PANORAMARE

At http://sites.google.com/site/mysteriesoftime you find through other
documents, the book:
"MySTERIES OF TIME-A THEORY OF TRANSCENDENCE"-by ION C. TUDOR

DEBATES WITH SCI.LOGIC, SCI. MATH, SCI.MATH. RESEARCH,
ALIEN. MATH
be jealouss: this is good for your feromonial activity; don't you see
what you have on your face? Hi! AWESOME's say HI! HELLO! excuse mois
pour deranjer, peut etre a c'est dimanche de la fines des toutes
crepouscules (twilight), by I want to confesed to you; I'never confess
to womens is the most dangerouss, but in these days, indeed GOD plays
noDICE, but we must play EVEN DICE-see STHATISTICS&PROBABILITY,
STHOCHASTYC PROCESS- by Kolmogorov, Markov, Craiu& Sacuiu, Hallanay,
Solomon Marcus and LINGUISTICAL-MATHEMATICS PIONEER Roumain d'origine
Ex GOD's peoples to IOAN, IISUS (JEZU, JESUS)and after, from tongue by
tongue, cause the Palestine is not yours, is not mine, but of your
succesors of the succesors in TIME of TIMES (butaforical- flames and
thunders): Curriouss : how many friends generate the INTERNET:hebrews
& scotish, americans with romanians, rushes & germans, jews &
deuschland, jappaneese & chineese, french & cambodgians, vietnameese &
US Army: "how the poet NAPOLEON"says: WAR MAKE THE DIFFERENCES -
SURVIVORS FRIENDS REMAINS": NOW ELECTED LESSONS INTEGRATED BY
HYSTORICAL COMPUTATION, TERITORY AMPUTATION, DEATH SOULS, by N.V.
GOGOL, RUSHES WRITER-a BIG one: NOT THEORY OF CONSPIRATION, BUT
DETAILS OF CONSPIRATION's PLAN I'm glad I bring you finally in the
front of community; Is true, I enterprised few things for PINCH-UP
from hairy skins, DEAR ALIENS You have such a lot of right: I don't
study; maybe you HEARD about Barbilian infinitesimal group; I resume
to invent TIME by TIME; Bienvenue le TRIBAL(e);Call your brothers to
talk, How is the wheather in Edinborough Castle? The girl, single,
without help, is the same devoted granpa( 123) keeper? local-euclid
maybe, what about extensive? Univers? into an Elipsoid? I could
consider, in your oppinion, this close geometry of Cold plak, vs. an
(Univers) in expantion? You, list of chapters, let your skiny heads,
from INSIDE GEOMETRY; I discovered many FAKES and you know that; YOUR
DESTINY and My FREE-WILL make us ENEMIES; Hyperbolic Geometry, not
count, if is local -E and if I make or not assumptions; IF MY BOOK
"MYSTERIES OF TIME -A THEORY OF TRANSCENDENCE" IT IS A WRONG THING,
WHY DO YOU MAKE SUCH AN EFFORT TO DISCUSS ABOUT IT ? IT'S INTERESTING,
ISW'N' IT, BUT SAID THE FOX, LET TASTE THE WINE, MAYBE WE BUY CHEEPER;
YOU KNOW WHAT; SOME KNOWLEDGE, IS GOOD TO BE JUST SMELL, NEVER
EXPLAINED IN HIS ENTIRE WHOLE; I DON'T WANNA SEE FLYING ON THE SKY
WHAT I SHOW TO ALL, HORROR IN SILENT FLY -SCAN JACK, DEATH ON TWO
LEGS; But I WANT to tell YOU, DEAR ALIENS, I, I JUST UNDERSTOOD, THE
WHOLE PLAN THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU WITH TWO MUCH PROUD, MAKE TO INSLAVING
THE ALL PEOPLES OF THIS PLANET; i know all your machinery works, and,
this HOURS presidents, and whole planet will KNOWING THE CONSPIRATION
PLAN; I Did'n't talk or imagine whole my life bad things; SOME SORT OF
SO-CALLED "Conspiration Theories" was foreign to my thinking mode,
CAUSE I'M NOT EVIL, BUT WHEN YOU BUILT THE PLAN, YOU REALY YOU HAVE
SERVED THE DEVIL !!! WHY DO YOU CARE, IF MY THEORY IS THE "DOGMA", you
think "Chatolic", eventualy "ORTHODOX" DOGMA, caused I'm not Chatolic;
WHAT EVIL YOU AND OTHER LIKE YOU ALREADY DONE, THE ENTIRE WORLD CAN
SEE, yesterday; TWO reson for YOUR BOSS TO GET OUT FROM THE "RABBIT
HOLE"; YOU SMELL THE FLAMES AND THUNDERS ? DEAR ALIENS ? WAS A GOOD
JOKE YOU SAID WHEN I FELT YOUR EVIL SWAMPING HORROR SMELING ! NOW YOU
KNOW, YOU HORIFFY THE ENTIRE WORLD !!! WHATA THEORY OF
CONSPIRATION ??? YOU REALIZED THE WHOLE CONSPIRATION AGAINST HUMANITY,
and you KNOW THAT I KNOW; Because I don't BLUFF; I KNOW WHOLE PLANS
PLANS OF YOUR CONSPIRATION; NO THEORY !!! AWESOME, STIL "STEEL
GUARDS"COMMANDER - Hide quoted text - On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM,
sci.logic group <noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: sci.logic
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic?hl=en
sci.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Today's topics: * The modern mathematical
concept of infinity is indefensible - 24 messages
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/t/2a7f02339499c705?hl=en *
Prada shoes (paypal payment)www.king-trade.cn ) - 1 messages, 1 author
* Liars Paradox - resolution - 1 messages, 1 author TOPIC: The modern
mathematical concept of infinity is indefensible
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/t/2a7f02339499c705?hl=en == 1
of 24 == Date: Tues, Jan 20 2009 12:05 am From: Han de Bruijn David R
Tribble wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote: > >>>A pair of shoes is a set.
Right ? Is a set a physical object ? > > David R Tribble wrote: > >>>I
would say that a pair of shoes is a "set of shoes" in the physical >>>
(real world) sense, but not a "set" in the mathematical sense. >>>For
one thing, there is no convenient way to have the powerset >>>of such
a "set", or indeed any group of sets that have common >>>elements. > >
Han de Bruijn wrote: > >>Sure. A set in a physical sense is not a set
in a mathematical sense. >>So let's keep mathemathics separated from
reality at any costs. Sure. > > Perhaps we should just keep our words
straight. > > When you say "set", do you really mean something like a
box > of shoes? A box of shoes is a set. A set is not always a box of
shoes. Han de Bruijn == 2 of 24 == Date: Tues, Jan 20 2009 12:26 am
From: Han de Bruijn David R Tribble wrote: > Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
So, which cranks have been stopped from claiming that NSA is the
theory they prefer? > Han de Bruijn wrote: >>NSA is complete
nonsense. Period. > That's a pretty strong opinion. > We are sitting
on the edge of our seats waiting for your proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis Once
upon a time, infinitesimals were declared _nonsense_ by mainstream
mathematics. You know: Archimedes property and the like .. But then
there was a man named Robinson and he said that infinitesimals should
be defined by infinite completed sets. He spoke some irresistable
magic words of Set Theory and .. TATTAA .. they suddenly were
"defined", again, and in a "rigourous" way as well .. Whew !! Please
gimme back the good old delta's and epsilon's .. Han de Bruijn == 3 of
24 == Date: Tues, Jan 20 2009 12:29 am From: Han de Bruijn David R
Tribble wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: >>>Who are these MANY people who say
someone is a crank MERELY for >>>adopting an alternative set theory? >
Han de Bruijn wrote: > >>_This_ "crank" rather finds that set theory
should be a less interesting >>part of mathematics. And set theory can
certainly not be regarded as the >>one and only foundation of
mathematics. >AWESOME: Yes, indeed, I say !!! > I don't recall anyone
here ever claiming that. Do you? >AWESOME: I already observe this !
And I'm Glad for your less support !!! > But I'll beat that you have a
different, but superior foundation for math, don't you? AWESOME: Oh,
you are so brilliant! You are not mathematicians, but superior, you
claims!!! There is not a one and only foundation of math. Mathematics
has many different aspects and I want to be preserved all of them.
