#104 In fact the definition of Reals as *all possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a diagonal method ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
a_plutonium
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> (snipped)
> >
> > The fact that All Possible Digit Arrangements as a definition of the
> > Reals resists all
> > of Cantor's diagonal argument is very noteworthy and we can actually
> > see it with
> > finite place values.
> >
>
> Alright, my critics keep carping about doing the Cantor diagonal on
> infinite
> place valued Reals, as if infinite place values is going to save and
> salvage
> Cantors schemata. So below I set up all the Reals between 0 and 1
> and I find the particular Real that Cantor claims is not in the list
> itself.
> But to everyone's surprise the Real that Cantor claims was not in the
> list
> is actually in the list itself and forthwith, Cantor is proven to be
> wrong. So that by
> example of finite place value such as 1 place value for Cantor's
> method
>
> 9
> 8
> 7
> 6
> 5
> 4
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 0
>
> That change each digit above to try to find a new Cantor number is
> impossible
> for we cannot change the 9 to be something new and not on the list,
> nor 8, nor 7.
>
> And Cantor's method collapses and falls apart with every finite place
> value under
> *ALL Possible Digit Arrangements*
>
> So now I give the Infinite Place Value and I show you where Cantor's
> diagonal method
> fails and does not deliver a new number that is not on the original
> list.
>
>
> 999999........9999999999
> 999999........9999999998
> 999999....... 99999999997
> 999999........99999999996
> 999999........9999999995
> 999999....... 99999999994
> 999999........99999999993
> 999999........9999999992
> 999999....... 99999999991
> 999999........99999999990
> 999999........99999999989
> 999999....... 99999999988
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
>
> 8888888......88888888888
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> 7777777777.......777777777
>
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> 6666666666.......666666666
>
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> 555555555........5555555555
>
> .
> .
> .
> 500000000.......000000000000
> midpoint
> 499999999.......9999999999999
>
> .
> .
> .
> 4444444444.......444444444444
>
> .
> .
> .
> 3333333333..........333333333333
>
> .
> .
> .
> 2222222222.........2222222222222
>
> .
> .
> .
> 111111111111.........111111111
> .
> .
> .
>
> .
> .
> 000000........000000011
> 000000........000000010
> 000000.......0000000009
> 000000........000000008
> 000000........000000007
> 000000.......0000000006
> 000000.......0000000005
> 000000........0000000004
> 000000........0000000003
> 000000.......00000000002
> 000000.......00000000001
> 000000.......00000000000
>
> Now the diagonal starts at the upper left corner with "9" and goes
> downward
> ending with the "0" in 0000....0000. Now here in Cantor Diagonal
> Schemata
> he changes a 9 to 0, and a 8 to 9 and a 7 to 8, and a 6 to 7, and a 5
> to 6, and
> a 4 to 5 and a 3 to 4, and a 2 to 3, and a 1 to 2, and a 0 to 1.
>
> So Cantor's alleged new number looks like this
>
> 0000000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111111.........1
>
> That number is an infinite number no doubt about that but it is less
> than 1 percent of the way (sic)
> of the numbers from 0 to .....9999999.
>
> And the only important question here is whether that number already
> exists in the
> original list. And the answer is a resounding yes, that it already
> existed in the original
> list even with what Cantor calls a change in every number by changing
> one digit
> in its place value.
>
> Again we go to the example of 1 place value or 2 place value
>
> 9
> 8
> 7
> 6
> 5
> 4
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 0
>
>
> Or two place value
> 99
> 98
> 97
> .
> .
> .
>
> 04
> 03
> 02
> 01
> 00
>
> And we see that it is impossible to generate a "new Cantor number" that
> does
> not already exist in the list.
>
> So if it is impossible to generate a new Cantor number regardless of
> whether the
> list is finite place value or infinite place value under *All Possible
> Digit Arrangements*
> then of course there is a huge flaw and error in Cantor's program.
>
> And the error was that he, nor anyone else thought that what if we say
> Reals are
> all possible digit arrangements. Does the Cantor program stand up
> logically under
> that test and experiment? And the answer is that it falls to pieces.
>
>
Does anyone know what the definition of Reals was during the 1870s
when
Cantor was plying his diagonal method? Anyone know what Cantor's own
idea of a Real Number was?
Does anyone know if any mathematician before 1993 said that Reals are
all possible digit arrangements of rightward infinite strings with a
finite portion
leftwards. I perhaps have a "first" on that idea, but would need to
make sure.
Anyway the title of this post tells it all. The more I think about the
situation
the more clearer it becomes. That if the Reals were all possible digit
arrangements
then Cantor and any Cantor-follower should give up before even
starting. That they are
defeated on the spot and in their tracks. That the concept of all
possible digit arrangements
precludes anyone from finding a "Cantor new Real" no matter what they
do, because
All possible digit arrangements does not allow room for any new Real.
It is self contradictory to even begin to look for some Real not on a
list of all possible
digit arrangements.
So, for those that still worship Cantor, and those are really silly
people with dafty minds, then
they have alot of explaining to do. They have to explain why the
Cantor Reals is a smaller
set than the All-Possible-Digit-Arrangement Reals. They have to
explain what Reals exist in
the Digit Arrangement Reals that do not exist in the Cantor Reals and
for which the diagonal
method fetches these so called unlisted Cantor Reals.
And laughable how Cantor sets up his bogus proof of Reductio Ad
Absurdum supposing the
Reals are Countably Infinite and then applying a diagonal to fetch out
some alleged unlisted Real.
Ironic because the Reals as All Possible Digit Arrangements is already
Countable because
all possible digit arrangements already arranges the Reals so that
they are Countable. So it
is laughable that Cantor supposes the Reals as Countable when they
already are countable.
And because the Reals are All Possible Digit Arrangements terminates
the ability for Cantor
to fetch a new Real. When you have All Possible Digit Arrangements,
you cannot find any Real
that is not already listed.
So I think the whole entire problem of Cantor and his transfinites
concocted from a erroneous
method of diagonal, came about in the 19th century when mathematics
just was not equipped
enough with clear thinking as to What are the Reals? and the
misfortune that no mathematician
from Cantor to 1993 hit upon the idea that All Possible Digit
Arrangements is the logical anchor
for the Reals as a definition. Keep in mind that in the 1870s Peano
was just working out the
axioms for Natural Numbers and so the concept and notion and
definition of Reals was in a
state of fogginess and would remain so until 1993.
Now I am going to have to devote a full chapter on the common
knowledge in Physics that definitions
are, and important definitions at that, are built from a Probablity
Schemata. The definition of
Quantum Numbers of quantum states are probabilitistic such as the N,
L, m_L and m_s. My point
is that the definition of Reals as all possible digit arrangements and
the definition of P-adics
as all possible digit arrangements (although in opposite infinite
string directions), well, if
good enough for Physics then it is darn well good enough for
Mathematics to have central ideas
defined probabilistically. So I should devote a full chapter early on
in this book to the probability
definition of Real and P-adics. There is plenty of room since this
textbook is over a 1,000 pages
but there is not one single space or room in the Reals for a Cantor
diagonal number.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Proginoskes
Things AP does not understand about Cantor's method:
(1) What it shows is that you cannot have a list of N numbers with N
digits that lists all the N-digit numbers. Hence, it doesn't apply if
you have a list of 10 numbers with 1 digit in them, as 10 and 1 are
different. It does not apply if you have a list of 100 numbers with 2
digits in them. AP's list of 9,8,7,...,1 is a non sequitur, a red
herring.
(2) AP claims that the number D obtained from Cantor's diagonalization
is in the list. In his sloppy mannor of "proving" things, he does not
say which specific item on the list D is. The truth is: He can't. On
his initial list of P-adics, the Nth digit of the Nth P-adic differs
from the Nth digit of D, for all N. Hence D cannot be _any_ P-adic on
the list. He is only confusing himself.
(3) AP's "axiom" that "there is only one type of infinity" (which is
at odds with Cantor's proof; hence the antagonism) is based on a
flawed fact: The reciprocal of infinity is not zero; it is an
infinitesimal. If you're going to treat infinity as a number, then
zero times infinity is still zero.
--- Christopher Heckman
Don Stockbauer
2. actual
a_plutonium
Proginoskes wrote:
> On Oct 13, 10:34 am, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...] So below I set up all the Reals between 0 and 1
> > and I find the particular Real that Cantor claims is not in the list
> > itself.
> > But to everyone's surprise the Real that Cantor claims was not in the
> > list
> > is actually in the list itself and forthwith, Cantor is proven to be
> > wrong. So that by
> > example of finite place value such as 1 place value for Cantor's
> > method
> >
> > 9
> > 8
> > 7
> > 6
> > 5
> > 4
> > 3
> > 2
> > 1
> > 0
> >
> > That change each digit above to try to find a new Cantor number is
> > impossible
> > for we cannot change the 9 to be something new and not on the list,
> > nor 8, nor 7.
>
> list. As people have repeatedly told you.
>
> > [...]
> > downward
> > ending with the "0" in 0000....0000. Now here in Cantor Diagonal
> > Schemata
> > he changes a 9 to 0, and a 8 to 9 and a 7 to 8, and a 6 to 7, and a 5
> > to 6, and
> > a 4 to 5 and a 3 to 4, and a 2 to 3, and a 1 to 2, and a 0 to 1.
> >
> > So Cantor's alleged new number looks like this
> >
> > 0000000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111111.........1
> >
> > That number is an infinite number no doubt about that but it is less
> > than 1 percent
> >
> > And the only important question here is whether that number already
> > exists in the
> > original list. And the answer is a resounding yes, that it already
> > existed in the original
> > list even with what Cantor calls a change in every number by changing
> > one digit
> > in its place value.
>
The reason I put the midpoint in there was an important reason,
because
that number is in the infinite swath-band of all the Reals that begin
with
0s
This swath band block of all Reals from 0 to 0999999.....
09999999999..........
.
.
.
00000000000...........
So the number
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
is in the mid-region of that swath band of all Reals between 0 and 1
Now, that number above has these as neighbors
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......99.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......98.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......97.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......96.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
.
.
.
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......11.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......09.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......08.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
.
.
.
Now under ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS, that number
that Cantor's diagonal fetched is already on his list and so when
Cantor announces he has a new number, he is making a huge mistake
because all he did was find a number that already existed in his list.
Just as running a diagonal on all the 1 place value only ends up
repeating
another number that exists. Or on 2 place value etc etc.
So the lesson to learn is that All Digit Arrangements are so full of
numbers
that running a Diagonal and changing one digit does not give you a new
number not on the list.
So when Cantor runs a second diagonal for his above, he will find out
that
changing the midpoint of that previous diagonal number ends up with
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
And the question is what will Cantor change the 10 midpoint? No matter
what his diagonal changes the 10 to say 33 or 98 or 65, whatever, the
All Possible Digit Arrangement Definition already has that number as
I diagrammed above.
> appropriate place of the number on that line and find out that the
> number 9999....8888....7777...(etc) does not agree at that digit.
>
> Sloppiness does not prove Cantor was wrong.
>
> > Again we go to the example of 1 place value or 2 place value
>
> A non-sequitur; lots of irrelevacy deleted at this point.
>
The sloppiness of your mind is understandable in that you are a
hatemonger first, and
only secondly do you engage in a reasoned conversation.
Now, since you are found to be so wrong, do me a favor and tell me
what was on Cantor's
mind as a definition of a Real Number when he proposed his diagonal
method in circa 1870s?
I need to know whether transcendentals played into Cantor's picture
and understanding of Reals
because the concept of a Real number as a transcendental should have
discouraged any
mathematician in the 19th century to have ever ventured into making
such bold and unsound claims
of infinity. In other words, being stupid and silly about what is
Transcendental Real? and then
crafting some silly and stupid diagonal when Cantor never tested the
diagonal on finite place values
but jumps directly to infinite sets, is a sign of stupidity, not
genius.
So, what was the definition of Real Number when Cantor was crafting
his diagonal method?
ken quirici
How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
(if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
a_plutonium
Marshall wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:18 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, Cantor believers have to either accept All Possible Digit
> > Arrangements or reject it. If they accept
> > All Possible Digit Arrangements then the Diagonal
> > number that Cantor swears by is a
> > nonexistant number, for it is bogus, for all possible digit
> > arrangement eliminates Cantor's alleged new number.
>
> Hmm. It would appear that you have found a contradiction
> embedded inside Cantor's RAA proof of the uncountability
> of the reals.
>
> I wonder if there are other famous RAA proofs that have
> contradictions in them? It bears investigating I think.
>
>
> Marshall
Call me greedy, I don't mind. When I discover something important, I
usually try to pluck
all the fruit before others come barging in and pick some fruit.
So the world's finest and best definition of Real Numbers is All
Possible Digit Arrangements
to infinite place value of a rightward infinite string with a tiny
finite portion leftwards. For the
symmetry is obeyed that allows us to go from P-adics to Reals and
where both are similar
but vastly different.
So this world's finest definition of Reals already shows us how wrong
and errorfilled is Cantor's
diagonal and Cantor's claim that Reals are uncountable. Cantor was all
wrong and was all wet.
But Marshall leads me to ask whether the defintion of Reals as All
Possible Digit Arrangements
clears up any other errors of mathematics. So my first pick would be
to question the Axiom
of Choice.
Now in my foggy mind over when I first encountered the Axiom of Choice
was I believe in Euclidean
geometry where Euclid implied the axiom of Choice to do one of his
proofs. Don't hold me to that
but if that is true, then the axiom of choice is really indispensible.
For if geometry requires
the Axiom of Choice then it is a true axiom. I need to find out about
this need of Axiom of Choice
for the Euclidean Geometry proof program so I will not discuss that
further here.
But what I will discuss in detail is how the Axiom of Choice fares
with All Possible Digit Arrangements
as the definition of Reals.
Before I started this thread, every mathematician in the world thought
that a number like this
as a P-adic
0999999999.........99999999999999999
does not exist
and every mathematician prior to this thread would have said this is
not a Real Number
1.099999999999999999999999999999999999999..........9999999999990
Yes, your eyes are correct in that is a Real Number whose last digit
is a "0" with an infinity
of 9s in between.
So that if the Internet were alive and running in 1870 and Georg
Cantor was reading this thread,
that he would never need to bother with a diagonal to alter a digit in
every Real Number.
Because all the Cantor needed was say
here is a Real Number that no diagonal method can ever forge.
And all that Cantor needed to do is plop down this number
0.099999999......999999990
because no diagonal can craft such a number and Cantor would have been
hard pressed
to show that this number is even a Real Number
But it is a Real Number!!!!!!!!
Just as this is a genuine P-adic Number of 099999999......999999990
where its predecessor is 0999999.....9999999989 and its successor is
0999999.....99999991
Now let me get back to the Axiom of Choice. If Cantor cannot create
that above
Real Number by diagonals, what can create that number is the Axiom of
Choice
That as I go from the Ones place value I choice a 0 as I go to the
Tens place value
I choice a 9, as I go to the Hundreds place value I choice another 9
and so on until I
come to the Infinity Place Value and I choice not another 9 but I
choice a 0.
So, in other words, Cantor's diagonal cannot forge or create or craft
the Real Number that
is
0.0999999999999.....999999999999990
but that the Axiom of Choice and forge that Real Number in the All
Possible Digit Arrangement
Definition of Reals.
And it is no wonder that Choice became an axiom and not diagonal. And
that today, mathematics
has an Axiom of Choice, not an Axiom of Diagonal.
So, the Axiom of Choice is another facet of the Definition that the
Reals are created probabilitistically
as All Possible Digit Arrangements. The concept of choice comes from
probability theory
and All Possible Digit Arrangements comes from probability theory.
Now I bet you, that Axiom of Choice and All Possible Digit
Arrangements are integral to one
another and are dependent on one another.
a_plutonium
Maybe I should change the title of this new textbook to read:
"Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for Univesity professors of
math and onwards"
I say that sarcastically because I know if I walk into any High School
in the USA or England or
Europe and say to them
Do you know it it means to be All Possible Digit Arrangements?
There will be alot of hands raised by High School Students who know
what the concept of
All Possible Digit Arrangements means.
Alot of them will know what *ALL* means.
So the second question would be, then, now Cantor has a diagonal where
he changes one digit
in every number of his INFINITE list of numbers.
Can that new Cantor number be not on the list?
There will be many and many High School students who instantly
recognize that no matter what
Cantor does, whether he does a double somersault diagonal or even a
Olympic triple somersault
that there is no escaping from the word ALL and no escaping of ALL
POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS.
That no matter what Cantor does, he can never find a number not on the
list of All Possible
Digit Arrangements.
So it is little wonder to me that some bozo in Arizona State
University who could never admit to
his mistake about his flawed Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof and who
is interested in hatemongering
then in ever learning anything, that when a person has no respect for
the other person whom they
engage in a conversation, that it is little wonder they keep acting
like a bozo that they are.
Even a bright 6 year old is smarter than this Arizona State University
professor who cannot grasp what
All Possible Digit Arrangements means, and that no Cantor method can
scrounge up a number that
is not in that list. Regardless of whether the list is finite or
infinite. When you say ALL, means there
is no room for some unlisted number.
I do not know how many posts the above Arizona State chap has made
saying that "I do not
understand Cantor", but it is obvious that he is so ridden with hatred
and unwilling to ever admit
his mistakes, that I seldom read his posts and only reply when it
serves me to further my ideas.
It is sad in the USA education system, that educators are hesitant to
sit and counsel a college
professor who is lost in hatred.
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
such as DS and KQ, above;
you could easily configure your items to be amended only
by yourself and AP, since you rarely answer them. after all,
if you didn't have the constant distraction of us,
you might become your own best critic, at last.
your first example, below, is equivalent to 1.10000...0000,
using a zero as the "last, infinitely rightward digit;" so,
what is become of the paradox?... or, are you saying that
that last 0 prevents the "infinite" sequence from turning-over,
odometer-style, as if it were just a nine?
perhaps it's just silly,
to make the sole ambiguity of Stevin's decimals
into such a molehill, but I think it might be ingenious,
to posit a most-right- or left-ward digit, but then
you have to actually work a consistent arithmetic
that uses that; did you try to do that?... that is,
"genious is 99.44% perspiration," other than carpal tunnel syndrome!
> all the fruit before others come barging in and pick some fruit.
