Discussion:
Why do we need those real non-constructible numbers?
(too old to reply)
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-06 07:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?

And this intuitive and so simple question not necessarily directed to those described as professional mathematicians since we know exactly how are those captured by so many meaningless definitions that make it impossible for them to think outside their so tinny box or far behind their long noses

But this Q is directed mainly to those amateurs in many fields as mathematics, logic, philosophy, Engineering, independent thinkers, ... etc, as it is very easy for them to recognize reality from fictions since they are quite lucky not to be so much mind pulleted by so many mathematical decisions or non-sensible definitions that are inherited and were imposed on the mathematician's shoulders as absolute facts

People hiding their true identities by using many fictional and masked names are not at all encouraged or welcomed to comment or participate in this important topic since we know in advance their well-exposed and so ill behaviours and intentions for their own purposes, and truly they have nothing to add or nothing to lose when they usually do participate so foolishly just to protect their own products that are full of pure global ignorance

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 6th, 2017
WM
2017-11-06 09:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.

"how can one assert that something like the continuum exists when there is no way one could even in principle search it, or even worse, search the set of all subsets, to see if there was a set of intermediate cardinality? Faced with these two choices, I choose the first. The only reality we truly comprehend is that of our own experience. But we have a wonderful ability to extrapolate. The laws of the infinite are extrapolations of our experience with the finite." [Paul J. Cohen: "The discovery of forcing", Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 32,4 (2002) 1099f]

Most of these extrapolations, starting with the use of the bijection as a measure for infinite sets, are absolutely unscientific because
(1) really scientific results will never depend on "clever choice" of indices, and
(2) universal quantification over infinite sets shows that every element is followed by infinitely many elements, proving that universal quantification is impossile per se.

Regards, WM
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-08 09:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
"how can one assert that something like the continuum exists when there is no way one could even in principle search it, or even worse, search the set of all subsets, to see if there was a set of intermediate cardinality? Faced with these two choices, I choose the first. The only reality we truly comprehend is that of our own experience. But we have a wonderful ability to extrapolate. The laws of the infinite are extrapolations of our experience with the finite." [Paul J. Cohen: "The discovery of forcing", Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 32,4 (2002) 1099f]
Most of these extrapolations, starting with the use of the bijection as a measure for infinite sets, are absolutely unscientific because
(1) really scientific results will never depend on "clever choice" of indices, and
(2) universal quantification over infinite sets shows that every element is followed by infinitely many elements, proving that universal quantification is impossile per se.
Regards, WM
So great that you recognize those real irrational algebraic and transcendental numbers (which are not constructible numbers) as being non-existing creatures

But so, unfortunately, those fictional creatures constitute the main backbone of what is called nowadays the modern mathematics, where almost 90% of mathematics stand on which represent a great tragedy for all other sciences too, especially physics

And the coming even greater future tragedies that the mathematics is expanding indefinitely in that so fictional direction and building very easily many more baseless towers of so unnecessary mathematics without a stop, thinking that they are trying to understand the universe and much alleged fictional universes too, which makes the whole world swim randomly in many fictional stories than any previous stage of human accumulative ignorance ever happened in history

And the professional mathematicians are so much delusional about their naive thinking that the fictional expansion of a real number would ultimately solve the real world problem especially in physics, whereas physics is the ultimate truth of existence principle even in real numbers throw exactly geometry

So, mathematics is definitely violating every principle of little logic and the so elementary physical proof of existence, in reality, had managed and escaped completely from obeying any rules or any scientific evidence of real existence to be truly pure fictions in mind only, which is meaningless

So, how can we subject mathematics not to go astray and to obey some basic fundamental rules of existence in order to be at least legal? wonder!

BKK
WM
2017-11-08 10:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
So great that you recognize those real irrational algebraic and transcendental numbers (which are not constructible numbers) as being non-existing creatures
I meant chiefly such numbers that have not any chance to be expressed or pointed to. Irrational algebraic or transcendental numbers have at least a finite definition. When I wrote the first edition of my book "Mathematik für die ersten Semester", 4th ed., De Gruyter, Berlin 2015 I seriously considered whether I should call these objects numbers because you never can describe their exact value in what we call our numeral system, i.e., decimal system. But that would have raised too much confusion because most other teachers of mathematics would call these objects numbers. Therefore I decided to join them. After all these limits have one and only one value. Although it is not describable by decimals, we can describe them in systems based on irrational bases. But I understand fully that you are not happy with calling them numbers.

Regards, WM
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-08 11:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nope, transcendental numbers don't have a finite
description. They are the rest of all real line

numbers that are not rational numbers or
algebraic irrational numbers, and as such they

are uncountable.
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
So great that you recognize those real irrational algebraic and transcendental numbers (which are not constructible numbers) as being non-existing creatures
I meant chiefly such numbers that have not any chance to be expressed or pointed to. Irrational algebraic or transcendental numbers have at least a finite definition. When I wrote the first edition of my book "Mathematik für die ersten Semester", 4th ed., De Gruyter, Berlin 2015 I seriously considered whether I should call these objects numbers because you never can describe their exact value in what we call our numeral system, i.e., decimal system. But that would have raised too much confusion because most other teachers of mathematics would call these objects numbers. Therefore I decided to join them. After all these limits have one and only one value. Although it is not describable by decimals, we can describe them in systems based on irrational bases. But I understand fully that you are not happy with calling them numbers.
Regards, WM
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-08 12:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Do you mean the set has a finite definition, or
each number has a finite definition?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope, transcendental numbers don't have a finite
description. They are the rest of all real line
numbers that are not rational numbers or
algebraic irrational numbers, and as such they
are uncountable.
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
So great that you recognize those real irrational algebraic and transcendental numbers (which are not constructible numbers) as being non-existing creatures
I meant chiefly such numbers that have not any chance to be expressed or pointed to. Irrational algebraic or transcendental numbers have at least a finite definition. When I wrote the first edition of my book "Mathematik für die ersten Semester", 4th ed., De Gruyter, Berlin 2015 I seriously considered whether I should call these objects numbers because you never can describe their exact value in what we call our numeral system, i.e., decimal system. But that would have raised too much confusion because most other teachers of mathematics would call these objects numbers. Therefore I decided to join them. After all these limits have one and only one value. Although it is not describable by decimals, we can describe them in systems based on irrational bases. But I understand fully that you are not happy with calling them numbers.
Regards, WM
WM
2017-11-08 12:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope, transcendental numbers don't have a finite
description.
"SUM 1/2^n!" is a finite description.
Post by b***@gmail.com
They are the rest of all real line
numbers that are not rational numbers or
algebraic irrational numbers, and as such they
are uncountable.
All finite descriptions belong to a countable set. Everything beyond is unmathematical nonsense, delusions of unmathematical minds.

