Re: About pii and integers

From: Keckman (keckman_at_welho.com)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 06:02:39 +0300

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:26:34 -0400, Will Twentyman
<wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote:

> But there is *not* a biggest. If you try to add that, you will get an
> inconsistent system.

What is inconsistent here: Set S is a set of numbers that all are smaller
than Big and bigger than "Small"
in which Big and Small belong to S. I see it very simple reasonal set of
numbers. so simpple that even
monkeys must have some intuive bicture of it allthough not all hunas.

Whereas this:"A set of S is a set of numbers which every item has it's
successor (which lead that every item
has it's precessor - except zero)" i have tried so many times here and to
explain why it is inconsistent
that right no im not intersested anymore.

> If you just want to change it, then you will have a new system that does
> not have the Natural numbers as a model.
>

There is enough them for all of us those natural numbers. You can choose
Big to be so big that when you
write it in 10-base you get so long number that every 1mm x 1mm x 1mm in
our universum has two digits
of them for example. there is no limit how big Big can be. But for any
reasonable definiton of Peano's set
S, it must have it's biggest number.

I don't say forexample that induction proove is not valid. It is as valid
as before,
something of course can be proved to all naturals, but in any actual case
we use, deal or do
something whith that set natural, we can not use it as infinite set.
Allways there is the biggest
number in set S. How big? The choose is your. It can be so big that when
writing the numbers to "paper"
in base 10 we have to write so many digits that the number i defined above
have to be multipied
by the number that is so big that in _every atom_ of the universum has to
be six of them (which is a really
really small number compared the number where _every cube_ 1cm^3 of the
universum has 4 of them).

Enough?

In any actual case we use set S we just have to deal it as set that has
biggest number. 

-- 
Petri Keckman

Relevant Pages

  • Re: About pii and integers
    ... >> an inconsistent system. ... > What is inconsistent here: Set S is a set of numbers that all are ... it must have it's biggest number. ... > something of course can be proved to all naturals, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Internet, Goldbach conjecture, cranks and anticranks.
    ... inconsistent" in the language of arithmetic is to assign to formulas natural numbers as their codes, and show that the basic syntactic properties can be expressed as arithmetical predicates of the codes of the objects these properties apply to. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Skolem paradoxical state of affairs
    ... F would have not have a bijection with a natural number(that can be ... so the theory is clearly inconsistent. ... Now in every theory Tn we don't have a proof that F is infinite, ... we are merely stipulating that an finite number of naturals is in it, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Would it matter if ZF was inconsistent?
    ... so-called "cranks" are inconsistent, ... I hate thinking of it as "revenge," but I suppose that Hughes ... then sensible mathematicians ... upper bound on the naturals, yet there do exist naturals N such ...
    (sci.logic)
Quantcast