> 1.099999999999999999999999999999999999999..........9999999999990
> Because all the Cantor needed was say
> here is a Real Number that no diagonal method can ever forge.
> And all that Cantor needed to do is plop down this number
>
> 0.099999999......999999990
>
> because no diagonal can craft such a number and Cantor would have been
> hard pressed
> to show that this number is even a Real Number
> Now I bet you, that Axiom of Choice and All Possible Digit
> Arrangements are integral to one
> another and are dependent on one another.
"Time is not a dimension; or,
it's the only dimension." --Are Buckafka Fullofit, _Synergetics_
> Many, many fields are heavy on math. None of them
> should be cross posting to sci.math. Nor sci.logic.
> GR is completely off topic in sci.math.
thus:
foremost, Harry Potter is a literary referant,
as well as simply an adumbration
of the imperialist "public school" a l'Oxford,
where Dame Maggie and Sir Tony got their policy,
Hey, George, let's you and Saddam fight!)...
of course, by exposure to geometry and
the higher arithmetic, they'll have
had some exposure to letteracy (sik),
as well as linguistic expression
of the other elements of *mathematics*
(Latin: quadrivium;
trivium, the "3 Rs" of a literate slave).
--14 Italian Senators Call for Cheney Impeachment
Aug. 1, 2007 (EIRNS)-
The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee
(LPAC) issued the following release today.
Fourteen members of the Italian Senate have signed a call "to the
Members of Congress to support Rep. Kucinich's House Resolution 333
for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney."
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/070801italian_senators_call.html
a_plutonium
ken quirici wrote:
>
> How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
> a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
> Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
> list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
> list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
>
> If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
> number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
> to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
> contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
> (if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
> any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
> mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
>
> If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
>
Now here is a second example of a bozo who posts to sci.math. The
first example
is the Arizona State University professor who spams hatred and seldom
any wisdom
or information.
But the problem of the above second bozo is a problem that is often
occurring in colleges
and universities and which should be addressed in this book.
It is a problem I am very closely familar with because of my
experience in the 1970s of a
math classroom where a student was there who would make a "horrible
math teacher" and
yet the University never seemed to try to persuade this student that
math education was never
his path in life and that he would probably go out and make a
miserable math teacher and
ruin an hour of every class day for a large number of students.
The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
and guidance those students
who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
have professors who do not have
the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
mathematician or a math teacher and
that his true calling is really somewhere else.
So our Colleges and Universities fail miserably in guidance and
probably one of the biggest strong
suits of a small College is that such guidance exists, or can exist to
save alot of students of the
misery of graduating in a subject or field that they will be miserable
in.
I do not remember the first post of Ken Quirici, but usually for me I
can tell if a person is a oaf
or buffoon of mathematics by the first or second post. And I knew Ken
was an oaf by his second
post, but I have the tendency to use oafs. I use them to act as a
"filler". When I have an oaf
like Chris Heckman, he is a better oaf than is Ken Quirici. So I do
not killfile all oafs because
then my discussion becomes more of a monologue and that repulses other
readers. So I use these
oafs to make the conversation look like a conversation.
And there is a huge difference between Chris Heckman and Ken Quirici.
Chris at least has the ability
to understand mathematics, when he does not let his hatred flood his
mind. But Ken does not
have that ability to understand mathematics, at least none of his
posts that I ever read show of
a ability to understand mathematics. Now if Ken has a philosophy
degree, then okay, I can
forgive his oafishness because philosophers waffle on like Ken
waffles. But if Ken has a degree
in mathematics, then that is pretty alarming because I would hazard to
guess that he got it
from a large university that has pitifully low standards where no
professor at that university guided
Ken by saying "Hey, you are not cut out for mathematics".
Now one possibility is that Ken went to one of these large
Universities which had few guidance
couselors and where the math professors did not have the heart to tell
Ken, that math was beyond
him and that Ken should go into Accounting or Hotel Managing but not
mathematics.
So one possible answer is that Ken has some physical handicap or some
other handicap and that the
combination of a handicap and a large University that none of the
professors there had the heart
to tell Ken, math is beyond you, and that instead they graduated Ken.
So, yes, I should bring up a slice of Education System in the USA, in
a book written to teach
students what the P-adics are and the best way to make the P-adics
available to a High School
Student.
Ken Quirici
Unbelievable. Not a word about my argument. When I
think back on the probably 2 or 3 years I've been
posting to his threads, and how inane and childish
his attempts at mathematics are, and the outlandish
arrogance he manifests, and the refusal to
acknowledge error (and anybody who's posted here
is quite aware of how willing I am to acknowledge
my own errors), and the refusal to hear any
contradiction of his hideous 'theories', and
they are ugly, truly ugly, his ideas, it's clear
I've been wasting a lot of my time. And it's
my own fault for not pulling the plug a lot
sooner.
Ken Quirici
Oh, I forgot - what an arsehole you are, Ludwig Poehlmann.
a_plutonium
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum wrote:
> you are impolite to your correspondents,
> such as DS and KQ, above;
> you could easily configure your items to be amended only
> by yourself and AP, since you rarely answer them. after all,
> if you didn't have the constant distraction of us,
> you might become your own best critic, at last.
>
The Drexel Math Forum pegs the above author as a Brian Quincy Hutchins
that lives in
California, nearby to John Baez in California of Riverside UC
Riverside campus.
And I peg Brian as the author of this under the name Uncle AL (as a
computer program
with several personae authors)
> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
> rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
> of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
> acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. St
upid
> so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
> different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
> Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
> own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
> and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
> Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
> emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
> be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
> fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
> stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
> physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
> n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
> is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
> a grand unified theory of stupid.
> Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.
So the Uncle Al posts are several people such as Hutchins as Baez all
going under
one name Uncle Al. And of course Hutchins branches out into other
silly fake names
such as the above.
Anyway, in life, if you have to pretend to be someone else or
consistently hide behind
fake names then you are squandering your life.
In youth we often have heroes and pretend to be them, but then we grow
up, but we do not
grow up properly or mature if we still are playing these childish kid
games of pretension.
One of the reasons or better yet excuses for an Uncle Al is to air a
pitiful new theory of
physics, and Baez too ashamed to air it under his name so he airs it
under the name
Uncle Al.
I peg Hutchins as the primary author of the above "stooopid post" for
his hyphenations
and other language fingerprints.
And it is a shame that Baez is in education, for he really never did
grow up by hiding behind
fake names.
Barb Knox
Ken Quirici <ken.q...@excite.com> wrote:
I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
a_plutonium
> Things AP does not understand about Cantor's method:
> (1) What it shows is that you cannot have a list of N numbers with N
> digits that lists all the N-digit numbers. Hence, it doesn't apply if
> you have a list of 10 numbers with 1 digit in them, as 10 and 1 are
> different. It does not apply if you have a list of 100 numbers with 2
> digits in them. AP's list of 9,8,7,...,1 is a non sequitur, a red
> herring.
> (2) AP claims that the number D obtained from Cantor's diagonalization
> is in the list. In his sloppy mannor of "proving" things, he does not
> say which specific item on the list D is. The truth is: He can't. On
> his initial list of P-adics, the Nth digit of the Nth P-adic differs
> from the Nth digit of D, for all N. Hence D cannot be _any_ P-adic on
> the list. He is only confusing himself.
> (3) AP's "axiom" that "there is only one type of infinity" (which is
> at odds with Cantor's proof; hence the antagonism) is based on a
> flawed fact: The reciprocal of infinity is not zero; it is an
> infinitesimal. If you're going to treat infinity as a number, then
> zero times infinity is still zero.
>
> Christopher Heckman
> ken quirici wrote:
>
> >
> > How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
> > a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
> > Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
> > list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
> > list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
> >
> > If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
> > number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
> > to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
> > contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
> > (if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
> > any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
> > mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
> >
> > If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
> >
Obviously both Heckman and Quirici believe Cantor is correct and
right. And they
both believe that a diagonal will scrounge up a new Real that was not
on the list
of all Reals (between 0 and 1).
I keep telling them, but they are both blind, that All Possible Digit
Arrangements is
so full, that no diagonal can create a new number that is not already
there.
I have shown both Heckman and Quirici how it is impossible to
diagonalize finite place
value set of All Digit Arrangements, and impossible to extract any new
number from that
universe of place value. And because of infinite place value makes no
difference, since
All Possible Digit Arrangements goes beyond any diagonal procedure.
Still, both Heckman
and Quirici are blinded.
So, here, ....
Here is a number in the list of all Reals which is a number in the All
Possible Digit Arrangements
but is a number that no Cantor Diagonal can ever create:
099999999.......9999999999999999999999990
Cantor cannot craft or forge that Real Number by means of a diagonal
because there are alot
of numbers where the diagonal lands on a "9" and where Cantor is
obliged to change that 9
to something else.
So, I have given you a number that exists in All Possible Digit
Arrangements, but is a number
impossible for Cantor's diagonal to fetch.
So, to those that still believe Cantor had any truth, then the burden
is on them to explain why
Cantor's diagonal breaks apart in the face of All Possible Digit
Arrangements and why this set
is larger than Cantor's set.
I can easily answer that question. Cantor, like Zeno's paradox, was
never on the truth of the Reals
but that Cantor was a falsehood.
a_plutonium
Barb Knox wrote:
> I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
> to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
> hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
> | B B aa rrr b |
> | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
> | B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
> | BBB aa a r bbb |
> -----------------------------
Ken aspires to be the same mathematical oaf that you are, Barbara
a_plutonium
Since Barb Knox believes the work of AP is rubbish, well, I ask of the
students there in
England where Barb teaches, to go to Barb and ask her how the Cantor
diagonal program
is able to function under All Possible Digit Arrangements.
And I hope some of those students can thence report back to this
sci.math newsgroup in
this thread as to what Barb was able or unable to explain.
Barb Knox
a_plutonium <a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Barb Knox wrote:
>
> > I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
> > to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
> > hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
>
> Ken aspires to be the same mathematical oaf that you are, Barbara
(oh bother -- difficult ... to ... fight ... the ... urge ... to ...
give ... a ... serious ... response ...)
We clearly can't ever be the SAME oaf, being different people, but
perhaps you mean the same TYPE of oaf. From what I've read of Ken's, I
would be pleased to be considered as being in the same category of
mathematical competence as him. Perhaps you could issue some sort of
certificate, suitable for framing, for "Official AP Oaf". I'd gladly
pay you the postage for one.
a_plutonium
> >
> > So, here, ....
> >
> > Here is a number in the list of all Reals which is a number in the All
> > Possible Digit Arrangements
> > but is a number that no Cantor Diagonal can ever create:
> >
> >
> > 099999999.......9999999999999999999999990
> >
> > Cantor cannot craft or forge that Real Number by means of a diagonal
> > because there are alot
> > of numbers where the diagonal lands on a "9" and where Cantor is
> > obliged to change that 9
> > to something else.
And the number 0.8888888888888......888888888 does not exist as a
Cantor diagonal
number
nor does 0.7777777....
because the diagonal process lands on a 7 digit somewhere and is
obliged to change it.
So All Possible Digit Arrangements has an infinite supply of numbers
that do not exist for
Cantor's Diagonal to discover.
So what does that tell a reasoned and logical person? It should tell
the reasoned and logical
person that All Possible Digit Arrangements is so vast and so huge and
so filled up completely
that any number which Cantor's diagonal yields or coughs up, is
already existing within the list
itself.
This is what I keep harping that a bright High School kid whose mind
has not been polluted by
modern day math professors with their corny ideas, would instinctively
know that All Possible
Digit Arrangements precludes Cantor diagonal with ever cranking up a
new number. Because
anything that Cantor cranks out, is just a one example of All Possible
Digit Arrangements.
Archimedes Plutonium
Peter Webb
> list of All Possible
> Digit Arrangements.
>
You can't make a "list" of "All Possible Digit Arrangements". That is what
Cantor showed. If you think you have such a list, post it here, and I am
sure that lots of people will help you find an arrangement that isn't on the
list.
a_plutonium
And you are utterly wrong. Let me show why.
There are the mirror image of Reals called P-adics. Instead of
infinite rightward string, these
P-adics are infinite leftward strings.
And a complete list of these P-adics is begot from All Possible Digit
Arrangements
Starting with ......00000000000000
then
.....00000000001
going all the way up to .......999999998 then .......9999999
Now give me any infinite integer number you wish to give me. It is one
of All Possible
Digit Arrangements.
And once you given me such a number I can immediately tell you of its
predecessor
and its successor.
That means I can COUNT from 0, 1, all the way up to
9999999.....9999999
So here, I have All Possible Digit Arrangements of infinite leftward
strings which are P-adics
and they are Countable and Infinite and no Cantor Diagonal is going to
find a P-adic not on
that list.
Now, easily, I merely shift the mirror to Reals which are Infinite
rightward strings. Give me any
Real number between 0 and 1 as an Infinite Digit Arrangement and I can
tell you what the predecessor
and successor of that Real is. Thus, the Reals between 0 and 1 are
Countable.
And, above all, the moment you perform a Cantor diagonal, well, I beat
you to it, because it already
is in the list as just another example of one Possible Digit
Arrangement.
Can you see your fallacy of your mind Peter? Can you see in your mind
that All Possible Digit
Arrangements precludes you handing me any number that is not in the
list.
I know the concept of infinity may be difficult for you Peter, but I
never would imagine that the
concept of All in All Possible Digit Arrangements should be difficult
for you.
The only way Cantor's Diagonal can defeat All Possible Digit
Arrangements is for there to exist
a Real Number which cannot be represented as a digit arrangement.
Now this book does point out there are numbers which cannot exist as
digit arrangements and they
are the two transcendental numbers of pi and (e). This book, like my
other books tells us that
the difference between a Algebraic and Transcendental number is that
an Algebraic number is
one of All Possible Digit Arrangements and that (pi) and (e) stop at
some place-value where there is
no digit in that place value and beyond. So that pi and (e) are
growing numbers trying to grow up
to be a Real Number and are dependent on the time clock of the Cosmos.
The concept of Transcendental Numbers in the historical time period of
Cantor was primitive.
So, Peter, the only way you or anyone can defeat All Possible Digit
Arrangements as the definition
of Reals is for the Cantor diagonal to pull up a number that has no
digits in at least one place value.
But if anyone does that, would that be a Real Number if it had no
digit in a place value? Of course not.
So the summary is that all of Cantor's transfinite work is wet and
invalid and wrong and
erroneous.
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4712c33c$0$31115$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
:> That no matter what Cantor does, he can never find a number not on the
Short list to make it easy:
00
01
10
11
What arrangement isn't in the list?
mike3
<snip>
The Diagonal Method does not have to do anything with
*defining* the reals, you are mistaken. It proves
something about the reals, namely that they cannot be
counted. It does not *define* them.
mike3
<snip>
> (3) AP's "axiom" that "there is only one type of infinity" (which is
> at odds with Cantor's proof; hence the antagonism) is based on a
> flawed fact: The reciprocal of infinity is not zero; it is an
> infinitesimal. If you're going to treat infinity as a number, then
> zero times infinity is still zero.
>
> --- Christopher Heckman
You sure? In some contexts(*), the "reciprocal" of zero
is defined as "infinity", so then the "reciprocal" of "infinity" there
is defined as *zero* -- no infinitesimals. But that has nothing to do
with set-theoretic infinities, ie. Cantor theory, and hence AP is
still wrong. But I just thought I'd point something out. In other
contexts, such as the so-called "surreal" numbers, which include the
infinite ordinal numbers as well as infinitesimal numbers, then you
(not AP) may be right. It really depends on the context.
(*) Ex. the real/complex projective line has a point called "infinity"
attached, to which 1/0 is _defined_ to equal this. Of course then
"division" does not always work like regular division.
mike3
> in the USA or England or
> Europe and say to them
>
> Do you know it it means to be All Possible Digit Arrangements?
>
Yes. Do you?
> There will be alot of hands raised by High School Students who know
> what the concept of
> All Possible Digit Arrangements means.
>
> Alot of them will know what *ALL* means.
>
> So the second question would be, then, now Cantor has a diagonal where
> he changes one digit
> in every number of his INFINITE list of numbers.
>
Cantor is showing that no matter how comprehensive
a list one makes, there will always be some number
that cannot be included on it, unless the list is
made so comprehensive one cannot assign natural
numbers to each item on it.
> Can that new Cantor number be not on the list?
>
YES.
> There will be many and many High School students who instantly
> recognize that no matter what
> Cantor does, whether he does a double somersault diagonal or even a
> Olympic triple somersault
> that there is no escaping from the word ALL and no escaping of ALL
> POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS.
>
Because what he is showing is that "ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT
ARRANGEMENTS", and hence the Real Numbers, CANNOT
be written down as a list, at least not one you can
number one, two, three, etc.! Since that's what
most people usually mean when they think of a "list",
Cantor is saying that the "list of ALL POSSIBLE
DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS" DOES NOT EXIST!!! No matter how
big a list we make, it will not contain "ALL POSSIBLE
DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS". Does that make any sense to you?
<snip>
Proginoskes
> Proginoskes wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 10:34 am, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > number 9999....8888....7777...(etc) does not agree at that digit.
>
> > Sloppiness does not prove Cantor was wrong.
>
> > > Again we go to the example of 1 place value or 2 place value
>
> > A non-sequitur; lots of irrelevacy deleted at this point.
>
> The sloppiness of your mind is understandable in that you are a
> hatemonger first, and
Wow. The expected ad hominem, which really says that AP doesn't have a
legitimate answer. Hence resorting to mud-slinging.
--- Christopher Heckman
Proginoskes
> [Heckman] could never admit to
> his mistake about his flawed Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof
AP didn't read the post where I did exactly this. He's lying.
> I seldom read [Heckman's] posts and only reply when it
> serves me to further my ideas.
... which shows that he in fact does not know what I have been
posting. When AP types, out comes uninformed opinion.
[And now, back to the beginning:]
> Proginoskes wrote:
> > Things AP does not understand about Cantor's method:
>
> > (1) What it shows is that you cannot have a list of N numbers with N
> > digits that lists all the N-digit numbers. Hence, it doesn't apply if
> > you have a list of 10 numbers with 1 digit in them, as 10 and 1 are
> > different. It does not apply if you have a list of 100 numbers with 2
> > digits in them. AP's list of 9,8,7,...,1 is a non sequitur, a red
> > herring.