Regards, WM
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-08 13:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
But SUM a_n where a_n is an arbitary infinite sequence
is not a finite description.
Post by WM
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope, transcendental numbers don't have a finite
description.
"SUM 1/2^n!" is a finite description.
Post by b***@gmail.com
They are the rest of all real line
numbers that are not rational numbers or
algebraic irrational numbers, and as such they
are uncountable.
All finite descriptions belong to a countable set. Everything beyond is unmathematical nonsense, delusions of unmathematical minds.
Regards, WM
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-08 13:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If the a_n are rational numbers, they might
come from a finite process,

it can even be the case that the partial
sums, s_n = sum_i=1^n a_n, which will be

then rational numbers again, might converge,
and then there will be a limit n->oo s_n,

which is not necessary a rational number anymore,
it can be a transcendental number,

https://math.stackexchange.com/q/37121/4414
(elementary-set-theory) (cardinals) (transcendental-numbers)
the transcendental numbers are uncountable.
Post by b***@gmail.com
But SUM a_n where a_n is an arbitary infinite sequence
is not a finite description.
Post by WM
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope, transcendental numbers don't have a finite
description.
"SUM 1/2^n!" is a finite description.
Post by b***@gmail.com
They are the rest of all real line
numbers that are not rational numbers or
algebraic irrational numbers, and as such they
are uncountable.
All finite descriptions belong to a countable set. Everything beyond is unmathematical nonsense, delusions of unmathematical minds.
Regards, WM
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 07:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope, transcendental numbers don't have a finite
description. They are the rest of all real line
numbers that are not rational numbers or
algebraic irrational numbers, and as such they
are uncountable.
Can you express, describe or show us exactly and only one real number of those called real (algebraic or transcendental) and non-constructible numbers, but not in meaningless notations in mind?

We are waiting

BKK
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
So great that you recognize those real irrational algebraic and transcendental numbers (which are not constructible numbers) as being non-existing creatures
I meant chiefly such numbers that have not any chance to be expressed or pointed to. Irrational algebraic or transcendental numbers have at least a finite definition. When I wrote the first edition of my book "Mathematik für die ersten Semester", 4th ed., De Gruyter, Berlin 2015 I seriously considered whether I should call these objects numbers because you never can describe their exact value in what we call our numeral system, i.e., decimal system. But that would have raised too much confusion because most other teachers of mathematics would call these objects numbers. Therefore I decided to join them. After all these limits have one and only one value. Although it is not describable by decimals, we can describe them in systems based on irrational bases. But I understand fully that you are not happy with calling them numbers.
Regards, WM
Zelos Malum
2017-11-09 08:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you express, describe or show us exactly and only one real number of those called real (algebraic or transcendental) and non-constructible numbers, but not in meaningless notations in mind?
How about S={x e Q: x<0 V x^3<2}, it gives us the cuberoot of 2 using dedekinds lower cut method.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 09:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Can you express, describe or show us exactly and only one real number of those called real (algebraic or transcendental) and non-constructible numbers, but not in meaningless notations in mind?
How about S={x e Q: x<0 V x^3<2}, it gives us the cuberoot of 2 using dedekinds lower cut method.
It doesn't give the exact cube root of two, but a ghost non-existing number that tries hopelessly to replace a fictional number assumed existing in mind only but always and forever unsuccessfully for sure, otherwise state it exactly as requested

However, we are very familiar with that carpenter'S skill (even before BC), WHERE he can easily make a cube with two unit volume to a very good degree of accuracy for sure

BKK
John Gabriel
2017-11-08 12:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
So great that you recognize those real irrational algebraic and transcendental numbers (which are not constructible numbers) as being non-existing creatures
I meant chiefly such numbers that have not any chance to be expressed or pointed to. Irrational algebraic or transcendental numbers have at least a finite definition. When I wrote the first edition of my book "Mathematik für die ersten Semester", 4th ed., De Gruyter, Berlin 2015 I seriously considered whether I should call these objects numbers because you never can describe their exact value in what we call our numeral system, i.e., decimal system. But that would have raised too much confusion because most other teachers of mathematics would call these objects numbers.
You capitulated in other words. That is a shame!
Post by WM
Therefore I decided to join them. After all these limits have one and only one value. Although it is not describable by decimals, we can describe them in systems based on irrational bases.
Huh?! You can't! If you mean pi is expressed in base pi, that's not saying anything:

... pi^2 pi 1 . 1/pi 1/pi^2 ...
1

That is not an expression of pi because it does NOT measure pi nor does it measure anything else. In fact, such a radix system is bogus because the UNIT (1) measures NOTHING in it except itself, just as pi does.
Post by WM
But I understand fully that you are not happy with calling them numbers.
Of course not!

**** A number is the measure of a magnitude (using an established unit) ****

If any magnitude cannot be measured by another, then there is NO number that describes it.

Incommensurable magnitudes CANNOT be measured in ANY base.

There is no such thing as an "irrational base". Chuckle.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2017-11-08 12:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
**** A number is the measure of a magnitude (using an established unit) ****
If any magnitude cannot be measured by another, then there is NO number that describes it.
Incommensurable magnitudes CANNOT be measured in ANY base.
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
Post by John Gabriel
There is no such thing as an "irrational base". Chuckle.
If you construct the diagonal of a unit square you have constructed sqrt2. If you draw a unit circle you have contsructed pi.

