Re: Calculus XOR Probability

In article <MPG.1ed3c816de9c707c98acde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

imaginatorium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said:


What is ill defined about N=S^L or IFR? To me, almost everything in
transfinite set theory is ill defined, and I give reasons for that.
Can you?

We have time and again. We who reject TO's stupidities each understand
each other quite easily, but TO does not seem able to understand any of
us.

TO has no system in which any of his variations on standard mathematics
are valid, yet insists on them despite repeated logically and
mathematically impeccable proofs of their falsity in every extant system.

No-one disagrees that for an alphabet of (pofnat) S symbols, if N
is the number of strings of length L, then N = S^L. You persist in
abusing this little formula, for example for making claims relating
to *any length*, with L replaced by some arbitrary symbol.

Why is that abuse? L IS an arbitrary symbol. It's callled a variable.
It represents a quantity, specifically, a natural number. You just
don't like it when I plug infinite values into it.

Since in standard mathematics what one is allowed to "plug in" to a
variable is limited to its domain, we expect those limits to be honored.

If TO insists on putting square pegs in round holes, he must be prepared
to see objections.
.