>
> > (2) AP claims that the number D obtained from Cantor's diagonalization
> > is in the list. In his sloppy mannor of "proving" things, he does not
> > say which specific item on the list D is. The truth is: He can't. On
> > his initial list of P-adics, the Nth digit of the Nth P-adic differs
> > from the Nth digit of D, for all N. Hence D cannot be _any_ P-adic on
> > the list. He is only confusing himself.
>
> > (3) AP's "axiom" that "there is only one type of infinity" (which is
> > at odds with Cantor's proof; hence the antagonism) is based on a
> > flawed fact: The reciprocal of infinity is not zero; it is an
> > infinitesimal. If you're going to treat infinity as a number, then
> > zero times infinity is still zero.
>
> Maybe I should change the title of this new textbook to read:
> "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for Univesity professors of
> math and onwards"
Wow. AP is really showing his true colors today. When he can't answer
a valid criticism of THE MATHEMATICS, he starts slinging mud and ad
hominems.
> I say that sarcastically because I know if I walk into any High School
> in the USA or England or
> Europe and say to them
>
> Do you know it it means to be All Possible Digit Arrangements?
>
> There will be alot of hands raised by High School Students who know
> what the concept of
> All Possible Digit Arrangements means.
>
> Alot of them will know what *ALL* means.
I know what "all possible digit arrangements" means.
> So the second question would be, then, now Cantor has a diagonal where
> he changes one digit
> in every number of his INFINITE list of numbers.
>
> Can that new Cantor number be not on the list?
>
> There will be many and many High School students who instantly
> recognize that no matter what
> Cantor does, whether he does a double somersault diagonal or even a
> Olympic triple somersault
> that there is no escaping from the word ALL and no escaping of ALL
> POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS.
>
> That no matter what Cantor does, he can never find a number not on the
> list of All Possible
> Digit Arrangements.
That's only half of the argument. It's not surprising that AP can't
recognize a valid reducio ad absurdum proof of the Infinitude of
Primes. After all, he says, "If {p1, p2, ..., pn} is the set of all
primes, then p1*p2*...*pn-1 must be prime." He doesn't realize there's
another half to reducio proofs; namely to show that p1*p2*...*pn-1
cannot possibly be prime, which completes the argument.
It's a good thing that AP wasn't a navigator for Christopher
Columbus's fleet; their boats would still be above the mid-Atlantic
ridge somewhere, having not made it all the way to their journey.
> So it is little wonder to me that some bozo in Arizona State
> University
AP may have sealed his fate here. This year, when applying for jobs, I
will ask the people who don't want to hire me what their reason was.
If even ONE says, "Archimedes Plutonium says you can't do
mathematics," I am going to sue AP for libel (and I *am* smart enough
to know that I can't sue for slander here), with damages being the
difference in income that I would have received had I been hired,
namely $50,000 a year, in perpetuity.
For him, this is just a game, since he has nothing to lose.
> who could never admit to
> his mistake about his flawed Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof
AP didn't read the post where I did exactly this. He's lying.
> and who is interested in hatemongering
No; if you check the threads involving AP's "textbook", you'll find
out that I have attacked THE MATHEMATICS, and that AP was the first to
start with the ad hominems.
> then in ever learning anything, that when a person has no respect for
> the other person whom they
> engage in a conversation,
When I first started conversing with AP several years ago, I did have
respect for him; I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He has shown
himself to be unreliable mathematically and a petty man who resorts to
ad hominems when you point out legitimate mistakes.
> that it is little wonder they keep acting
> like a bozo that they are.
>
> Even a bright 6 year old is smarter than this Arizona State University
> professor who cannot grasp what
> All Possible Digit Arrangements means, and that no Cantor method can
> scrounge up a number that
> is not in that list. Regardless of whether the list is finite or
> infinite. When you say ALL, means there
> is no room for some unlisted number.
>
> I do not know how many posts the above Arizona State chap has made
> saying that "I do not
> understand Cantor",
Just a few, and it is based on factual evidence.
For instance, did AP or did he not say that Cantor's proof started by
listing all 1-digit numbers? If you read the posts, you'll find out he
did.
> but it is obvious that he is so ridden with hatred
This is patently untrue. If I truly hated AP, he wouldn't be posting
this.
> and unwilling to ever admit his mistakes,
... even though AP is clearly lying ...
> that I seldom read his posts and only reply when it
> serves me to further my ideas.
... which shows that he in fact does not know what I have been
posting. When AP types, out comes uninformed opinion.
> It is sad in the USA education system, that educators are hesitant to
> sit and counsel a college
> professor who is lost in hatred.
Again, what does AP know about academia? Nothing, since he never made
it there!
--- Christopher Heckman
P.S. And I suspect that his references to "hair twirling" are
themselves hatemongering. His mention of "hair twirling" is aimed at
algebraists (which I am not) who understand the theory. After AP got
his B.A. in Mathematics (at an Ohio college) and moved to Utah, he
moved to Australia a short time afterwards.* I suspect what happened
was that in a class, that the professor asked AP (who then called
himself Ludwig Hanson,* his adopted name) to prove something, and AP
and the class realized that he couldn't prove it. Another of the
graduate students, who had a nervous habit of playing with his/her
hair, went up to the board and provided a short proof. Being
embarrassed must have taken its toll, causing him to quit graduate
school. Furthermore, he found out that his BA degree couldn't get him
a job in the United States, so he ended up in Australia as a tutor.*
He only came back when his adopted father died and left some or all of
his money to AP.* ... Of course, this is all speculation.
* Facts taken from his autobiography.
Proginoskes
> [...]
> The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
> and guidance those students
> who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
> have professors who do not have
> the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
> mathematician or a math teacher and
Gee, I will tell this to students who don't want to go into the
sciences and engineering. I guess that makes me the best kind of
professor possible, eh, AP?
And now, from the beginning once again:
> [...]
> It [referring to Ken Quirici, a HUMAN BEING] is a problem I am
> very closely familar with because of my
> experience in the 1970s of a
> math classroom where a student was there who would make a "horrible
> math teacher" and
> yet the University never seemed to try to persuade this student that
> math education was never
> his path in life and that he would probably go out and make a
> miserable math teacher and
> ruin an hour of every class day for a large number of students.
Is that why you hate Mathematics and mathematicians, then, AP? Because
you had a bad math teacher? Well, boo hoo, cry me a river, crybaby.
Getting serious now: Everyone has had a bad experience with a teacher.
Those of us with some shred of humanity have managed to put it behind
ourselves, and do not let the hatred boil up inside until it bursts
out.
> The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
> and guidance those students
> who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
> have professors who do not have
> the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
> mathematician or a math teacher and
> that his true calling is really somewhere else. [...]
Gee, I will tell this to students who don't want to go into the
sciences and engineering. I guess that makes me the best kind of
teacher possible, eh, AP?
> I do not remember the first post of Ken Quirici, but usually for me I
> can tell if a person is a oaf
> or buffoon of mathematics by the first or second post. And I knew Ken
> was an oaf by his second
> post, but I have the tendency to use oafs. I use them to act as a
> "filler". When I have an oaf
> like Chris Heckman, he is a better oaf than is Ken Quirici. So I do
> not killfile all oafs because
> then my discussion becomes more of a monologue and that repulses other
> readers. So I use these
> oafs to make the conversation look like a conversation.
Now that e-mail I got from KQ is starting to make sense. AP is not
motivated by whether his mathematics is correct; he just wants someone
that he can sling mud at, while claiming he's a genius.
> And there is a huge difference between Chris Heckman and Ken Quirici.
> Chris at least has the ability
> to understand mathematics, when he does not let his hatred flood his
> mind. But Ken does not
> have that ability to understand mathematics, at least none of his
> posts that I ever read show of
> a ability to understand mathematics. Now if Ken has a philosophy
> degree, then okay, I can
> forgive his oafishness because philosophers waffle on like Ken
> waffles. But if Ken has a degree
> in mathematics, then that is pretty alarming because I would hazard to
> guess that he got it
> from a large university that has pitifully low standards where no
> professor at that university guided
> Ken by saying "Hey, you are not cut out for mathematics".
Well, at least it's not a Bachelors of Art. It isn't, is it, KQ?
> Now one possibility is that Ken went to one of these large
> Universities which had few guidance
> couselors and where the math professors did not have the heart to tell
> Ken, that math was beyond
> him and that Ken should go into Accounting or Hotel Managing but not
> mathematics.
One had to wonder what kind of counselling _AP_ got when he was in
college. My guess is that no one ever told him that he didn't have to
study mathematics. Or else he didn't listen. Certainly, when I
suggested that AP turn his "Atom Totality Universe" into a novel (the
L. Ron Hubbard approach), he didn't take _that_ suggestion, even
though he could approach it as "fact disguised as fiction".
But I do have to admit that AP is right about one thing, and this is
an issue which came up a few months ago at ASU: The counselling here
leaves much to be desired. The department is thinking of hiring one
person who would serve as a full-time counsel, regarding classes. It
seems that the advisors in other, non-technical, departments aren't
sure which math classes they should send their students to ...
--- Christopher Heckman
a_plutonium
Exactly, and I take it the above is base 2, or 2-adics to two place
value.
When a mind has only one solo concept of running a diagonal, then that
mind is susceptible
to a fraud scam.
But when a mind has two concepts to grapple with, where one concept
grapples and wrestles
with the other concept. Where All Possible Digit Arrangements wrestles
with Diagonal creation,
then can one begin to find the real truth of the matter.
Cantor never played two concepts with Diagonal and when a weak mind in
mathematics comes
running up to a picture where you change one digit in each number of a
column of numbers, that
weak mind would collapse into agreement that the diagonal number is
not in the original list.
But when the weak mind is presented with Two concepts that the list is
every possible digit arrangement
for a given place value, from place value 1 to infinity, that no
matter what the diagonal creates,
the diagonal number already exists within the list itself.
So many oafs have responded to this thread, like parrots, because they
were force fed the
Cantor argument, and their weak minds can never see how a list could
ever yield a diagonal number not
that was already in the list itself.
But when you slowly show people that any list, no matter if finite
place value or infinite place value, that
if that list is all possible digit arrangements then that list will
NEVER yield a new diagonal number not
in the list. That every diagonal number formed from such a list is
already well inside the list itself.
So as Androcles shows above of 2 place value 2-adics
> 00
> 01
> 10
> 11
That any Cantor diagonal will only repeat one of the numbers already
on the list.
Some oafs will carp that the list is not infinite. The reply is that
it does not matter if the list is
finite or infinite. What generates the repeating of the Diagonal
number is the fact that All Possible
Digit Arrangements is immune to any diagonal process.
So if Cantor, way back in 1870s had realized about All Possible Digit
Arrangements as the proper
definition of Reals, the world would have been spared of a 137 years
of false and fake mathematics
of transfinite numbers.
Proginoskes
CH answers: Which means you can't define 1/0 to BE this infinity, and
have everything work out.
AP answers: No, you oaf, 1/0 is ALWAYS infinity, and there is only one
infinity. I know because I'm a genius and everyone else (including
you) is a moron.
--- Christopher Heckman
Tonico
> CH answers: Which means you can't define 1/0 to BE this infinity, and
> have everything work out.
>
> AP answers: No, you oaf, 1/0 is ALWAYS infinity, and there is only one
> infinity. I know because I'm a genius and everyone else (including
> you) is a moron.
>
> --- Christopher Heckman-
********************************************************************
Oh, but all this is old history. Pluto, like Lester Zick , Mueckenheim
and other trolls around hate mathematics and mathematicians, and in
fact they hate anything that is sound, logical and intelligent.
This may be due to the fact they're utterly unable to grasp concepts
and ideas other work with at ease, and it all is thus due to envy.
It never minds: what's strange to me a little is that you,
Proginosekes, take ALL that time to discuss, debate and try to get
some sense in the rather dense and full of ghosts and fog head of
Pluto...
Although it may be because you were bored, of perhaps you enjoy
it ...so then, enjoy!
Regards
Tonio
Proginoskes
> [AP frothing at the mouth, and responses, deleted]
> I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
> to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
> hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
Getting new ideas, that might work elsewhere. Of course, I don't
believe this is as feasible when I started several years ago.
--- Christopher Heckman
Proginoskes
I bought a copy of Martin Gardner's _In The Name of Science_ a few
weeks ago. AP's recent "ejaculation of hatred" reminded me of a few
things that Gardner says in his introduction. Keep in mind that this
was written in 1952, and so does not apply to anyone in particular
(even though they might feel this way). I know that this is long, even
though I have skipped over specific examples that MG quoted, but it is
worth reading through at least once. --- Christoper Heckman
***
There is a type of self-styled scientist who can legitimately be
called a crank. It is not the novelty of his views or the neurotic
motivations behind his work that provide the grounds for calling him
this. The grounds are the technical criteria by which theories are
evaluated. If a man persists in advancing views that are contradicted
by all available evidence, and which offer no reasonable grounds for
serious consideration, he will rightfully be dubbed a crank by his
colleagues.
Cranks vary widely in both knowledge and intelligence. Some are
stupid, ignorant, almost illiterate men who confine their activities
to sending "crank letters" to prominent scientists. Some produce
crudely written pamphlets, usually published by the author himself,
with long titles, and pictures of the author on the cover. Still
others are brilliant and well-educated, often with an excellent
understanding the branch of science in which they are speculating.
Their books can be highly deceptive imitations of the genuine
article---well-written and impressively learned. In spite of these
wide variations, however, most pseudo-scientists have a number of
characteristics in common.
First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost
total isolation from their colleagues, ... in the sense of having no
fruitful contacts with fellow researchers. In the Renaissance, this
isolation was not necessarily a sign of the crank ... [However],
today, these social conditions no longer obtain.
The modern crank insists that his isolation is not desired on his
part. It is due, he claims, to the prejudice of established scientific
groups against new ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Scientific journals today are filled with bizarre theories; if
anything, scientific journals err on the side of permitting
questionable theses to be published, so they may be discussed and
checked in the hope of finding something of value. Oten the quickest
road to fame is to overturn a firmly-held belief. Einstein's work on
relativity is the outstanding example. Although it met with
considerable opposition at first, it was on the whole an intelligent
opposition. With few exceptions, none of Einstein's reputable
opponents dismissed him as a crackpot. They could not so dismiss him
because for years he contributed brilliant articles to the journals
and had won wide recognition as a theoretical physicist. ...
It would be foolish, of course, to deny that history contains many sad
examples of novel scientific views which did not receive an unbiased
hearing, and which later proved to be true. The pseudo-scientist never
tires in reminding his readers of these cases. ...
The modern pseudo-scientist stands entirely outside the closely
integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and
evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not send his findings to the
recognized journals, or if he does, they are rejected for reasons
which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. In most cases the
crank is not well enough informed to write a paper with even a surface
resemblance to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself
excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally
ignored by the competent workers in his field. In fact, the reputable
scientist does not even know of the crank's existence unless his work
is given wide-spread publicity through non-academic channels, or
unless the scientist makes a hobby of collecting crank literature. The
eccentric is forced, therefore, to trod a lonely way. He speaks before
organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he
himself may edit, and---until recently---publishes books only when he
or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed
privately.
A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly
strengthens his isolation, is a tendency towards paranoia. This is a
mental condition (to quote a recent textbook) "marked by chronic,
systemized, gradually developing delusions, without hallucinations and
with little tendency toward deterioration, remission, or
recovery." ... It is easy to understand that a strong sense of
personal greatness must be involved whenever a crank stands in
solitary, bitter opposition to every recognized authority in his
field.
If the self-stylized scientist is rationalizing strong religious
convictions, his paranoid drives may be reduced to a minimum. ...
Otherwise the pseudo-scientist would lack the stamina to fight a
vigorous, single-handed battle against such overwhelming odds. If the
crank is insincere---interested only in making money, playing a hoax,
or both---the obviously paranoia need not enter his make-up. ... There
are five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid
tendencies are likely to be exhibited.
(1) He considers himself a genius.
(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant
blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself. Frequently he
insults his opponents by accusing them of stupidity, dishonesty, or
other base motives. If they ignore him, he takes this to mean his
arguments are unanswerable. If they retaliate in kind, this
strengthens his delusion that he is battling scoundrels. ... Sooner or
later, almost every pseudo-scientist expresses similar sentiments.
(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against.
The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals
reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to
"enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never
occurs to the crank that his opposition may be due to error in his
work. It springs solely, he is convinced, from blind prejudice on the
part of the established hierarchy---the high priests of science who
fear to have their orthodoxy overthrown.
Vicious slanders and unprovoked attacks, he usually insists, are
constantly being made against him. ... If he has had no formal
training in the field in which he works, he will attribute this
persecution to a scientific masonry, unwilling to admit into its inner
sanctums anyone who has not gone through the proper initiation
rituals. He repeatedly calls your attention to important scientific
discoveries made by laymen.
(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest
scientists and the best-established theories. ... This same defiance
can be seen in a tendency to assert the diametrical opposite of well-
established beliefs. ...
(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many
cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.
Schizophrenics sometimes talk in what psychiatrists call
"neologisms"---words which have meaning to the patient, but sound like
Jabberwocky to everyone else. Many of the classics of crackpot science
exhibit a neologistic tendency.
When the crank's I.Q. is low, he rarely achieves much of a following.
But if he is a brilliant thinker, he is capable of developing
incredibly complex theories. He will be able to defend them in books
of vast erudition, with profound observation and often liberal
portions of sound science. His rhetoric may be enormously persuasive.
All the parts of his world usually fit together beautifully, like a
jig-saw puzzle. It is impossible to get the best of him in any type of
argument. He has anticipated all your objections. He counters them
with unexpected answers of great ingenuity. Even on the subject of the
shape of the earth, a layman may find himself powerless in a debate
with a flat-earther.
Angus Rodgers
<CCHe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
Why do you reply incessantly to AP? If it weren't for
you, I would probably see very little evidence of his
posting, having killfiled him long ago.
I am now regretfully considering killfiling you also,
for this reason alone. I have no objection to the
contents of your posts unrelated to AP, and would not
want to miss any posts about mathematics, so it seems
only fair to ask you to explain. Please do not be
offended.
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
Proginoskes
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:29:36 -0000, Proginoskes
>
> >[...]
