Re: Where's respect? was Re: Corrective interpretation of real numbers

From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf_at_tiki-lounge.com)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: 1 Feb 2005 13:24:09 -0800

>
> Turnabout is fair play.

Hi,

A constant function defined on the reals is continuous. A line is
continuous and it is everywhere real numbers and all real numbers.
It's a continuum, it's continuous.

Don't worry about it. Hey great, if I apply most of the aspersions I
ever cast upon Virgil or others to myself, then:

I'm a lying, obsessive brat who rode the coattails and reputation of
his father, whom I have dishonored. I'm an incompetent dolt, and
complete fucking idiot, frothing mad, foolish, a clod, a ***, quite
annoying, a victimist detractor, kind of mean, facile, unresponsive and
reticent about details about myself, probably depressed for making
myself look so bad on sci.math, almost excommunicated, irrelevant, an
imbecile and gin-addled meanderer, out of place, contrarian, a
degenerate, need a good ass-kicking, if Russell was here I think he
would kick my ass, basically stupid, actually illegal, failed, a liar,
and I think I'm the idiot dentist, wrong, and probably old, a dirty old
man, made out to be gay, and fucking crazy. I don't care. I write a
lot of stupid things, and apparently don't think I'm funny, although I
try, I'm unbelievable. Am I crazy? I think it's time for my nap. If
I go objectivist on myself, I don't care, I'm still myself. (2001)

I don't. That's sarcasm, yet there is truth in humor. I am a ***.
"If a group of mathematicians were cultist killers, you might be
concerned." I don't care. I don't feel bad for having eaten them.
"If you have a fresh new insult, try it on someone else." "Please to
be considering jokes about your ugly mother." I digress.

Respect thyself.

I like Virgil. I even like Ullrich.

Virgil:

"In this newsgroup, I publish details of the foolishness of Ross
Findlayson and his descent into obscurity.

It shall be my magnum opus, for which I shall receive the universal
plaudits of sci.math."

How's that going? I'm still searching for where Poe says he will
outline the structure of my arguments.

"Ross's axiom system has only two axioms.

(1) Ross is always right.
(2) Anything that contradicts axiom 1 is wrong."

Blumschein has some points. If there are non-computable reals then
Dedekind/Cauchy is inadequate to describe all of the real numbers.

Eckard, I want you to consider the axiom-free theory with dually
minimal and maximal ur-element. Infinite sets are equivalent.

Besides being a field, the real numbers are those points of the
continuum. Structure is overlaid upon them as points on the line.

Consider why Cantor's first demands the termination of the nested
interval sequences in a well-ordering, or "rediagonalization".
Turnabout is fair play.

I'm happy that many counterintuitive notions explored four and more
years ago about things infinite are still strongly held, by myself, and
I'm a platonist and think there's only one theory.
Regards,

Ross Finlayson

Quantcast