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 UTC7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message > > news:2fa13865ebcf431ea1fff322889609be@googlegroups.com... > > > On Saturday, July 13, 2013 7:40:24 AM UTC7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > >> "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message > > >> news:41be4197cc38420fa4edb90e196ddc2b@googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Friday, July 12, 2013 1:41:31 PM UTC7, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.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 nonsequitur, 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 nonsequiturs and, in fact, no clue (e.g. as to the standard > > and the nonstandard), 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 finiteinductive 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, nonsequiturs, 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 misunderstand, then explain please. > > > Julio > > ZG On Saturday, July 13, 2013 10:47:10 AM UTC7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message > > news:2fa13865ebcf431ea1fff322889609be@googlegroups.com... > > > On Saturday, July 13, 2013 7:40:24 AM UTC7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > >> "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message > > >> news:41be4197cc38420fa4edb90e196ddc2b@googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Friday, July 12, 2013 1:41:31 PM UTC7, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.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 nonsequitur, 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 nonsequiturs and, in fact, no clue (e.g. as to the standard > > and the nonstandard), 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 finiteinductive 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, nonsequiturs, 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 misunderstand, then explain please. > > > Julio > > ZG
It's simple!
Julio Di Egidio, like WM, is a truebeliever in finitism, and, like all truebelievers, is immune to both facts and logic. 