Regards, WM
John Gabriel
2017-11-08 13:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
**** A number is the measure of a magnitude (using an established unit) ****
If any magnitude cannot be measured by another, then there is NO number that describes it.
Incommensurable magnitudes CANNOT be measured in ANY base.
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
No. Incommensurable means not measurable with ***ANY*** stick except itself!
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
There is no such thing as an "irrational base". Chuckle.
If you construct the diagonal of a unit square you have constructed sqrt2.
You've constructed ONLY the symptom of sqrt2, not sqrt2 itself. For example, any isosceles right angled triangle is a symptom of sqrt2. When you try to measure the hypotenuse/diagonal with either side, THEN and THEN only do you get the idea of sqrt2!!! That is, you choose either LEG as unit to measure the diagonal.

Same thing with pi: Any circle is the symptom of pi and the idea arises when we try to measure the circumference using the diameter as unit.

So, any magnitude is called **incommensurable** with any other IF and ONLY IF it can be measured by itself alone and no other magnitude measures it.
Post by WM
If you draw a unit circle you have contsructed pi.
Nope. You've only constructed the symptom of pi. When you try to measure the circumference with the diameter then you get the idea of pi and you DO NOT need a unit circle for this!!!!!!
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2017-11-08 21:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
No. Incommensurable means not measurable with ***ANY*** stick except itself!
The diagonal of a square can be measured by itself, by half of itself, by quarter of itself, and so on.
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
If you draw a unit circle you have constructed pi.
Nope. You've only constructed the symptom of pi.
John, you call it the symptom, others call it a circle of length 2pi. That is not a deep question and not worthwile a discussion.

Regards, WM
John Gabriel
2017-11-08 22:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
No. Incommensurable means not measurable with ***ANY*** stick except itself!
The diagonal of a square can be measured by itself, by half of itself, by quarter of itself, and so on.
No it can only be measured by itself. Not half itself or quarter itself or anything else. sqrt(2) / 2 is not a number.
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
If you draw a unit circle you have constructed pi.
Nope. You've only constructed the symptom of pi.
John, you call it the symptom, others call it a circle of length 2pi.
Have you really? The unit is **irrelevant** in the symptom of pi because there is no unit that can measure the circumference.
Post by WM
That is not a deep question and not worthwile a discussion.
I am not going to talk about deep, but it is most definitely a worthwhile discussion to have!

You claiming:

"The diagonal of a square can be measured by itself, by half of itself, by quarter of itself, and so on."

is just plain WRONG. You see? This is what I have been trying to get you to understand. You think you know what is a number but you have demonstrated that you do not.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
John Gabriel
2017-11-08 23:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
No. Incommensurable means not measurable with ***ANY*** stick except itself!
The diagonal of a square can be measured by itself, by half of itself, by quarter of itself, and so on.
No it can only be measured by itself. Not half itself or quarter itself or anything else. sqrt(2) / 2 is not a number.
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
If you draw a unit circle you have constructed pi.
Nope. You've only constructed the symptom of pi.
John, you call it the symptom, others call it a circle of length 2pi.
Have you really? The unit is **irrelevant** in the symptom of pi because there is no unit that can measure the circumference.
Post by WM
That is not a deep question and not worthwile a discussion.
I am not going to talk about deep, but it is most definitely a worthwhile discussion to have!
"The diagonal of a square can be measured by itself, by half of itself, by quarter of itself, and so on."
is just plain WRONG. You see? This is what I have been trying to get you to understand. You think you know what is a number but you have demonstrated that you do not.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2017-11-09 06:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.

Regards, WM
Zeit Geist
2017-11-09 07:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
CRANK V CRANK! How exciting
Post by WM
Regards, WM
John Gabriel
2017-11-09 08:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.

Length =/= measure
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2017-11-09 09:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?

Regards, WM
John Gabriel
2017-11-09 09:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?

Yes, mathematics has gone horribly off course - just look at all the junk concepts that have proliferated. I think it is time to re-examine everything - especially to make a return to the foundation of mathematics - geometry.

Length is a concept like size or quantity. The measure of size or length or quantity is what results in a *number*. Of course we should be very precise in mathematics.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
Zelos Malum
2017-11-09 10:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?
Yes, mathematics has gone horribly off course - just look at all the junk concepts that have proliferated. I think it is time to re-examine everything - especially to make a return to the foundation of mathematics - geometry.
Length is a concept like size or quantity. The measure of size or length or quantity is what results in a *number*. Of course we should be very precise in mathematics.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
You mean like you whom choose to constnatly use words and sentences in ways that is NOT standard in order to make things more confusing?

Mathematics have gone exactly as it should, removing itself from the world and focus on abstracting things and being more general.

The issue of using such vague concepts is that they are vague and prone to be intepritated differently. By having it abstract into just sets, which follows logical rules only with no tie to our concepts, we remove that ambiguity.

BUt you wouldn't understand it as you thrive like a conartist by using vague language as if someone objects you will just go for another meaning of it. That is opposite of what mathematics does, it ties things down into very very strict definitions so that they can be properly argued about.
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-09 13:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
JG is a very bad conartist, just a super-idiot.
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?
Yes, mathematics has gone horribly off course - just look at all the junk concepts that have proliferated. I think it is time to re-examine everything - especially to make a return to the foundation of mathematics - geometry.
Length is a concept like size or quantity. The measure of size or length or quantity is what results in a *number*. Of course we should be very precise in mathematics.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
You mean like you whom choose to constnatly use words and sentences in ways that is NOT standard in order to make things more confusing?
Mathematics have gone exactly as it should, removing itself from the world and focus on abstracting things and being more general.
The issue of using such vague concepts is that they are vague and prone to be intepritated differently. By having it abstract into just sets, which follows logical rules only with no tie to our concepts, we remove that ambiguity.
BUt you wouldn't understand it as you thrive like a conartist by using vague language as if someone objects you will just go for another meaning of it. That is opposite of what mathematics does, it ties things down into very very strict definitions so that they can be properly argued about.
WM
2017-11-09 16:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?
There is a definition by majority decision. They call limits of Cauchy sequences real numbers.

