info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Matheologians say nay!
247 views
Skip to first unread message
WM
Jan 4, 2015, 3:39:04 AM1/4/15
to
If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
It is an easy proof with an unavoidable result: There is nothing uncountable in mathematics (and elsewhere). But matheologians find no counter-argument to defend their pet theory of different finished infinities. So they say nay!
Regards, WM
An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
It is an easy proof with an unavoidable result: There is nothing uncountable in mathematics (and elsewhere). But matheologians find no counter-argument to defend their pet theory of different finished infinities. So they say nay!
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 4, 2015, 4:04:53 AM1/4/15
to
In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
WM's claims, without any proof.
And as its unproven assumptions and conclusions are about the physical
world, it is not mathematics at all. Note that mathematics, by itself,
makes no assumptions whatsoever about any physical world.
More interesting mathematically is WM's too often repeated claim that
looking only at a finite number of digit positions in an infinite
sequence of decimal digits following a decimal point is enough to
determine whether or not that sequence represents a quotient of integers
or not.
Those more familiar with the process of long division that WM, will
easily see that that assumption by WM is trivially and obviously false,
since it is only digit sequences which are eventually infinitely
repeating, and thus require all infinitely many digits (including all
zeros) that can be honestly determined to represent rational numbers.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps
> every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
>
> An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of
> all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
>
> It is an easy proof
It is not yet a proof at all, but merely a claim made, as usual with
> If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps
> every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
>
> An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of
> all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
>
> It is an easy proof
WM's claims, without any proof.
And as its unproven assumptions and conclusions are about the physical
world, it is not mathematics at all. Note that mathematics, by itself,
makes no assumptions whatsoever about any physical world.
More interesting mathematically is WM's too often repeated claim that
looking only at a finite number of digit positions in an infinite
sequence of decimal digits following a decimal point is enough to
determine whether or not that sequence represents a quotient of integers
or not.
Those more familiar with the process of long division that WM, will
easily see that that assumption by WM is trivially and obviously false,
since it is only digit sequences which are eventually infinitely
repeating, and thus require all infinitely many digits (including all
zeros) that can be honestly determined to represent rational numbers.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
WM
Jan 4, 2015, 4:36:10 AM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:04:53 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps
> > every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
> >
> > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of
> > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> >
> > It is an easy proof
>
> It is not yet a proof at all, but merely a claim made,
It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
> In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps
> > every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
> >
> > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of
> > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> >
> > It is an easy proof
>
> It is not yet a proof at all, but merely a claim made,
Regards, WM
Zeit Geist
Jan 4, 2015, 4:51:36 AM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 1:39:04 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
But, you don't even understand those terms you use and reject those very concepts.
> If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
> An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> It is an easy proof with an unavoidable result: There is nothing uncountable in mathematics (and elsewhere). But matheologians find no counter-argument to defend their pet theory of different finished infinities. So they say nay!
> Regards, WM
ZG
Zeit Geist
Jan 4, 2015, 4:53:20 AM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
But, you never prove anything. You just keep writing meaningless BS.
> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
> Regards, WM
ZG
Virgil
Jan 4, 2015, 4:55:36 AM1/4/15
to
In article <14234111-3230-4089...@googlegroups.com>,
matter of mathematics at all, but of physics, and thus not "provable" at
all in any mathematical sense.
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:04:53 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M
> > > of
> > > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > >
> > > It is an easy proof
> >
It is not yet a proof at all, but merely a physical claim and not a
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:04:53 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M
> > > of
> > > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > >
> > > It is an easy proof
> >
matter of mathematics at all, but of physics, and thus not "provable" at
all in any mathematical sense.
>
> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe
That is a matter of physics, and thus irrelevant here!
> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe
Bill
Jan 4, 2015, 10:35:54 AM1/4/15
to
Zeit Geist wrote:
> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
>
>> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
>
>> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
WM
Jan 4, 2015, 11:56:55 AM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, 4 January 2015 16:35:54 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> Zeit Geist wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> >
> >> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
> The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
>
Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written in place extending over about one centimeter times few millimeters. How many rational points are in this area?What do you think?
> Zeit Geist wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> >
> >> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
> The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
>
Not, if only one pointer p can be proved to point to sqrt(2), then it belongs, according to set theory, to a countable set. For sqrt(2) we can find infinitely many such pointers.
Regards, WM
WM
Jan 4, 2015, 12:00:54 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:55:36 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <14234111-3230-4089...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:04:53 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M
> > > > of
> > > > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > > >
> > > > It is an easy proof
> > >
> It is not yet a proof at all, but merely a physical claim and not a
> matter of mathematics at all, but of physics, and thus not "provable" at
> all in any mathematical sense.
The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics. Further it is a matter of mathematics that every tiny space in the coordinate system contains infinitely many rational points. And set theory "proves" that all rational points in a multidimensional and infinite and eternal universe belong to one and the same countable set. --- Quite a lot of mathematics!
> In article <14234111-3230-4089...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:04:53 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M
> > > > of
> > > > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > > >
> > > > It is an easy proof
> > >
> It is not yet a proof at all, but merely a physical claim and not a
> matter of mathematics at all, but of physics, and thus not "provable" at
> all in any mathematical sense.
> >
> > It is easy to prove that all points of the universe
>
> That is a matter of physics, and thus irrelevant here!
Why should facts be excluded? You wish to maintain your fantasy world full of delusions and nonsense?
> > It is easy to prove that all points of the universe
>
> That is a matter of physics, and thus irrelevant here!
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 4, 2015, 12:29:56 PM1/4/15
to
In article <9d24039c-873c-4c29...@googlegroups.com>,
than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of physics,
or some other science, and no longer merely mathematics but incorporates
non-mathematical assumptions. It may then be experimentally verifiable,
but is no longer provable.
> > > It is easy to prove that all points of the universe
> >
> > That is a matter of physics, and thus irrelevant here!
>
> Why should facts be excluded?
