wow ?
- From: amy666 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:43:54 EST
David wrote :
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:22:23 -0800 (PST), galathaea!> Please. A variable can stand for any one thing.
<galathaea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:03 pm, David C. Ullrich<dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
wouldgalathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What else would one imagine the notation [x]
single element?mean, in a supposed set theory?
usually
in a theory of collections
the variables vary over collections
so a textbook reading might be:
[x] is the collection
consisting of the collection x
why would one think one must have x be a
notation
Because of the equation x = [x].
?
[a, b] = [[a, b]] = a, b
can you see what x stands for here?
If x stands for more than one thing then your
means.is completely incompatible with standard notation
and it's up to you to explain what the hell it
"completely incompatible" seems an odd term to use
since both here and in zfc
x is simply a variable over the ontology
!> It cannot stand for two things at once, as it
!> evudently does here.
wow ?
what about matrices then ??
let a variable denote a matrix :
A
if that matrix has size 2 x 2
it stands for 4 things !!
the four imput variables.
similarly :
B = a number => e.g. 0.1010100010110101011...
now B stands for an oo of things , things that can be 0 or 1.
so david ullrichs argument failes for matrices and reals.
and also for vectors , bivectors , tensors , modules , graphs , series expansions , ...
!> But it doesn't work - he seems proud of
languages define variables pretty consistentlyshot
but i will also note
that tommy first posted only about x = [x]
and then sometime later
after being prompted to explain more
(rudely - as is the custom)
he posted the axioms thread to give a better def a
he showed in his first threads on x = [x]
things like
[a, b] = a, b
and
[] =
in the followup
he tried in his way to explain objections
if there is going to be judgement
on how well something was defined
it should honestly look at what was said
and acknowledge that there was indeed progress
People honestly looked at what he posted,
and as far as I can recall there was no progress -
every version of TST was either incoherent,
incomplete (in the sense that he used unstated
axioms) or obviously inconsistent.
such honesty should also acknowledge
the missteps of others along the way
that worked to discourage posting attempts
Giggle. X is utterly ignorant of the field he's
pontificating on, refuses to learn anything
about it, repeats incorrect arguments dozens
of times after the errors are pointed out,
insists on "proving" things in mathematics
based on fantasies and wishes, and people
should encourage him.
No. People _have_ encouraged him along
what would be a much more productive
path, that being actually learning something
about whatever before trying to overturn it.
!> his ignorance.
ive just pointed out your ignorance.
and i did many many times before.
(in no particular order)
I was the one who pointed out :
1) you miscomputed the integral of x.
2) one can prove R = R^2 just using binary
3) one can express all algebraic numbers with fractal fractions
4) fractional iterations do exist , such as gamma , barnes g , beta , alpha , exp(x) - 1 and similar functions.
there is calculus for it and matrix use.
5) shown that disproofs of my conjectures contained flaws.
6) pointed out the use of the word integral , to actually denote integers in some contexts ( which caused neilist to call me timmy and later so did ullrich )
7) pointed out abolishing fractions is not a good idea
8) showed that david's disproof lead to his 1 = 4
9) gave a functional equation no one could solve against my opponents odds
10) vandermonde matrices , triangular matrices , moebius transforms , fixpoints to again demonstrate the existance of fractional iterations
11) pointed out nobody could prove that FLT is proven by 2 distinct inaccessible cardinals. ( as my opponents claimed )
12) there are indeed interpretations of A^B and i gave a few ways to compute log(A) ( though not universally valid )
13) showed the polysigned were consistant and overlooked.
14) had to point out multisections were not a new concept invented by galatheae but already standard , of which my opponents ( and g. ) were ignorant of.
15) explained some vedic math
16) explained that zeno's paradox and russels paradox are still unresolved ( see latest threads )
17) did number theory together with quasi , gala , tim , fajjal and a few others , mainly about factoring , which were simply IGnored by my opponents , yet despite good math
18) tried to explain the difference between chess and math ( they failed too understand )
19) showed the inconsistancy of ordinals by mapping on-to the real line ( no proof though , an argument )
20) solved Denis Feldmann 2 + 2 = 3 paradox and his OP question whereas Ullrich's comment lead to 1 = 4.
for which btw , neither answer Denis thanked me.
and David still calls me ignorant , despite his own blunder.
21) answered questions of newbies correctly.
22) once again showed fractional iterations Exists by solving equations of the following type f(f(x)) = x^3 + 1
and relating those to another concept of mine : inverse hypergeometric functions
23) providing the QRS constant as another argument for my inverse function concepts.
24) investigated 3-valued logic
25) gave series expansions different from taylor or fourrier
26) extended the concept of zero-divisors
27) showed the equivalence of differential equations and best estimates
28) showed the difficulty of shortest paths and the related undecidability equivalence among different functions and cardinalities.
29) posted many open conjectures to sci.math that my opponents cannot handle
30) gave a method of expansion of a number in terms of infinite discrete iterations
31) showed the relationship of inverse hypergeo to iterations, elliptic functions and the inverse arithmetic geometric mean.
32) gave timothy golden 2 new math concepts , one which is on his site.
33) gave quasi proofs about several polynomial subjects
34) invented new modular concepts
35) emailed sequences and algoritms to improve numerical analysis
36) pointed out godels theorems required ZFC to be valid
37) provided proof for my background in continued fractions
and i could go on forever.
and in the mean time what did they do ?
well Denis claimed a proof of RH.
others defended the idea of abolishing fractions.
they insulted me.
they said they liked JSH because he is so funny.
they spend years posting in mainly JSH threads.
Ullrich said that my ideas were wrong , while actually correct.
and also Ullrich said they were ' useless ' but could not give an application of aleph_3
and Tonico claimed to do a lot of new and good math but did nothing.
neilist claimed to do math , wich no soul has ever seen.
neilist called me timmy and a pig and worse than JSH.
and neilist hanson and katbo had the cranky laughter :
HAHAHAHA
but were never called crank or troll for that !?
why not ?
because they were laughing at me ?
in the meanwhile , all people defending me at some point in time , where " becoming cranks suddenly ".
like the ones into tetration e.g.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal
proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up
to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
regards
tommy1729
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))
- Prev by Date: Re: "infinity"
- Next by Date: Re: "infinity"
- Previous by thread: Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))
- Next by thread: Re: wow ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