Regards, WM
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 16:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?
There is a definition by majority decision. They call limits of Cauchy sequences real numbers.
Regards, WM
But they had never realized that their theoretical limit is ultimately a ratio of two non-existing integers, which makes it not a limit nor anything else for sure

Regards
BKK
John Gabriel
2017-11-09 18:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?
There is a definition by majority decision. They call limits of Cauchy sequences real numbers.
I know. It's this definition and Dedekind Cuts that are nonsense as I prove in my article:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
Post by WM
Regards, WM
Zelos Malum
2017-11-10 09:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?
There is a definition by majority decision. They call limits of Cauchy sequences real numbers.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
Post by WM
Regards, WM
As we have pointed out, your "proof" is fundamentally flawed as it does not follow the definition.
John Gabriel
2017-11-10 12:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?
There is a definition by majority decision.
There are many definitions by the *majority*. As I recall, aleph0 and infinite set theory and agreed upon beliefs (axioms).
Post by WM
They call limits of Cauchy sequences real numbers.
Who cares what they call it. It's pure rubbish.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
Zelos Malum
2017-11-10 13:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.
Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
Length =/= measure
Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?
There is a definition by majority decision.
There are many definitions by the *majority*. As I recall, aleph0 and infinite set theory and agreed upon beliefs (axioms).
Post by WM
They call limits of Cauchy sequences real numbers.
Who cares what they call it. It's pure rubbish.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
You confuse things with your own, your stuff is rubbish, not theirs.
WM
2017-11-10 18:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
There are many definitions by the *majority*. As I recall, aleph0 and infinite set theory and agreed upon beliefs (axioms).
Yes, but it is still different to call an orange a red fruit or to count two lemons and four oranges as seven fruits.

Regards, WM
John Gabriel
2017-11-10 20:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
There are many definitions by the *majority*. As I recall, aleph0 and infinite set theory and agreed upon beliefs (axioms).
Yes, but it is still different to call an orange a red fruit or to count two lemons and four oranges as seven fruits.
I don't see any difference. Calling an incommensurable magnitude a number is like calling an orange by the name of carrot.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
Zelos Malum
2017-11-11 04:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
There are many definitions by the *majority*. As I recall, aleph0 and infinite set theory and agreed upon beliefs (axioms).
Yes, but it is still different to call an orange a red fruit or to count two lemons and four oranges as seven fruits.
I don't see any difference. Calling an incommensurable magnitude a number is like calling an orange by the name of carrot.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
Because you are willingly making things more confusing when you refuse to use the common terminology and that is intellectual dishonesty.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 08:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
**** A number is the measure of a magnitude (using an established unit) ****
If any magnitude cannot be measured by another, then there is NO number that describes it.
Incommensurable magnitudes CANNOT be measured in ANY base.
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
Post by John Gabriel
There is no such thing as an "irrational base". Chuckle.
If you construct the diagonal of a unit square you have constructed sqrt2. If you draw a unit circle you have contsructed pi.
Regards, WM
Yes both the square and the visible circle we see, are regular constructible polygons and they have independent existence from the perfect circle that never exist, thus sqrt(2) do exist independently from any imaginable rational number, no matter if that rational number assumed to tend to infinity (that also unreal and impossible existence)

But because Euler's Biggest blunder mistake that makes (S = Lim S_n) as n tends to non-existing Infinity, then indeed all numbers are eventually rational numbers only, where this itself was a very big and fundamental historical mistake ever made in the history of mathematics, since it ultimately violating the mainly proved theorem in mathematics which is the greatest Pythagorean theorem and thus eliminating all the constructible and truly discovered irrational numbers, that is not coming from any human definitions for sure

So, it is untrue to judge or equate (but can only compare by <>) any real existing irrational constructible number from its endless decimal representation, because (S =/= Lim S_n) as n tends to what is called in mathematics as Infinity or the fake Paradise that can easily make the professional mathematicians shit daily theorems and results and so so...etc

See here this simply non-solvable Diaphontine Eqn. (By early Greek).
(n^2 = 2m^2), where (n, m) are the whole non-zero integers and see here many solutions to this Diophantine Eqn. (n^2 = 2m^2 + 1), where they make it deliberately as nearly a solution for sqrt(2) = n/m, when both (n, m) are chosen largely integers or tending to that fake Paradise (Infinity) and see also the true independent existence of a length of a diagonal of a square with unity side, which makes the full truth so visible even to a layperson, since geometry is the physical reality check for any true existence of any human definitions or bad immagination

So, the only proved root operation was the lonely proved SQUARE ROOT operation from the greatest PT, but no other higher prime root operation (for any prime number) was rigorously proved operation but only and so foolishly or devilishly concluded

For instance, this is an arbitrary real rational number (31259.81012), and this is also a first layer of the same rationale given number but existing real irrational number as the same given number but under a valid sqrt operation as

Sqrt(31259.81012) and nothing else, and this is also the second layer of the same ratio but existing irrational number as Sqrt(sqrt(31259.81012)), and so on...

I don't think anyone can invalidate them by whatever logic based on the creation of numbers by the unity that includes also the linear measure of rationals.

Regard
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 9th, 2017
Zelos Malum
2017-11-09 09:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
**** A number is the measure of a magnitude (using an established unit) ****
If any magnitude cannot be measured by another, then there is NO number that describes it.
Incommensurable magnitudes CANNOT be measured in ANY base.
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
Post by John Gabriel
There is no such thing as an "irrational base". Chuckle.
If you construct the diagonal of a unit square you have constructed sqrt2. If you draw a unit circle you have contsructed pi.
Regards, WM
Yes both the square and the visible circle we see, are regular constructible polygons and they have independent existence from the perfect circle that never exist, thus sqrt(2) do exist independently from any imaginable rational number, no matter if that rational number assumed to tend to infinity (that also unreal and impossible existence)
But because Euler's Biggest blunder mistake that makes (S = Lim S_n) as n tends to non-existing Infinity, then indeed all numbers are eventually rational numbers only, where this itself was a very big and fundamental historical mistake ever made in the history of mathematics, since it ultimately violating the mainly proved theorem in mathematics which is the greatest Pythagorean theorem and thus eliminating all the constructible and truly discovered irrational numbers, that is not coming from any human definitions for sure
So, it is untrue to judge or equate (but can only compare by <>) any real existing irrational constructible number from its endless decimal representation, because (S =/= Lim S_n) as n tends to what is called in mathematics as Infinity or the fake Paradise that can easily make the professional mathematicians shit daily theorems and results and so so...etc
See here this simply non-solvable Diaphontine Eqn. (By early Greek).
(n^2 = 2m^2), where (n, m) are the whole non-zero integers and see here many solutions to this Diophantine Eqn. (n^2 = 2m^2 + 1), where they make it deliberately as nearly a solution for sqrt(2) = n/m, when both (n, m) are chosen largely integers or tending to that fake Paradise (Infinity) and see also the true independent existence of a length of a diagonal of a square with unity side, which makes the full truth so visible even to a layperson, since geometry is the physical reality check for any true existence of any human definitions or bad immagination
So, the only proved root operation was the lonely proved SQUARE ROOT operation from the greatest PT, but no other higher prime root operation (for any prime number) was rigorously proved operation but only and so foolishly or devilishly concluded
For instance, this is an arbitrary real rational number (31259.81012), and this is also a first layer of the same rationale given number but existing real irrational number as the same given number but under a valid sqrt operation as
Sqrt(31259.81012) and nothing else, and this is also the second layer of the same ratio but existing irrational number as Sqrt(sqrt(31259.81012)), and so on...
I don't think anyone can invalidate them by whatever logic based on the creation of numbers by the unity that includes also the linear measure of rationals.
Regard
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 9th, 2017
Squareroot is as invalid as cuberoot and both constructed the same way.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 13:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
**** A number is the measure of a magnitude (using an established unit) ****
If any magnitude cannot be measured by another, then there is NO number that describes it.
Incommensurable magnitudes CANNOT be measured in ANY base.
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
Post by John Gabriel
There is no such thing as an "irrational base". Chuckle.
If you construct the diagonal of a unit square you have constructed sqrt2. If you draw a unit circle you have contsructed pi.
Regards, WM
Yes both the square and the visible circle we see, are regular constructible polygons and they have independent existence from the perfect circle that never exist, thus sqrt(2) do exist independently from any imaginable rational number, no matter if that rational number assumed to tend to infinity (that also unreal and impossible existence)
But because Euler's Biggest blunder mistake that makes (S = Lim S_n) as n tends to non-existing Infinity, then indeed all numbers are eventually rational numbers only, where this itself was a very big and fundamental historical mistake ever made in the history of mathematics, since it ultimately violating the mainly proved theorem in mathematics which is the greatest Pythagorean theorem and thus eliminating all the constructible and truly discovered irrational numbers, that is not coming from any human definitions for sure
So, it is untrue to judge or equate (but can only compare by <>) any real existing irrational constructible number from its endless decimal representation, because (S =/= Lim S_n) as n tends to what is called in mathematics as Infinity or the fake Paradise that can easily make the professional mathematicians shit daily theorems and results and so so...etc
See here this simply non-solvable Diaphontine Eqn. (By early Greek).
(n^2 = 2m^2), where (n, m) are the whole non-zero integers and see here many solutions to this Diophantine Eqn. (n^2 = 2m^2 + 1), where they make it deliberately as nearly a solution for sqrt(2) = n/m, when both (n, m) are chosen largely integers or tending to that fake Paradise (Infinity) and see also the true independent existence of a length of a diagonal of a square with unity side, which makes the full truth so visible even to a layperson, since geometry is the physical reality check for any true existence of any human definitions or bad immagination
So, the only proved root operation was the lonely proved SQUARE ROOT operation from the greatest PT, but no other higher prime root operation (for any prime number) was rigorously proved operation but only and so foolishly or devilishly concluded
For instance, this is an arbitrary real rational number (31259.81012), and this is also a first layer of the same rationale given number but existing real irrational number as the same given number but under a valid sqrt operation as
Sqrt(31259.81012) and nothing else, and this is also the second layer of the same ratio but existing irrational number as Sqrt(sqrt(31259.81012)), and so on...
I don't think anyone can invalidate them by whatever logic based on the creation of numbers by the unity that includes also the linear measure of rationals.
Regard
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 9th, 2017
The unknown (Zelos) had added zeros as usual
Post by Zelos Malum
Squareroot is as invalid as cuberoot and both constructed the same way.
Who is on earth OR in the sky that can construct exactly say 3^{2/5}? wonder!

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 16:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by John Gabriel
**** A number is the measure of a magnitude (using an established unit) ****
If any magnitude cannot be measured by another, then there is NO number that describes it.
Incommensurable magnitudes CANNOT be measured in ANY base.
Incommensurable means not simultaneously measurable with one and the same meter stick.
Post by John Gabriel
There is no such thing as an "irrational base". Chuckle.
If you construct the diagonal of a unit square you have constructed sqrt2. If you draw a unit circle you have contsructed pi.
Regards, WM
Yes both the square and the visible circle we see, are regular constructible polygons and they have independent existence from the perfect circle that never exist, thus sqrt(2) do exist independently from any imaginable rational number, no matter if that rational number assumed to tend to infinity (that also unreal and impossible existence)
But because Euler's Biggest blunder mistake that makes (S = Lim S_n) as n tends to non-existing Infinity, then indeed all numbers are eventually rational numbers only, where this itself was a very big and fundamental historical mistake ever made in the history of mathematics, since it ultimately violating the mainly proved theorem in mathematics which is the greatest Pythagorean theorem and thus eliminating all the constructible and truly discovered irrational numbers, that is not coming from any human definitions for sure
So, it is untrue to judge or equate (but can only compare by <>) any real existing irrational constructible number from its endless decimal representation, because (S =/= Lim S_n) as n tends to what is called in mathematics as Infinity or the fake Paradise that can easily make the professional mathematicians shit daily theorems and results and so so...etc
See here this simply non-solvable Diaphontine Eqn. (By early Greek).
(n^2 = 2m^2), where (n, m) are the whole non-zero integers and see here many solutions to this Diophantine Eqn. (n^2 = 2m^2 + 1), where they make it deliberately as nearly a solution for sqrt(2) = n/m, when both (n, m) are chosen largely integers or tending to that fake Paradise (Infinity) and see also the true independent existence of a length of a diagonal of a square with unity side, which makes the full truth so visible even to a layperson, since geometry is the physical reality check for any true existence of any human definitions or bad immagination
So, the only proved root operation was the lonely proved SQUARE ROOT operation from the greatest PT, but no other higher prime root operation (for any prime number) was rigorously proved operation but only and so foolishly or devilishly concluded
For instance, this is an arbitrary real rational number (31259.81012), and this is also a first layer of the same rationale given number but existing real irrational number as the same given number but under a valid sqrt operation as
Sqrt(31259.81012) and nothing else, and this is also the second layer of the same ratio but existing irrational number as Sqrt(sqrt(31259.81012)), and so on...
I don't think anyone can invalidate them by whatever logic based on the creation of numbers by the unity that includes also the linear measure of rationals.
Regard
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 9th, 2017
The unknown (Zelos) had added zeros as usual
Post by Zelos Malum
Squareroot is as invalid as cuberoot and both constructed the same way.
Who is on earth OR in the sky that can construct exactly say 3^{2/5}? wonder!
I meant exactly the following:

Who is on earth OR in the sky that can construct exactly a brain fart number, wonder!