Irrelevancies, whether factual or from WMytheology, are irrelevant and
should be excluded. The price of peas in Prussia is factual, but being
irrelevant here need not be included here.
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:55:36 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <14234111-3230-4089...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:04:53 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > > In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational
> > > > > space-time
> > > > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the
> > > > > set M
> > > > > of
> > > > > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is an easy proof
> > > >
> > It is not yet a proof at all, but merely a physical claim and not a
> > matter of mathematics at all, but of physics, and thus not "provable" at
> > all in any mathematical sense.
>
> The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:55:36 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <14234111-3230-4089...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 10:04:53 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > > In article <90284fb4-d796-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational
> > > > > space-time
> > > > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the
> > > > > set M
> > > > > of
> > > > > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is an easy proof
> > > >
> > It is not yet a proof at all, but merely a physical claim and not a
> > matter of mathematics at all, but of physics, and thus not "provable" at
> > all in any mathematical sense.
>
> The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of physics,
or some other science, and no longer merely mathematics but incorporates
non-mathematical assumptions. It may then be experimentally verifiable,
but is no longer provable.
> > > It is easy to prove that all points of the universe
> >
> > That is a matter of physics, and thus irrelevant here!
>
> Why should facts be excluded?
should be excluded. The price of peas in Prussia is factual, but being
irrelevant here need not be included here.
Virgil
Jan 4, 2015, 12:39:09 PM1/4/15
to
In article <012f91eb-989e-406d...@googlegroups.com>,
equals 2 was merely referred to by name.
set, all by itself, as well as to many other non-singleton finite sets.
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 16:35:54 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> > Zeit Geist wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> > >
> > >> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational
> > >> coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every
> > >> object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational
> > >> point.
>
> > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
> >
> Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written
Wrong! "sqrt(2)" is what was written. The irrational number whose square
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 16:35:54 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> > Zeit Geist wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> > >
> > >> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational
> > >> coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every
> > >> object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational
> > >> point.
>
> > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
> >
> Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written
equals 2 was merely referred to by name.
>
> Not, if only one pointer p can be proved to point to sqrt(2), then it
> belongs, according to set theory, to a countable set.
Everything that one can point to in that manner belongs to a singleton
> Not, if only one pointer p can be proved to point to sqrt(2), then it
> belongs, according to set theory, to a countable set.
set, all by itself, as well as to many other non-singleton finite sets.
Zeit Geist
Jan 4, 2015, 1:01:15 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:56:55 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 16:35:54 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> > Zeit Geist wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> > >
> > >> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
>
> > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
> >
> Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written in place extending over about one centimeter times few millimeters. How many rational points are in this area?What do you think?
I think you write pure nonsense.
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 16:35:54 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> > Zeit Geist wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:36:10 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> > >
> > >> It is easy to prove that all points of the universe with rational coordinates belong to a countable set. It is prove to see that every object of mathematics existing in a memory covers at least one rational point.
>
> > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
> >
> Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written in place extending over about one centimeter times few millimeters. How many rational points are in this area?What do you think?
> Not, if only one pointer p can be proved to point to sqrt(2), then it belongs, according to set theory, to a countable set. For sqrt(2) we can find infinitely many such pointers.
> Regards, WM
ZG
Virgil
Jan 4, 2015, 2:40:26 PM1/4/15
to
> n Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:56:55 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
> Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written in place extending over about
> one centimeter times few millimeters. How many rational points are in this
> area?What do you think?
the same thing and that the number it names does not "cover" any
rational points of the real line or real world at all.
WM
Jan 5, 2015, 7:55:14 AM1/5/15
to
On Sunday, 4 January 2015 20:40:26 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > n Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:56:55 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
>
>
> > > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
>
> > Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written in place extending over about
> > one centimeter times few millimeters. How many rational points are in this
> > area?What do you think?
>
> I think that the name "sqrt(2)" and the number it names are not at all
> the same thing
Not necessary. The rational coordinate points to the word and the word points to the number. No chance to get something uncountable.
> > n Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:56:55 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
>
>
> > > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
>
> > Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written in place extending over about
> > one centimeter times few millimeters. How many rational points are in this
> > area?What do you think?
>
> I think that the name "sqrt(2)" and the number it names are not at all
> the same thing
> and that the number it names does not "cover" any
> rational points of the real line or real world at all.
Regards, WM
WM
Jan 5, 2015, 7:57:50 AM1/5/15
to
On Sunday, 4 January 2015 18:29:56 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
>
> As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of physics,
No. It is pure geometry.
> > The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
>
> As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of physics,
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 5, 2015, 11:40:14 AM1/5/15
to
In article <25caf80e-127c-4ff2...@googlegroups.com>,
The coordinate system may be geometry, but the positions in it of
physical objects is a matter of physical measurement and thus is physics.
So WM is wrong, again, as usual!
physical objects is a matter of physical measurement and thus is physics.
So WM is wrong, again, as usual!
Virgil
Jan 5, 2015, 11:53:05 AM1/5/15
to
In article <d41aa1ab-41be-485b...@googlegroups.com>,
sqrt(2).
integers, and even in some real numbers which are not solutions of any
polynomial equations in one variable with integer coefficients, and that
competent humans can recognize them, even if WM cannot.
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 20:40:26 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > n Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:56:55 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
> >
> > > Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written in place extending over
> > > about
> > > one centimeter times few millimeters. How many rational points are in
> > > this
> > > area?What do you think?
> >
> > I think that the name "sqrt(2)" and the number it names are not at all
> > the same thing
>
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 20:40:26 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > n Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:56:55 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > The sqrt(2) doesn't cover any rational points that I know of.
> >
> > > Then let me tell you: sqrt(2) is here written in place extending over
> > > about
> > > one centimeter times few millimeters. How many rational points are in
> > > this
> > > area?What do you think?
> >
> > I think that the name "sqrt(2)" and the number it names are not at all
> > the same thing
>
> The rational coordinate points to the word and the word points
> to the number.
