Date: Jun 14, 2013 7:05 PM Author: Tucsondrew@me.com Subject: Re: Matheology § 288 On Friday, June 14, 2013 3:37:13 PM UTC-7, Virgil wrote:

> In article <d2c0ba71-6f46-4dcf-949e-9f2b22edbb3b@googlegroups.com>,

>

> Zeit Geist <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote:

>

>

>

> > On Friday, June 14, 2013 11:23:28 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

>

> > > On Friday, 14 June 2013 20:08:07 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > > Writing all numbers one line, .111111..., is a Union.

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > And you believe that a union over sets that are unions of all preceding

>

> > > sets yields more than these sets. Your choice. But not a rational idea.

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > The amount of 1's in 1/9 is the same, not more, as the number of lines in

>

> > being unioned.

>

>

>

> What does "the number of lines in being unioned" mean in proper English?

>

Fine. How about "the cardinality of the set to which the union is applied"?

>

>

>

> > It's just more than any single finite line has.

>

> > So?

>

>

>

> In your wild weird world of WMytheology, more than finite is not

>

> allowed, so your triangles must all have last lines which are finite.

>

>

>

> And all such idiot restrictions inside WMytheology are irrelevant

>

> outside of WMytheology.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> > > >> The list given above does not contain aleph_0 1's in any direction.

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Really, can you write the whole list then?

>

>

>

> One can describe it completely without having to write it all out digit

>

> by digit, and 0.111..., at least to those who understand standard

>

> mathematical notation, is just such a description.

>

Yes, I know that. I was challenging WM to write it out.

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > That is not relevant as an argument against anti-symmetry.

>

> > >

>

> > > You should be able to see from the symmetrical construction that symmetry

>

> > > has to prevail.

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > The symmetry does prevIail.

>

>

>

>

>

> NOT as you have diagrammed it. In ALL your diagramming, all finite

>

> triangles are represented as right triangles with one set of sides

>

> vertical and the other horizontal.

>

No my diagram at is WM's. My arguments use Unions.

>

> > The three Unions in the "completed" list all have same number of elements.

>

> > It's just like in any finite sub-list.

>

That is exactly what I said.

>

> Except that, at least outside WMytheology, the vertical and diagonal

>

> sides of the limit diagram are endless so that any imagined third side

>

> must be missing both ends, and your alleged triangle has only one vertex.

>

I don't know of any theory that defines "triangle" in such a manner.

And WM certainly has not provide a clear definition for it in this setting.

>

>

> >

>

> > Saying that infinity does not exist in "Reality" and ZFC assumes infinity,

>

> > does make make ZFC an invalid Mathematical construct.

>

>

>

> Mathematics is not about physical realities, but about mental realities,

>

> which are quite different, and both are quite different from

>

> WMytheology.

Big OOPS!!!

That should read "does NOT make ZFC an invalid Math...".

I actually find the ironic fact that, the Mathematics that do NOT

correspond to reality to be the most fruitful in explaining physical

reality.

> --

ZG