Re: infinity

Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Actually, that is precisely what I am doing. I am examining the
> consequences of your axioms to identify the problems in them that
> lead to such bizarre conclusions, and am using that information and
> other mathematical ideas to formulate a system which has reasonable
> consequences. You seem to want a can of precooked axioms with which
> to perform your deductions, but this right now is the process of
> cooking and canning. It's what we call inductive logic, examining
> and honing basic assumptions to form a system that works. If you
> think I am stupid for doing so,

Au contraire. You are stupid for _not_ doing so, namely examining and
honing basic assumptions to form a system that works. Instead you are
doing a lot of completely harebrained, self-inconsistent and
incoherent claims that are not even close to forming a system, let
alone one that works.

And given your appalling inability to form a coherent thought or
recognize your brainfarts for what they are even when one rubs your
nose for weeks in their logical errors, you are also stupid imagining
that you could possibly have a better grasp on mathematical
consistency than centuries of people who have spent their life (and
have been recognized and paid for their work) on the matter.

> then I guess you think it's smart just to know how to open a can and
> spoon out your deductions.

I'll take competently canned and controlled victuals anyday over the
vomit of some drunken idiot who claims that he has seen birds
regurgitate for the sake of feeding their young, and considers himself
to be at least as capable as any bird at that profession.

> Your proper deductions depend on the proper induction of
> others.

Not at all. Same starting point, but taking one's own inductions.
You would probably not believe it since mathematical reasoning is
beyond your capabilities, and so you believe it to be a hoax that is
mindlessly repeated. But that's your own problem, not anybody else's.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... >>>system of axioms, the axioms are absolute. ... But, if you divide both sides by zero, you can get ... >> induction to prove an inequality which is decreasing with each iteration. ... > to establish its initial case, not the fact that the infinite sum ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... What ideas (like "infinite resursion" ) got you to the starting point is completely irrelevant, like it is completely irrelevant whether a marathon runner got to the starting line by car, plane, bus, bicycle or by foot. ... You pick the axioms for the _exact_ purpose of not having to consider anything else. ... A similar situation happens when you use induction to prove an inequality which is decreasing with each iteration. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> transitivity over an infinite chain of logical implications. ... >>> imagine that those are the only induction proofs you've ... > proof is finished once you have reduced it to the axioms. ... This is precisely the root problem with mathematics today. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... DAMN, you're stupid. ... Then there ARE AXIOMS, TOO, dumbass. ... > About the multiple representation of ordinals as sets, ... > powerset of a set X, P, with the script P to delineate it from the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... DAMN, you're stupid. ... Then there ARE AXIOMS, TOO, dumbass. ... > About the multiple representation of ordinals as sets, ... > powerset of a set X, P, with the script P to delineate it from the ...
    (sci.logic)