>
> Why do you reply incessantly to AP? If it weren't for
> you, I would probably see very little evidence of his
> posting, having killfiled him long ago.
>
> I am now regretfully considering killfiling you also,
> for this reason alone. I have no objection to the
> contents of your posts unrelated to AP, and would not
> want to miss any posts about mathematics, so it seems
> only fair to ask you to explain. Please do not be
> offended.
It's like seeing an accident on a highway, and you slow down to take a
look ...
Since AP doesn't seem to respond with anything other than hatred any
more, I won't have many more exchanges with him. At least I hope so.
--- Christopher Heckman
Androcles
"Proginoskes" <CCHe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192434211.3...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
:
: I bought a copy of Martin Gardner's _In The Name of Science_ a few
:
"His rhetoric may be enormously persuasive."
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Gardner gives a good description of Einstein, the word "assume"
appears 13 times in his 1905 relativity paper.
Einstein was a type of self-styled scientist who can legitimately be
called a crank.
It is not the novelty of Einstein's views or the neurotic motivations behind
Einstein's work that provide the grounds for calling Einstein this.
The grounds are the technical criteria by which theories are evaluated,
and after 100 years nothing technical has ever come out of special
relativity.
(Need I go on?)
Fuckwit
wrote:
>
> (Need I go on?)
>
No. It's obvous enough, that you are an asshole full of shit.
Peter Webb
...1111111
What position is it on the list?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:n6AQi.12261$lV4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
101
Tonico
> dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
>
> Gardner gives a good description of Einstein, the word "assume"
> appears 13 times in his 1905 relativity paper.
> Einstein was a type of self-styled scientist who can legitimately be
> called a crank.
>
> It is not the novelty of Einstein's views or the neurotic motivations behind
> Einstein's work that provide the grounds for calling Einstein this.
********************************************************************
LOOOOL! Read again Gardner's 4-th point about cranks and have a good
laugh:
(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest
: scientists and the best-established theories. ...
Regards
Tonio
Denis Feldmann
Not really
who can legitimately be
> called a crank.
>
> It is not the novelty of Einstein's views or the neurotic motivations behind
> Einstein's work that provide the grounds for calling Einstein this.
> The grounds are the technical criteria by which theories are evaluated,
> and after 100 years nothing technical has ever come out of special
> relativity.
If you say so
> (Need I go on?)
No (plonk)
>
>
Angus Rodgers
<CCHe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 2:43 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:29:36 -0000, Proginoskes
>>
>> <CCHeck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >[...]
>>
>> Why do you reply incessantly to AP? If it weren't for
>> you, I would probably see very little evidence of his
>> posting, having killfiled him long ago.
>>
>> I am now regretfully considering killfiling you also,
>> for this reason alone. I have no objection to the
>> contents of your posts unrelated to AP, and would not
>> want to miss any posts about mathematics, so it seems
>> only fair to ask you to explain. Please do not be
>> offended.
>
>It's like seeing an accident on a highway, and you slow
>down to take a look ...
Although I wouldn't literally do that, and for somewhat
similar reasons I also don't like to poke fingers into
(other!) psychological wrecks either, I do understand
the fascination to some extent.
I confess to a certain degree of morbid fascination with
JSH (although I try not to interact with him too much,
and usually have him killfiled, although I don't at the
moment). I like to compare and contrast his psychology
with mine, to "find my inner James Harris", as someone
so memorably put it. And in his own way he writes both
amusingly and coherently, even though he's as daft as a
brush. I don't feel any similar kinship with AP, but
perhaps that's because I just happen not to have paid
him as much attention.
So I don't grudge you your interest; I just wish there
were fewer postings on this one single topic which, at
least for the moment, doesn't interest me.
>Since AP doesn't seem to respond with anything other than hatred any
>more, I won't have many more exchanges with him. At least I hope so.
OK, you're saved from the terrible fate of my killfile. :-)
a_plutonium
It is a little more than 11 percent of 180 degrees on a sphere where 0
is the North Pole and ...9999
is the one unit short of the South Pole. Its predecessor is ......
1111110 and its successor is
.......11111112.
So any list that is All Possible Digit Arrangements, regardless of
whether it is finite or infinite
is Countable.
Glad I could help.
Androcles
:
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
That is not a possible arrangement, it has one more digit, equivalent
to saying there is no highest number, I can always add 1 to make
a higher number.
100
101
110
111
You are extending the list, you are not making a new arrangement.
I'm waiting for lots of people to help me find an arrangement that
a_plutonium
No, you are not playing by the rules of Cantor. If you draw out all
3place values then 101 is
among them.
But the INFINITY PLACE VALUE is where the Cantor fallacy really comes
to light and comes
to life.
In the 2 place value there are at most two numbers which the diagonal
always misses. That
means the Diagonal Cantor Set is always smaller in size than the All
Possible Digit Arrangement
Set. And since the All Possible Digit Arrangement Set is always
countable, whether finite or
infinite, means the Cantor Set is a worthless set.
Peter should be able to figure out or compute how many numbers the
Cantor Diagonal misses
in the 3 place value, in the 4 place value.
I know how many numbers the Cantor set misses in the Infinite Place
Value of All Possible
Digit Arrangements. It misses an infinity of Reals.
The Cantor Diagonal misses an infinity of Reals that look like this
.......99999999xyz
and an infinity of Reals that look like this
.....000000000xyz
How is that possible you ask? Because as the diagonal must change at
least one digit in
every place value, it is impossible for the Diagonal to spit out a
number such as
.....000000000000000
or
......111111111111111
It is impossible to spit or produce those numbers because there are an
infinite 1s and no number
in the Diagonal escapes from seeing at least a 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5
or 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 or 0
digit.
So as Androcles showed you, Peter, how the Cantor diagonal is unable
to yield a new
number not on this list
00
01
10
11
But that list is in surplus of two numbers which the Diagonal always
misses.
Cantor and his silly followers envisioned a partial set and run a
diagonal over a partial set and
yes you will construct a number not already in the list. But when your
list is All Possible
Digit Arrangements, then Cantor diagonal falls to pieces.
Androcles
"Tonico" <Toni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192452199.1...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Einstein attacked Newton, Galileo and Copernicus and the principle of
relativity.
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle." -- Albert Einstein,
self proclaimed "prominent theoretical physicist".
I agree with Gardner, Einstein was definitely a crank.
Does LOOOL mean "laughing out out out out loud"?
LOL.
Androcles
"Denis Feldmann" <denis.feldma...@club-internet.fr> wrote in
message news:47136546$0$21143$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
: Androcles a écrit :
Yes really.
:
: who can legitimately be
: > called a crank.
: >
: > It is not the novelty of Einstein's views or the neurotic motivations
behind
: > Einstein's work that provide the grounds for calling Einstein this.
: > The grounds are the technical criteria by which theories are evaluated,
: > and after 100 years nothing technical has ever come out of special
: > relativity.
:
: If you say so
:
I do say so because it is true. Einstein fits Gardner's description of
a crank perfectly.
: > (Need I go on?)
:
: No (plonk)
: >
: >
a_plutonium
Yes, thanks to Androcles, the world now has at least two people who
know better
than Cantor.
And it is funny how reading the history of Cantor who went insane and
was committed
to an insane asylum later in his life because the math community
rejected his work.
And ironic that the 20th century math community would then go on to
accepting this
pile of nonsense about the Reals. So I guess the flow of history has
it where a madman
concocts a diagonal that is a fakery and then the human public of the
20th century
becomes a insane general public that accepts the fakery of a madman.
Look at people like Cohen who wasted his entire lifetime in math over
the Continuum
Hypothesis which is a huge fakery built on top of the Cantor fake.
I wonder if Cohen ever wrote the phrase "All Possible Digit
Arrangements" in any of his
work. Whether he ever had a milligram of brains to realize All
Possible Digit Arrangements
destroys the Continuum Hypothesis.
The Continuum Hypothesis in modern day mathematics is akin to fire
breathing dragons
in biology of the Middle Ages.
Daryl McCullough
>Gardner gives a good description of Einstein
No, he's describing *you*.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Dave L. Renfro
> The grounds are the technical criteria by which theories
> are evaluated, and after 100 years nothing technical has
> ever come out of special relativity.
How do you explain the success of the thousands of calculations,
made each day in particle accelerator experiments, that make use
of relativistic corrections?
Dave L. Renfro
Dave L. Renfro
> Look at people like Cohen who wasted his entire lifetime
> in math over the Continuum Hypothesis which is a huge
> fakery built on top of the Cantor fake.
Cohen only spent a few years working in set theory.
His speciality was something else before he worked
on the continuum hypothesis (CH) and he did very little
work in the field after he proved the independence
of CH. Even as little as 6 or 7 years after the
announcement of his work on CH, the vast majority
of the work that made use of the techniques Cohen
developed was done by other people.
Dave L. Renfro
Tonico
*****************************************************
All is that is nonsense for Mr. Plutonium since Cohen didn't make
neither any money out of it nor he did discover the outstanding
stuff Pluto has: the last natural number ....999999, that the whole
universe is one plutonium atom, that doors are good to go out just as
they're good to go in and many other wonderful things like these.
Tonio
a_plutonium
But you escape the main points, the theme, the heart of the matter.
The Reals are countable. The Cantor diagonal does not work with sets
of All Possible Digit Arrangements. The Infinity of Counting Numbers
is the
same infinity as the Reals.
So the Continuum Hypothesis is sheer fakery.
Why not teach in schools that witches reside around dark corners
and fire breathing dragons live in sea caves.
Cohen won a Fields Medal for work on the Continuum Hypothesis.
How many of the Fields Medals were awarded for Reals thought of as
denumerable? For transfinite infinities? Was Cohen the only Fields
winner
for Cantor's aftermath? So what does that say for the Fields medal?
That it
is a list comprised mostly of fake and propaganda math and not true
math?
Virtually every College and University around the world teaches the
phony
baloney of Cantor diagonal. Teaches that the diagonal constructs a new
number
when in fact it is impossible to find a new number in All Possible
Digit Arrangements.
So how long will modern society teach a falsehood of mathematics in
its school systems?
Will it take 100 years to remove the Cantor falsehood? Will it take
200 years?
Certainly it is not as important as halting Global Warming or halting
Human
Overpopulation or deterring nuclear war.
But how long does it take for the math community to see, to
understand, to accept,
and to remove its propaganda falsehoods?
Physics takes only a matter of 1 or 2 years judging from the cold
fusion in a test tube
circa 1989. But mathematics is sloth like in motion. Does it take 100
years for
mathematicians to acknowledge their mistakes, and then another 100
years before
they stop teaching the crap in schools?
Victor Eijkhout
> Peter Webb wrote:
> > Here is one possible combination:
> >
> > ...1111111
> >
> > What position is it on the list?
>
> It is a little more than 11 percent of 180 degrees on a sphere where 0
> is the North Pole and ...9999
> is the one unit short of the South Pole.
Right. So it's at approximately 11 percent between zero and
infinity..... Very helpful.
> Its predecessor is ......
> 1111110 and its successor is
> .......11111112.
No, he was asking about its position. Kindly give the exact index where
it is placed. Actually, it's enough to give an upper and lower bound.
Actually, since the lower bound can be chosen as 0 (or 1), just give an
upper bound: how far do I have to count to be guaranteed to encounter
that number.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Androcles
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff01m...@drn.newsguy.com...
: Androcles says...
:
: >Gardner gives a good description of Einstein
:
: No, he's describing *you*.
Fuck off, you ignorant snipping troll and generally useless tord.
Androcles
"Dave L. Renfro" <renf...@cmich.edu> wrote in message
news:1192466136.0...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
: Androcles wrote (in part):
a = b (given)
a^2 = ab (multiply both sides by a)
a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2 (subtract b^2 from each side)
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (factorise each side)
(a+b) = b (cancel a-b on each side)
b+b = b (a = b, given)
2b = b
2 = 1
Successful calculation, wrong answer.
How do you explain that?
After 100 years nothing technical has ever come out of special relativity.
Dave L. Renfro
> But you escape the main points, the theme, the heart
> of the matter.
Mine was a drive-by post.
> Why not teach in schools that witches reside around
> dark corners and fire breathing dragons live in sea caves.
And perhaps even correct punctuation.
> How many of the Fields Medals were awarded for Reals
> thought of as denumerable? For transfinite infinities?
> Was Cohen the only Fields winner for Cantor's aftermath?
These are public record matters that are easy to find
on the internet.
> Virtually every College and University around the world
> teaches the phony baloney of Cantor diagonal. Teaches
> that the diagonal constructs a new number when in fact
> it is impossible to find a new number in All Possible
> Digit Arrangements.
I'm curious why you said "virtually every". Do you know
of an exception? I don't.
However, you're misstating the result, thereby making
it very easy to criticize the result. Cantor's diagonal
argument constructs a number that doesn't belong to
a specified countable list of numbers, it doesn't
generate a "new number" (whatever that might mean).
However, let's say the proof is invalid. That doesn't
mean the theorem itself is false. Surely you don't
think finding an error in an argument disproves what
the argument was for, do you?
Anyway, if you believe there are problems with the
diagonal argument, what about the first proof that
Cantor gave? Cantor originally proved the reals were
uncountable in December 1873 (published in 1874). The
diagonal argument didn't arrive on the scene until
a conference talk that Cantor gave in September 1891
(published in 1892).
> So how long will modern society teach a falsehood of
> mathematics in its school systems?
If your concerns are about the *proof*, then your
criticism has no bearing against the uncountability
of the reals.
> Certainly it is not as important as halting Global
> Warming or halting Human Overpopulation or deterring
> nuclear war.
Neither is brushing my teeth, but I do this at least
once a day.
> Physics takes only a matter of 1 or 2 years judging from
> the cold fusion in a test tube circa 1989. But mathematics
> is sloth like in motion. Does it take 100 years for
> mathematicians to acknowledge their mistakes, and then
> another 100 years before they stop teaching the crap
> in schools?
Are you sure cold fusion was taught in schools? I don't
recall ever reading about this.
Dave L. Renfro
a_plutonium
Well, Victor, in your attempt at looking cute and smart, you end up
looking dumb.
Dumb not only to me, but dumb to a High School student.
I already posted in an earlier post of a huge block of those infinite
integers
which shows where .......11111111 is situated and since it is all 1s
that the
Cantor Diagonal would change the diagonal point to that of "2".
But it is the logical mind and the logical reasoning that you have
made yourself
dumb looking in this post. Because a High School students knows that
if a Cantor
diagonal were run over
00
01
10
11
for all 2place-value 2-adics that the Cantor diagonal is impossible to
construct a
new number not on that list already
It is impossible for Cantor Diagonal to construct a new number from
any list which is
All Possible Digit Arrangements.
All Possible Digit Arrangements is a set larger than any Cantor
diagonal produced set.
And since "All Possible Digit Arrangements Sets" are countable-- every
number having a
predecessor and successor, then the Reals are Countable.
So I hope, Victor, that you have enough logical commonsense to not
fall into Cantor's fallacy.
And that if you think about it, that what you had missing before, when
you believed in the
Cantor phonyness, is that you never had an example of a list where the
diagonal does not work.
All mathematicians, if provided an example of a list where the Cantor
diagonal does not work, they
would all then, reexamine their beliefs and understanding.
All Possible Digit Arrangements Sets are countable. They are countable
because the digits themselves
are ordered. And these sets are immune to a Cantor diagonal for the
diagonal only spits out
or coughs up or churns out another number which is already present in
the list.
If someone had sat down with Cantor in 1870s and showed him All
Possible Digit Arrangements
Set, the world of mathematics today would not be chock full of fakery
pollution.
Victor, ask yourself a very simple question: Do you know what All
Possible Digit Arrangements means?
If you do know, then whatever number the Diagonal constructs, how in
the world could it ever
be some new number?
The only way Cantor Diagonal can escape from the All Possible Digit
Arrangements is to say that
a Real number exists which has a place value but no digit in that
slot.
So, Victor, you tried looking cute and smart by asking a dumb question
as to were exactly
the number .......111111 is in the list of all Reals, but you end up
looking dumb because you
do not understand the power of All Possible Digit Arrangements.
Give me a new Cantor diagonal number from
00
01
10
11
the only new Cantor diagonal numbers would be 0* or *1 where a * means
there is no digit
in that place value.
So my question for Victor or any other reader, is why did you never
think of looking for sets
in which the Cantor diagonal cannot work, before you plunged into
believing Cantor's malarkey?
Dave L. Renfro
> a = b (given)
> a^2 = ab (multiply both sides by a)
> a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2 (subtract b^2 from each side)
> (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (factorise each side)
> (a+b) = b (cancel a-b on each side)
> b+b = b (a = b, given)
> 2b = b
> 2 = 1
> Successful calculation, wrong answer.
> How do you explain that?
Here's mine from a few years ago, and I didn't divide
by zero either:
#########################################################
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/9248d1282983f0b7
Consider rectangular coordinates x and y, and polar
coordinates, r and %. [I'm using '%' for '\theta'.]
One relation between these is x = r*cos(%).
Hence, (partial x)/(partial r) = cos(%). (1)
Another relation is r = (x^2 + y^2)^(1/2).
Hence, (partial r)/(partial x) = (1/2)*[(x^2 + y^2)^(-1/2)]*(2x).
Substituting 1/r for (x^2 + y^2)^(-1/2) gives
(partial r)/(partial x) = x/r.
Finally, making use of x = r*cos(%) gives
(partial r)/(partial x) = cos(%). (2)
But (partial r)/(partial x) = 1 / [(partial x)/(partial r)],
and so (1) and (2) imply that
cos(%) = 1 / cos(%). (3)
Letting % = Pi/3 in (3) gives 1/2 = 2, or 1 = 4 (multiply by 2).
Now take the positive square root of both sides to get
1 = 2. (4)
#########################################################
Dave L. Renfro
Androcles
Don't change the subject.
The crank wrote:
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif "
This equation comes with "the help of the equations of transformation
developed in § 3",
and in section §3 we find
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
with x'/(c+v) embedded in it.
img22.gif is Catch 22. The crank does what the crank says cannot be done
to show that the crank can derive what the crank says cannot be derived.
