Re: Galileo's Paradox


Tony Orlow ha escrito:

You can call me a troll if that makes you feel better. You seem to need
to bolster your ego by piling it on top of others. Hopefully you'll work
that out eventually. I won't concern myself with your spiritual
development too deeply, but I do have some questions.

*****************************************************
Lemme see: troll....yup, it makes me feel better....ah.
*****************************************************

What is your definition of "troll"? From what I understand, in this
context, it's someone who just wants to make inflammatory comments which
foment argument, someone who evaluates their performance based on the
number of responses they get. That's not necessarily an unworthy
endeavor, if the area you address is too complacent and needs stirring,
but what makes you think that's what I or Eckard are doing? Can you
really be so ignorant as to think there aren't major problems with set
theory in the transfinite arena, at least intuitively? Surely you must
see that defending the conclusions of the theory regresses into
defending pure deduction, as having complete priority over the inductive
process of establishing the axiomatic rules in the first place? The
question we both address and agree on is whether set theories axioms are
appropriate or applicable to anything real, when it comes to infinite
sets. Eckard is an anti-Cantorian, choosing like WM and others to reject
the very notion of an "infinite set" as inconsistent, since "infinite"
implies a process, and "set" implies something static, "set in stone".

***************************************************************
Amazing ammount of nonsenses in such a short paragraph: you, and Eckie,
are trolls because you both get into "debating" (let's calls it
that...) something you both know bananas about. In the case of Eckie it
gets even better because that idiot gets some rather weird pleasure
from belitling and calling names to whoever accepts what he, and
others, are just uncapable of understanding.
He, and you and others, have already been said time after time that
mathematics, and mathematicians, don't give half a damn whether you're
mad and angry at something because you BELIEVE that something doesn't
fit what you have decided is reality. As a matter of fact, even if
there existed a widely accepted definition of what "reality" is, and
EVEN if some parts of math doesn't fit in there, that's not reason to
believe that mathematicians MUST change their rules of games within
mathematics, and this is one of the toughest parts for some of you to
understand: who ever told you, you weird, weird creatures, that
mathematics MUST fit into reality, whatever that is?!?
The increidibly dense stupidity of those not willing to see the above
is what moves me, and perhaps others, to call you, Eckie, Mueck and
others trolls...and cranks.
There are some VERY simple definitions in set theory (either naive or
ZF, AC or not), and some of them are REALLY as simple as one can
expect: a set is called "infinite" if there exists a bijection (which
already has been completely and fully WELL defined) between that set
and at least one of its proper subsets. Period. That is all there is to
it.
You don't wanna accept this definition? Good, propose
yours..."potencial infinity", "actual infinity", shminfinity: give us
DEFINITIONS, axioms to work with...and let's hope that upon checking
and re-checking, those axioms and definitions aren't shown to be
inconsistent, which has NOT been proved for ZF, AC or not AC....and
that they are sufficiently interesting to deal with, of course.
I still wonder what is what pisses off so much some trolls about this:
Eckie's anger against Dedekind in special is laughable, and one of the
most interesting sides of a crank I've seen in the last years...
After some time interchanging posts, some of these trolls/crankis begin
to REALLY believe that they have proved inconsistencies,
contradictions, etc. Just read some of Eckie's posts to see what a diet
low in potassium can do to human brain.
So the above, and very specially the despise and offensive tone many
idiotic trolls/cranks use to refer to PROFESSIONAL mathematicians just
because they don't abide by their whims is what makes me call you
people what you are: trolls/cranks.
And one last question from me to you: what do you think of my remark,
some 5-6 days ago, that as far as I know, NONE of the megacranks is a
mathematician? Don't you wonder about this? I don't doubt there are
mathematicians that don't like this ir that part in math, but I bet
they won't troll about it as you people do, and that's a huge
difference.
Tonio



That's not unreasonable, though too conservative for me, and so I look
for other ways to formulate "infinite" and "set", so that they can be
integrated with "measure". You may find it amusing that those that think
for themselves don't agree on everything like those that take their
answers from the same history books, and think it proves you are right
because you agree more. It's easy to agree, when you don't think for
yourself.

What was your last discovery?

TonyCo

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... In the case of Eckie it ... mathematics, and mathematicians, don't give half a damn whether you're ... EVEN if some parts of math doesn't fit in there, ... idiotic trolls/cranks use to refer to PROFESSIONAL mathematicians just ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... Jesse F. Hughes ... "Mathematicians don't fit in with a consistent view, ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH: Communication breakdown
    ... reality that a simple counterexample would exist against my work--if it ... The purpose of this brief return to Usenet was to highlight the reality ... and mathematicians in general are ignoring the truth here. ... out the truth, and maybe it won't matter, but at least it's something I ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Communication breakdown
    ... > reality that a simple counterexample would exist against my work--if it ... > and mathematicians in general are ignoring the truth here. ... > out the truth, and maybe it won't matter, but at least it's something I ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Questioning certainty
    ... by those who want the truth. ... simple reality that to this day no other multi-variable prime counting ... What reason do you have to think that mathematicians evade mathematical ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast