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: five reasons why mathematics ends in meaninglessness
Replies: 106   Last Post: Jul 20, 2011 10:00 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 lwalke3@lausd.net Posts: 2,394 Registered: 8/3/07
Re: five reasons why mathematics ends in meaninglessness
Posted: May 10, 2011 3:13 PM

On May 10, 9:13 am, James Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
> Transfer Principle wrote:
> > But by that count, _no_ real has an infinite representation,
> > since any representation of that real, in practice, has only
> > finitely many characters.

>  From context, it looks like you mean " _every_ real has a finite
> representation". I call ".99[bar]" a finite representation,
> but this does not prevent the same number from having an infinite
> representation.
> The rest of the real numbers -- that is, /almost all/ of them --
> have /only/ infinite representations, whether you take that either
> to mean the listing of the digits in the decimal representation
> or to mean any other specifiable scheme (AKA algorithm) that
> will tell you what these digits are.

OK, I agree with what you're saying here re: computable reals and
finite representations.

> I gathered as much from your previous post. However, it looks
> like a very arbitrary distinction you make -- totally lacking in
> motivation. What I mean to say is: WHY do you make THAT distinction
> in THAT way?
> byron seems to be throughly absorbed in wrestling with the Nature
> of Truth. How are you advancing /byron's/ project by your distinction
> between numbers representable as a/10^b and numbers representable
> as a/11^b

The undecimal (base 11) reals?

It's evident that byron intends the decimal reals, and not the
undecimal reals? We gather this from context: he writes .99[bar]=1,
and had this referred to the undecimal reals, .99[bar] would equal
the fraction nine-tenths (.9 decimal). And I bet even byron knows
that nine-tenths doesn't equal unity.

So by context, we conclude that byron intends the decimal reals --
the set of reals with only finitely many nonzero decimal digits (also
known as the ring Z[.1]).

> > Now we know that in classical analysis, having a finite decimal
> > representation doesn't preclude a real number from having an
> > infinite such representation as well, but byron isn't bound by
> > what classical analysis proves.

> I don't see why your comment about byron is so. Could you expand
> on the reasons behind your assertion here?

Classical analysis proves that a real number can have both a finite
and an infinite decimal representation. Now byron tells us that
therefore, math ends in "meaninglessness."

So this leaves me wondering -- can there be a "meaning_ful_" math,
one that avoids the undesirable classical result? If such a theory
exists, then it's not bound by classical results -- indeed its aim
would be to avoid the result .99[bar]=1 that leads to math ending
in "meaninglessness."

> > If I knew how to discourage use of a word without insulting its
> > users, I'd do so in a heartbeat.

> You have your own way of scoring the moral righteousness of
> others' posts (and even your own posts, occasionally). I don't
> really expect that to change. However, let me put on my
> salesman's hat for just a moment while I point out the
> advantages of my own way of scoring posts for moral
> righteousness.
> My own method of scoring (described upthread) is directed
> toward making everbody truthful.

But what is "truth," if you will? Indeed, byron himself asks this

byron, 7th of May, approx. 8AM Greenwich
"Aatu Koskensilta makes the claim that it is the mathematical
community
that decides what is true or a proof
who is this mathematical community
or
masters
or doctorates
or proffs
who is this mathematical community that tells us what truth/proof is"

(This last line is also the title of the relevant thread.)

This is a _very_ good question. There does appear to be this
"mathematical community" that decides what is true -- and nowhere is
this more evident than on sci.math. And anyone who doesn't agree with
the consensus on what is considered true ends up receiving a string of
those overused words.

Date Subject Author
4/5/11 byron
4/5/11 Porky Pig Jr
4/25/11 byron
5/21/11 byron
4/6/11 Jacob
4/6/11 Tim Little
4/6/11 Marshall
4/6/11 Jacob
4/9/11 byron
4/11/11 byron
4/11/11 Jacob
4/14/11 byron
4/16/11 byron
4/29/11 byron
5/4/11 byron
5/4/11 YBM
5/4/11 Jack Markan
5/4/11 byron
5/4/11 YBM
5/4/11 Jack Markan
5/4/11 Bill
5/4/11 byron
5/4/11 byron
5/5/11 YBM
5/5/11 byron
5/5/11 YBM
5/5/11 byron
5/9/11 byron
5/9/11 YBM
5/9/11 byron
5/9/11 tommyrjensen@gmail.com
5/9/11 byron
5/9/11 YBM
5/9/11 byron
5/9/11 YBM
5/9/11 lwalke3@lausd.net
5/9/11 Marshall
5/9/11 Jim Burns
5/10/11 Virgil
5/10/11 lwalke3@lausd.net
5/10/11 lwalke3@lausd.net
5/10/11 Jim Burns
5/10/11 lwalke3@lausd.net
5/10/11 FredJeffries@gmail.com
5/11/11 lwalke3@lausd.net
5/11/11 FredJeffries@gmail.com
5/11/11 FredJeffries@gmail.com
5/11/11 FredJeffries@gmail.com
5/11/11 FredJeffries@gmail.com
5/11/11 FredJeffries@gmail.com
5/10/11 Jim Burns
5/11/11 lwalke3@lausd.net
5/11/11 MoeBlee
5/11/11 Jim Burns
5/13/11 lwalke3@lausd.net
5/13/11 MoeBlee
5/14/11 Jim Burns
6/2/11 byron
6/3/11 byron
6/1/11 byron
6/2/11 byron
6/6/11 byron
6/6/11 YBM
5/10/11 FredJeffries@gmail.com
5/10/11 Michael Stemper
5/10/11 MoeBlee
5/10/11 Daryl McCullough
5/10/11 Rotwang
5/10/11 Jesse F. Hughes
5/10/11 Marshall
5/6/11 byron
5/18/11 byron
5/19/11 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
5/6/11 byron
5/6/11 Karthik
5/6/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 Jim Ferry
5/7/11 David Yen
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/7/11 byron
5/7/11 YBM
5/22/11 byron
5/29/11 byron
5/30/11 byron
5/30/11 YBM
6/4/11 byron
6/5/11 YBM
7/19/11 byron
7/20/11 byron