Re: Diagonal wanderings (incongruent by construction)

On 23 Mai, 12:46, tjen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Suppose that any OP would try start a thread by saying that
euclidian
geometry proves that two crossing lines define a triangle. This would
be
met by a chorus of "please do not feed the troll" shouts from the
standard
posters.

Unless there is the assumption that all points of a line and with them
"that one next to all" are in the plane, this would be understandable.

With good reason obviously, since any reasonably informed 12
year old immediately recognizes the idiocy.

And only a very dense guy can compare this case to that under
discussion.

Lately, the contents of WM's posts (seem to me to) have become
increasingly excessively ludicrous.

Any inhabitant of a madhouse would judge similarly about quantum
theory. Should we stop using quantum theory for that sake?

Maybe because he is attempting to
shake off the interests of those people who are least willing to give
him
any undeserved concessions, like George, Ralf, Herb

These have decided to utter pure insults. Therefore I have stopped
talking to them. I know that they are panting for an answer of mine,
but I ignore or have killfiled their posts. I think it is best to
follow Cantor here:

Aus dem Umstande, daß ich den Herren oder sonst Jemandem, der gegen
mich schreibt, nicht antworte, ist nicht zu schliessen, daß ich das
Betreffende billige.
Falsche Theorien werden nicht dadurch wahr, daß man sie wiederholt
oder variirt; wahre werden durch Angriffe, die sie erfahren, nicht
falsch, auch wenn man die Angriffe unbeantwortet läßt. [G. Cantor]

If I would enter into a physics newsgroup stating that "the moon
is made
of green cheese and has a red radish on top", then how many opponents
would step into action with the explicit purpose of saving the next
generation
of astronomy students from this contamination of the mind? So why does
this happen in sci.logic?

Because the moon has been checked and has been found to be free of
green cheese etc. Therefore no scientist will utter such a nonsense.

In finished infinity things are different. If you would only have a
look out, then you could see that there are many, many simply normal
people who see you living in a madhouse. And there are many, not so
many though, established scientists and professors who think so too.

For my part, I think, and I am not the only one, that the important
thing is never to introduce entities not completely definable in a
finite number of words. Whatever be the cure adopted, we may promise
ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a beautiful
pathologic case." [Henri Poincaré]

„Il n'y a pas d'infini actuel; les Cantoriens l'ont oublié, et ils
sont tombés dans la contradiction." [Henri Poincaré]

Your "Paradise“ is a Paradise of Fools, and besides feels more like
Hell. ...I am leaving on my own volition. (Doron Zeilberger)

Every statement that starts „for every integer n" is completely
meaningless.
(Doron Zeilberger)

Erstens habe ich eine genauere Begründung des allgemeinen
mengentheoretischen Relativismus gegeben, der besonders die Konsequenz
hat, daß das Absolut-nicht-abzählbare auf axiomatischer Grundlage
keine Existenzberechtigung hat. [T. Skolem]

Er hat auch gesagt, daß er nicht aus dem Cantorschen Paradies
ausgetrieben werden will. Es ist sehr eigentümlich, diesen Ausspruch
mit dem früher erwähnten zu vergleichen, daß die Mengenlehre eine
Krankheit ist. [T. Skolem]

"... classical logic was abstracted from the mathematics of finite
sets and their subsets .... Forgetful of this limited origin, one
afterwards mistook that logic for something above and prior to all
mathematics, and finally applied it, without justification, to the
mathematics of infinite sets. ... As Brouwer pointed out this is a
fallacy, the Fall and Original sin of set theory even if no paradoxes
result from it." (Hermann Weyl)

Imagine set theory's having been invented by a satirist as a kind of
parody on mathematics. – Later a reasonable meaning was seen in it and
it was incorporated into mathematics. (For if one person can see it
as a paradise of mathematicians, why should not another see it as a
joke?) [Ludwig Wittgenstein]

Set theory is wrong. [Ludwig Wittgenstein]

It makes no sense to talk about a "series of all real
numbers" [Wittgenstein], whether or not the "regulars" like that.

Either you are really extremely dense not see the difference between
Euclidean geometry and geometry with finished infinity or you are a
barefaced liar. In both cases a sensible discussion with you seems
impossible.

Last regards, WM
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question about FOL theories and models
    ... Assuming we've formalized a theory G of "geometry", ... > mathematics you want to do is to be formalized. ... can we formalize the construction of a non-Euclidean ... if set theory seems to be ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?
    ... No. Euclid's points and lines are things in Mathematics, ... There is no set theory in Euclid's geometry. ... you the theorems of that theory. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
    ... think there is a single true number theory. ... The other difference is that we never said that all mathematics ... is based on geometry, can be expressed in terms of geometry, ... and this makes the independence results of set theory ...
    (sci.math)
  • not simple enough for a village idiot
    ... The village idiot on sci.logic seems to have a problem ... with the fact that logic and mathematics is sometimes ... theorem of geometry, going back to von Staudt ...
    (sci.logic)
  • This week in the mathematics arXiv (9 Aug - 13 Aug)
    ... Here are this week's titles in the mathematics arXiv, ... AC: Commutative Algebra ... AG: Algebraic Geometry ... David Speyer, Bernd Sturmfels: Tropical Mathematics ...
    (sci.math.research)
Quantcast