Date: Dec 28, 2012 1:54 PM Author: ross.finlayson@gmail.com Subject: Re: Continuous and discrete uniform distributions of N On Dec 28, 1:12 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <a5a8214e-204a-49f4-8bbe-50b960b2c...@uc4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > Now, Hancher, I'll accept that you're quite familiar with crazy

>

> With sterling examples of it like you and WM, and others, everyone who

> reads much of sci.math is.

> --

There are varieties of mathematicians, and they derive different

values from our study of the same principles. Some derive value from

the very closedness of things, that there are right and wrong answers

to our most fundamental questions. Some derive value from the very

openness of things, that there may be right and wrong answers to all

our questions. There are various motivations for its study and

application. Yet, it is largely so that given strong fundamental

principles, there are available general results, and mathematics is

for that those with totally different thinking, can share in truths,

given the principles of mathematics.

Clemens' law of conservation of truth: "For each Great Truth, there's

an equal and opposite Great Truth." Apollo: "Everything in

moderation, including moderation." There are a variety of fallacies,

ad hominem here, or your appeal to the righteousness of the mob, that

have as place in mathematics exhibits, not course.

monomania, check (determination, reliance on mathematical truth and

proof)

megalomania, check (belief in self)

paranoia, reasonable (typical unknowns, and there are many)

delusions, not so many (typical unknowns)

depressive, no just relaxed (yawn)

manic, from time to time (called high-energy, on-task, Olympian)

hypochondriac (not so much)

hyperchondria (not so much)

psychotic (meh)

sociopath, no

neurotic (not so much)

Now I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV (MCAT top), but in

terms of promoting the discovery of foundations of mathematics,

including but not limited to those that are are discovered and well-

covered, to me "different" doesn't mean "crazy", and here "infinite"

and "counter-intuitive" don't mean the same thing. And, you can find

someone who'll call you anything, and a quack who'll give you pills

for it, and maybe they know of the schoolyard ribbing of rubber, and

glue. You can trust anyone, to throw you in a ditch for a penny. And

some, you can trust.

For some mathematicians, mathematics is a diamond and a single flaw

would ruin the entire thing. For others, the existence of the flaw is

the only way to cleave the diamond and cut the diamond from its rough

aggregate to its perfect shape. So, when I throw light on the

diamond, it is to see the flaws, not ignore them.

Then, when it comes to spending enough time working on infinities in

mathematics, as one put it, "thinking about infinity makes people

nuts". I think that's not necessarily so, instead that there are

simply not so many people with the capacity and time to entertain the

notions of the infinite for its cerebral beauty, and the mathematics

of it for satisfaction of the mathematical conscience. Though, there

are confounding results, that then for the purposes of establishing

our rigor in mathematics, see requirements for limits in the

discussion, to then work up that limited subset of all what may be

true, to build a walled garden wherein all is true, consistent within

its walls. Then, I'm among those that would have that there is a

Universe, and there are mathematics of it, that tearing down the walls

is not to let in the darkness, but the light.

So, if you think you're surrounded by crazy people, you're probably

right. So, let us maintain decorum in our interminable discussions on

interminability, toward progress, as you and Muckenheim joust each

other keep in mind that if you're doctors of mathematics that a

certain collegial courtesy is apropos, as it is anyways, know that I

find myself quite in control of my faculties and don't so much care

what you find of yours or think of mine, and that EF is a compelling

construct that stands for its own and in the historical context,

particularly as a touchstone in the foundations. I'm for the

conscientious, and conscious, mathematician.

EF: it is what it is.

EF: CDF, p.d.f.

Infinity: topic of our greatest thinkers.

Ad hominem attacks: purview of the playground bully.

Take your ball and go home. Everybody's got one.

So, are you wading in a morass of incompetents, or, alternatively,

engaging in the highest levels of mathematical discourse?

Good luck with that.

Then, for your attempt to divert the course from mathematical

discussions, and there are hundreds of readers who comtemplate these

writings, we return to the notion of _what would be_ the drawing of

the line, _what would be_ the uniform distribution of the naturals

here in the continuous and discrete, _what would be_ progress in

mathematical foundations, and _what it is_.

EF: it is what it is.

What you think of EF: is what it is.

Regards,

Ross Finlayson