But certainly, the ALLEGED top-most genius mathematicians can do it in their imaginations but never in any reality where they never can realize the truth from fictions for sure

Have more fun with the professional mathematicians super ability for sure

At least that would keep them working forever
BKK
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-10 09:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
The unknown (Zelos) had added zeros as usual
Give it a rest already.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Who is on earth OR in the sky that can construct exactly say 3^{2/5}? wonder!
Everyone that has taken highschool mathematics.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But certainly, the ALLEGED top-most genius mathematicians can do it in their imaginations but never in any reality where they never can realize the truth from fictions for sure
You can't do any number in reality as they are all abstract, but if you want such, how about a 5 dimensional universe? Trivial isn't it?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 07:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
So great that you recognize those real irrational algebraic and transcendental numbers (which are not constructible numbers) as being non-existing creatures
I meant chiefly such numbers that have not any chance to be expressed or pointed to. Irrational algebraic or transcendental numbers have at least a finite definition. When I wrote the first edition of my book "Mathematik für die ersten Semester", 4th ed., De Gruyter, Berlin 2015 I seriously considered whether I should call these objects numbers because you never can describe their exact value in what we call our numeral system, i.e., decimal system. But that would have raised too much confusion because most other teachers of mathematics would call these objects numbers. Therefore I decided to join them. After all these limits have one and only one value. Although it is not describable by decimals, we can describe them in systems based on irrational bases. But I understand fully that you are not happy with calling them numbers.
Regards, WM
A human definition or decision can't create any existing number, only a chosen unity can create any imaginable and existing number and those real numbers known as algebraic or transcendental numbers are impossible therefore to be created from the chosen unity, thus non-existing and purely fictional numbers as a result of human mathematical brain fart numbers

I have already provided so easy numerical refutation based on integer analysis that proves also the true polynomials are only those Diophantine Eqns. which have integer solution or no solution

Those can't be described exactly by decimal or anything else since they are truly pure fictions of human mind fart

However, the deception of (Pi) being a real number was mainly the oldest historical reason for all sources of fictional mathematics, since the visible circle we do see before our eyes is actually a regular constructible polygon with many sides that we can't distinguish, exactly the same way we do approximate it to our practical needs, whereas the absolute (Pi) exists exactly in the perfect circle that doesn't exist in any imaginable reality

Had the Greek recognized this simplest fact, then never they would have raised their three famous impossible constructions for sure

And finally, it doesn't any matter who is happy or sad in relation to what is the ultimate truth would like like

See simply, the trans. numbers are the solution of rational polynomials that don't exist, thus non-existing numbers for sure, (noted also recently by AP)

Regards

Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 9th, 2017
WM
2017-11-09 09:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
whereas the absolute (Pi) exists exactly in the perfect circle that doesn't exist in any imaginable reality
It does not exist in reality. But it exists in imagination. And its circumference can be approximated as closely as we like (in ideal mathematics - not in reality).

To accept it as a number or value or lenght is questionable. But a rather convincing argument is this: If it exists on the real line, then it must be a point, because if only adding any positive eps like 10^-1000000000000 gives a number that provably is not the limit of so many sequences (Vieta, Wallis, Gregory-Leibniz, Euler, Ramanujan, Borwein,... see for instance GU03.PPT in https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/GU*/)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Had the Greek recognized this simplest fact, then never they would have raised their three famous impossible constructions for sure
These constructions are not impossible. They are only impossible with the tools allowed by Plato. (See for instance the Quadratrix, loc cit p. 40)

Regards
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-09 14:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
whereas the absolute (Pi) exists exactly in the perfect circle that doesn't exist in any imaginable reality
It does not exist in reality. But it exists in imagination. And its circumference can be approximated as closely as we like (in ideal mathematics - not in reality).
Yes and exactly as an endless approximation (generally in rational numbers) to something assumed existing from an old naive definition of the need for calculating the circle's area
Post by WM
To accept it as a number or value or lenght is questionable. But a rather convincing argument is this: If it exists on the real line, then it must be a point, because if only adding any positive eps like 10^-1000000000000 gives a number that provably is not the limit of so many sequences (Vieta, Wallis, Gregory-Leibniz, Euler, Ramanujan, Borwein,... see for instance GU03.PPT in https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/GU*/)
But epsilon > 0, thus a distance, not a sizeless point, and 10^{n} or 10^{-n} both existing rational numbers no matter if (n) is positive integer with arbitrary sequence of digits (say in 10base number) that can fill say only seven galaxy size, where every trillion of sequence digits can be stored say only in one (mm) cube and regardless what are those many mentioned big names say or describe it

so, if the Lim(1/n) = 0, when n tends to Infinity, implies strictly that

(1/n) > 0, when n tends to infinity

And the limit of a series or a function generally doesn't exist since its absolute convergence is actually a ratio of two diverging integers that are impossible to exist in any imaginable reality but making epsilon relatively small is actually for engineering problem solving and never perfect mathematics
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Had the Greek recognized this simplest fact, then never they would have raised their three famous impossible constructions for sure
These constructions are not impossible. They are only impossible with the tools allowed by Plato. (See for instance the Quadratrix, loc cit p. 40)
Regards
They are indeed impossible constructions by all means and all the alleged known construction methods such as (Origami, Dedekind cuts, paper folding, Newton's approximation, intermediate theorems, ... etc) are actually well-exposed and cheating methods that are even far less accurate than eye marking or using direct protector or far less than any numerical approximations for the many critiques they have, however they may succeed in constructing a constructible number or constructible angle only which isn't any new additions