But the point is that no rational coordinate "points to" the number
> to the number.
sqrt(2).
>
> > and that the number it names does not "cover" any
> > rational points of the real line or real world at all.
>
> It covers some rational points in rational brains. Maybe that you believe in
> irrational objects outside of any human recognition.
I believe there are real numbers which cannot be expressed as ratios of
> > and that the number it names does not "cover" any
> > rational points of the real line or real world at all.
>
> It covers some rational points in rational brains. Maybe that you believe in
> irrational objects outside of any human recognition.
integers, and even in some real numbers which are not solutions of any
polynomial equations in one variable with integer coefficients, and that
competent humans can recognize them, even if WM cannot.
WM
Jan 5, 2015, 12:00:11 PM1/5/15
to
On Monday, 5 January 2015 17:40:14 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <25caf80e-127c-4ff2...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 18:29:56 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
> > >
> > > As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> > > than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of physics,
> >
> > No. It is pure geometry.
>
> The coordinate system may be geometry, but the positions in it of
> physical objects is a matter of physical measurement and thus is physics.
Geometry means measuring points and distances of objects on earth. Noli turbare circulos meos. In Greek, of course.
> In article <25caf80e-127c-4ff2...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 18:29:56 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
> > >
> > > As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> > > than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of physics,
> >
> > No. It is pure geometry.
>
> The coordinate system may be geometry, but the positions in it of
> physical objects is a matter of physical measurement and thus is physics.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 5, 2015, 1:05:41 PM1/5/15
to
In article <23d86027-ec39-4a4b...@googlegroups.com>,
physical objects in a coordinate system does require physical
measurement, which is a matter of physics , not geometry.
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On Monday, 5 January 2015 17:40:14 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <25caf80e-127c-4ff2...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 18:29:56 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> > > > than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of
> > > > physics,
> > >
> > > No. It is pure geometry.
> >
> > The coordinate system may be geometry, but the positions in it of
> > physical objects is a matter of physical measurement and thus is physics.
>
> Geometry means measuring points and distances of objects on earth.
Words tend to change meanings over millennia. And the position of
> On Monday, 5 January 2015 17:40:14 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <25caf80e-127c-4ff2...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 18:29:56 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> > > > than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of
> > > > physics,
> > >
> > > No. It is pure geometry.
> >
> > The coordinate system may be geometry, but the positions in it of
> > physical objects is a matter of physical measurement and thus is physics.
>
> Geometry means measuring points and distances of objects on earth.
physical objects in a coordinate system does require physical
measurement, which is a matter of physics , not geometry.
WM
Jan 5, 2015, 1:26:14 PM1/5/15
to
On Monday, 5 January 2015 19:05:41 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <23d86027-ec39-4a4b...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 5 January 2015 17:40:14 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > In article <25caf80e-127c-4ff2...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 18:29:56 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> > > > > than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of
> > > > > physics,
> > > >
> > > > No. It is pure geometry.
> > >
> > > The coordinate system may be geometry, but the positions in it of
> > > physical objects is a matter of physical measurement and thus is physics.
> >
> > Geometry means measuring points and distances of objects on earth.
>
> Words tend to change meanings over millennia.
Nevertheless the number of meanings is limited by the number of ideas of brains --- and that is finite.
> In article <23d86027-ec39-4a4b...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 5 January 2015 17:40:14 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > In article <25caf80e-127c-4ff2...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, 4 January 2015 18:29:56 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The coordinate system is a matter of mathematics.
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as a coordinate system is applied to any physical space (other
> > > > > than the purely mental spaces of mathematics) it is a matter of
> > > > > physics,
> > > >
> > > > No. It is pure geometry.
> > >
> > > The coordinate system may be geometry, but the positions in it of
> > > physical objects is a matter of physical measurement and thus is physics.
> >
> > Geometry means measuring points and distances of objects on earth.
>
> Words tend to change meanings over millennia.
> And the position of
> physical objects in a coordinate system does require physical
> measurement, which is a matter of physics , not geometry.
By the way, that is the only point where they are not mistaken.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 5, 2015, 1:43:53 PM1/5/15
to
In article <ad826851-1d2c-41da...@googlegroups.com>,
WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
applications of it to a physical world.
Only inept WMytheologists appear to be unable to distinguish that purely
mathematical theory from those physical applications of it.
choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
applications of it to a physical world.
Only inept WMytheologists appear to be unable to distinguish that purely
mathematical theory from those physical applications of it.
wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de
Jan 6, 2015, 12:43:30 PM1/6/15
to
Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
> choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
> applications of it to a physical world.
Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics. This counterpart can sereve as a pointer proving the countability of all mathematical notions.
> WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
> choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
> applications of it to a physical world.
Regards, WM
Bill
Jan 6, 2015, 2:42:44 PM1/6/15
to
the "Incompleteness Theorem".
Virgil
Jan 6, 2015, 3:13:04 PM1/6/15
to
In article <ebafaaae-33c1-4f29...@googlegroups.com>,
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality." ~Albert Einstein.
> This
> counterpart can sereve as a pointer proving the countability of all
> mathematical notions.
Only in the tiny minds of bad Physicists.
wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
>
>
> > WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
> > choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
> > applications of it to a physical world.
>
> Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
Only in the tiny minds of bad Physicists.
> Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
>
>
> > WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
> > choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
> > applications of it to a physical world.
>
> Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality." ~Albert Einstein.
> This
> counterpart can sereve as a pointer proving the countability of all
> mathematical notions.
Virgil
Jan 6, 2015, 3:40:27 PM1/6/15
to
wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
>
>
>> WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
>> choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
>> applications of it to a physical world.
> Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
> Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
>
>
>> WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
>> choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
>> applications of it to a physical world.
> Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality." ~Albert Einstein.
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality." ~Albert Einstein.
WM
Jan 7, 2015, 2:22:26 AM1/7/15
to
Am Dienstag, 6. Januar 2015 20:42:44 UTC+1 schrieb Bill:
> wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de wrote:
> > Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> >
> >
> >> WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
> >> choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
> >> applications of it to a physical world.
> > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics. This counterpart can sereve as a pointer proving the countability of all mathematical notions.
> >
> wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de wrote:
> > Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> >
> >
> >> WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
> >> choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
> >> applications of it to a physical world.
> > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics. This counterpart can sereve as a pointer proving the countability of all mathematical notions.
> >
> That is sort of funny if you intended it to be absurd. Look up Gödel and
> the "Incompleteness Theorem".
As valid as his proof of the existence of God.
> the "Incompleteness Theorem".
Note that his incompleteness theorem is based upon the wrong a assumption of uncountable sets.
And look what he said about the axioms and "any critical mind".
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/114904511666965552907
Regards, WM
WM
Jan 7, 2015, 2:24:31 AM1/7/15
to
Am Dienstag, 6. Januar 2015 21:13:04 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
>
> > This
> > counterpart can sereve as a pointer proving the countability of all
> > mathematical notions.
>
> Only in the tiny minds of bad Physicists.
Not in the super minds of good matheologians. But I am not going to believe in matheology. And I will do what I can to prevent my students from doing so.
>
> > This
> > counterpart can sereve as a pointer proving the countability of all
> > mathematical notions.
>
> Only in the tiny minds of bad Physicists.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 7, 2015, 3:26:11 AM1/7/15
to
In article <4b320bec-4329-49b2...@googlegroups.com>,
WM is, in fact, the only person in the whole wide world who believes,
or at least claims to believe, that there is any such a thing as
matheology.
But while WM has often claimed the impossibility of a surjection from |N
to |Q he now claiming that he has created a surjection from |N to |R.
What WM claims re mathematics mutates unpredictably from day to day, but
is almost always incompatible with the actual world of mathematics.
Everywhere outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology the set of
nodes of a Complete Infinite Binary Tree bijects with |N and the set of
its paths bijects with 2^|N.
Let |N be the set of all nodes of the tree with 1 being the root node
and for each node n, its left child node 2*n and its right child node be
2*n+1, respectively.
Note that each natural number other than the root node, 1, has a unique
predecessor node, so every natural is in some of the paths (it will
transpire, in uncountably many paths).
Then clearly each natural is a node and each node a natural
So the set of nodes not only bijects with |N, in this model it IS |N.
Also each path in any such a Complete Infinite Binary Tree is
completely defined by the unique list of node levels from which it
branches right. Such a list is always a subset of |N and every subset of
|N is such a list, thus defines a path unique to that subset of |N..
Thus the set of nodes of a Complete Infinite Binary Tree bijects with |N
and the set of paths of a Complete Infinite Binary Tree bijects with
2^|N.
At lest everywhere outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology.
WM is, in fact, the only person in the whole wide world who believes,
or at least claims to believe, that there is any such a thing as
matheology.
But while WM has often claimed the impossibility of a surjection from |N
to |Q he now claiming that he has created a surjection from |N to |R.
What WM claims re mathematics mutates unpredictably from day to day, but
is almost always incompatible with the actual world of mathematics.
Everywhere outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology the set of
nodes of a Complete Infinite Binary Tree bijects with |N and the set of
its paths bijects with 2^|N.
Let |N be the set of all nodes of the tree with 1 being the root node
and for each node n, its left child node 2*n and its right child node be
2*n+1, respectively.
Note that each natural number other than the root node, 1, has a unique
predecessor node, so every natural is in some of the paths (it will
transpire, in uncountably many paths).
Then clearly each natural is a node and each node a natural
So the set of nodes not only bijects with |N, in this model it IS |N.
Also each path in any such a Complete Infinite Binary Tree is
completely defined by the unique list of node levels from which it
branches right. Such a list is always a subset of |N and every subset of
|N is such a list, thus defines a path unique to that subset of |N..
Thus the set of nodes of a Complete Infinite Binary Tree bijects with |N
and the set of paths of a Complete Infinite Binary Tree bijects with
2^|N.
At lest everywhere outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology.
Virgil
Jan 7, 2015, 3:34:10 AM1/7/15
to
In article <8cb96ec1-7959-4cbb...@googlegroups.com>,
uncountability?
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality." ~Albert Einstein.
other than WM will pick WM as the one being wrong!
WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. Januar 2015 20:42:44 UTC+1 schrieb Bill:
> > wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de wrote:
> > > Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> > >
> > >
> > >> WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
> > >> choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
> > >> applications of it to a physical world.
> > > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
What is the physical counterpart of the mathematical notion of
> Am Dienstag, 6. Januar 2015 20:42:44 UTC+1 schrieb Bill:
> > wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de wrote:
> > > Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015 19:43:53 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> > >
> > >
> > >> WRONG as usual! Those whom WM is trying futilely to denigrate merely
> > >> choose to distinguish between the purely theoretical and physical
> > >> applications of it to a physical world.
> > > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
uncountability?
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality." ~Albert Einstein.
> > That is sort of funny if you intended it to be absurd. Look up Gödel and
> > the "Incompleteness Theorem".
>
> > the "Incompleteness Theorem".
>
> Note that his incompleteness theorem is based upon the wrong a assumption of
> uncountable sets.
In a choice between Goedel being wrong versus WM being wrong, everyone
> uncountable sets.
other than WM will pick WM as the one being wrong!
WM
Jan 7, 2015, 6:06:03 AM1/7/15
to
Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 09:34:10 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> > > > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
>
> What is the physical counterpart of the mathematical notion of
> uncountability?
The sentence above, to name only one of many.
> > > > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
>
> What is the physical counterpart of the mathematical notion of
> uncountability?
>
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 7, 2015, 9:47:11 AM1/7/15
to
In article <98b04762-924f-4f42...@googlegroups.com>,
Nonsense from WM, as usual! There are all sorts of mathemtaical notions
for which WM's alleged physical counterparts do not exist.