That's the trait of a crank.
galathaea
> I bought a copy of Martin Gardner's _In The Name of Science_ a few
> weeks ago. AP's recent "ejaculation of hatred" reminded me of a few
> things that Gardner says in his introduction. Keep in mind that this
> was written in 1952, and so does not apply to anyone in particular
> (even though they might feel this way). I know that this is long, even
> though I have skipped over specific examples that MG quoted, but it is
> worth reading through at least once. --- Christoper Heckman
>
> ***
>
> There is a type of self-styled scientist who can legitimately be
> called a crank. It is not the novelty of his views or the neurotic
> motivations behind his work that provide the grounds for calling him
it is hilarious
martin gardner pretending to describe cranks
his latter anger against catastrophe theory
also hilarious
his hideously misguided descriptions of quantum mechanics
and his debunking of many-worlds interpretations
really make my sides split
yes
he is certainly one to look up to regarding crankiness
but
( and here i am being serious )
he illustrates exactly what is wrong
with the neo-skeptical view of science
illustrating its base belligerence
and avoidance of pursuing new ideas
beyond simple facades and hand-waving
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
a_plutonium
>
> > Virtually every College and University around the world
> > teaches the phony baloney of Cantor diagonal. Teaches
> > that the diagonal constructs a new number when in fact
> > it is impossible to find a new number in All Possible
> > Digit Arrangements.
>
> I'm curious why you said "virtually every". Do you know
> of an exception? I don't.
There are some Universities and Colleges whose math
departments never teach Cantor simply because they
do not accept it themselves and let the students find out
from outside. And there are groups of mathematicians
who do not accept transfinites.
>
> However, you're misstating the result, thereby making
> it very easy to criticize the result. Cantor's diagonal
> argument constructs a number that doesn't belong to
> a specified countable list of numbers, it doesn't
> generate a "new number" (whatever that might mean).
All Possible Digit Arrangements yields a set that is larger
than Cantor's set and is countable.
So your argument and understanding, like Cantor, is down
the drain.
It is a shame Dave, you spent your whole life thinking and
working in mathematics, and never crossed your mind that the
Reals are All Possible Digit Arrangements. And that it never
crossed your mind to look for a set that thwarts the Cantor diagonal.
The beliefs of most mathematicians are spoon fed which they then
dutifully parrot out to their pupils.
I hope one of your students, Dave, runs up to you and says.
"Look, the Cantor diagonal just repeats one of the numbers in
this list
00
01
10
11
And even an infinite list of all possible digit arrangements destroys
the Cantor diagonal.
I hope your students keep asking you, for they are smarter than you
are.
>
> However, let's say the proof is invalid. That doesn't
> mean the theorem itself is false. Surely you don't
> think finding an error in an argument disproves what
> the argument was for, do you?
If All Possible Digit Arrangements is Countable, and where it
obviously
cannot create any new number not already in the list. Then there is
no hope that the Reals are anything other than a mirror reflection of
the
P-adics which are the Counting Numbers.
Although Dave cannot count from 1 to .....999999 I can.
>
> Anyway, if you believe there are problems with the
> diagonal argument, what about the first proof that
> Cantor gave? Cantor originally proved the reals were
He had only one method, the diagonal method.
And here in 2007, All Possible Digit Arrangements is destroying
Cantor's diagonal method.
> uncountable in December 1873 (published in 1874). The
> diagonal argument didn't arrive on the scene until
> a conference talk that Cantor gave in September 1891
> (published in 1892).
>
> > So how long will modern society teach a falsehood of
> > mathematics in its school systems?
>
> If your concerns are about the *proof*, then your
> criticism has no bearing against the uncountability
> of the reals.
Dave, take a long vacation and think about only
All Possible Digit Arrangements and how it destroys Cantors argument
completely.
It is better to know the truth and change, then to deny it and keep
on
teaching the falsehoods.
>
> > Certainly it is not as important as halting Global
> > Warming or halting Human Overpopulation or deterring
> > nuclear war.
>
> Neither is brushing my teeth, but I do this at least
> once a day.
But are you willing to learn something new and to discard
your past error on Reals?
>
> > Physics takes only a matter of 1 or 2 years judging from
> > the cold fusion in a test tube circa 1989. But mathematics
> > is sloth like in motion. Does it take 100 years for
> > mathematicians to acknowledge their mistakes, and then
> > another 100 years before they stop teaching the crap
> > in schools?
>
> Are you sure cold fusion was taught in schools? I don't
> recall ever reading about this.
>
> Dave L. Renfro
That is the point, that Physics removes its mistakes so fast
that it hardly even gets a chance to become the teaching curriculum.
And that mathematics moves so slowly, that fakes like Cantor's
diagonal and Cantor's transfinites gets entrenched into schools
and colleges and universities and pollute the minds of generations
of students.
So the clock has started ticking on Cantor's falsehoods here in
October
of 2007. If this was physics, then by around 2009, Cantor would have
been removed in all physics books and classrooms. But because this
is mathematics, where a bunch of old fogey men control what is
published
what is taught in schools that it may take upwards of 200 years before
the system is flushed out of Cantor.
The best way to get Cantor removed is for College students and High
School students to keep asking how do you get a Cantor diagonal number
out of
00
01
10
11
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
about your ap-adics, just above -- you have yet
to demonstrate any of the alleged arithmetic,
in short, even if the idea, of a beginning or ending digit
in front of or behind an infinite string of digits,
is acutally workable. go ahead, break out the pencil & paper,
and try it out, as I have done, years ago!
otherwise, you're just scrabbling on the precipice
with your feet dangling in numerological vacuum,
sucking you away.
at least, I satisified myself as to Munk's statement
about digits repeating both ways across the decimal point,
but that may be the only simple thing to do --
it's not even arithmetic, yet, except in comparing the two sides.
I don't know enough math or physics, to qualify Al's experimental
work,
nor to critique Baez's summaries of weird math;
if you want to say, we're some kind of triumvirate,
that's just fine with me;
I've tried to change my psuedonym, but,
Google won't let me. as far as "anonymity" goes,
I'll apply my actual name with the copyright thing,
when necessary; why bother, otherwise, since
Homebound Security already would know?
> And I peg Brian as the author of this under the name Uncle AL (as a
> computer program
> with several personae authors)
thus:
i thought, many Us was solopsism, *before* I found Deutsch's
admission.
that fuzzee logeek is a formalism of QM, is just another way
of saying, "but,
you don't have to reify the copenhagenschoolers --
Schroedinger's cat is dead; longlive Schroedinger's cat!"s
the best model of atoms is Moon's geometrical one,
so far, as furthered by ...
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/moonsubpg.html
> Fuzzy logic as far as it goes is really not a formalism for QM so much
> as an excuse for not getting to the bottom of quantum effects in
> purely mechanical terms. It's just a way of saying in effect that we
> don't have a clue what's going on but that's ok because we're pretty
> much clueless anyway.
thus:
_Synergetics_ should be put in the bibliography,
the link to Bob's scan of the text, that is now
in the "external links" section. it's a fun book to scan,
although there's no math at all, except
for implicit use of pythag.th. (and trig.,
in Color Plates One and Two .-)
there are actualy "uncoveries" that RBF et al made,
that most of his fans are barely aware of. of course,
tensegrity is now a very appreciabe scientific field, or
many fields, which was first uncovered by Ken Snelson,
in association with Bucky.
I have a model of fullerenes, the one
that Bucky should have found!
--name withheld by request of every one
PS: that there's no math in _S_ is good -- you have to supply it.
unfortunately,
the "Buckywitches" seem to believe that "nature's coordinate system"
had
made the rest of math obsolete, which is totally unfounded. (now,
the only real "mystaque" that I've found in _S_, is the whole section
on "Scheherezade Numbers," which is a sad attempt
at the higher arithmetic of Fermat, Gauss et al; numbertheory,
the queen of the sciences.)
Dave L. Renfro
> Anyway, if you believe there are problems with the
> diagonal argument, what about the first proof that
> Cantor gave? Cantor originally proved the reals were
Archimedes Plutonium wrote (in part):
> He had only one method, the diagonal method.
Here's a digital copy of Cantor's 1874 paper, the paper
that contains Cantor's first proof for the uncountability
of the reals:
http://www.gdz-cms.de/no_cache/dms/load/img/?IDDOC=266194
Dave L. Renfro
Victor Eijkhout
I'll note that you didn't answer my question.
> t is impossible for Cantor Diagonal to construct a new number from
> any list which is
> All Possible Digit Arrangements.
This statement presumes that such a list exists, which you haven't
proved. Which is in fact the big question.
> And since "All Possible Digit Arrangements Sets" are countable--
Proof?
> every
> number having a
> predecessor and successor,
That's not enough of a proof for me. It doesn't show that you can get
from number i to number j in a finite number of steps.
Et cetera.
galathaea
also interesting
is the personality type that would
give this post a single star in google-groups ratings
now i agree
i am a waste of usenet space
and should
if at all possible
be given negative stars overall
but it is ironic that a post on a common method
of giving researchers negative stigmas
without needing to address any scientific reasons
is itself given such without any actual response post
that is the impotence of neo-skepticism
notice how gardner's five criteria
_all_ have absolutely nothing to do with science
notice how he himself is frustrated
that he himself cannot give scientific responses sometimes
and still wants to attack the person
gauss had delusions of grandeur and paranoia...
the problem is
and always has been
that "crankdom"-labelling is only a means of avoiding
the need to discuss a theory
and instead attack the person
preformed opinions become not indicators
but entire reasons to dismiss
publicly and often in forms of attacks
( notice how gardner himself builds excuses for attacks )
like that one time
when psicop did that study
meant to debunk astrology
which found some behavioral differences
of statistical importance
depending upon time in the year of birth
which
instead of pursuing possibilities of
weather influence on behavioral disposition
instead wanting so desperately to hide
they tried to bury the results
the same psicop of gardner...
he is a great example of intellectual suppression
G. Frege
wrote:
GPS?!
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
Tonico
>
> - Show quoted text -
********************************************************************
Rambling nonsense....as usual. Martin Gardner is NOT a mathematician
nor he tries to pass as one, in his own words.
He may be skeptical about some ideas and even blunt about them, but he
could hardly try to crank on them as Pluto and his peers do in these,
and suppsoedly other, math groups.
Nonsensical rambling, overheated hatred, racism, loathe and madness
can hardly be considered seriously as "pursuing new ideas".
Regards
Tonio
Marshall
>
> also interesting
> is the personality type that would
> give this post a single star in google-groups ratings
>
> now i agree
> i am a waste of usenet space
> and should
> if at all possible
> be given negative stars overall
> but it is ironic that a post on a common method
> of giving researchers negative stigmas
> without needing to address any scientific reasons
> is itself given such without any actual response post
>
> that is the impotence of neo-skepticism
You're reading too much into it. I had to leave to go
pick up my son at school.
> the problem is
> and always has been
> that "crankdom"-labelling is only a means of avoiding
> the need to discuss a theory
> and instead attack the person
I don't see it that way at all. Instead I see intelligent
discussion being drowned out by nutballs.
The problem isn't that we're not responding in a
sufficiently substantive way to the cranks and
their half-formed ideas. Instead what I see
is that almost every crank post gets two or
three serious refutations.
No, the problem is that there is an endless
supply of cranks, and they all think they're
Prometheus.
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of
their abilities in many social and intellectual domains.
The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs,
in part, because people who are unskilled in these
domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these
people reach erroneous conclusions and make
unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs
them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
For further reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Cranks-Spectrum-Underwood-Dudley/dp/0883855070
Marshall
galathaea
yes
when people make mistakes
or expose foundations that are not consistent
or do not expose foundations at all
perfectly sound refutations often appear
that is science
and has nothing to do with the label "crank"
you are completely missing the point
that none of that validates or supports
the use of the "crank" label
prominent
serious
researchers also make mistakes
that are eventually pointed out
wiles' proof of fermat
for instance
the 5 criteria gardner listed
for describing a crank
have no scientific value whatsoever
they are criteria unrelated
in any scientific way
to the quality of a given theory
as i mentioned
gauss would fit that description pretty well
> No, the problem is that there is an endless
> supply of cranks, and they all think they're
> Prometheus.
and there will be many more
as the digital age comes into greater maturity
does that scare you?
similarly
there will be much more advertisement
for nike shoes and solution manuals
that's what free speech brings
street-criers and schizophrenics on corners
shouting their world-view to all that will listen
science should be building volatile trust-structures
which people can use to determine their education
that is the legitimate
scientific
means for determining how knowledge passes down the generations
the label "crank"
is a return to grade-school bullying
and fuels the whole (valid!) persecution complex
that often develops in people with early creativity
> "People tend to hold overly favorable views of
> their abilities in many social and intellectual domains.
> The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs,
> in part, because people who are unskilled in these
> domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these
> people reach erroneous conclusions and make
> unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs
> them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
> For further reading:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Cranks-Spectrum-Underwood-Dudley/d...
yes
absolutely
including the crank-busters
who regularly and repeatedly illustrate this
by attacking perfectly valid theories
that they just happen to be ignorant of
bohmian mechanics
torsion gravity
catastrophe theory
hell
i remember marilyn vos savant's
attack on wiles
perelman's peers attacked him over at steklov
deriding his crankdom for believing he had
a solution to geometrisation
that's the problem
the problem is not a million crazy and ill-founded ideas
spilling out into usenet
it is the corruption of science
by this notion of "crank"
that only fuels belligerent behavior
and through its antiscience
ends up attacking
on numerous occasion
valid speculation
a_plutonium
Thanks but my German is not good enough to pick up on the argument.
So I looked for some English sources and found none except for a
evaluation
by Poincare who described Cantor's first attempt of a proof as a
"gnarled
mess" or words to that effect.
However I did cross upon the Power Set as a means of what Cantor
believed he
could increase the cardinality of a given set. And where obviously
that can be done
with finite sets where they increase to 2^n for elements n
But that All Possible Digit Arrangements also is resistant to the
Power set.
Because the P-adics of 1 to ....999999 are equinumerous with the Reals
from
0 to 1 and both are Countable. So that a Power Set on P-adics
where you multiply ......999999 by any other number or you multiply
any two P-adics
the final answer is a number that is .....999999 or smaller. In other
words, you cannot increase
the infinity of P-adics for the Power Set falls apart also and since
it falls apart then the Reals
from 0 to 1 as all digit arrangements is not increased either via the
Power set.
So All Possible Digit Arrangements forces Reals and P-adics to be
Countable Sets and forces
the Power Set to be nonapplicable.
Dave, do you know where in the mathematics literature the concept of
All Possible Digit Arrangements
comes up first? I suppose I could be the first and only discoverer of
that concept. It is probably
one of the most most important concepts in mathematical history for it
defines Reals and P-adics
and thus it defines all the numbers. It is as important and probably
more important than when
Euclid wrote the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
Do you know when this concept first appears in math literature?
a_plutonium
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
> a_plutonium <a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll note that you didn't answer my question.
Here is the outline of all the Reals between 0 to 1
999999........9999999999
999999........9999999998
999999....... 99999999997
999999........99999999996
999999........9999999995
999999....... 99999999994
999999........99999999993
999999........9999999992
999999....... 99999999991
999999........99999999990
999999........99999999989
999999....... 99999999988
.
.
.
.
8888888......88888888888
.
.
.
.
7777777777.......777777777
.
.
.
6666666666.......666666666
.
.
.
555555555........5555555555
.
.
.
500000000.......000000000000
midpoint
499999999.......9999999999999
.
.
.
4444444444.......444444444444
.
.
.
3333333333..........333333333333
.
.
.
2222222222.........2222222222222
.
.
.
111111111111.........111111111
.
.
.
.
.
000000........000000011
000000........000000010
000000.......0000000009
000000........000000008
000000........000000007
000000.......0000000006
000000.......0000000005
000000........0000000004
000000........0000000003
000000.......00000000002
000000.......00000000001
000000.......00000000000
And the number you are concerned with .....1111111
is the number that is approx 11 percent up from .....0000000
It is exactly the 1111......11111111 number in the list. The diagonal
will intersect
a "1" obviously.
The number that precedes it is the number
11111.....11111110
The number succeeding is 11111......11111112
>
> > t is impossible for Cantor Diagonal to construct a new number from
> > any list which is
> > All Possible Digit Arrangements.
>
> This statement presumes that such a list exists, which you haven't
> proved. Which is in fact the big question.
Victor, you are acting pretentious and silly, for to question the
existence of
the above is to question the existence of 1 to .....999999
Get off your high-flyer and try to discuss and learn.
>
> > And since "All Possible Digit Arrangements Sets" are countable--
>
> Proof?
The P-adics from 0 to 1 to .....99999 are countable because I can give
you
the predeccessor and successor of any number you give me. That is
tantamount
to countable. If you can give a successor and predecessor of every
number in
a set is saying they are Countable. And the numbers in the set 1
to ....999999
are All Possible Digit Arrangements. Et tu Brute (better than QED)
>
> > every
> > number having a
> > predecessor and successor,
>
> That's not enough of a proof for me. It doesn't show that you can get
> from number i to number j in a finite number of steps.
What a silly demand. We are in a infinite set, where most of the
handles are infinite
handles. So the demand is on you to elaborate why in the world you
would think that
a infinite set is countable only if it is "finite". I am assuming you
are a math professor,
maybe I assumed too much.
>
> Et cetera.
>
> Victor.
> --
> Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Countable is equivalent to the characteristic that every number of a
set has a predecessor
and successor, except for the starting point 0 and end point ....
99999.
The proof of that, Victor, are a few of the Peano Axioms.
Marshall
I'm not missing the point. I'm looking at the data
and reaching a different conclusion than yours.
The data we are seeing isn't the same set, (although
we may suppose a certain overlap in the form of
usenet) and our histories and contexts and experiences
aren't the same. I vaguely understand you're in
some sort of academic/science setting(?), whereas
I'm an engineer whose participation in math and science
is a hobby. For me, the concept of crank has been
extremely useful, and in fact interesting in its own
right.
> prominent
> serious
> researchers also make mistakes
> that are eventually pointed out
>
> wiles' proof of fermat
> for instance
>
> the 5 criteria gardner listed
> for describing a crank
> have no scientific value whatsoever
I have no opinion on whether they constitute science
or not, but they are certainly useful. The Underwood
Dudley book that I suddenly annoyingly can't find even
though it was right here yesterday disclaims any
scientific value, but I still found it an interesting read.
