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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 258
Posted: May 4, 2013 8:19 PM

On 5/4/2013 12:13 PM, WM wrote:
> 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
>

With all due respect, at what point did Wittgenstein produce
a mathematics that could reconcile Berkeley and Newton?

The answer to that question illustrates the ultimate failure
of mere criticism.

Date Subject Author
4/29/13 Virgil
4/29/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/29/13 Virgil
4/30/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/30/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/30/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
4/30/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/30/13 Virgil
5/1/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13 Virgil
5/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13 Virgil
5/1/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/1/13 JT
5/2/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/2/13 Ed Prochak
5/2/13 Virgil
5/2/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/2/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/2/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/2/13 Virgil
5/3/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13 Virgil
5/3/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/4/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/5/13 LudovicoVan
5/5/13 fom
5/5/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/5/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/5/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/5/13 Virgil
5/5/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/5/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13 Virgil
5/5/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/5/13 Virgil
5/4/13 Virgil
5/4/13 Virgil
5/5/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/5/13 Virgil
5/5/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13 fom
5/4/13 Virgil
5/4/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/4/13 Virgil
5/4/13 Virgil
5/4/13 Virgil
5/4/13 trj
5/4/13 Virgil
5/3/13 Virgil
5/3/13 Virgil
5/3/13 fom
5/3/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/3/13 fom
5/3/13 gus gassmann
5/3/13 Virgil
5/2/13 Virgil
5/1/13 Virgil
5/1/13 JT
5/1/13 Virgil
5/1/13 JT
5/1/13 Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
5/1/13 rt servo
5/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/1/13 Virgil
5/1/13 Virgil
5/1/13 Virgil
5/1/13 Virgil
5/1/13 Virgil
4/30/13 Virgil
4/30/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/30/13 Virgil
4/29/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
4/29/13 Virgil