Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Matheology § 265
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Graham Cooper
May 14, 2013, 8:10:38 PM5/14/13
to
On May 12, 7:48 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> Matheology § 265
>
> Abstract. This paper examines the possibilities of extending Cantor’s
> two arguments on the uncountable nature of the set of real numbers to
> one of its proper denumerable subsets: the set of rational numbers.
There is Real Mathematical Calculus
f(r):R->R
and there is LOGIC.
A:[0|1| -> B:[0|1]
--------------------------
Cantor's muffles the 2 arrows together into an infinite
sum of logical conditionals and pulls out hyper-contradictions
from his bellybutton.
Any REAL MATHEMATICS is based on equivalent FUNCTIONS
defined over N!
f(n):N -> R
In CALCULUS you are allowed to use f(r):R -> R
but underneath you must have some definable domain
f( g(n):N ) -> R
where g(n) COMPUTES the real domain of the function
via integer arithmetic.
LOGIC and f(r):R DO NOT MIX!
f(r):R is just a CALCULUS SHORTHAND!
NEWTON would hit CANTOR with a STICK if he saw the mess
that CANTOR made of his CALCULUS!
Herc
--
ALL NEW www.BLOCKPROLOG.com
> Matheology § 265
>
> Abstract. This paper examines the possibilities of extending Cantor’s
> two arguments on the uncountable nature of the set of real numbers to
> one of its proper denumerable subsets: the set of rational numbers.
There is Real Mathematical Calculus
f(r):R->R
and there is LOGIC.
A:[0|1| -> B:[0|1]
--------------------------
Cantor's muffles the 2 arrows together into an infinite
sum of logical conditionals and pulls out hyper-contradictions
from his bellybutton.
Any REAL MATHEMATICS is based on equivalent FUNCTIONS
defined over N!
f(n):N -> R
In CALCULUS you are allowed to use f(r):R -> R
but underneath you must have some definable domain
f( g(n):N ) -> R
where g(n) COMPUTES the real domain of the function
via integer arithmetic.
LOGIC and f(r):R DO NOT MIX!
f(r):R is just a CALCULUS SHORTHAND!
NEWTON would hit CANTOR with a STICK if he saw the mess
that CANTOR made of his CALCULUS!
Herc
--
ALL NEW www.BLOCKPROLOG.com
Graham Cooper
May 14, 2013, 8:15:33 PM5/14/13
to
On May 12, 7:48 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On the other hand, the proof can feign the uncountability of a
> countable set. If, for instance, the alternating harmonic sequence
>
> omega_n = (-1)^n/n --> 0
>
> is taken [...], yielding the intervals (-1, 1/2), (-1/3, 1/4), ... we
The infinite sum is reducible to a finite equation in P.A.
Cantor's infinite sum is not.
IF SET1 has 1 - then MYSET skips 1 ./
or
IF SET1 skips 1 - then MYSET has 1
AND
IF SET2 has 2 - then MYSET skips 2 ./
or
IF SET2 skips 2 - then MYSET has 2
AND
IF SET3 has 3 - then MYSET skips 3
or
IF SET3 skips 3 - then MYSET has 3 ./
AND
...
Herc
--
www.BLoCKPROLOG.com
fom
May 14, 2013, 10:30:38 PM5/14/13
to
On 5/14/2013 7:10 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> NEWTON would hit CANTOR with a STICK if he saw the mess
> that CANTOR made of his CALCULUS!
>
Newton's calculus?
>
> NEWTON would hit CANTOR with a STICK if he saw the mess
> that CANTOR made of his CALCULUS!
>
Why isn't it Leibniz' calculus?
Virgil
May 14, 2013, 10:34:31 PM5/14/13
to
In article
<f2be21fc-d7d2-4ccb...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
was based only on a sort of intuition, not the logic offered by a proper
theory of limits.
At least Cantor had a proper theory of limits with which to do the
Fourier analysis which led to uncountability.
--
<f2be21fc-d7d2-4ccb...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NEWTON would hit CANTOR with a STICK if he saw the mess
> that CANTOR made of his CALCULUS!
Newton's calculus, without the benefits of any proper theory of limits,
> NEWTON would hit CANTOR with a STICK if he saw the mess
> that CANTOR made of his CALCULUS!
was based only on a sort of intuition, not the logic offered by a proper
theory of limits.
At least Cantor had a proper theory of limits with which to do the
Fourier analysis which led to uncountability.
--
Graham Cooper
May 17, 2013, 6:15:01 PM5/17/13
to
On May 15, 12:34 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f2be21fc-d7d2-4ccb-aec7-15ced6d60...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
other planets.
Like they invented PROLOG to solve Modus Ponens.
formula1(X,Y,Z) -> formula2(A,B,X,Y)
/\
|| UNIFY( f1,f3 )
\/
formula1(1,2,3) -> ?
----------------
? = formula2(A,B,1,2)
>
> At least Cantor had a proper theory of limits with which to do the
> Fourier analysis which led to uncountability.
>
such as?
LIM( X-->oo) 2^X = ?
Herc
> In article
> <f2be21fc-d7d2-4ccb-aec7-15ced6d60...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > NEWTON would hit CANTOR with a STICK if he saw the mess
> > that CANTOR made of his CALCULUS!
>
> Newton's calculus, without the benefits of any proper theory of limits,
> was based only on a sort of intuition, not the logic offered by a proper
> theory of limits.
Newton invented Calculus merely to solve the orbit calculations of
>
> > NEWTON would hit CANTOR with a STICK if he saw the mess
> > that CANTOR made of his CALCULUS!
>
> Newton's calculus, without the benefits of any proper theory of limits,
> was based only on a sort of intuition, not the logic offered by a proper
> theory of limits.
other planets.
Like they invented PROLOG to solve Modus Ponens.
formula1(X,Y,Z) -> formula2(A,B,X,Y)
/\
|| UNIFY( f1,f3 )
\/
formula1(1,2,3) -> ?
----------------
? = formula2(A,B,1,2)
>
> At least Cantor had a proper theory of limits with which to do the
> Fourier analysis which led to uncountability.
>
LIM( X-->oo) 2^X = ?
Herc
0 new messages