And it helped me to make sense of what goes on
in sci.math, which was frankly bewildering for some
time.
> they are criteria unrelated
> in any scientific way
> to the quality of a given theory
>
> as i mentioned
> gauss would fit that description pretty well
I don't see how that's relevant. Whatever challenges
Gauss faced in getting his ideas out he apparently
surmounted. Also, he wasn't a crank. (I'm assuming.
I don't know from Gauss.)
Any classification system is going to have false positives.
The alternative (to make it specific) is to accept every
usenet poster as being equally worthy of my attention,
and that solution is worse than the thing you're worried
about.
> > No, the problem is that there is an endless
> > supply of cranks, and they all think they're
> > Prometheus.
>
> and there will be many more
> as the digital age comes into greater maturity
Sure.
> does that scare you?
WTF does that have to do with anything? But the
short answer is no, because IMHO the damage that
cranks do is already in full swing, and the world hasn't
fallen apart yet. I'm rather more of an optimist than is
fashionable these days.
> similarly
> there will be much more advertisement
> for nike shoes and solution manuals
>
> that's what free speech brings
I'm all in favor of free speech. In fact I think that
the wide open dialog of usenet is as useful as it
is *because* of free speech. That includes not only
the disagreeing but also the yelling and the cursing.
And the labeling of people as cranks. And the
Google Groups reputation management.
> street-criers and schizophrenics on corners
> shouting their world-view to all that will listen
>
> science should be building volatile trust-structures
> which people can use to determine their education
>
> that is the legitimate
> scientific
> means for determining how knowledge passes down the generations
>
> the label "crank"
> is a return to grade-school bullying
> and fuels the whole (valid!) persecution complex
> that often develops in people with early creativity
I completely disagree. At least from what I've seen of
sci.math, the persecution complexes are not valid but
are, for the holder, simply the less unpleasant explanation
than the correct one for their not receiving accolades
from the academic community. The Dudley book had
many examples of this. The whole phenomenon is well
explained by Gardner's point 3.
Those things you describe may well be a real problem.
But I don't see how that would have anything to do with
whether we ought to be calling people on usenet cranks.
> the problem is not a million crazy and ill-founded ideas
> spilling out into usenet
>
> it is the corruption of science
> by this notion of "crank"
> that only fuels belligerent behavior
> and through its antiscience
> ends up attacking
> on numerous occasion
> valid speculation
I just haven't seen that happening. Instead I see semi-literates
making broad claims attacking Einstein, Cantor, Godel, etc. etc.
Which makes perfect sense in light of Gardner's point 4.
Marshall
Proginoskes
> [...]
> Countable is equivalent to the characteristic that every number of a
> set has a predecessor
> and successor, except for the starting point 0 and end point ....
> 99999.
> The proof of that, Victor, are a few of the Peano Axioms.
I know I wasn't going to reply any more to AP, but this has me
puzzled ...
In standard mathematics, this is not the case. If a set is countable,
then AP's definition is true (sort of; there would be at most one
endpoint, depending on whether you do you bijection with Z or N), but
a set can be uncountable and still have this property: Remove
{2, 3, 4, ...} and {-1, -2, -3, ...} from the set R of reals to get a
set S, which has the properties (where Alpha=0 and Omega=1, and the
successor of x is x+1):
(a) If x is in S and x is not one of the special numbers Alpha or
Omega, then x+1 and x-1 are both in S;
(b) If x = Alpha, then x is in S, x+1 is in S, and x-1 is not in S;
(c) If x = Omega, then x is in S, x-1 is in S, and x+1 is not in S.
Which is what AP is after (except that in his case, A = ...000 and B
= ...999). But S is not countable (in the standard sense).
But in AP's mathematical world, these concepts might actually be
equivalent.
--- Christopher Heckman
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
do you have the whether-or-not-killedfile function,
automated?
> I confess to a certain degree of morbid fascination with
Peter Webb
"a_plutonium" <a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192456451.6...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter Webb wrote:
>> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>> news:n6AQi.12261$lV4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >
>> > "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:4712c33c$0$31115$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> > :> That no matter what Cantor does, he can never find a number not on
>> > the
>> > : > list of All Possible
>> > : > Digit Arrangements.
>> > : >
>> > :
>> > : You can't make a "list" of "All Possible Digit Arrangements". That is
>> > what
>> > : Cantor showed. If you think you have such a list, post it here, and I
>> > am
>> > : sure that lots of people will help you find an arrangement that isn't
>> > on
>> > the
>> > : list.
>> >
>> > Short list to make it easy:
>> > 00
>> > 01
>> > 10
>> > 11
>> > What arrangement isn't in the list?
>> >
>>
>> 101
>
> No, you are not playing by the rules of Cantor. If you draw out all
> 3place values then 101 is
> among them.
>
You posted a list. You asked for one of the "Possible Number Arrangements"
which is not on the list. 101 is a "Possible Number Arrangement". It is not
on the list.
> But the INFINITY PLACE VALUE is where the Cantor fallacy really comes
> to light and comes
> to life.
So, why did you post a finite list?
>
> In the 2 place value there are at most two numbers which the diagonal
> always misses. That
> means the Diagonal Cantor Set is always smaller in size than the All
> Possible Digit Arrangement Set.
What is the "Cantor diagonal set"? I only know of the Cantor diagonal
number.
> And since the All Possible Digit Arrangement Set is always
> countable,
No, that is what you are tring to prove, and the reason you can't is that it
isn't true.
Prove to me that the set of "All Possible Digit Arrangement" is countable,
and its game over.
> whether finite or
> infinite, means the Cantor Set is a worthless set.
>
Without knowing what the Cantor Diagonal Set is, I can't really comment.
> Peter should be able to figure out or compute how many numbers the
> Cantor Diagonal misses
> in the 3 place value, in the 4 place value.
>
> I know how many numbers the Cantor set misses in the Infinite Place
> Value of All Possible
> Digit Arrangements. It misses an infinity of Reals.
>
> The Cantor Diagonal misses an infinity of Reals that look like this
>
> .......99999999xyz
>
> and an infinity of Reals that look like this
>
> .....000000000xyz
>
> How is that possible you ask? Because as the diagonal must change at
> least one digit in
> every place value, it is impossible for the Diagonal to spit out a
> number such as
> .....000000000000000
>
> or
>
> ......111111111111111
>
> It is impossible to spit or produce those numbers because there are an
> infinite 1s and no number
> in the Diagonal escapes from seeing at least a 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5
> or 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 or 0
> digit.
What is this "Cantor diagonal Set"? And what relkevance does it have if it
is missing some numbers?
>
> So as Androcles showed you, Peter, how the Cantor diagonal is unable
> to yield a new
> number not on this list
>
> 00
> 01
> 10
> 11
>
What about 101 ? Its not on this list.
> But that list is in surplus of two numbers which the Diagonal always
> misses.
>
> Cantor and his silly followers envisioned a partial set and run a
> diagonal over a partial set and
> yes you will construct a number not already in the list. But when your
> list is All Possible
> Digit Arrangements, then Cantor diagonal falls to pieces.
>
So you say. Now you must demonstrate.
Congratulations if you can; you have shown ZF is inconsistent, which will
make you one of the most famous mathematicians in history, instead one of
the most famous cranks on Usenet.
Michael Moroney
>Androcles says...
>>Gardner gives a good description of Einstein
>No, he's describing *you*.
You don't even recognize yourself, do you, Androcles?
Peter Webb
But that is not sufficient to form a list.
The number
...1111
Is it in the first position on the list?
Is it in the second position?
if the list contains all p-adics (inverted Reals), then ....111 must be in
the first position, or the second position, or the third position ... or
more generally in the nth position, where n is a natural number. That's what
a list is defined to be.
If ...1111 appears on your list, then it is in what position? Lets call that
the nth position. What is n?
Proginoskes
statement about "Countable is equivalent to ..." has gotten me
wondering.
On Oct 15, 6:51 pm, Proginoskes <CCHeck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 5:23 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Countable is equivalent to the characteristic that every number of a
> > set has a predecessor
> > and successor, except for the starting point 0 and end point ....
> > 99999.
And some statement that you can get from x to y by repeating the
successor (or predecessor) operation; otherwise, there are
counterexamples. (There may still be counterexamples, though.)
> > The proof of that, Victor, are a few of the Peano Axioms.
I thought AP disowned the Peano Axioms, as they prove that the P-adics
are not the natural numbers. (And AP thinks there's only one type of
infinity, so, to him, "all sets are countable".)
> I know I wasn't going to reply any more to AP, but this has me
> puzzled ...
>
> In standard mathematics, this is not the case. If a set is countable,
> then AP's definition is true (sort of; there would be at most one
> endpoint, depending on whether you do you bijection with Z or N), but
> a set can be uncountable and still have this property: Remove
> {2, 3, 4, ...} and {-1, -2, -3, ...} from the set R of reals to get a
> set S, which has the properties (where Alpha=0 and Omega=1, and the
> successor of x is x+1):
Of course, if "successor" literally means "successor", then this
example doesn't work, since there is no "smallest real number greater
than 1". In that case, take a finite chain and add an uncountable
number of disjoint cycles. That is, take an uncountable set A and
define
S(1) = 2, S(2) = 3,
leave S(3) undefined, and define
S((a,1)) = 2, S((a,2)) = 3, S((a,3)) = 1, for all a in A.
and let your set be {1,2,3} union (over all a in A) of {(a,1), (a,2),
(a,3)}. Here Alpha=1, Omega=3.
--- Christopher Heckman
a_plutonium
Proginoskes wrote:
> Yes, I know that two messages ago, I said that I'd stop, but AP's
> statement about "Countable is equivalent to ..." has gotten me
> wondering.
>
> On Oct 15, 6:51 pm, Proginoskes <CCHeck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 5:23 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > Countable is equivalent to the characteristic that every number of a
> > > set has a predecessor
> > > and successor, except for the starting point 0 and end point ....
> > > 99999.
>
> And some statement that you can get from x to y by repeating the
> successor (or predecessor) operation; otherwise, there are
> counterexamples. (There may still be counterexamples, though.)
>
> > > The proof of that, Victor, are a few of the Peano Axioms.
>
> I thought AP disowned the Peano Axioms, as they prove that the P-adics
> are not the natural numbers. (And AP thinks there's only one type of
> infinity, so, to him, "all sets are countable".)
>
I need to get to the chapter in this textbook on what the revised
Peano Axioms are
since the Counting Numbers are the P-adics. So here is a good time as
any to layout
the prospectus.
You are doodling too much over trivia as to the 0 has no predecessor
and the ....99999
has no successor. This is trivia.
The heart of counting is whether all the numbers in between 0 and ....
99999 have
both a predecessor and successor. This is even stronger than Peano's
axiom that
each number has a successor.
Here, each number has both successor and predecessor. There is no
counterexample to
this mechanism.
In fact, it is this mechanism that instantly makes All Possible Digit
Arrangements as
countable regardless of whether infinite or finite set. Because the
ability of All Possible
Digit Arrangements is forcing each number to have a successor and
predecessor.
Here is a geometrical equivalent to every number has a predecessor and
successor:
A foot step forward or backwards is always one unit distance. So if
each number on a sphere
surface or plane has a backward step and forward step, then you can
walk the entire sphere or
plane. If Uncountable, then you reach a point where you are unable to
make a step forward,
hence not countable.
The main axiom of Peano is the successor and all the other axioms are
plastic and not as
important. And the Mathematical Induction axiom is really unnecessary
and just a more
elaborate successor axiom.
So the modern day Axioms of the Counting Numbers is the axioms of P-
adics. You start with
saying that there exists two imaginary numbers 0 and (pi) where they
are the poles on a sphere.
A second axiom that annouces the existence of ....000001 and the unit
distance from 0. A third
axiom that says between ....0000001 and (pi) are an infinite number of
points occupied by a P-adic.
And a fourth axiom that says every P-adic between 0 and (pi) has both
a successor and a
predecessor. So the Counting Numbers are P-adics from 0 to ....99999
Now the Axiomatics of P-adics that this textbook gives and the
definition of P-adics is
the symmetrical mirror of Reals, where one is infinite leftward and
other infinite rightwards,
where both can have a finite portion. And those numbers are All
Possible Digit Arrangements.
This is a fabulous way of defining Reals and P-adics because there
never needs to be
thousands of definitions and silly evolution of rationals to
irrationals to Dedekind Cut. Here
we instantly bring them to life. And in Physics, Quantum Mechanics of
its numbers are
defined Probabilistically of its N, L , m_L, m_s . So a probability
definition is far better than
a treacherous thousands of awkward definitions.
As I learned that there really is no distinction of some Real Numbers
as to whether they are
rational or irrational such as this Real number:
0.99999999999.......9999999990
That is a Real number between 0 and 1 has last digit is 0 with an
infinity of 9s in between.
That is a Real Number as per All Possible Digit Arrangements. And if
flipped over is also
a P-adic or Counting Number.
So the symmetry between REals and P-adics is enormous. Both are
countable.
And the definition of Rational dissolves because what is the Real
Number:
0.99999999......99999990
It is neither rational nor irrational since it does not terminate in a
repeating block and cannot
be written as a fraction. Yet it is not irrational either.
So the old mathematics constructed the Real Numbers with thousands of
definitions that were imposed
upon the Real Numbers yet the Reals never had that feature intrinsic.
That is why a Probability
definition of Reals is the best way to go. Whenever physics does
something, then it is wise
for mathematics to follow the example of physics.
And also, the Axiom of Choice no longer needs to be an axiom for it is
part and parcel of
the All Possible Digit Arrangements definition. When you say
"Possible" you are applying the
axiom of choice to find every arrangement of digits. So here, the
Axiom of Choice is embedded
within All Possible Digit Arrangements.
So, we can have two definitions of Natural Numbers either the revised
axioms above, or the
Probability definition with All Possible Digit Arrangements.
As I said, the huge problem with the axiom system of Natural Numbers
is that you have thousands
of likely erroneous definitions that you impose on the Reals which the
Reals may or may not
possess. The beauty of a Probability definition is that you have all
the numbers in full sight
and you then figure out by proof and theorem what characteristics they
truly possess.
hanson
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
> "Proginoskes" <CCHe...@gmail.com> cited in message
> news:1192434211.3...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
: I bought a copy of Martin Gardner's _In The Name of Science_ a few
: weeks ago. AP's recent "ejaculation of hatred" reminded me of a few
:
: "Proginoskes" <CCHe...@gmail.com> commented on his
: earlier message : *** [I edited comments for salience] ***
: Scientific journals ... are filled with bizarre theories...
: Often the quickest road to fame is to overturn a firmly-held belief.
: *** Einstein's work on relativity is the outstanding example. ***
:
: There are five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's
: paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited.
: (1) He considers himself a genius.
: (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant
: (4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest
: scientists and the best-established theories. ...
: have meaning to [mental] patients, [aka Einstein's Dinglerries]
: but sound like Jabberwocky to everyone else.
: --- His [Einstein's] rhetoric may be enormously persuasive. ---
: All the parts of his world usually fit together beautifully, like a
: jig-saw puzzle. It is impossible to get the best of him in any type of
: argument. He has anticipated all your objections. He counters them
:
[Androcles]
"His rhetoric may be enormously persuasive."
>
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Gardner gives a good description of Einstein, the word "assume"
appears 13 times in his 1905 relativity paper.
Einstein was a type of self-styled scientist who can legitimately be
called a crank.
>
It is not the novelty of Einstein's views or the neurotic motivations behind
Einstein's work that provide the grounds for calling Einstein this.
The grounds are the technical criteria by which theories are evaluated,
and after 100 years nothing technical has ever come out of special
relativity.
(Need I go on?)
--
Androcles
>
Enter "Fuckwit" <nomail@invalid> who wrote to Androcles in message
news:i9l6h39gl6buagepv...@4ax.com...
>>
No. It's obvous enough, that you are an asshole full of shit.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... Poster "Fuckwit" has chosen a perfect nym for
himself... which is typical for declaring himself to be one of
Einstein's Dingleberries who worries about his position so
close to the cozy wamrth of Albert's sphincter... ahahaha....
>
"Tonico" <Toni...@yahoo.com> wrote to Andro in message
news:1192452199.1...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Read again Gardner's 4-th point about cranks and have a good
laugh:
:
[Andro]
Yes, Einstein attacked Newton, Galileo and Copernicus and the
principle of relativity.
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined
to reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no
empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this
principle."
-- Albert Einstein, self proclaimed "prominent theoretical physicist".
I agree with Gardner, Einstein was definitely a crank.
>
>
[hanson]
.... AHAHAHAHA.. ahahahaha... as can be seen in the rest
of this thread, Andro, you have an uncanny ability to poke in
Albert's rectal locus with your stick and in the process you stir
up hordes of clankering Einstein Dingleberries... all of whom
are reacting exactly like religious martyrs whose faith in their
religion was questioned... that causes them to become loud,
uncouth and grievously disturbed...while jealously & passionately
guarding their place in the cozy warmth near Albert's sphincter....
Good job, Andro... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Andro.. and all you disturbed Einstein
Dingleberries. ... ahahaha... ahahahanson
a_plutonium
I probably will not have the time to do this, but when we define Real
Numbers as
All Possible Digit Arrangements, and we realize the Reals are
Countable, then
alot of problems in Calculus begin to become solved and clarified.
Such as those
strange derivatives and integrals where functions are continuous
nowhere yet
differentiable and vice versa. And the huge mess of Calculus of its
thousands
of integrals.
So what I am saying is that when we recognize a Real number such as
0.99999999......9999999990
We can begin to understand how a function can be continuous nowhere,
yet
differentiable at that point. And the difference between thousands of
integrals such
as Lebesgue, Borel, Riemann, Definite, Eulerian, etc etc.
As we better understand what the Reals truly are, then much of
Calculus can
be clarified of its fast food gunk.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:wnYQi.2452$et1.195@trnddc02...
: AHAHAHAHA... Great!... Priceless!... ahahaha... ahahaha...
