Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY

27 views
Skip to first unread message

peteolcott

unread,
Sep 14, 2019, 5:06:16 PM9/14/19
to
On 9/14/2019 3:55 PM, Fred wrote:
> On 14/09/2019 21:45, peteolcott wrote:
>
>
>> The common wisdom that a geometric point has zero width is now
>> proven to be incorrect. More accurately a single geometric
>> point has infinitesimal width.
>
> The common wisdom, as you call it, is indeed wise.  He who says that a single geometric point has infinitesimal width is only making a useful statement if it is accompanied by a theory of infinitesimals.  Luckily, there are theories of infinitesimals (see
> here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal#Number_systems_that_include_infinitesimals for starters).  Is any of them yours?  If not, where may a coherent account of yours be found?
>
>

Who else has proved that cardinality is incorrect?

--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved

"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein

Arnaud Fournet

unread,
Sep 14, 2019, 6:48:41 PM9/14/19
to
Pfyooh,
So now, psycho-shitter, you have opened a new thread on sci.lang to deal with you own psychiatrical problem.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,
Sep 16, 2019, 2:50:22 AM9/16/19
to
Ex falso quodlibet - from a flawed logic you can derive antything. Why don't
you for a change look at quantum physics? Do you know Heisenberg's uncertainty
relation? You can measure exactly the position of a particle, or the speed
of that particle, but not both together. There is a principal uncertainty
you can't avoid, nobody can avoid.



Hyperkooks take over, dominate and finally ruin a forum by
starting up to five threads a day (sci.logic, sci.math, humanities.
lit.authors.shakespeare and others). I develop a counter-strategy
against their HIV strategem. A member of sci.logic accused PO
of having ruined several fora "singlehandedly."

(Allgod)

Meanwhile Peter Olcott officially announced that he is God, repeatedly
and in all earnest. Being God, and the only one, he can discard proven
proven theorems of mathematical logic (Goedel, Turing ) and suffocate
sci.logic and sci.lang and other fora by starting ever more parallel threads.

(lesson on logic, fatal deficit of academe)

I see the main problem in academe that has no clear idea of logic, or rather
a one-sided one, regarding mathematical logic as logic per se. Mathematical
logic is the logic of building and maintaining based on the formula a = a
while there is a wider logic formulated by Goethe: All is equal, all unequal ...,
known to artists of all times.

Goedel is very hard to understand for laymen when you consider mathematical
logic the only real logic, but most easy when you have a look at both sides.
Goedel proved that mathematics can't really and completely be separated from
general logic and the principle of equal unequal, it can only be secured
from case to case, for example divisions by zero are forbidden. Why? these
divisions yield infinite, which is equal unequal in itself. If you restrict logic
to mathematical logic you encounter paradoxa, which are quite natural
in the real world.

The problem is academe. Universities are not really universal. Allgod tries
to solve the problem by cramming the realm of wider logic (that includes
for example language) into mathematical logic, hoping he will thus regain
totality and completeness - absolute and complete and total being his
mantra words - and does it for the price of his career and sanity.

The logic of equal unequal blossoms in language. Allgod can't have that,
He tries to force language into the logic of a = a with his "mathematics
of the meaning of words" that led him nowhere. He castrates language
in the name of mathematical logic, and mathematical logic by dismissing
proven theorems.

(on the liar paradox)

A Cretan says all Cretans are liars. He is right. Psychologists found that
we are lying many times a day, and in different ways. We humans are liars,
Cretans are humans, ergo they are liars. QED. The famous liar paradox arises
when the natural logic of equal unequal is reduced to the mathematical logic
of a = a. A liar is a liar, alaways lying, only ever lying. But such a person
does not exist in the real world, on the contrary, a professional liar cares
to tell the truth as often as ever possible in order to gain the confidence
of a potential victim.

(rigor vs rigid denial)

Allgod tries to reduce natural logic to mathematical logic, however,
he can't escape the equal unequal, it haunts him in the form of
proven = proven = not proven. He replaces Goedel's rigor with
his naive but rigid denial. Every advice to come down from his trip
and write a modest but useful program that may then be extended
was in vain. He is a satellite that flies too low, destined to burn out
in the atmosphere. All warning failed.

(can sunshine be sweet and chubby?

Yes, if a mother calls her toddler 'my sunshine, my sweet little chubby
sunshine'. Language is flexible, the meaning of words can't be reduced
to 'semantic atoms', and, what Pater Rupert Ruhstaller OSB told me
in a private lesson: speakers find a way around any rule.

Ambiguity or better flexibility is the genius of natural language
that escapes from the cage of any formal system.

(Einstein and Goedel)

Einstein and Goedel were good friends who held each other's work
in high esteem. What would Einstein say about a naive Goedel denier?

(by the way)

I defend sci.lang also against those who can only argue on meta-levels
and drop verdicts from above instead of leading a topic discussion.
Kooks are also found on the academic side of the fence. ACB suggested
that proven theorems of mathematics can be discarded (referring to
Andrew Wiles without knowing the story en détail). Allgod thanked him
for confirming the Truth. Blasphemy (the claim of being God) and
pseudo-logic are correlated. Neither one took back his claim or
suggestion.

(triangle of language, briefest summary of half a century of research)

Word language can be seen as a triangle whose corners are life with
needs and wishes / mathematics as logic of building and maintaining
based on a = a / and art as human measure in a technical world,
based on Goethe's world formula and ever turning key 'All is equal,
all unequal ...', a formula known to artists of all times.

(book of nature, divine library)

Famous dictum by Galileo Galilei: The book of nature is written
in the language of mathematics ... Well, God may understand all
of nature in mathematical terms, while we humans deciphered only
the first lines on the first page in the first volume on the first shelf
in the first hall of the divine library.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

unread,
Sep 16, 2019, 3:59:32 AM9/16/19
to
- Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira
spoke.

- The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the
people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

- Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that
can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims
to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

- Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense
logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of
conclusions must be "nachvollzogen" by other scholars.

- You have not been able to present us with either evidence or
conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn
over people who have demanded such things.

- On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents
have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be
"nachvollzogen".

- Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and
comparison of the languages involved.

- On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches
of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic
language.You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.

peteolcott

unread,
Sep 16, 2019, 10:35:15 AM9/16/19
to
This is a very famous logician that totally agrees with me about Gödel 1931 Incompleteness:
http://liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages