

The triangular numbers correspond with
the number of 'marks' representing numerals
or significant denotations occurring in any
of WM' representations of the form:

1
2, 1
3, 2, 1
...
n, ..., 3, 2, 1
...

-------------------------------------

This number of 'marks' satisfies a structural
feature of the natural numbers called a
directed set:

Defintion

A binary relation >= in a set D is said
to direct D if and only if D is nonempty
and the following three conditions are
satisfied:

DS1)

If a is an element of D, then a>=a

DS2)

If a, b, c are elements of D such
that a>=b and b>=c, then a>=c

DS3)

If a and b are elements of D, then there
exists an element c of D such that c>=a
and c>=b

So, WM's geometric reasoning for any given
n obtains a finite model domain with its
cardinality given by the associated
triangular number. The triangular number
is the "element c" of condition DS3 from
the definition.

-------------------------------------

Finally, Brouwer's explanation for finitary
reasoning is used because WM refuses to
commit to any mathematical statement with
coherent consistent usage.

Brouwer distinguishes between results with
regard to 'endless', 'halted' and

"A set is a law on the basis of
which, if repeated choices of
each of these choices either
generates a definite sign series,
with or without termination of the
inhibition of the process together
with the definitive annihilation
of its result."

WM cannot be an ultrafinitist and
expect others to not hold him to
task for it. In constrast to
Brouwer, he repeatedly states
that there is absolutely no
completed infinity. Therefore,
there must be a maximal natural
number for his model of
mathematics. Beyond that
number, there is no mathematics.

That is WM's belief as surmised
from his statements and reasonings
as opposed to what he says with
rhetoric.

Date Subject Author
4/17/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/17/13 fom
4/17/13 Virgil
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 Virgil
4/18/13 Virgil
4/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 Virgil
4/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/20/13 netzweltler
4/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/20/13 netzweltler
4/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/20/13 netzweltler
4/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 Virgil
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 Virgil
4/21/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/21/13 fom
4/21/13 Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
4/21/13 gus gassmann
4/21/13 Virgil
4/21/13 netzweltler
4/21/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/21/13 netzweltler
4/21/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/21/13 netzweltler
4/21/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/21/13 fom
4/21/13 netzweltler
4/21/13 netzweltler
4/22/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/22/13 netzweltler
4/22/13 Virgil
4/22/13 netzweltler
4/22/13 Virgil
4/23/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/23/13 Virgil
4/23/13 netzweltler
4/24/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/24/13 Virgil
4/24/13 netzweltler
4/24/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/24/13 Virgil
4/24/13 netzweltler
4/24/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/24/13 Virgil
4/24/13 netzweltler
4/21/13 fom
4/21/13 Virgil
4/22/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/22/13 Virgil
4/23/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/23/13 Virgil
4/21/13 Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
4/21/13 Virgil
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 Virgil
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 Virgil
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 Virgil
4/20/13 Virgil
4/19/13 Virgil
4/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 Virgil
4/20/13 Virgil
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 Virgil
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 Virgil
4/18/13 Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 Virgil
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 Virgil
4/18/13 Virgil
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 Virgil
4/18/13 Virgil