|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:12:16 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In article <16mbf2tu83g4a4hhnmkengtfrgd98oqt09@xxxxxxx>,
> Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:14:01 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <kki9f2pb2acq0kpet02brhcjat4vllr8r7@xxxxxxx>,
>> > Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> What I can prove is the truth of assumptions without having to assume
>> >> the truth of assumptions.
>> >
>> >Let's see you do it, then.
>>
>> Already have.
>
>Not to the satisfaction of anyone but Zick.
Tough cookies.
>> At the moment however I'm preoccupied answering the
>> question posed by this thread. Strange that I've already proffered a
>> mechanical definition for the magnitude of infinity in reply to David
>> Tribble and all anyone wants to talk about is definitions which can be
>> neither true nor false instead of the actual topic of the thread.
>
>As there is no such thing as "infinity" defined in mathematics as a
>whole, the question is unanswerable in mathematics as a whole.
Well thanks for the opinion, sport. That and a dollar will get you an
assumed cup of coffee. The cute thing about it is that neomathematics
just goes ahead and uses the concept anyway. They just pretend the
noun isn't there and use the adjective and say a subject is infinite
when it possesses certain properties without being able to say what
the noun means.
>If Zick will explain which "infinity" he is talking about, we might be
>in a position to help him with the problem of his ignorance of its size.
I'm talking about infinity in general. You know the subject of this
thread?
>> >> >Des he claim a direct line from God's mouth to his ear?
>> >>
>> >> God is truly only on the side of faith based mathematics.
>> >
>> >As I have no faith in any god, and no faith in "faith based"
>> >mathematics, I wonder whom he refers to.
>>
>> Youm is the whom and any others who simply believe whatever they say
>> is true.
>
>And does Zick claim not to believe what Zick says is true???
What's the difference between "believe" and "simply believe". You
can't regress your beliefs to "true" and "false".
>> What I had in mind
>> was "false" as in "true/false test"
>
>Let Zick present us with what he thinks is such a test, if he thinks
>there is one.
What I just said.
>> >> >but unless one has made only one indivisible assumption, one does not
>> >> >know which, if any, must be false in the absence of the others.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, yeah, whatever you just said.
>
>If Zick cannot sort that out, he shouldn't be allowed out alone.
And you shouldn't be allowed to discuss subjects like true and false
without parental supervision. I mean assuming you know who they are.
>> >> So the meaning of "infinite" is mathematically ambiguous? And here I
>> >> thought you just told me that mathematical ambiguity is to be avoided
>> >> at all costs!
>> >
>> >Absent any knowledge of which context it is to be used in, one does not
>> >know which meaning to use.
>>
>> And here I thought all along the context was mathematics. Oh well.
>
>Mathematics is a collection of many sometimes overlapping areas of
>study, and what holds in one such need not hold in all the others.
The problem is that the overlapping areas you specialize in are called
"true" and "false".
>> > But determining which context
>> > is
>> > sufficient
>> >to eliminate ambiguity. So it is important to determine the context.
>>
>> Which context apparently doesn't include moden math.
>
>Since mathematics is made up of and divisible into multiple contexts,
>with more appearing every year, "infinity" is allowed to have multiple
>meanings there, but no more than one per indivisible context.
Oh so?And you make up these rather curious rules all by your lonesome?
>It has not been a single context since sometime in the ninteenth century.
Undoubtedly because there is no universal definition for "true" and
"false" neomathematics split along the lines of various assumptions.
>> >Zick seems to want always to have certainty without context, and that is
>> >not always possible.
>>
>> In the context of modern math it would appear that certainty is never
>> possible.
>
>On the contrary, that is about the only place that any certainty IS
>possible.
Well faith based certainty sure. I understand faith is very comforting
in the absence of truth.
>> Oh and you have, sport? I've got an idea.
>
>Treat it carefully, as it is unlikely to have any siblings.
Whereas your brother is an only child.
>> Clearly "infinity" and the
>> truth of definitions are way beyond your ken.
>
>There are several different "infinities" within my ken, each with its
>own context, but I will admit that applying "true" or "false" to
>imperatives is beyond me.
I think you mean kennel not ken. Pretty much nothing seems to be in
your ken.
>So why don't we
>> concentrate on something simple like why there is no real number line?
>
>And similar questions, like why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs
>have wings?
Your ideas certainly have.
>Is Zick sure that he is not a reincarnation of Alice?
No but I'm sure you are.
~v~~
|
|