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: Uncountability of the Real Numbers Without Decimals
Replies: 110   Last Post: Dec 10, 2013 4:33 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Uncountability of the Real Numbers Without Decimals
Posted: Dec 7, 2013 1:04 PM

On 12/7/2013 9:57 AM, Albrecht wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2013 4:37:33 PM UTC+1, fom wrote:
>> On 12/7/2013 4:22 AM, WM wrote:
>>

>>> Am Freitag, 6. Dezember 2013 23:18:03 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> Maybe you should look into it, and see what I did say actually means.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> I know it. It is nonsense. There is no model of ZFC.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> That is just onemore shortcoming of WM's wild weird world of
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> WMytheology. Outside of that queer place there are any number of models
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of ZFC.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> A model of a theory shows that the theory is free of contradictions. Is ZFC free of contradictions?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes.

>
> So you know more than anybody else in the world.
>

I know it is important that Boolean algebras are
not the faithful syntactic models of the logical
calculus:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9906101v3.pdf

I know that it is important to have an understanding
of how a consistent first-order theory would
express itself based on the notion of equivalence
lattices rather than Boolean lattices:

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/526335/large-cardinals-and-partition-lattices

I know that a consistent logic is associated with
open topologies and I know how Frege's advances to
a compositional logic relate the syntax of such
deductive systems to a topology that may interpret
first-order consistency with respect to open filters.

The important notion is feeble compactness and it
is a characteristic property of minimal Hausdorff
topologies. With a feebly compact representation,
a language may still represent inconsistent sets
of formulas.

I know that topology has fixed-point theroems based
upon continuity assumptions and that the logic with
which I interpret the theory is a fixed-point logic
based on specialization preorders constructed from a
strict, transitive order,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_closure#In_logic_and_computational_complexity

I know that topological semantics have been extended
to first-order languages and that necessary denotations
correspond with continuous denotations,

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~rzach/static/banff/awodey.pdf

I know that the semantics of classical term logic is
associated with specialization preorders and that the
specialization preorders associated with sober spaces
have the necessary fixed-point characteristics,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialization_%28pre%29order#Definition_and_motivation

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_complete_partial_order#Properties

I know that the recursively-generated semantics of
my primitive relation generate the needed pointed
set relation for the pointed directed completed partial
order discussed in the link above,

AxAy( x irreflx y <-> ( Az( y irreflx z -> x irreflx z ) /\ Ez( x
irreflx z /\ ~( y irreflx z ) ) ) )

accepted: { a < b, a < c }
omitted: { b < c }
undecided: { b >= c }

accepted: { a < b, a < c, a < d }
omitted: { b < c, c < d }
undecided: { b >= c, c >= d, b >= d }

accepted: { a < b, a < c, a < d, a < e }
omitted: { b < c, c < d, d < e }
undecided: { b >= c, c >= d, b >= d, d >= e , c >= e , b >= e }

I know the difference between priority monism and priority
pluralism and how that relates to the interpretation of
classical term logic and the pointed sets of the partial
orders discussed above,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/#PriorityMonism

I know how my investigations depended on the Jordan curve
theorem, and, I know that the Jordan curve theorem is of
sufficient weakness to place my foundational investigation
at the level of Hilbert's finitistic program (via Koenig's
lemma),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics#The_big_five_subsystems_of_second_order_arithmetic

I know which form of the axiom of choice supports the
way in which I introduce identity into the system of
logic I use,

I know which organizing principles permit one to formulate
a non-paradoxical model consistent with the finitary asymptotic
properties of the weak weak Koenig lemma,

I know how to explain the construction of the real numbers
in relation to the undefinability of truth and seemingly
circular mathematical methods

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/533133/a-vector-space-is-a-set-axiom-or-derivation

I know that Frege turned to geometry when he rejected
logicism and that Russell interpreted projective
geometry as a meaningful notion reflecting Kant's
sensible externality,

> "The more I have thought the matter
> over, the more convinced I have become
> that arithmetic and geometry have
> developed on the same basis -- a
> geometrical one in fact -- so that
> mathematics in its entirety is
> really geometry"
>
> Frege

> "..., I shall deal first with projective
> geometry. This, I shall maintain, is
> necessarily true of any form of
> externality, and is, since some such
> form is necessary to experience,
> completely a priori."
>
> "We can distinguish different parts
> of space, but all parts are qualitatively
> similar, and are distinguished only
> by the immediate fact that they
> lie outside one another"
>
> "Analysis, being unable to find
> any earlier halting-place, finds
> its elements in points, that is,
> in zero quanta of space"
>
> "A point must be spatial, otherwise
> it would not fulfill the function
> of a spatial element; but again,
> it must contain no space, for any
> finite extension is capable of
> further analysis. Points can
> never be given in intuition,
> which has no concern for the
> infinitesimal."
>
> Russell
>

I know that my primitive relation, as a
strict transitive relation, is interpretable
as the mereological proper part relation. Hence,
of parts, but with a consideration of identity in
relation to mereological parts,

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/58495/why-hasnt-mereology-suceeded-as-an-alternative-to-set-theory/127222#127222

And, I know that my formal construction begins
with a specification of logical constants
as a projective geometry,

http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=7933591

I also know that people do not think that I
do mathematics.

But, I cannot control what other people think.

Date Subject Author
12/2/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/2/13 William Elliot
12/2/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/2/13 G. A. Edgar
12/2/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/2/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/2/13 gnasher729
12/2/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/2/13 Virgil
12/2/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/2/13 Virgil
12/3/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/3/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/5/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/5/13 Virgil
12/3/13 Virgil
12/5/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/5/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/7/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/7/13 Virgil
12/5/13 Virgil
12/10/13 Robin Chapman
12/2/13 Virgil
12/2/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/2/13 Virgil
12/3/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/3/13 Virgil
12/2/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/3/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/3/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/5/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/5/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/5/13 Michael F. Stemper
12/7/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/7/13 Virgil
12/6/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/6/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/6/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/6/13 Virgil
12/6/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
12/7/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
12/7/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
12/7/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/7/13 fom
12/7/13 albrecht
12/7/13 fom
12/7/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/8/13 albrecht
12/7/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/7/13 fom
12/7/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/7/13 fom
12/7/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/7/13 Virgil
12/7/13 fom
12/8/13 Virgil
12/7/13 Virgil
12/7/13 Virgil
12/7/13 Virgil
12/8/13 albrecht
12/6/13 Virgil
12/6/13 Virgil
12/7/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/7/13 Virgil
12/5/13 Virgil
12/3/13 Virgil
12/3/13 Michael F. Stemper
12/3/13 Virgil
12/3/13 fom
12/2/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/2/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/2/13 Virgil
12/3/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/3/13 Virgil
12/5/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/5/13 Virgil
12/2/13 Virgil
12/2/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/3/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/3/13 Virgil
12/3/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/3/13 gnasher729
12/3/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/3/13 gnasher729
12/5/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/5/13 Virgil
12/3/13 Virgil
12/3/13 Virgil
12/5/13 gnasher729
12/3/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/5/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/5/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/5/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/5/13 Virgil
12/3/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/3/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/5/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/5/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/7/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/7/13 Virgil
12/8/13 wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de
12/8/13 Virgil
12/5/13 Virgil
12/3/13 Virgil
12/2/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/4/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/3/13 albrecht
12/3/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
12/5/13 albrecht
12/5/13 Tucsondrew@me.com