:
Gardner was himself a Dingleberry. You'll find those most anxious
to call others cranks are themselves soft in the head. I recall reading
Gardner some years ago where he proclaimed that light from the
left limb of the sun took the same time to teach Earth as did light
from the right limb because ... and get this ... the left and right rays
departed at the same time from the opposite limbs. Now how would
he or anyone else know that?
a_plutonium
I probably will not have the time to do this, but when we define Real
Numbers as
All Possible Digit Arrangements, and we realize the Reals are
Countable, then
alot of problems in Calculus begin to become solved and clarified.
Such as those
strange derivatives and integrals where functions are continuous
nowhere yet
differentiable and vice versa. And the huge mess of Calculus of its
thousands
of integrals.
So what I am saying is that when we recognize a Real number such as
0.99999999......9999999990
We can begin to understand how a function can be continuous nowhere,
yet
differentiable at that point. And the difference between thousands of
integrals such
as Lebesgue, Borel, Riemann, Definite, Eulerian, etc etc.
As we better understand what the Reals truly are, then much of
Calculus can
be clarified of its fast food gunk.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jesse F. Hughes
> There are some Universities and Colleges whose math
> departments never teach Cantor simply because they
> do not accept it themselves and let the students find out
> from outside.
Fascinating! Can you name one?
--
"Just be aware that anti-Cantorians are sick of being called crackpots,
and the day will soon come when the crankiest Cantorians will eat
their words, and this rot will be extricated from mathematics."
-- Tony Orlow, an "anti-Cantorian" ready to rumble
Tonico
> On Oct 15, 3:28 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 2:29 pm, galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
******************************************************************
As usual, nonsense and trying to obscure things.
NOBODY said anything about making mistakes, about trying new ideas,
about debating them...That does NOT make a crank. That's the stuff
science is made of!
Doron Zeilberg IS a mathematician that kicks hard on set theory,
infinity and stuff. I though can't say he's a crank (I really don't
know his stand that well), and I think some of his views are worth
checking.
A crank is not someone that makes a mistake or offers new ideas, but
someone that, among other things (e.g., see Gardner's definition)
patronizes, ridiculizes, mocks, loathes, hates, etc. ALMOST any other
human being on Earth that does not agree with him, specially scholars
in the subject he's trying to deal with (pretty poorly, in general),
and in particular he sends all his hatred and grudge against those
that dare to ask for evidence, proofs, base, soundness in his (the
crank's) claims.
Of course, the above means he HAS to try to knock (and offend and mock
and scoff and....) great scientists from the past and present. Why?
Because their findings most of the times are completely opposed to the
"great" achievments the crank has made.
Have you read AT ALL a tiny, little part of the comically stupid and
utterly baseless claims of Pluto? So far he has cracked (or cranked?)
the secret of the universe, he's proved Poincare's Conjecture-now-
Theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, he's proved Cantor and all of set
theory wrong...
He's already way beyond mistakes: he's built his own little, cosy
world...and he deeply hates ANYONE not willing to join him there.
And you still say that someone as the above almost fictional character
is trying to produce "new ideas" in science??!! And, of course, his
nonsense have been debunked more than once, twice, thrice, etc. by
many participants in this NG.
So what would it take, according to you, for someone to deserve the
title of "crank"? Shall he appear with his baseless, evidenceless
(sciencewise) and moronic ideas in a video dressed up like Bozo the
clown and drooling? Then he'll completely deserve to be called a
crank, according to you?
You Galathea are, in some respect, worse than Pluto, Lester Dick,
James Harris and other clowns around. You, an apparently serious
chatter, not only find it appropiate to deffend (at least some of)
these clownish characters AND THEIR hateful and many times repulsive
behavior in a supposedly mathematical NG, but you TOO get angry and
scold people that respond, many times laughing at and mocking as well,
those crankls that participate in this NG waving their own superioriy
(so they think) and everybody else's vileness and unworthiness.
You self-righteous and patronizing one. At least some of us are trying
to get the only thing these pitiful and hating people can offer in
thin NG: laughs.
How dare you preach us?
Regards
Tonio
Victor Eijkhout
> The heart of counting is whether all the numbers in between 0 and ....
> 99999 have
> both a predecessor and successor. This is even stronger than Peano's
> axiom that
> each number has a successor.
No, it's weaker, so you potentially describe larger sets than just the
integers.
> Here, each number has both successor and predecessor. There is no
> counterexample to
> this mechanism.
Says you. A proof of equivalence is sorely needed.
Dave L. Renfro
> The problem isn't that we're not responding in a
> sufficiently substantive way to the cranks and
> their half-formed ideas. Instead what I see
> is that almost every crank post gets two or
> three serious refutations.
You have to admit, however, that AP and JHS are
in a class of their own given their usenet presence
over the past 15 years.
Dave L. Renfro
Dave L. Renfro
> Thanks but my German is not good enough to pick up on
> the argument. So I looked for some English sources and
> found none except for a evaluation by Poincare who
> described Cantor's first attempt of a proof as a "gnarled
> mess" or words to that effect.
For the record, a French translation was published in
Acta Mathematica, Volume 2, 1883, pp. 305-310 and an
English translation is given on pp. 840-843 of William
Ewald's 2-volume book "From Kant to Hilbert: A Source
Book in the Foundations of Mathematics", Clarendon Press,
1996.
> Dave, do you know where in the mathematics literature the
> concept of All Possible Digit Arrangements comes up first?
> I suppose I could be the first and only discoverer of
> that concept.
You might look up Arthur Bowes Frizell, especially some
of his conference abstracts published in the Bulletin of
the American Mathematical Society between 1905 and 1926.
A lot of those abstracts involve cardinality and ordinal
issues related to the set of all permutations of the
natural numbers, or something like this, which is likely
to be somewhere in the ballpark.
Go to this web page -->
http://www.ams.org/joursearch/?
Enter 'Frizell' in the third frame under "Specify MSC,
Title words, Authors" (the one labeled as "Anywhere").
Under "Specify Journals to Search", select "SPECIFIC
JOURNAL" and click on "Bulletin of the AMS" in the
window.
Under "Limit Results by Publication Date", enter "Jan 1905"
to "Jan 1926".
Under "Begin Search", click on "Search".
Because all the old Bull. of the AMS journals are freely
available in .pdf form (public, not just in a university
library computer), you can see all the hits. Look for those
that are conference summaries and papers. Note that for the
conference summaries, Frizell will not be the only person
with an abstract, so you'll have to search for his abstract.
The real question that anyone else reading this far will
probably have about all this is how the heck did I know
about Frizell and his conference abstracts . . .
Dave L. Renfro
galathaea
there is a phenomena
where people get very excited about their theories
sometimes they think they are very clever
a satisfaction may take hold
they may start telling people
when they are young
this might be their parents
or possibly siblings
later they might tell teachers
friends
people on usenet
they may not have had access to libraries
many of us who lived before the digital age
remember a time when this was common
or maybe they never learned their importance
maybe failures of education
perhaps their own inattentiveness
they may indeed be very clever
human beings are very bright creatures
with amazing abilities to pattern recognise
and linguistic abilities for naming
and modelling these conceptual patterns
into an ontology obeying some mereology
we make theories better than any other known creature
we manipulate better than any other creature known
usually
though
there comes a point where a person has to learn
it is important to humbly recognise a mistake
and try to learn from it
because most people make mistakes
a bunch of them
but it is important to keep making new theories
and always try to learn more about our world
it is important not to shut down
in some defensive pose
constantly justifying a broken theory
and refusing to see the flaws
there are many people who have been down this road
to some extent
because it is inherent to learning
and most of us have learned many interesting things
but we often influence others
to become our charicatures of them
crankdom is the spectacle of failure
at the expense of the possibility of humility
it is a diseased phenomena
a feeding off the destruction of dreams
calling someone a crank
never causes them suddenly to become humble
it often propels them the other way
allowing others to come in
attacks will extend to any backing down of positions
attempts to correct met with scorn
because it is not about correcting the position
it is about superiority and spectacle
whenever you see someone making many theories
there is always a group of people around them
the more skillful are seen as great teachers
and those around them students trying to understand
the less skillful often used for testing understanding
but there seems to be a group who
unwilling to look to better themselves
by choosing challenging targets to understand
and possibly correct
instead look for easy targets of scorn
you will see this group answering children's questions
sniffing around misguided posts
looking for a _reason_ to scream out
"idiot" or "bullshit"
or eventually "crank"
those who gleefully try to bash down mistakes
with their verbal catharsis
because they do not desire to better themselves
past the point of being able to bash others
they regularly end up bashing those
actually presenting legitimate research
which the crankbuster's ignorance fails to recognise
that's it
that's what happens
because crank labelling does not look for legitimacy
it looks to maintain a spectacle
> > prominent
> > serious
> > researchers also make mistakes
> > that are eventually pointed out
>
> > wiles' proof of fermat
> > for instance
>
> > the 5 criteria gardner listed
> > for describing a crank
> > have no scientific value whatsoever
>
> I have no opinion on whether they constitute science
> or not, but they are certainly useful. The Underwood
> Dudley book that I suddenly annoyingly can't find even
> though it was right here yesterday disclaims any
> scientific value, but I still found it an interesting read.
> And it helped me to make sense of what goes on
> in sci.math, which was frankly bewildering for some
> time.
it is a convenient fiction
that provides a calming sort of "sense"
like newtonian physics or the divine right of kings
the activity of crank labelling is often wrong
just because gardner's list _mentions_ this
does not mean it _addresses_ it
and he doesn't
if you think this is a useful activity
even on usenet
you have failed to see the numerous
serious
students this has attacked
you have failed to see the act of labelling
used an offensive weapon of ignorance
by people who
feeling superior and hoping others "recognise"
attack strange and bewildering ideas with the label
the label keeps them from thinking
it is corrosive
it is corrosive to science
and it brings a bunch of bigots into the fields
who
unable to actually do science
and provide legitimate rebuttals
fall back upon taunting games and easy labels
labels that help them not have to think deeply
> > street-criers and schizophrenics on corners
> > shouting their world-view to all that will listen
>
> > science should be building volatile trust-structures
> > which people can use to determine their education
>
> > that is the legitimate
> > scientific
> > means for determining how knowledge passes down the generations
>
> > the label "crank"
> > is a return to grade-school bullying
> > and fuels the whole (valid!) persecution complex
> > that often develops in people with early creativity
>
> I completely disagree. At least from what I've seen of
> sci.math, the persecution complexes are not valid but
> are, for the holder, simply the less unpleasant explanation
> than the correct one for their not receiving accolades
> from the academic community. The Dudley book had
> many examples of this. The whole phenomenon is well
> explained by Gardner's point 3.
do you see how you justify bullying here?
you have to see that
here you've provided a convenient myth
a story where you can think back upon
mishaps say of AP or JSH or one of the archetypes
but which
through the wide and common use of the label
can be used to mentally justify other attacks
that is because it does not stick to specifics
it does not give specific reasons for a specific case
but works only to make false generalisations possible
> > the problem is not a million crazy and ill-founded ideas
> > spilling out into usenet
>
> > it is the corruption of science
> > by this notion of "crank"
> > that only fuels belligerent behavior
> > and through its antiscience
> > ends up attacking
> > on numerous occasion
> > valid speculation
>
> I just haven't seen that happening. Instead I see semi-literates
> making broad claims attacking Einstein, Cantor, Godel, etc. etc.
> Which makes perfect sense in light of Gardner's point 4.
it's happened several times in just the past few days
where legitimate theories were mocked
just over the past year
i have seen at least 20 posters
across the various groups i read
come with legitimate questions and formulations
presented in formalised rigorous terms
laughed away with calls of crank from these groups
i pointed out even gardner was found doing this
on numerous occasions
doesn't that indicate anything to you?
i mean
as a fellow engineer
looking to make predictions about your world
doesn't that make a connection?
illustrate a point?
galathaea
so you actually call yourself a crank
or is this one of those definitions
you feel you can revise to meet your preconceived distinctions?
> Of course, the above means he HAS to try to knock (and offend and mock
> and scoff and....) great scientists from the past and present. Why?
> Because their findings most of the times are completely opposed to the
> "great" achievments the crank has made.
>
> Have you read AT ALL a tiny, little part of the comically stupid and
> utterly baseless claims of Pluto? So far he has cracked (or cranked?)
> the secret of the universe, he's proved Poincare's Conjecture-now-
> Theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, he's proved Cantor and all of set
> theory wrong...
> He's already way beyond mistakes: he's built his own little, cosy
> world...and he deeply hates ANYONE not willing to join him there.
>
> And you still say that someone as the above almost fictional character
> is trying to produce "new ideas" in science??!! And, of course, his
> nonsense have been debunked more than once, twice, thrice, etc. by
> many participants in this NG.
no
your dichotomisation is a familiar trait of fundamentalists
but i have never called for anyone to stop pointing out errors
in fact
your us-or-them attitude
is exactly the antilogical positioning i am talking about
your dichotomy is false
as even a passing familiarity with logic would show
> So what would it take, according to you, for someone to deserve the
> title of "crank"? Shall he appear with his baseless, evidenceless
> (sciencewise) and moronic ideas in a video dressed up like Bozo the
> clown and drooling? Then he'll completely deserve to be called a
> crank, according to you?
>
> You Galathea are, in some respect, worse than Pluto, Lester Dick,
> James Harris and other clowns around. You, an apparently serious
> chatter, not only find it appropiate to deffend (at least some of)
> these clownish characters AND THEIR hateful and many times repulsive
> behavior in a supposedly mathematical NG, but you TOO get angry and
> scold people that respond, many times laughing at and mocking as well,
> those crankls that participate in this NG waving their own superioriy
> (so they think) and everybody else's vileness and unworthiness.
i have never defended the errors
or the antisemitism
or any of what you want to lump with me
that is _your_ mental problem
you regularly illustrate my points much more clearly than i
and here is just another example
i regularly attack the baseless hatreds coming from poster
often from those you consider cranks
and often from you
toni(c)o
> You self-righteous and patronizing one. At least some of us are trying
> to get the only thing these pitiful and hating people can offer in
> thin NG: laughs.
> How dare you preach us?
hating?
remember that time
you invented this belief that someone you were convinced was a crank
had already been disproven
when no such event had occurred
did you apologise after this was pointed out?
no
of course not
you are exactly the type
utterly lacking in any mathematical skill
desirous of becoming better than others
who regularly stalks these groups looking for someone to beat up on
remember?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/7d701393e023a365
?
you are the one who is pathetic
toni(c)o
a_plutonium
Thanks for the information. I did not get to any of those pages, but
if they are "all permutations of natural numbers"
Helmut Wabnig
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>"Dave L. Renfro" <renf...@cmich.edu> wrote in message
>news:1192466136.0...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>: Androcles wrote (in part):
>:
>: > The grounds are the technical criteria by which theories
>: > are evaluated, and after 100 years nothing technical has
>: > ever come out of special relativity.
>:
>: How do you explain the success of the thousands of calculations,
>: made each day in particle accelerator experiments, that make use
>: of relativistic corrections?
>
>a = b (given)
>a^2 = ab (multiply both sides by a)
>a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2 (subtract b^2 from each side)
>(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (factorise each side)
>(a+b) = b (cancel a-b on each side)
>b+b = b (a = b, given)
>2b = b
>2 = 1
>Successful calculation, wrong answer.
>How do you explain that?
Andro, the "division&multiplication by zero" expert :-)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
According to Androcles the limes formula on that page
results in the famous "Einstein division by zero error".
(Andro does not know how to calculate a limes function).
>
>After 100 years nothing technical has ever come out of special relativity.
quite on the contrary, GPS for example:
An Empirical Question for the antirelativistic Trolls:
What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency?
[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
The beloved and respected U.S.A. GOVERNEMENT says the following
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf
page 18
>2.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
>The L-band SPS ranging signal is contained within a 2.046 MHz band centered about L1. The
>carrier frequency for the L1 signal is coherently derived from a frequency source within the
>satellite. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is
>1.023 MHz. To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency
>standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a
>Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz. This frequency offset results in an output of
>10.22999999543 MHz, which is frequency divided to obtain the appropriate carrier modulation
>signal (1.022999999543 MHz). The same output frequency source is also used to generate the
>nominal L1 carrier frequency (fo) of 1575.42 MHz.
Must be wrong, says Androcles.
Androcles says,
the (beloved and respected) U.S.A. GOVERNEMENT is telling lies.
Would anybody agree with Andro?
w.
a_plutonium
Thanks for the information. I did not get to any of those pages, but
if they are "all permutations of natural numbers" then they are not
really the concept of "All Possible Digit Arrangements"
Sorry if this post repeats as I inadvertantly hit some keys that sent
the post
before finished.
The Concept of All Possible Digit Arrangements is likely to be one of
the biggest
and most important concept in all of mathematics for it unifies all
the Numbers
of mathematics. It tells us the correct cordinate system for the
Elliptic, Hyperbolic
and Euclid geometries. It tells us the ultimate meaning of Reals. It
dispenses with
the ancient definition of how to derive the Reals via thousands of
messy definitions
such as rational, irrational, then Dedekind Cut. These derivations
lead to the imposition
of what the Human mind thinks the Reals are, when the proper
mathematics is for
proof and study reveals the true features and characteristics of the
Real Number.
One quick example is that the old derivation of Real would not
consider that this
number is a Real Number:
0.999999999.......99999999990
or this number
0.999999.........9999999995
or this number 0.99999.......999999999
and of course this number is 1.0000........
Now the reason I bring that up is that the old math of a mountain of
definitions to derive the
Reals unnecessarily saddles and straps the Reals with our foggy human
mind that a number
such as 0.9999999.....99999990 is not a Real number, when of course it
is a Real Number
and it is neither rational nor is it irrational.
So when mathematics of old days sets out to derive and tell people
what the Real Numbers are
via a evolution from Peano Axioms to Rationals to Irrationals to
Dedekind Cut is a convoluted
and stupid derivation for it contains thousands of definitions and
hidden assumptions that were
never warranted and which end up leaving an infinity of numbers that
are Reals but not included
as Reals.
A analogy would be if hunters in the time the Columbus voyage landed
in the Americas and
had a card board image of what animals existed in the New World that
were those existing
in Europe and their homelands and so that the New World animals could
only be those
that are familiar to them in Europe and that the New World could not
have animals different from
what they had seen in Europe. Same thing has happened to mathematics
when you build Reals
from Peano Axioms then Rational then Irrational then Dedekind Cut.