Especially the less theoretical aspects .. AWESOME: Then, let me
preserve me too my nonstandard-analisyss math Han de Bruijn? == 4 of
24 == Date: Tues, Jan 20 2009 12:47 am From: Han de Bruijn? David R
Tribble wrote:? > Albrecht writes:? >? >>>The problem is that they can
not allow themselves to understand the >>>arguments. On the other
side, the only argument for their position is >>>the argument that
"thousands of mathematicians can't be wrong". But >>>the history has
shown often enough: it happens all the time. > AWESOME: Like you too,
people, anyone, have the right to cheat himself; SEEMS TO BE, YOU HAVE
IN ADITION, THE OBLIGATION TO CHEET YOURSELF; JUST TASTE YOUR SALIVE
WITH THE FINGER AND TESTE THE WIND's DIRECTION > Jesse F. Hughes
wrote:? >? >>>"Wrong" in what sense? You agree that ZFC is not
inconsistent, so >>>what's wrong with it? >? > Han de Bruijn wrote:? >
A system of faith, though it is consistent, can nevertheless be
wrong.? > > Only if its basic assumptions are wrong.? >AWESOME : what
I called ILOGICAL SPACE, you CALL IT: A WRONG ASSUMPTION. > -
Euclidean (only) geometry? AWESOME: LIES INDIGNIFY ALL SCIENTISTS; Is
approximately right? and this approximation is very good?. So good
that in dayly life nothing else is needed !. > - Flat Earth
cosmology ! AWESOME: Why did I mention ARISTOTEL, you CALLED IDIOT AND
HIMSELF IS NOT HIER TO DEFFENSE HIMSELF? The flat earth is a good
approximation in your immediate neighbourhood. As a cosmology, it is
wrong, admittedly. > - Humours theory of medicine? AWESOME: I observe
you can read in romanian, you had progess, but believe me, it's
genetics and researches since before you make beeing in this world,
OUR WORLD !!! > - Earth-centric solar system cosmology ! An earth-
centric solar system is overly complicated, but not necessarily wrong.
As a cosmology, it is wrong, admittedly. AWESOME: I remember you
claimed:"Both, Newton& Einstein have wright" > - Newtonian absolute
space-time Is approximately right and this approximation is very good.
So good that in dayly life nothing else is needed. Even quantum
mechanics can be done non-relativistically most of the time. > All of
these were consistent systems based on incorrect assumptions. AWESOME:
Johnny B GOOD, what assumption? Not al all. These were consistent
systems based on approximately CORRECT assumptions. Most of these are
so correct that they? have to be replaced by others only in extreme
circumstances (e.g. velocity near light speed) AWESOME: AND OVER THE
LIGHT VELOCITY, but NOT IN OUR UNIVERSE, BUT IN WHAT EINSTEIN CALLED
Another Place or ANOTHER UNIVERS; other was OCCUPIED AND THIS DISTRESS
MAKE MY AREA VERY CONFORTABLE and I could cristalize MINE IDEAS in
PEACE ! > You, no doubt, have examples for set theory, right? Set
Theory is not of the kind above. In ZFC, all axioms are correct with
the Axiom of Infinity as the sole exception. It's not even
approximately correct because there is no chance that a Completed
Infinity has sort of an implementation in the real world, not even as
an approximation. Han de Bruijn == 5 of 24 == Date: Tues, Jan 20 2009
12:55 am From: Han de Bruijn ? Mitch Harris wrote: ? > On Jan 19, 9:34
am, Herbert Newman <nomail@invalid> wrote: >? >>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009
08:34:43 -0500, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >> >>>What does "wrong" mean
when one says that a mathematical theory is >>>consistent but wrong?
C'mon, that's completely clear: In reality there are no infinite
sets. AWESOME: I LET FOR OTHER TO EAT A BRED ! > > Reality? In reality
there's no '2'.??? AWESOME: YES, IS 0 AND 1: BINARY LOGIC; WHO WISPER
to me: YOU ARE COMPUTER or 2-nd generation ROBOTS in CyberArmy probes?
