Breadline schmuck's basic mistakes
- From: victor_meldrew_666@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
On 6 Sep, 23:58, Eckard Bluschein wrote:
Then that is a matter for physics, and a physics newsgroup
is more appropriate for such discussion.
Today he (OhNo) wrote in spf, thread Physics vs. mathematics:
"The course of the last 60 years at least has been one in which
mathematicians are kept out of physics and in which the
standards of mathematics applied to physics are inadequate
to deal with the fundamental problems facing physics."
Then physicists need to put their house in order:
a matter for physics.
restricted to Heisenberg's complex criterium but seems to be a more
"criterium"?
My name here is Salviati.
Your name is Eckard Blumschien.
Hilbert intended to also create an axiomatic physics and metaphysics.Then discuss Hilbert's ideas on physics in sci.physics (or worse).
There is little reason for that.
Save the sensible practice of discussion in appropriate forums.
Is = an inequality sign?
Are you irrelevant?
Examples of totally ordered sets
include N, Z, Q and R with the standard ordering.
In what differs R from Q if both are totally ordered?
Learn some elementary mathematics --- there are many
totally ordered sets. Your question presumes that all totally
ordered sets should be the same --- that is stupidity.
If one did consequently distinguish R from Q,
then every piece of it would consist of an uncountable
amount of fictitious elements.
Each interval in R is an uncountable set.
So far mathematics is still far from admitting this.
"fictitous" is not a mathematical term.
Well, that's why 1,000,000.00 Mark were paid in 1925
Was that about 2 shillings then?
Having experienced bad things,
Did you see something nasty in the woodshed?
Cantor's thinking and Hilbert's wording often correspond to the
hollow pathos of the German empire.
Is this Godwin's law?
In order to fully reveal all
nonsense you should even be familiar with the bible.
I'll eschew nonsense, thank you.
My main topic is IR+. However you ignored what I am claiming.
You have neither defined IR+ (that's not a standard notation)
nor have isolated any mistakes in mathematics.
The mistakes are more or less related to each other.
However, denial of the categorical difference between Q and R
seems to be a standard ritual in "modern" mathematics.
Schroedinger's kitty seems to indicate that it harms.
Again, you can't help it: that's physics not mathematics.
Let's face it, your uncontrollable will-to-power demands
you to subjugate mathematics to physics. But all
it has achieved is to make you a laughing-stock here.
- A number is a number is a number.
A rose is a rose is a rose.
- Dedekind: One can split the entity of ALL rational numbers: >, =, or <.
(I argue: The entity of ALL rational numbers is identical with the reals.)
Liar: you may assert that, but you haven't argued it
(even unsuccessfully).
- IR+ is not worth to be taken seriously.
What is IR^+?
Enough for today.
Enough of your vacuous posturing forever.
Victor Meldrew
"I don't believe it!"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Bye
- From: Salviati
- Bye
- References:
- Blumschien's very basic mistakes
- From: victor_meldrew_666
- Re: Very basic mistakes
- From: Salviati
- Blumshein's very basic mistakes
- From: victor_meldrew_666
- Re: Very basic mistakes
- From: Salviati
- Blumschien's very basic mistakes
- Prev by Date: Re: The Computable Reals (alpha version)
- Next by Date: Re: -- Wrong limits do not commute
- Previous by thread: Re: Very basic mistakes
- Next by thread: Bye
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
