Re: Another Inconvenient Truth

On Aug 20, 9:46 am, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
William Hughes wrote:
On Aug 20, 4:08 am, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

William Hughes wrote:

On Aug 18, 4:13 pm, Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 18 aug, 03:48, William Hughes <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 17, 4:43 pm, Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Heh, heh. I didn't define my set theory to be about finite sets
per se. But, quite fortunately, it just turns out that infinite
sets are impossible with it.

So what? It is no great achievement to come up with a set
theory that does not contain infinite sets.

Your claim is that standard set theory gets the
wrong answers for "what is the probablity
that a number chosen at random from the set of all
numbers is even?" and "how many balls are in the vase
at noon?".

However, your set theory does not give different answers
to these questions, it just declares the questions
meaningless.

I have another theory that answers the first question, but
not the second one. And the first answer is 1/2. See below.

You are confident that you know what the correct
answers are, but you have no theory that leads
to these answers.

Not the "Bit mapped Set Theory" but the "Naturals Construction
Set" theory:

http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/13795822737a77ca

So bit map set theory cannot answer either question,

Natural constructions set theory can answer the first question

You do not have a theory that will answer the second question.

Indeed. I don't have a theory that will answer this nonsense question.

However, you are confident that you know the correct answer
to this "nonsense question".

Snipping enough relevance of a poster will give others the impression
that you are probably right. I'm no longer interested in this kind of
debating "art".

Han de Bruijn



When you can't think of a reply,
you change the subject. In this case by accusing me
of unfair debating tactics. Interestingly, though you
accuse me of snipping a relevant part, you do not indicate
what I snipped, nor why you think it was relevant.

The only part I snipped was

"The flaw in the "Balls in a Vase" question
is that "noon" doesn't exist."

While this might explain why you think this is a "nonsense question",
it
does not explain why think you know the correct answer.

- William Hughes




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... I previously commented directly on the paper full of mostly nonsense. ... diagonal method is the only basis to differentiate infinite sets by ... only finite sets, it's a bit surprizing. ... That person quoted sounds as stupid as you do. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... I previously commented directly on the paper full of mostly nonsense. ... diagonal method is the only basis to differentiate infinite sets by ... only finite sets, it's a bit surprizing. ... That person quoted sounds as stupid as you do. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> with the labels. ... >> No, to deal with infinite sets, labels may facilitate our ... If I didn't have a clue I wouldn't do it so well would I? ... > What nonsense. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox and the Project of the Reals
    ... It means cardinality isn't the whole picture. ... I think cardinality is nonsense. ... because it tells us nothing mathematically useful? ... infinite sets, and specifically, the existence of power sets of ...
    (sci.math)
Loading