The first one to be pubicaly acknowledged is almost certainly
irrationality, which was known to the Pythagoreans.
for which WM's alleged physical counterparts do not exist.
The first one to be pubicaly acknowledged is almost certainly
irrationality, which was known to the Pythagoreans.
WM
Jan 8, 2015, 5:56:48 AM1/8/15
to
Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 15:47:11 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> In article <98b04762-924f-4f42...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 09:34:10 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> >
> >
> > > > > > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
> > >
> > > What is the physical counterpart of the mathematical notion of
> > > uncountability?
> >
> > The sentence above, to name only one of many.
>
> Nonsense from WM, as usual! There are all sorts of mathemtaical notions
> for which WM's alleged physical counterparts do not exist.
The word, writen on paper or screen, is the physical counterpart!
> In article <98b04762-924f-4f42...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 09:34:10 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> >
> >
> > > > > > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
> > >
> > > What is the physical counterpart of the mathematical notion of
> > > uncountability?
> >
> > The sentence above, to name only one of many.
>
> Nonsense from WM, as usual! There are all sorts of mathemtaical notions
> for which WM's alleged physical counterparts do not exist.
>
> The first one to be pubicaly acknowledged is almost certainly
> irrationality, which was known to the Pythagoreans.
and which has the physical counterpart on this screen. Electron, atoms, molecules, you know?
> The first one to be pubicaly acknowledged is almost certainly
> irrationality, which was known to the Pythagoreans.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 8, 2015, 6:36:05 AM1/8/15
to
In article <b6dba55a-f548-497f...@googlegroups.com>,
Only in WM's worthless world of WMytheology!
representation of the mathematical differences between rational numbers
and irrational numbers. WM is getting desperate in his inablilty to
support his lost causes!
WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 15:47:11 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> > In article <98b04762-924f-4f42...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 09:34:10 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
> > > >
> > > > What is the physical counterpart of the mathematical notion of
> > > > uncountability?
> > >
> > > The sentence above, to name only one of many.
> >
> > Nonsense from WM, as usual! There are all sorts of mathemtaical notions
> > for which WM's alleged physical counterparts do not exist.
>
> The word, writen on paper or screen, is the physical counterpart!
The word "Uncountability" is the physical counterpart of uncountability?
> Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 15:47:11 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> > In article <98b04762-924f-4f42...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 09:34:10 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Every mathematical notion needs and has a counterpart in physics.
> > > >
> > > > What is the physical counterpart of the mathematical notion of
> > > > uncountability?
> > >
> > > The sentence above, to name only one of many.
> >
> > Nonsense from WM, as usual! There are all sorts of mathemtaical notions
> > for which WM's alleged physical counterparts do not exist.
>
> The word, writen on paper or screen, is the physical counterpart!
Only in WM's worthless world of WMytheology!
> >
> > The first one to be pubicaly acknowledged is almost certainly
> > irrationality, which was known to the Pythagoreans.
>
> and which has the physical counterpart on this screen. Electron, atoms,
> molecules, you know?
I do not see that electrons, atoms, or molecules are in any way a
> > The first one to be pubicaly acknowledged is almost certainly
> > irrationality, which was known to the Pythagoreans.
>
> and which has the physical counterpart on this screen. Electron, atoms,
> molecules, you know?
representation of the mathematical differences between rational numbers
and irrational numbers. WM is getting desperate in his inablilty to
support his lost causes!
WM
Jan 8, 2015, 10:02:53 AM1/8/15
to
Am Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2015 12:36:05 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> The word "Uncountability" is the physical counterpart of uncountability?
Yes. One of many pointers.
> The word "Uncountability" is the physical counterpart of uncountability?
> > > The first one to be pubicaly acknowledged is almost certainly
> > > irrationality, which was known to the Pythagoreans.
> >
> > and which has the physical counterpart on this screen. Electron, atoms,
> > molecules, you know?
>
> I do not see that electrons, atoms, or molecules are in any way a
> representation of the mathematical differences between rational numbers
> and irrational numbers.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 8, 2015, 1:36:38 PM1/8/15
to
In article <863fc4b0-bd55-47db...@googlegroups.com>,
But, unlike WM, I manage not to see all sorts of things that WM caims tu
see but which, at eats outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology
that atre no there simp[y are not there.
see but which, at eats outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology
that atre no there simp[y are not there.
WM
Jan 9, 2015, 11:21:51 AM1/9/15
to
Am Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2015 19:36:38 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> But, unlike WM, I manage not to see all sorts of things that WM caims tu
> see but which, at eats outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology
> that atre no there simp[y are not there.
> --
If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
> But, unlike WM, I manage not to see all sorts of things that WM caims tu
> see but which, at eats outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology
> that atre no there simp[y are not there.
> --
An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 9, 2015, 12:46:50 PM1/9/15
to
In article <fa0f9933-1871-48c5...@googlegroups.com>,
What rational number represents the distance from some such
(x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
Or are such irrational distances not allowed to be stored in any
memories?
(x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
Or are such irrational distances not allowed to be stored in any
memories?
WM
Jan 10, 2015, 5:13:32 AM1/10/15
to
Am Freitag, 9. Januar 2015 18:46:50 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> In article <fa0f9933-1871-48c5...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > Am Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2015 19:36:38 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> >
> > > But, unlike WM, I manage not to see all sorts of things that WM caims tu
> > > see but which, at eats outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology
> > > that atre no there simp[y are not there.
> > > --
> > If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps
> > every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
> >
> > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of
> > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
>
> What rational number represents the distance from some such
> (x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
The rational space time coordinates that you inhabited when writing this text, for instance. In order to prove the countability of set M you can use everything of the countable set pointing to the elements the set M to be investigated.
> In article <fa0f9933-1871-48c5...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > Am Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2015 19:36:38 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> >
> > > But, unlike WM, I manage not to see all sorts of things that WM caims tu
> > > see but which, at eats outside of WM's worthless world of WMytheology
> > > that atre no there simp[y are not there.
> > > --
> > If there is a countable set P and a set M and a surjective mapping that maps
> > every element p of P on an element m of M, then M is countable too.
> >
> > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M of
> > all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
>
> What rational number represents the distance from some such
> (x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
As soon as you think of an element this element belongs to the countable set of all thinkable elements.
Cantor is wrong. No way out!
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 10, 2015, 12:29:33 PM1/10/15
to
In article <eb6ae018-3780-49f3...@googlegroups.com>,
implies a continuum.
WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M
> > > of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> >
> > What rational number represents the distance from some such
> > (x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
>
> The rational space time coordinates that you inhabited when writing this
> text, for instance.
That presumes that I did not move at all when writing it, since motion
> > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M
> > > of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> >
> > What rational number represents the distance from some such
> > (x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
>
> The rational space time coordinates that you inhabited when writing this
> text, for instance.
implies a continuum.
WM
Jan 10, 2015, 4:32:57 PM1/10/15
to
On Saturday, 10 January 2015 18:29:33 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <eb6ae018-3780-49f3...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
> > > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M
> > > > of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > >
> > > What rational number represents the distance from some such
> > > (x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
> >
> > The rational space time coordinates that you inhabited when writing this
> > text, for instance.
>
> That presumes that I did not move at all when writing it, since motion
> implies a continuum.
No. You may move as much as you like. One point is sufficient! In fact there are infinitely many pointing to any thought of yours.
> In article <eb6ae018-3780-49f3...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
> > > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational space-time
> > > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the set M
> > > > of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > >
> > > What rational number represents the distance from some such
> > > (x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
> >
> > The rational space time coordinates that you inhabited when writing this
> > text, for instance.
>
> That presumes that I did not move at all when writing it, since motion
> implies a continuum.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 10, 2015, 5:02:44 PM1/10/15
to
In article <32d6ec08-7e70-4749...@googlegroups.com>,
How does a point point to anything but itself? Are WM's points like
vectors. In the real world, a single point has at most position but not
any direction strictly on its own.
vectors. In the real world, a single point has at most position but not
any direction strictly on its own.
WM
Jan 11, 2015, 6:03:56 AM1/11/15
to
On Saturday, 10 January 2015 23:02:44 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > > > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational
> > > > > > space-time
> > > > > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the
> > > > > > set M
> > > > > > of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > What rational number represents the distance from some such
> > > > > (x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
> > > >
> > > > The rational space time coordinates that you inhabited when writing this
> > > > text, for instance.
> > >
> > > That presumes that I did not move at all when writing it, since motion
> > > implies a continuum.
> >
> > No. You may move as much as you like. One point is sufficient! In fact there
> > are infinitely many pointing to any thought of yours.
>
> How does a point point to anything but itself?
A point of the coordinate system points to the event covering this point like an element of a set points to its set and like a representant of an equivalence class points to its equivalence class.
> > > > > > An application of this definition is the set P of all rational
> > > > > > space-time
> > > > > > coordinates (x, y, z, t) in an arbitrary coordinate system and the
> > > > > > set M
> > > > > > of all objects of mathematics that are stored in any memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > What rational number represents the distance from some such
> > > > > (x, y, z, t) to (x+1, y+1, z, t) ?
> > > >
> > > > The rational space time coordinates that you inhabited when writing this
> > > > text, for instance.
> > >
> > > That presumes that I did not move at all when writing it, since motion
> > > implies a continuum.
> >
> > No. You may move as much as you like. One point is sufficient! In fact there
> > are infinitely many pointing to any thought of yours.
>
> How does a point point to anything but itself?
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 11, 2015, 11:48:29 AM1/11/15
to
In article <9cd8e0f4-e18c-431f...@googlegroups.com>,
An element of any set will be an element of many different sets, and by
its mere existence does not determine which of those many sets is
currently the one of interest. Thus any point may "point" in many
directions at once, and by itself does not determine which of those
directions may currently be relevant.
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > How does a point point to anything but itself?
>
> A point of the coordinate system points to the event covering this point like
> an element of a set points to its set and like a representant of an
> equivalence class points to its equivalence class.
Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
> > How does a point point to anything but itself?
>
> A point of the coordinate system points to the event covering this point like
> an element of a set points to its set and like a representant of an
> equivalence class points to its equivalence class.
An element of any set will be an element of many different sets, and by
its mere existence does not determine which of those many sets is
currently the one of interest. Thus any point may "point" in many
directions at once, and by itself does not determine which of those
directions may currently be relevant.
WM
Jan 13, 2015, 5:14:48 AM1/13/15
to
On Sunday, 11 January 2015 17:48:29 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <9cd8e0f4-e18c-431f...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > How does a point point to anything but itself?
> >
> > A point of the coordinate system points to the event covering this point like
> > an element of a set points to its set and like a representant of an
> > equivalence class points to its equivalence class.
>
> Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
> In article <9cd8e0f4-e18c-431f...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > How does a point point to anything but itself?
> >
> > A point of the coordinate system points to the event covering this point like
> > an element of a set points to its set and like a representant of an
> > equivalence class points to its equivalence class.
>
> Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 13, 2015, 2:13:30 PM1/13/15
to
In article <20dfae79-1730-4f5e...@googlegroups.com>,
What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
Can WM give an example of a "space-time-point" that is coverable by only
one event, and the one-and-only-event which covers it??
Einstein's space-time-points are sharable by all sorts of events, e.g.,
are observable by many different observers, each observatioin being a
different event, so who invented WM's anti-Einsteinian
"space-time-points"?
Can WM give an example of a "space-time-point" that is coverable by only
one event, and the one-and-only-event which covers it??
Einstein's space-time-points are sharable by all sorts of events, e.g.,
are observable by many different observers, each observatioin being a
different event, so who invented WM's anti-Einsteinian
"space-time-points"?
WM
Jan 15, 2015, 9:07:49 AM1/15/15
to
On Tuesday, 13 January 2015 20:13:30 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <20dfae79-1730-4f5e...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 11 January 2015 17:48:29 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > In article <9cd8e0f4-e18c-431f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How does a point point to anything but itself?