Inside a digital computer, there is a two-bit combination '10' that
acts as if it is a '2'. Not such thing can be said for an infinite
set. >>Hence set theory is a FALSE picture of reality. Hence set
theory is a bad >>theory (since it does not model reality
correctly)!!! > > But it seems to work pretty well. So your noticing
that set theory is > inconsistent with reality is ... inconsistent?
AWESOME: SEEMS TO BE A DAMAGE iN YOUR BORD COMPUTERS-IN THE LOGIC
BLOCK; DID YOU CLAIMS: "YOUMANKIND HAVE A FUZZY LOGIC- BINARY/
TERNARY/... ETC/ AND YOU CLAIM WE MUST SET THE INFINITY"??? (see: TV
Kabbalah/ UNIVERSITY OF TEL AVIV) AWESOME ASK YOU: YOU, WHAT KIND
SUPPOSE TO BE??? BUT GOD IN THE BEGINING SET THE INFINITY, SET US, BUT
IS SO KIND: HE SET EVEN YOU TO ANSWER, AGAIN&AGAIN/LIKE 6 years KIDS;
HEY ROBOTS from ALIEN.MATH: you wright, because kids wright; LORD
says:"LET THE KIDS TO COME AT ME" AWESOME AGAIN: PROVOKS YOU TO PROOF
THAT "CHILDREN ARE WRIGHT"&"ADULT's DID'N'T" !!! Remark: set this, in
YOURMENKIND not in OURMENKIND, SET YOU THE INFINITY; GOD's SET YOU
WRONG, ANDROID FROM CHAOS, SO (see "FRACTAL GEOMETRY AND NATURE"); SET
"CHAOS BEING ORDERED"; PERHAPS GOD FORGET TO SET THIS; IS YOUR "SEARCH
IN THE DESERT OF YOUR ANCESTOR"- I think HUMANKIND in those TIMES, NOT
"YOUMANKIND", MR. LAITMAN, PhD Kabballah Science, HAS YOU CLAIMS WE
ARE; AWESOME: "YOUMANKIND YOU CALLED US" then "YOUMENKIND" WE CALLED
YOU Set Theory is bread and butter for me. But DataBase processing
does not involve _infinite_ sets. >>Well, wait a second, >>it seems
that I mixed up physics (and physical theories) with mathematics >>and
(mathematical theories). :-) Not only physics. Any other human
activity in science and administration and economics and .. whatever
we do except mathematics, as well. > Oh. Yes. > > Mitch Oh, yes. Han
de Bruijn == 6 of 24 == Date: Tues, Jan 20 2009 1:03 am From:
Tonicopm@xxxxxxxxx ??? On Jan 20, 10:47 am, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:??? > David R Tribble wrote:??? >
Albrecht writes:??? > > >>>The problem is that they can not allow
themselves to understand the > >>>arguments. On the other side, the
only argument for their position is > >>>the argument that "thousands
of mathematicians can't be wrong". But > >>>the history has shown
often enough: it happens all the time. > > > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >
"Wrong" in what sense? You agree that ZFC is not inconsistent, so
what's wrong with it? > > > Han de Bruijn wrote: > > >>A system
of faith, though it is consistent, can nevertheless be wrong. > > >
Only if its basic assumptions are wrong. > > > - Euclidean (only)
geometry > > Is approximately right and this approximation is very
good. So good that > in dayly life nothing else is needed. > > > -
Flat Earth cosmology > > The flat earth is a good approximation in
your immediate neighbourhood. > As a cosmology, it is wrong,
admittedly. > > > - Humours theory of medicine > > ?? > > > - Earth-
centric solar system cosmology > > An earth-centric solar system is
overly complicated, but not necessarily > wrong. As a cosmology, it is
wrong, admittedly. > == Uuh?? Since we know only one Earth and only
one Solar System, and it happens to be that in this unique Solar
System we know the only Earth we know is NOT the center of the the
unique Solar System we know, I'd say the Earth-centric Solar System is
necessarily, unavoidably, impressively and utterly wrong. Like saying
that the Adolf-Hitler-was-the-king-Russia theory is overly