Such a end result is not
the true Reals but a concoction of what the human wants the Reals to
end up being
The Real Number of 0.999999.....99999990 is neither a rational nor an
irrational number
and that is the tremendous flaw when you create the Reals from
thousands of leaky definitions
you end up with a garbled mess up set in the end which would have the
Columbus explorers
looking for lions and tigers and giraffes in the New World when
instead they would see Llamas
and other animals never seen in Europe or Africa.
So by defining Reals and P-adics as All Possible Digit Arrangements,
we free up mathematics.
We free up math so that it is not a concocted mess that some human
mind prefers the Reals
to be. Instead we have the Reals all there in front of our eyes and
for our minds to then make
proofs and observations of these Reals as to what their features and
characteristics truly are.
In the old pitiful derivation, some young student or graduate student
would say to his/her
professor
"well the number 1.555555....55555559 is larger than
1.55555.....55555554"
and that student would be scolded by the professor saying it is not a
Real Number.
An example of where the student is smarter than the professor, because
the student has
landed on a truth but the professor is still hiding behind his smoke
and mirrors of a lousy
derivation of Reals.
I made a Google Search for "plutonium all possible digit arrangements"
and had about 60
hits. And the below 19 December 1993 is the oldest according to
Google. Thing is that
I had this concept around 1991 but whether I had the concept published
in a newspaper
when I was actively publishing is not clear to me at this time. I
first posted to the Internet
in August of 1993 and I know I had the concept in my mind since I had
the concept of Infinite
Integer. I would first learn of P-adic Number in August-December 1993
for I never knew of
p-adics until then. The concept of All Possible Digit Arrangements
played a key role in my
understanding of Infinite Integers then P-adics and then finally here
in October 2007 I would
finally assemble that concept of All Possible Digit Arrangements to be
the overhaul of all
of the numbers in mathematics.
As I mentioned above, this is a historic event in all of mathematics
for the first time do we
see Reals and all the other numbers in mathematics. And we have a huge
amount of cleaning
up to do. I mentioned one area to clean up which I may get to, or may
not. It is the Calculus
which is also ridden full of mess and quagmire because of the old
definitions of numbers. In
Calculus you have a huge list of Integrals defined such as Lebesgue,
Eulerian, Borel, Riemannian
etc etc. Why is Calculus so full of definitions for such strange
integrals? Well, it was working
under the lousy messy old Reals. If I have enough time in my older
age, I will clean up that
fog of Calculus.
*** begin old post of 1993 where I mention "All Possible Digit
Arrangements" ***
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: Ludwig.Pluton...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Date: 19 Dec 1993 12:56:40 GMT
Local: Sun, Dec 19 1993 7:56 am
Subject: Re: Fermat/Wiles: Working Alone
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <CI9nGJ....@spdcc.com>
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
k...@spdcc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
> Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Pluton...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >I have misgivings of GC because one of those proofs is infinite descent
> >which is out the window in P-adics just as the infinite descent proofs
> >of FLT are fakery.
> Infinite descent is just Peano Induction, written in reverse order. The
> reason that infinite descent doesn't work is precisely because Peano
> Induction doesn't extend into the p-adics. (Intuitively, the problem
> here is that infinite descent only works if you *start* the descent from
> a *finite* number.)
> The Peano axioms themselves give you the set N, which contains only
> finite integers. You can get the p-adic numbers by adding additional
> axioms to the system, but then you have to accept that a proof by
> induction (or by infinite descent) applies only to the subset N, and so
> the proof doesn't automatically extend to the p-adics. This is why
> Euler's infinite-descent proof of FLT-3 is valid for N but not for the
> p-adic numbers.
> >You, Terry, want to ignore that the P-adics have multi-representations.
> >...9999. is also -1. So then in your arguments you flip flop back and
> >forth between representations just to further your sentiments.
> Actually, you only get multiple representations because you're using the
> minus sign. If you use *only* a string of digits and a radix point
> (with an infinite string to the left and finite on the right), then each
> p-adic number has exactly one representation. (In a sense it's
> "cleaner" than what happens in the Reals, where a small subset has
> double representation.)
Let us take the Peano Axioms (PA) as follows. I believe these five
postulates are as primitive as I can get them. If you know otherwise,
Karl, please relay. 1) 1 is a number. 2) Every positive integer n has
precisely one successor n'. 3) 1 is not the successor of any number.
4) Unique positive integers have unique successors. 5) If a set of
positive integers contains the number 1 and contains, if n then n',
then it is the set of all positive integers.
Karl, are these four postulates equivalent to PA? 1) There exists
two
numbers 2, and 1. 2) 2=1+1. 3) From 2), having been given equality and
addition, new numbers are manufactured by adding 1. 4) If a set of
numbers contains 2=1+1, and all the numbers manufactured by adding 1,
then it is the set of all Whole numbers.
Question. The statement (or similar statements): Given 1 and the
operation of adding 1 endlessly, gives all the Counting numbers. Is it
a theorem of PA? Or is this statement the logical equivalent of PA, if
so, which is the more primitive?
Question. Would you consider those P-adics with all possible
infinite
leftwards digit strings from the radix point; rightwards all 0's,
e.g.,
...xyz.0000... Whole numbers?
> The Peano Axioms themselves give you the set N, which contains only
> finite integers.
Please, I need a proof of this for it is not obvious to me that by
endlessly adding 1 to 1 will stay within the confines of the foggy
notion of "finite integer". Whatever the definition of a finite
integer
is. I ask for a proof of this because it is intuitive to me that the
endless adding of 1 has no largest Whole number. But the P-adics has a
largest Whole number, defining them as---all possible digit
arrangements, hence ...999. is the last P-adic (since it is the last
call it the largest). Thus ...999. is the largest Whole number. It
seems intuitively obvious to me that the Peano Axioms cannot keep the
Whole numbers confined in a pen, but somehow there is a gaping hole in
the pen and the Peano Axioms spill-out and yield all Whole numbers,
P-adics ...xyz.0000... included.
Sorry Karl, but can you please prove this statement, for it is not
at
all obvious to me as concerns your word "only."
> The Peano Axioms
themselves give you the set N, which contains only
> finite integers.
*** end of old 1993 post where I mentioned "All Possible Digit
Arrangements" ***
Archimedes Plutonium
newsboard, and this is an important historic post so I try again.
Tonico
> On Oct 16, 3:32 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 1:23 am, galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 15, 3:28 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
.......................
> > ******************************************************************
>
> > As usual, nonsense and trying to obscure things.
> > NOBODY said anything about making mistakes, about trying new ideas,
> > about debating them...That does NOT make a crank. That's the stuff
> > science is made of!
> > Doron Zeilberg IS a mathematician that kicks hard on set theory,
> > infinity and stuff. I though can't say he's a crank (I really don't
> > know his stand that well), and I think some of his views are worth
> > checking.
>
> > A crank is not someone that makes a mistake or offers new ideas, but
> > someone that, among other things (e.g., see Gardner's definition)
> > patronizes, ridiculizes, mocks, loathes, hates, etc. ALMOST any other
> > human being on Earth that does not agree with him, specially scholars
> > in the subject he's trying to deal with (pretty poorly, in general),
> > and in particular he sends all his hatred and grudge against those
> > that dare to ask for evidence, proofs, base, soundness in his (the
> > crank's) claims.
>
> so you actually call yourself a crank
> or is this one of those definitions
> you feel you can revise to meet your preconceived distinctions?
*****************************************************************
I don't call myself a crank, but I'll welcome being called that by
you.
********************************************************************
> > Of course, the above means he HAS to try to knock (and offend and mock
> > and scoff and....) great scientists from the past and present. Why?
> > Because their findings most of the times are completely opposed to the
> > "great" achievments the crank has made.
>
> > Have you read AT ALL a tiny, little part of the comically stupid and
> > utterly baseless claims of Pluto? So far he has cracked (or cranked?)
> > the secret of the universe, he's proved Poincare's Conjecture-now-
> > Theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, he's proved Cantor and all of set
> > theory wrong...
> > He's already way beyond mistakes: he's built his own little, cosy
> > world...and he deeply hates ANYONE not willing to join him there.
>
> > And you still say that someone as the above almost fictional character
> > is trying to produce "new ideas" in science??!! And, of course, his
> > nonsense have been debunked more than once, twice, thrice, etc. by
> > many participants in this NG.
>
> no
>
> your dichotomisation is a familiar trait of fundamentalists
> but i have never called for anyone to stop pointing out errors
>
> in fact
> your us-or-them attitude
> is exactly the antilogical positioning i am talking about
>
> your dichotomy is false
> as even a passing familiarity with logic would show
***********************************************************************
The "us-them" attitude comes from the cranks, trolls and know-all's,
not from the regular nice guys who try to learn from others and/or
help others in maths.
There's nothing logical nor antilogical in that us-and-them position:
it's just a position of value. I do value ideas, free thinking and, if
possible, some humbleness SO precious in this maths/and/science realm,
though it is not necessary imho.
I DO not value unfounded, evidenceless, nonsensical ideas, many of
which stem from a deep misunderstanding of definitions, ideas and
development of people in the past and in the present.
You may like my stand and you may not, but you have not the slightest
right, not even a moral one, to name yourself this NG's police and
command US all to respect people that continuously spew their hatred,
contempt and haughtyness upon us.
You take that, enjoy it and be my guest. Don't be so haughty and
moronic as to DEMAND from me, and others, to bear with that as well.
*********************************************************************
> > So what would it take, according to you, for someone to deserve the
> > title of "crank"? Shall he appear with his baseless, evidenceless
> > (sciencewise) and moronic ideas in a video dressed up like Bozo the
> > clown and drooling? Then he'll completely deserve to be called a
> > crank, according to you?
>
> > You Galathea are, in some respect, worse than Pluto, Lester Dick,
> > James Harris and other clowns around. You, an apparently serious
> > chatter, not only find it appropiate to deffend (at least some of)
> > these clownish characters AND THEIR hateful and many times repulsive
> > behavior in a supposedly mathematical NG, but you TOO get angry and
> > scold people that respond, many times laughing at and mocking as well,
> > those crankls that participate in this NG waving their own superioriy
> > (so they think) and everybody else's vileness and unworthiness.
>
> i have never defended the errors
> or the antisemitism
> or any of what you want to lump with me
>
> that is _your_ mental problem
*********************************************************************]
Who the hell has EVER tried to lump you with anything at all, you
delluded, weird....weird one? Where did I mention, with regards to you
Galathea, ANYTHING about antisemitism or whatever?
Yes, I claim you DEFEND not only hateful cranks but, indirectly
perhaps, also his errors: you want me to accept them among us and keep
quiet, or even worse to participate, in their lunatic thread under the
disguise of "new ideas" and stuff? Are you out of you mind?
**********************************************************************
> you regularly illustrate my points much more clearly than i
> and here is just another example
>
> i regularly attack the baseless hatreds coming from poster
> often from those you consider cranks
> and often from you
> toni(c)o
>
> > You self-righteous and patronizing one. At least some of us are trying
> > to get the only thing these pitiful and hating people can offer in
> > thin NG: laughs.
> > How dare you preach us?
>
> hating?
>
> remember that time
> you invented this belief that someone you were convinced was a crank
> had already been disproven
> when no such event had occurred
***************************************************************
Wow! As long as you don't mix ideas... First, I didn't invent. I tend
to be careful in that and I don't usually claim positively about stuff
I am not sure about, and most probably I said "perhaps, it seems to me
that..." or something of the like.
Anyway, that "someone" (Fernando Revilla) is not, was not and most
probably won't be considered by me as a crank. Perhaps he's just
deeply wrong, perhaps he is not: I can't say, and I've written that. I
have no the time nor the patiente and perhaps not even the skills to
go into his rather cumbersome , FOR ME, paper about the Go;dbach
Conjecture.
Why then do you put adjectives about people in my mouth? This is the
second time, you miserable little person, that you accuse me of the
same thing, and this is the second time I answer your rather dodging
and pitifyul accusations.
**********************************************************************
> did you apologise after this was pointed out?
>
> no
> of course not
> you are exactly the type
> utterly lacking in any mathematical skill
> desirous of becoming better than others
> who regularly stalks these groups looking for someone to beat up on
>
> remember?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/7d701393e023a365
>
> ?
>
> you are the one who is pathetic
> toni(c)o
*****************************************************************
I'll take that last line as a compliment, seeing from whom it
comes...:)
And thanx a lot about the link: indeed a rather rare, unusual
compliment to me! In that link, there's another link to a thread where
I wrote (EXACT quote from it):
"Well, I don't have a list of those, or any other, remarks by anyone
and/or anywhere, but I seem to remember that R. Chapman or A. Magidin
(I can't be 100% sure) did point out some mistake(s) the first time
you came up with the announcement of your GC's proof some few months
ago.
Am I wrong? Perhaps you already fixed those flaws, or perhaps you are
convinced those were NOT actual ones.
Anyway, the gist of my message is still valid, imo: whether there
were
(are) flaws in your paper or not, it'll be generally accepted by the
mathematical community only if it appears in some peer-reviewed
journal"
Did you liar (by your own definition) get the "I seem to remember"
part, and more important: the last part, which has been the gist of my
disagreement with Fernando for some years now?
Keep on trying to blow sand on others' eyes: it begins to be
ridiculously funny from you.
Regards
Tonio
tommy1729
>
> Things AP does not understand about Cantor's method:
>
> (1) What it shows is that you cannot have a list of N
> numbers with N
> digits that lists all the N-digit numbers. Hence, it
> doesn't apply if
> you have a list of 10 numbers with 1 digit in them,
> as 10 and 1 are
> different. It does not apply if you have a list of
> 100 numbers with 2
> digits in them. AP's list of 9,8,7,...,1 is a non
> sequitur, a red
> herring.
>
> (2) AP claims that the number D obtained from
> Cantor's diagonalization
> is in the list. In his sloppy mannor of "proving"
> things, he does not
> say which specific item on the list D is. The truth
> is: He can't. On
> his initial list of P-adics, the Nth digit of the Nth
> P-adic differs
> from the Nth digit of D, for all N. Hence D cannot be
> _any_ P-adic on
> the list. He is only confusing himself.
>
> (3) AP's "axiom" that "there is only one type of
> infinity" (which is
> at odds with Cantor's proof; hence the antagonism) is
> based on a
> flawed fact: The reciprocal of infinity is not zero;
> it is an
> infinitesimal. If you're going to treat infinity as a
> number, then
> zero times infinity is still zero.
>
> --- Christopher Heckman
>
note that TST has 2 kinds of infinity...
yet does not support cantor either !!
tommy1729
> to read:
> "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for Univesity
> y professors of
> math and onwards"
>
> I say that sarcastically because I know if I walk
> into any High School
> in the USA or England or
> Europe and say to them
>
> Do you know it it means to be All Possible Digit
> Arrangements?
>
> There will be alot of hands raised by High School
> Students who know
> what the concept of
> All Possible Digit Arrangements means.
>
> Alot of them will know what *ALL* means.
>
> So the second question would be, then, now Cantor has
> a diagonal where
> he changes one digit
> in every number of his INFINITE list of numbers.
>
> Can that new Cantor number be not on the list?
>
> There will be many and many High School students who
> instantly
> recognize that no matter what
> Cantor does, whether he does a double somersault
> diagonal or even a
> Olympic triple somersault
> that there is no escaping from the word ALL and no
> escaping of ALL
> POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS.
>
> That no matter what Cantor does, he can never find a
> number not on the
> list of All Possible
> Digit Arrangements.
did cantor really tried that with the reals, or is it your misconception of his ideas ?
if he really tried that digit shift to show a "new real" then you are correct and cantor is wrong ...
however , if he did that to show the difference between aleph_0 and aleph_1 , to show R is not countable infinity , than i fear cantor is correct on that matter...
and therefore you are wrong ...
i will leave it to the others to answer that question...
it is known that i am an anticantorian , yet i do believe in both countable and uncountable infinity ...
as for your students ; if they dont know the difference between countable and uncountable infinity , and taking into account they are still in a learning process (!) , then that argument is weak ...
if this is not about aleph_0 and aleph_1 then i apologize and you are correct afterall if cantor really tried to pull that one.
but i guess it your post is all about aleph_0 VS aleph_1
and probably people will confirm that ...
>
> So it is little wonder to me that some bozo in
> Arizona State
> University who could never admit to
> his mistake about his flawed Euclid Infinitude of
> Primes proof and who
> is interested in hatemongering
> then in ever learning anything, that when a person
> has no respect for
> the other person whom they
> engage in a conversation, that it is little wonder
> they keep acting
> like a bozo that they are.
>
> Even a bright 6 year old is smarter than this Arizona
> State University
> professor who cannot grasp what
> All Possible Digit Arrangements means, and that no
> Cantor method can
> scrounge up a number that
> is not in that list. Regardless of whether the list
> is finite or
> infinite. When you say ALL, means there
> is no room for some unlisted number.
>
> I do not know how many posts the above Arizona State
> chap has made
> saying that "I do not
> understand Cantor", but it is obvious that he is so
> ridden with hatred
> and unwilling to ever admit
> his mistakes, that I seldom read his posts and only
> reply when it
> serves me to further my ideas.
>
> It is sad in the USA education system, that educators
> are hesitant to
> sit and counsel a college
> professor who is lost in hatred.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>
i hope you understand the difference between aleph_0 and aleph_1 , else you might be the 6 year old :p
if you really want to attack cantor set theory look at the aleph_2 bogus ...
btw being into physics does not impress me ...
you are right about the attitude of certain prof though ...
regards
tommy1729
tommy1729
> a number not on the
> > list of All Possible
> > Digit Arrangements.
> >
>
> Arrangements". That is what
> Cantor showed. If you think you have such a list,
> post it here, and I am
> sure that lots of people will help you find an
> arrangement that isn't on the
> list.
>
>
like sqrt(pi) + 3^(1/5)
galathaea
the "i seem to remember" part
only came when you were confronted on your claims
it was all a part of your avoidance mechanisms
which you are again showing the world
hate?
do you see how even in this response
you continue to evade actually answering the points made
alternately trying to justify your actions (still no apology)
and then getting so angry that someone is pointing them out
that you again spit out a tirade against cranks and illogic
i state that it is perfectly scientific to point out their errors
and you come back claiming i want you to accept their errors
those are the mental blocks of crankbusting
where the crankbuster eventually becomes...