> > > >
> > > > A point of the coordinate system points to the event covering this point
> > > > like
> > > > an element of a set points to its set and like a representant of an
> > > > equivalence class points to its equivalence class.
> > >
> > > Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
> >
> > A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
>
> What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
Points in a coordinate system.
> In article <20dfae79-1730-4f5e...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 11 January 2015 17:48:29 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > In article <9cd8e0f4-e18c-431f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How does a point point to anything but itself?
> > > >
> > > > A point of the coordinate system points to the event covering this point
> > > > like
> > > > an element of a set points to its set and like a representant of an
> > > > equivalence class points to its equivalence class.
> > >
> > > Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
> >
> > A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
>
> What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
>
> Can WM give an example of a "space-time-point" that is coverable by only
> one event, and the one-and-only-event which covers it??
Every space-time-point is covered by only one event. The event may be a name like interval (0, 1] that later can be subdivided in many elements. But at any space-time-point there can be at most one intelligent neing and it can express at most one word.
> Can WM give an example of a "space-time-point" that is coverable by only
> one event, and the one-and-only-event which covers it??
>
> Einstein's space-time-points are sharable by all sorts of events, e.g.,
> are observable by many different observers, each observatioin being a
> different event,
But every observer observes only one element at his point.
> Einstein's space-time-points are sharable by all sorts of events, e.g.,
> are observable by many different observers, each observatioin being a
> different event,
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 15, 2015, 10:36:00 AM1/15/15
to
In article <56c43432-7bb6-452f...@googlegroups.com>,
coordinate system? In tis country, a football game is an event which
occupies far more than a single point in space-time. And there are a lot
of different events occurring simultaneoulsy at a football game.
observing!
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
> > >
> > > A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
> >
> > What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
>
> Points in a coordinate system.
Then what is an "event" that it must always be a single point in a
> > > > Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
> > >
> > > A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
> >
> > What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
>
> Points in a coordinate system.
coordinate system? In tis country, a football game is an event which
occupies far more than a single point in space-time. And there are a lot
of different events occurring simultaneoulsy at a football game.
> >
> > Einstein's space-time-points are sharable by all sorts of events, e.g.,
> > are observable by many different observers, each observatioin being a
> > different event,
>
> But every observer observes only one element at his point.
Every observer can simultaneously observe all the other observers
> > Einstein's space-time-points are sharable by all sorts of events, e.g.,
> > are observable by many different observers, each observatioin being a
> > different event,
>
> But every observer observes only one element at his point.
observing!
WM
Jan 17, 2015, 8:41:11 AM1/17/15
to
On Thursday, 15 January 2015 16:36:00 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <56c43432-7bb6-452f...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
> > > >
> > > > A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
> > >
> > > What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
> >
> > Points in a coordinate system.
>
> Then what is an "event" that it must always be a single point in a
> coordinate system?
You misundersand. An event covers infinitely many rational space-time points, since it has a positive extension.
> In article <56c43432-7bb6-452f...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And how?
> > > >
> > > > A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
> > >
> > > What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
> >
> > Points in a coordinate system.
>
> Then what is an "event" that it must always be a single point in a
> coordinate system?
> In tis country, a football game is an event which
> occupies far more than a single point in space-time. And there are a lot
> of different events occurring simultaneoulsy at a football game.
> Every observer can simultaneously observe all the other observers
> observing!
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 17, 2015, 1:15:07 PM1/17/15
to
In article <4b846698-c371-4f7d...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> > In this country, a football game is an event which
Note that if the coordinate axes of one set of rational space-time
points are wrongly angled with respect to another set of space time
points, one of those sets of points will have to contain irrational
space-time points if the other set is to be all rational.
So WM's supposedly entirely rational world is irrational in every sense
of the word!
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 January 2015 16:36:00 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <56c43432-7bb6-452f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And
> > > > > > how?
> > > > >
> > > > > A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
> > > >
> > > > What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
> > >
> > > Points in a coordinate system.
> >
> > Then what is an "event" that it must always be a single point in a
> > coordinate system?
>
> You misundersand. An event covers infinitely many rational space-time points,
> since it has a positive extension.
Above you claim "A space-time-point is covered by at most one event."
> On Thursday, 15 January 2015 16:36:00 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <56c43432-7bb6-452f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Which of many "events covering this point" does it point to? And
> > > > > > how?
> > > > >
> > > > > A space-time-point is covered by at most one event.
> > > >
> > > > What are WM's "space-time-points" in reality?
> > >
> > > Points in a coordinate system.
> >
> > Then what is an "event" that it must always be a single point in a
> > coordinate system?
>
> You misundersand. An event covers infinitely many rational space-time points,
> since it has a positive extension.
>
>
> > In this country, a football game is an event which
> > occupies far more than a single point in space-time. And there are a lot
> > of different events occurring simultaneoulsy at a football game.
>
> But there are are never n events which cover less than n rational space-time
> points.
Doesn't any event ever cover any irrational space-time points?
> > of different events occurring simultaneoulsy at a football game.
>
> But there are are never n events which cover less than n rational space-time
> points.
Note that if the coordinate axes of one set of rational space-time
points are wrongly angled with respect to another set of space time
points, one of those sets of points will have to contain irrational
space-time points if the other set is to be all rational.
So WM's supposedly entirely rational world is irrational in every sense
of the word!
WM
Jan 19, 2015, 4:36:34 PM1/19/15
to
On Saturday, 17 January 2015 19:15:07 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > You misundersand. An event covers infinitely many rational space-time points,
> > since it has a positive extension.
>
> Above you claim "A space-time-point is covered by at most one event."
Yes. An event covers infinitely many points, every poinbt is covered by at most one event, when event is understood as thought of a thinking being. Only such events are relevant in the context of mathematical objects.
> > You misundersand. An event covers infinitely many rational space-time points,
> > since it has a positive extension.
