Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: Matheology § 300
Replies: 63   Last Post: Jul 18, 2013 2:23 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 300
Posted: Jul 13, 2013 4:03 PM

> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 10:47:10 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message

> > > On Saturday, July 13, 2013 7:40:24 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > >> "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:41be4197-cc38-420f-a4ed-b90e196ddc2b@googlegroups.com...

> > >> > On Friday, July 12, 2013 1:41:31 PM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de
> > >> > wrote:

> > >> >> On Friday, 12 July 2013 19:13:19 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> > It is rather silly to expect the process that creates each of the
> > >> >> > Naturals would produce the set of all Naturals, as that set is,
> > >> >> > itself, not a Natural.

> > >>
> > >> >> Each natural belongs to a finite initial segment. None of them
> > >> >> requires a number that is larger than every natural number. In
> > >> >> fact the contrary. If you do not talk about the set, then there is
> > >> >> no reason to talk about alephs.

> > >>
> > >> > Yes, but for every Natural there is a larger natural, hence the number
> > >> > of Naturals is larger than any Natural.

> > >>
> > >> Since the number of natural numbers is not itself a natural number, that
> > >> is
> > >> a non-sequitur, despite standardly the conclusive statement is correct:
> > >> indeed, a fallacy of relevance. Plus, the standard here is in question,
> > >> so
> > >> one should rather qualify statements as well as objections (not that WM
> > >> ever
> > >> does it, of course).

> > >
> > > The are numbers that are not Natural Numbers.
> > > The number of Naturals Numbers is a number,
> > > and it greater than any finite number, that is to say,
> > > It is greater than any Natural Number.
> > >
> > > Here, number means Cardinality, of course.
> > >
> > > In most Mathematical circles the standard is ZF(C).
> > > Yes, standard Set Theory is being questioned here.
> > > And most who question it here have not come up with
> > > a good reason to reject. Nor have they come up with
> > > a suitable replacement.

> > You still have this idea of the standard vs. the cranks, but the one with
> > no
> > arguments, the non-sequiturs and, in fact, no clue (e.g. as to the standard
> > and the non-standard), here is still you.

> > >> > Why wouldn't I talk about the set of Naturals?
> > >>
> > >> That there is no such thing as a _set_ N (i.e. a finite-inductive set,
> > >> an
> > >> "unfinished set") is a thesis of *strict finitism* already:
> > >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism#Classical_finitism_vs._strict_fini
> > >> tism>

> > >
> > > Those ideas in Finitism are assumptions.

> > You just don't know what you are talking about.
> > > Although they may lead to consistent systems,
> > > they are far less powerful than a system that assumes
> > > an infinite set.

> > Again, you don't know what you are talking about.
> > > I can count head of cattle or stones with a Strictly Finite system.
> > > However, it is very difficult to define a Surface Integral and
> > > most likely impossible to prove FLT in any form of Finitism.

> > And, again, you just don't know what you are talking about...
> > So, no arguments, non-sequiturs, no clues: another dog of the empire? I
> > mean, either you get your head out of your ass, or you better go play
> > Captain America somewhere else...

>
> If I mis-understand, then explain please.
>

> > Julio
>
> ZG On Saturday, July 13, 2013 10:47:10 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> > "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message

> > > On Saturday, July 13, 2013 7:40:24 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > >> "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:41be4197-cc38-420f-a4ed-b90e196ddc2b@googlegroups.com...

> > >> > On Friday, July 12, 2013 1:41:31 PM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de
> > >> > wrote:

> > >> >> On Friday, 12 July 2013 19:13:19 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> > It is rather silly to expect the process that creates each of the
> > >> >> > Naturals would produce the set of all Naturals, as that set is,
> > >> >> > itself, not a Natural.

> > >>
> > >> >> Each natural belongs to a finite initial segment. None of them
> > >> >> requires a number that is larger than every natural number. In
> > >> >> fact the contrary. If you do not talk about the set, then there is
> > >> >> no reason to talk about alephs.

> > >>
> > >> > Yes, but for every Natural there is a larger natural, hence the number
> > >> > of Naturals is larger than any Natural.

> > >>
> > >> Since the number of natural numbers is not itself a natural number, that
> > >> is
> > >> a non-sequitur, despite standardly the conclusive statement is correct:
> > >> indeed, a fallacy of relevance. Plus, the standard here is in question,
> > >> so
> > >> one should rather qualify statements as well as objections (not that WM
> > >> ever
> > >> does it, of course).

> > >
> > > The are numbers that are not Natural Numbers.
> > > The number of Naturals Numbers is a number,
> > > and it greater than any finite number, that is to say,
> > > It is greater than any Natural Number.
> > >
> > > Here, number means Cardinality, of course.
> > >
> > > In most Mathematical circles the standard is ZF(C).
> > > Yes, standard Set Theory is being questioned here.
> > > And most who question it here have not come up with
> > > a good reason to reject. Nor have they come up with
> > > a suitable replacement.

> > You still have this idea of the standard vs. the cranks, but the one with
> > no
> > arguments, the non-sequiturs and, in fact, no clue (e.g. as to the standard
> > and the non-standard), here is still you.

> > >> > Why wouldn't I talk about the set of Naturals?
> > >>
> > >> That there is no such thing as a _set_ N (i.e. a finite-inductive set,
> > >> an
> > >> "unfinished set") is a thesis of *strict finitism* already:
> > >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism#Classical_finitism_vs._strict_fini
> > >> tism>

> > >
> > > Those ideas in Finitism are assumptions.

> > You just don't know what you are talking about.
> > > Although they may lead to consistent systems,
> > > they are far less powerful than a system that assumes
> > > an infinite set.

> > Again, you don't know what you are talking about.
> > > I can count head of cattle or stones with a Strictly Finite system.
> > > However, it is very difficult to define a Surface Integral and
> > > most likely impossible to prove FLT in any form of Finitism.

> > And, again, you just don't know what you are talking about...
> > So, no arguments, non-sequiturs, no clues: another dog of the empire? I
> > mean, either you get your head out of your ass, or you better go play
> > Captain America somewhere else...

>
> If I mis-understand, then explain please.
>

> > Julio
>
> ZG

It's simple!

Julio Di Egidio, like WM, is a true-believer in finitism,
and, like all true-believers, is immune to both facts and logic.
--

Date Subject Author
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/15/13 albrecht
7/15/13 Virgil
7/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/15/13 Virgil
7/15/13 Virgil
7/16/13 Virgil
7/16/13 albrecht
7/16/13 Virgil
7/16/13 LudovicoVan
7/16/13 Virgil
7/16/13 LudovicoVan
7/16/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Tanu R.
7/18/13 Virgil
7/17/13 albrecht
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/16/13 fom
7/15/13 Virgil
7/15/13 fom
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/14/13 Virgil
7/14/13 Virgil
7/15/13 Virgil
7/15/13 Virgil