Famous cheating construction: the modern maths had claimed to construct exactly a regular pentagon by using non-existing real and imaginary numbers as (pi, e, i, -1, 0), whereas Euclide had constructed it EXACTLY thousands of years back by real physical geometry and without using all that cheating nonsense fictional real NUMBERS

The Wolfram-Alpha shamelessly claim (up to date) to construct EXACTLY any regular polygon by solving a polynomial (x^n + 1 = 0), whereas it is impossible geometrical constructions for many n, where (n = 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, ...), since those angles must correspond to non-constructible numbers, hence non-existing and fictional angles too

However, I wrote few topics with so simple proofs in my posts about those unreal numbers or unreal angles too

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 9th, 2017
WM
2017-11-09 16:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
To accept it as a number or value or lenght is questionable. But a rather convincing argument is this: If it exists on the real line, then it must be a point, because if only adding any positive eps like 10^-1000000000000 gives a number that provably is not the limit of so many sequences (Vieta, Wallis, Gregory-Leibniz, Euler, Ramanujan, Borwein,... see for instance GU03.PPT in https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/GU*/)
But epsilon > 0, thus a distance, not a sizeless point,
Every epsilon > 0 is provably too much.

Regards, WM
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-13 16:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
"how can one assert that something like the continuum exists when there is no way one could even in principle search it, or even worse, search the set of all subsets, to see if there was a set of intermediate cardinality? Faced with these two choices, I choose the first. The only reality we truly comprehend is that of our own experience. But we have a wonderful ability to extrapolate. The laws of the infinite are extrapolations of our experience with the finite." [Paul J. Cohen: "The discovery of forcing", Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 32,4 (2002) 1099f]
Most of these extrapolations, starting with the use of the bijection as a measure for infinite sets, are absolutely unscientific because
(1) really scientific results will never depend on "clever choice" of indices, and
(2) universal quantification over infinite sets shows that every element is followed by infinitely many elements, proving that universal quantification is impossile per se.
Regards, WM
So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was a total brain fart, but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (Epsilon-Delta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure

Regards

BKK
WM
2017-11-14 12:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was
The assumption that the contiunuum can be mirrored by real numbers is certainly wrong.

"The numbers belong to the realm of thinking, the continuum belongs to the realm of visualizing. I repeat, for me the continuum is not identical with the set |R. [...] the logical short circuit results from transforming the infinitely increasing number of digits of the potential infinite into an actual infinite and identifying sqrt2 with the never ending decimal representation 1.4142..." [Detlef Laugwitz: "Zahlen und Kontinuum", Bibl. Inst., Zürich (1986) p. 13ff]
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (Epsilon-Delta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure
Every distance that can be described by numbers is certainly existing. Not existing is a countable set of rational and an uncountable set of irrationals. For some illustrative counter-examples see Ants moving notches and I had a dream on p. 332f of https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Transfinity/pdf

Regards, WM
John Gabriel
2017-11-14 15:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was
The assumption that the contiunuum can be mirrored by real numbers is certainly wrong.
"The numbers belong to the realm of thinking, the continuum belongs to the realm of visualizing. I repeat, for me the continuum is not identical with the set |R. [...] the logical short circuit results from transforming the infinitely increasing number of digits of the potential infinite into an actual infinite and identifying sqrt2 with the never ending decimal representation 1.4142..." [Detlef Laugwitz: "Zahlen und Kontinuum", Bibl. Inst., Zürich (1986) p. 13ff]
Post by bassam king karzeddin
but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (Epsilon-Delta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure
Every distance that can be described by numbers is certainly existing. Not existing is a countable set of rational and an uncountable set of irrationals.
Correct. And a distance that can be described by numbers, is a distance that has been measured. In other words:

***A number is the measure of a distance.***
Post by WM
For some illustrative counter-examples see Ants moving notches and I had a dream on p. 332f of https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Transfinity/pdf
Regards, WM
John Gabriel
2017-11-14 15:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
"how can one assert that something like the continuum exists when there is no way one could even in principle search it, or even worse, search the set of all subsets, to see if there was a set of intermediate cardinality? Faced with these two choices, I choose the first. The only reality we truly comprehend is that of our own experience. But we have a wonderful ability to extrapolate. The laws of the infinite are extrapolations of our experience with the finite." [Paul J. Cohen: "The discovery of forcing", Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 32,4 (2002) 1099f]
Most of these extrapolations, starting with the use of the bijection as a measure for infinite sets, are absolutely unscientific because
(1) really scientific results will never depend on "clever choice" of indices, and
(2) universal quantification over infinite sets shows that every element is followed by infinitely many elements, proving that universal quantification is impossile per se.
Regards, WM
So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was a total brain fart, but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (Epsilon-Delta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure
In terms of numbers there is no continuity - that's for sure. In terms of distance, there is continuity because distance doesn't care about points, only the length of a path between points.

This is why if a distance/magnitude cannot be measured, then there is no number that describes it.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
BKK
j4n bur53
2017-11-14 16:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So you say pi doesn't describe
the ratio of two distances/lengths?

Here have a banana bird brain John Gabriel:

Banana Song (I'm A Banana)

Post by John Gabriel
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by WM
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
"how can one assert that something like the continuum exists when there is no way one could even in principle search it, or even worse, search the set of all subsets, to see if there was a set of intermediate cardinality? Faced with these two choices, I choose the first. The only reality we truly comprehend is that of our own experience. But we have a wonderful ability to extrapolate. The laws of the infinite are extrapolations of our experience with the finite." [Paul J. Cohen: "The discovery of forcing", Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 32,4 (2002) 1099f]
Most of these extrapolations, starting with the use of the bijection as a measure for infinite sets, are absolutely unscientific because
(1) really scientific results will never depend on "clever choice" of indices, and
(2) universal quantification over infinite sets shows that every element is followed by infinitely many elements, proving that universal quantification is impossile per se.
Regards, WM
So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was a total brain fart, but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (Epsilon-Delta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure
In terms of numbers there is no continuity - that's for sure. In terms of distance, there is continuity because distance doesn't care about points, only the length of a path between points.
This is why if a distance/magnitude cannot be measured, then there is no number that describes it.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Regards
BKK
John Gabriel at age 50.
2017-11-14 18:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was a total brain fart, but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (Epsilon-Delta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure
Epsilonics are just a ruse from what's really going on: the inability of anyone before me to formulate a rigorous calculus.