>
> Above you claim "A space-time-point is covered by at most one event."
> >
> >
> > > In this country, a football game is an event which
> > > occupies far more than a single point in space-time. And there are a lot
> > > of different events occurring simultaneoulsy at a football game.
> >
> > But there are are never n events which cover less than n rational space-time
> > points.
>
> Doesn't any event ever cover any irrational space-time points?
Of course, but the rational points are countable. And there is no event that covers only irrational points.
> >
> > > In this country, a football game is an event which
> > > occupies far more than a single point in space-time. And there are a lot
> > > of different events occurring simultaneoulsy at a football game.
> >
> > But there are are never n events which cover less than n rational space-time
> > points.
>
> Doesn't any event ever cover any irrational space-time points?
>
> Note that if the coordinate axes of one set of rational space-time
> points are wrongly angled with respect to another set of space time
> points, one of those sets of points will have to contain irrational
> space-time points if the other set is to be all rational.
Note, that we can use an ordinary Cartesian system.
> Note that if the coordinate axes of one set of rational space-time
> points are wrongly angled with respect to another set of space time
> points, one of those sets of points will have to contain irrational
> space-time points if the other set is to be all rational.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 19, 2015, 6:08:41 PM1/19/15
to
In article <ee242661-2ac5-4e2d...@googlegroups.com>,
any and every point in it for several hours, with quality of thought as
good as WM's best! So many of what WM miscalls events cover each such
point.
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > Above you claim "A space-time-point is covered by at most one event."
>
> Yes. An event covers infinitely many points, every poinbt is covered by at
> most one event, when event is understood as thought of a thinking being.
At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking about
> > Above you claim "A space-time-point is covered by at most one event."
>
> Yes. An event covers infinitely many points, every poinbt is covered by at
> most one event, when event is understood as thought of a thinking being.
any and every point in it for several hours, with quality of thought as
good as WM's best! So many of what WM miscalls events cover each such
point.
WM
Jan 20, 2015, 5:43:12 AM1/20/15
to
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:08:41 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking about
> any and every point in it for several hours,
None of them has more than countably many thoughts simultaneously.
> At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking about
> any and every point in it for several hours,
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 20, 2015, 1:21:42 PM1/20/15
to
In article <6c89ba08-63cd-4582...@googlegroups.com>,
But my example above disproves WM's claims about the nature of his
alleged rational coordinate system for the universe.
alleged rational coordinate system for the universe.
Spac...@hotmail.com
Jan 20, 2015, 8:22:43 PM1/20/15
to
the book, _elliptical tales,
is a great workout for infinite summations
;only two years old
is a great workout for infinite summations
;only two years old
WM
Jan 21, 2015, 11:53:47 AM1/21/15
to
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 19:21:42 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> In article <6c89ba08-63cd-4582...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:08:41 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking about
> > > any and every point in it for several hours,
> >
> > None of them has more than countably many thoughts simultaneously.
>
> But my example above disproves WM's claims about the nature of his
> alleged rational coordinate system for the universe.
There is a thought rational coordinate system. It is sufficient to enumerate all thoughts.
> In article <6c89ba08-63cd-4582...@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:08:41 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking about
> > > any and every point in it for several hours,
> >
> > None of them has more than countably many thoughts simultaneously.
>
> But my example above disproves WM's claims about the nature of his
> alleged rational coordinate system for the universe.
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 21, 2015, 1:31:08 PM1/21/15
to
In article <56a8f7bd-28a9-4240...@googlegroups.com>,
one sense, irrational.
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 19:21:42 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <6c89ba08-63cd-4582...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:08:41 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking about
> > > > any and every point in it for several hours,
> > >
> > > None of them has more than countably many thoughts simultaneously.
> >
> > But my example above disproves WM's claims about the nature of his
> > alleged rational coordinate system for the universe.
>
> There is a thought rational coordinate system. It is sufficient to enumerate
> all thoughts.
Any system within WM's worthless world of WMytheology is, in at least
> On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 19:21:42 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <6c89ba08-63cd-4582...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:08:41 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking about
> > > > any and every point in it for several hours,
> > >
> > > None of them has more than countably many thoughts simultaneously.
> >
> > But my example above disproves WM's claims about the nature of his
> > alleged rational coordinate system for the universe.
>
> There is a thought rational coordinate system. It is sufficient to enumerate
> all thoughts.
one sense, irrational.
WM
Jan 22, 2015, 8:57:21 AM1/22/15
to
Regards, WM
Virgil
Jan 22, 2015, 12:13:30 PM1/22/15
to
In article <812015ba-9455-4198...@googlegroups.com>,
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 19:31:08 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <56a8f7bd-28a9-4240...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 19:21:42 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > > In article <6c89ba08-63cd-4582...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:08:41 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > any and every point in it for several hours,
> > > > >
> > > > > None of them has more than countably many thoughts simultaneously.
> > > >
> > > > But my example above disproves WM's claims about the nature of his
> > > > alleged rational coordinate system for the universe.
> > >
> > > There is a thought rational coordinate system. It is sufficient to
> > > enumerate
> > > all thoughts.
Only all WM's thoughts, most of which are not worth enumerating.
> On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 19:31:08 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <56a8f7bd-28a9-4240...@googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 19:21:42 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > > In article <6c89ba08-63cd-4582...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:08:41 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > At any annual American superbowl game, many beings are thinking
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > any and every point in it for several hours,
> > > > >
> > > > > None of them has more than countably many thoughts simultaneously.
> > > >
> > > > But my example above disproves WM's claims about the nature of his
> > > > alleged rational coordinate system for the universe.
> > >
> > > There is a thought rational coordinate system. It is sufficient to
> > > enumerate
> > > all thoughts.
> >
> > Any system within WM's worthless world of WMytheology is, in at least
> > one sense, irrational.
>
> No argument.
> > Any system within WM's worthless world of WMytheology is, in at least
> > one sense, irrational.
>
0 new messages