Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Matheology § 300
Replies: 63   Last Post: Jul 18, 2013 2:23 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 LudovicoVan Posts: 4,025 From: London Registered: 2/8/08
Re: Matheology § 300
Posted: Jul 13, 2013 1:47 PM

"Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message
> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 7:40:24 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> "Zeit Geist" <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote in message

>> > On Friday, July 12, 2013 1:41:31 PM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.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 non-sequitur, 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 non-sequiturs and, in fact, no clue (e.g. as to the standard
and the non-standard), 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 finite-inductive set, an
>> "unfinished set") is a thesis of *strict finitism* already:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism#Classical_finitism_vs._strict_finitism>

>
> 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, non-sequiturs, no clues: another dog of the empire? I
Captain America somewhere else...

Julio

Date Subject Author
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/15/13 albrecht
7/15/13 Virgil
7/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/15/13 Virgil
7/15/13 Virgil
7/16/13 Virgil
7/16/13 albrecht
7/16/13 Virgil
7/16/13 LudovicoVan
7/16/13 Virgil
7/16/13 LudovicoVan
7/16/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Tanu R.
7/18/13 Virgil
7/17/13 albrecht
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/17/13 Virgil
7/16/13 fom
7/15/13 Virgil
7/15/13 fom
7/13/13 Virgil
7/13/13 LudovicoVan
7/13/13 Virgil
7/14/13 Virgil
7/14/13 Virgil
7/15/13 Virgil
7/15/13 Virgil