Re: Why we cannot compute omega
From: |-|erc (H_at_r.c)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Roman B. Binder: "Re: HOW ARCHIMEDES PROVED FERMAT LAST THEOREM!!!"
- Previous message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: Tetrahedron Superquickie"
- In reply to: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Next in thread: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Reply: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:41:15 +1000
"Charlie-Boo" <chvol@aol.com> wrote in >
> |-|erc wrote:
> > Define a blackboard that holds all significant facts.
> >
> > On the blackboard will be several numbers, most likely adding to a
> large sum.
> >
> > A significant fact is the total of the numbers on the blackboard.
> >
> > This number is 'well defined' to coin a sci.math phrase, but its
> impossible to put it
> > on the blackboard!
> >
> > Is there always some numbers missing from the blackboard? Some
> integer that the board
> > cannot represent? Could the board hold all numbers? Maybe it could,
> we have NOT
> > proven that the board is incapable of storing a complete set of
> numbers just because
> > 'the sum of those numbers' is 'well defined' but missing from the
> board.
>
> For each fact the negation of its negation is a fact, so for every
> number would be its negation so the sum would be zero and you could
> easily add a zero, which is the sum, and it's still the sum because you
> just added zero.
>
> C-B
>
> PS Naive Set Theory is just fine. Since an expression certainly does
> represent a set (intuitively and formally), then there is no expression
> "the sets that do not contain themselves" because that would be the
> same as "the expressions that are not true of themselves", and no such
> expression exists (by diagonalization.)
>
> ZF et. al. just threw the baby out with the bath water.
>
> For all the latest in self-reference, paradoxes and incompleteness in
> Logic and Computer Science, check out:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/selfref
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/selfref/subscribe
>
It doesn't matter, the negative population of the world is NOT significant,
and the problem works for ANY blackboard of numbers that happens
to add to sum amount.
***********************************
* 133
*
* 888 25
*
* Sum of numbers on this board : ____
*
**********************************
FILL IN THE ANSWER ALL YOU *** FOR BRAINS WHO CAN'T FOLLOW LOGIC
Herc
- Next message: Roman B. Binder: "Re: HOW ARCHIMEDES PROVED FERMAT LAST THEOREM!!!"
- Previous message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: Tetrahedron Superquickie"
- In reply to: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Next in thread: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Reply: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]