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: Matheology � 258
Replies: 104   Last Post: May 5, 2013 2:26 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 16,185
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 258
Posted: May 4, 2013 1:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 4 Mai, 18:30, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Either they're  both relevant to Cantor's argument, or  they're  both
> > > irrelevant .

>
> > Cantor's argument is a single-eyed look into the infinite.
> > Forall n : d_n =/= a_nn is considered important.
> > Forall n : (d_n) is in the list, is not considered important.

>
> Why should it be considered important under the definition of
> equality?  If they have at least one different digit , THEY'RE
> DIFFERENT.


But there always only finitely many with at least one different digit
whereas there are always infinitely many with none different digit.

> Every finite digit appears in the list at least once , but NEVER DO
> ALL OF THEM APPEAR AT ONCE , IN THE SAME NUMBER.


Stop shouting. In order to support your "never", you should be able to
prove it. But you are not. You can look at a finite domain only, since
every line n is at a finite place and is followed by infinitely many
more lines.

>
> THIS IS REQUIRED TO DISPROVE CANTOR :
> exists n , forall m ,  a_nm = d_m


Of course, in a list that contains all rationals, this is easily
proved.
A simpler case is the list:

0.0
0.1
0.11
0.111
...

with the substitution 0 --> 1.

For all a_nn at finite places n (and others cannot be substituted at
all) we have all (d_1, ..., d_n) as an entry in the list.

Your assertion that in your anti-diagonal there are more than all
digits that are already covered by the list is simply nonsense.

And the proposal of ZeitGeist, that all digits 1 at possible finite
indices are in the list but distributed over several lines and not in
a single line, can be shouted loudly in a mad house, probably even
there raising objections, but not in mathematics..

My list is constructed such that all possible squences of digits 1 are
already in the list. No longer sequence is possible (otherwise it
would be in the list) and a shorter sequence cannot support Cantor's
claim.

Simple as that.

> And would you stop it with the countable language already?

A language is man-made. Men cannot make uncountable language. And they
could not convey information by uncountable language.

So if there was an "uncountable language", it was not a language (by
the way like finished infinity is not unfinished and therefore is no
infinity).

> I find again ,sadly , that in this one circumstance , what cannot be
> said must be passed down in silence.


In particular an uncountable language would force you to silence
because it is no language. Similarly:
An "infinitely complicated law" means no law at all. [§ 125]

If you are interested in some more quotes by Wittgenstein, here you
are:

It isn't just impossible "for us men" to run through the natural
numbers one by one; it's impossible, it means nothing. [?] you can?t
talk about all numbers, because there's no such thing as all numbers.
[§ 124]

There's no such thing as "all numbers" simply because there are
infinitely many. [§ 126]

Generality in mathematics is a direction, an arrow pointing along the
series generated by an operation. And you can even say that the arrow
points to infinity; but does that mean that there is something -
infinity - at which it points, as at a thing? Construed in that way,
it must of course lead to endless nonsense. [§ 142]

If I were to say "If we were acquainted with an infinite extension,
then it would be all right to talk of an actual infinite", that would
really be like saying, "If there were a sense of abracadabra then it
would be all right to talk about abracadabraic sense perception". [§
144]

Set theory is wrong because it apparently presupposes a symbolism
which doesn't exist instead of one that does exist (is alone
possible). It builds on a fictitious symbolism, therefore on nonsense.
[§ 174]

[L. Wittgenstein: "Philosophical Remarks"]

Regards, WM




Date Subject Author
4/29/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
4/29/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/29/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
4/30/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/30/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/30/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/30/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/30/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13
Read Re: WMytheologist � 258
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13
Read Re: WM's ignorance self-revealed!
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
JT
5/2/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/2/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
Ed Prochak
5/2/13
Read Re: Matheology � 666
Virgil
5/2/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/2/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/2/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/2/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology � 666
Virgil
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
LudovicoVan
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
fom
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
Ralf Bader
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
fom
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/4/13
Read Re: WMytheology � 258
Virgil
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
trj
5/4/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
fom
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
fom
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
gus gassmann
5/3/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/2/13
Read Re: WMytheology � 777
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: WMYtheology � 258
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: WMYtheology § 258
JT
5/1/13
Read Re: WMYtheology � 258
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: WMYtheology § 258
JT
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
rt servo
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13
Read Re: WMytheology � 258
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: WMytheology � 258
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
5/1/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
4/30/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
4/30/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/30/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil
4/29/13
Read Re: Matheology § 258
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
4/29/13
Read Re: Matheology � 258
Virgil

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.