complicated, but not necessariyl wrong....well, it IS wrong, overly or
not overly complicated, imo. Regards Tonio YOU RIGHT: GERMAN& RUSHES,
I DOUBT SINCE MY CHILDHOOD: "THEY ARE BRUDERS: but their LOGIC is VERY
LOGIC"LIKE LATIN, SAXONS, ASIAN, INDIAN, COLOURED LOGIC, ALL
"WEMENKIND" I SUPPOSED, you WITH PROUD, of COURSE YOU CONSIDER
CHRISTIANS "YOUMENKIND" and YOURSELF "NOMANKIND"; WE ARE THE DOGS YOU
ARE SUPERIOR ALIENS : "I wach to you mr. Laitman from a while"; NOW I
KNOW: NOT YOU ARE THE SLAVES OF ISRAELI ARMY; YOU ARE THE
HEADQUARTERS; BE CAREFULLY: UNIVERSITY Bnei Baruch from TEL AVIV set
Kabbalah like SCIENCE; LINKS: "ELITE BANKERS MANIFESTO" and UNIVERSITY
EDINBURGH -CyberArmy Section, AWARDED for 2-nd ROBOTS GENERATIONS amd
666 IMPLEMENTATION" HEY, My FRIENDS, AWESOME IS ALWAYS YOUR AWESOME
NIGHTMARE in a PRETTY DREAM about "Les plaines Elizee" == 7 of 24 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 20 2009 1:04 am From: Han de Bruijn??? Jesse F. Hughes
wrote: SANKY BALAMAUA: BAAL HA SULAM-salam-ha(cha)lif-baal(abal)=KA-BA-
LAH; this is ancient israeli palestine science, go mad the TEMPLARS,
killed by Phillipe le Beaux-who remains alive from TEMPLARS found
MASONERY-like technik branches > Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >>
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>>A
system of faith, though it is consistent, can nevertheless be
wrong. >>> >>>What does "wrong" mean when one says that a
mathematical theory is >>>consistent but wrong? >> >>Sure. What does
"reality" mean, what does "wrong" mean, what does _any_ >>common word
that a man/woman in the street uses without any hesitation >>mean to a
philosopher or a mathematician ? Nothing, of course .. > > ZF does not
assert that there are infinite sets in the physical > universe, so how
can ZF be "wrong"? > > Maybe you mean that there really are sets (in
some sense) and that no > sets really are infinite. I've no idea,
however, how to understand > this or how you come by knowledge of
which mathematical objects really > exist and which ones don't. > > A
scientific theory is wrong if the claim it makes about the world >
happens not to be true of the world. A mathematical theory doesn't >
seem to make claims about the world per se (the axioms of group >
theory, say, make no claim about the world), so I'm still unclear what
you mean when you say such a theory is "wrong". People don't know
it, but they DO it. How else can mathematics be _applied_ ? People DO
add numbers, they DO set theory (e.g. with databases), but they do not
DO infinite sets, for the simple reason that they can't. Han de Bruijn
AWESOME: THESE MEN WANTS TO PLAY (USING THEIR DATABASE-revealed their
computational aspects) the METHAPHYSICS; I AGREED; BUT AFTER WE CAN
PLAY OrthoPhysics OR ParaPhysics; And quick, cause Germans make a lot
of mathematics, a lot of wars and i'm doubt they stay to play with TEL
AVIV to long; I'll pray for YOULIENSKIND THEN YOU don't think FUZZY
logic, like WEMENKIND. THEN YOU think PARALOGIC, because ORTHOLOGIC
think US; But in the last actions, it's maybe easy to conclude-BEING
PROBES ROBOTS- you don't THINK-but CyberArmy& Conspire's me& Inspire's
me CONCLUDE: YOURKINDCOMPUTE-in the most ORDINARY BINARY UNMENKIND
Fexample Acme Co Sumptuous Samples  2335 Sample St., Exampleville, CT
66666 ☎ (222) 555-2222  (111) 555-4444  www.fexample-acme.egl
AWESOME BELL- THE PHONE CALL TELL ENDLESS STORIES-by secret dossier of
darkness of hystory, so old, as long as could realy are "listen how
old/ stone grow/odd-nippon proverb ;
Te iubesc, Marinela
.

Loading