Re: logic of the Cantorian followers mind
From: HERC777 (herc777_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/24/04
- Next message: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Previous message: fishfry: "Re: logic of the Cantorian followers mind"
- In reply to: George Greene: "Re: logic of the Cantorian followers mind"
- Next in thread: Nathan: "Re: logic of the Cantorian followers mind"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Nov 2004 20:17:12 -0800
But cardinality is faith based all on its own.
Even if all knowledge is faith, its mutually supportive. Branches of
mathematics support one another, all I need is one contradiction to
countable infinity and it will dissapear in a puff of logic, no more
work to do, no trigonometry to rewrite, no calculus to recalculate, no
logic to invent.
by fact I mean what we now believe
SET OF FACTS <----> SET OF FACTS <---> SET OF FACTS
|
SET OF FACTS SET OF FACTS
set 1 and set 2 are dependant.
set 1 and set 3 are dependant.
...
set 5 is not dependant on any other. we can accept faith of the ENTIRE
conglomerate of mathematics, as long as it fits together, but an
isolated useless group is dangerous. what does it achieve except state
what CANNOT be done with computers and their countable processes.
maths is obsessed with the undoable, when it correlates with what
hasn't been done it gets given benefit of the doubt.
when was uncountable theory made? when was ZF made to support it?
what does that tell you?
if an infinite number people each toss an infinite numbers of coins,
can you really find a new sequence on the diagonal? all sequences of
unlimited, *infinite length* have been done, you are fooling yourself,
it might work in a Star Trek movie but it would be fudged even for
that. Mathematics is capitalism of the education system, it will try
to fool the public that it cannot be encapsulated by Information
Technology, but people won't believe the self-referencing-negation
self-stated set exceptions for ever, and countable systems will soon
get smarter.
Herc
- Next message: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Previous message: fishfry: "Re: logic of the Cantorian followers mind"
- In reply to: George Greene: "Re: logic of the Cantorian followers mind"
- Next in thread: Nathan: "Re: logic of the Cantorian followers mind"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|