You see, if you try to emulate the new calculus using the bogus mainstream formulation, you get for f(x)=x^2:

f'(x) = lim_{h -> 0} 2x + Q(h) where Q(h) = h

In the bogus calculus Q(h) is meaningless bullshit, but let's set it to zero as we can do in the rigorous new calculus, then f'(x)=2x+h = 2x+0 = 2x.

Setting h=0 is EQUIVALENT to finding the limit!

But that is banned terminology. You can say things like:

i. The value approached by the finite differences is the derivative/limit.
ii. As the distance is made arbitrarily small between f(x) and L, then the distance between x and c (point of tangency) also gets close to 0.
iii. 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon where epsilon>0 and delta>0. This is required just in case the orangutans need to have a hole at c.

ad nauseum...

At the end of the day, all that is being said is that setting h=0 produces the limit. (iii) is often misunderstood especially by morons on the internet as being a definition, but it is nothing of the sort. It's merely a "verifinition",
that is, a restatement of what is actually being done: showing that L is the right guess. It's very circular and rigour has nothing to do with it.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-14 19:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So you are about to discover the limit the first
time in your life. Still you cannot grappel with:

0.333... = 1/3

What a moron. Here have a banana:

Banana Song (I'm A Banana)

Y
Post by John Gabriel at age 50.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was a total brain fart, but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (Epsilon-Delta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure
Epsilonics are just a ruse from what's really going on: the inability of anyone before me to formulate a rigorous calculus.
f'(x) = lim_{h -> 0} 2x + Q(h) where Q(h) = h
In the bogus calculus Q(h) is meaningless bullshit, but let's set it to zero as we can do in the rigorous new calculus, then f'(x)=2x+h = 2x+0 = 2x.
Setting h=0 is EQUIVALENT to finding the limit!
i. The value approached by the finite differences is the derivative/limit.
ii. As the distance is made arbitrarily small between f(x) and L, then the distance between x and c (point of tangency) also gets close to 0.
iii. 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon where epsilon>0 and delta>0. This is required just in case the orangutans need to have a hole at c.
ad nauseum...
At the end of the day, all that is being said is that setting h=0 produces the limit. (iii) is often misunderstood especially by morons on the internet as being a definition, but it is nothing of the sort. It's merely a "verifinition",
that is, a restatement of what is actually being done: showing that L is the right guess. It's very circular and rigour has nothing to do with it.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BKK
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-14 19:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
P.S.: Good luck in setting h=0 for the
case of f(x)=e^x. We then get the following:


f(x+h)-f(x) e^(x+h)-e^x
----------- = -----------
h h

= e^x + e^x (e^h - 1 - h)/h

= e^x + Q(h,x)

How do you set h=0 in Q(h,x)? Can you
explain? There is a division by h.

Will you use a series for e^h and thus
invoke a limit, aka the infinite sum?
Post by b***@gmail.com
So you are about to discover the limit the first
0.333... = 1/3
Banana Song (I'm A Banana)
http://youtu.be/LH5ay10RTG
Y
Post by John Gabriel at age 50.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, continuity doesn't exist because infinity doesn't exist either, and the assumption of existence of continuity was a total brain fart, but an artificial deliberate continuity was adopted by fabricating those (Epsilon-Delta) Distances just for practical needs which aren't truly any mathematics for sure
Epsilonics are just a ruse from what's really going on: the inability of anyone before me to formulate a rigorous calculus.
f'(x) = lim_{h -> 0} 2x + Q(h) where Q(h) = h
In the bogus calculus Q(h) is meaningless bullshit, but let's set it to zero as we can do in the rigorous new calculus, then f'(x)=2x+h = 2x+0 = 2x.
Setting h=0 is EQUIVALENT to finding the limit!
i. The value approached by the finite differences is the derivative/limit.
ii. As the distance is made arbitrarily small between f(x) and L, then the distance between x and c (point of tangency) also gets close to 0.
iii. 0<|x-c|<delta => |f(x)-L|<epsilon where epsilon>0 and delta>0. This is required just in case the orangutans need to have a hole at c.
ad nauseum...
At the end of the day, all that is being said is that setting h=0 produces the limit. (iii) is often misunderstood especially by morons on the internet as being a definition, but it is nothing of the sort. It's merely a "verifinition",
that is, a restatement of what is actually being done: showing that L is the right guess. It's very circular and rigour has nothing to do with it.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BKK
SteveGG
2017-11-06 12:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why don't you guys post so others can easily read ?!

Most of us have Forteinc Agent or the like.

I might be interested in your post but it's just
too much trouble to read ...
Zelos Malum
2017-11-06 12:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
First of, the ability to express anything is irrelevant. Your squareroots are just as unexpressable as cuberoots for example.

Secondly, the reason is simple. Rational numbers (or any finite extensionso f htem and even the extension of 2^n'th roots) don't possess all the properties that are needed to make a good foundation for analysis. the supremum property is of outmost importans in a lot of things, including calculus.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And this intuitive and so simple question not necessarily directed to those described as professional mathematicians since we know exactly how are those captured by so many meaningless definitions that make it impossible for them to think outside their so tinny box or far behind their long noses
Actually they have thought on all of this long before you were born so don't put yourself on a pedestal. They are smarter than you, more knowledgable than you and know the value of these things.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
People hiding their true identities by using many fictional and masked names
You mean like YOUR OWN FUCKING NAME!? Hypocrite!
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
We can use a lot of them and it is not about the individual numbers. The fact is, mathematics cares very little about the individual numbers or elements of anything. It is the general structure of things that is important. The fact that reals have the supremum property is what is valuable about them.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-07 07:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
First of, the ability to express anything is irrelevant. Your squareroots are just as unexpressable as cuberoots for example.
Secondly, the reason is simple. Rational numbers (or any finite extensionso f htem and even the extension of 2^n'th roots) don't possess all the properties that are needed to make a good foundation for analysis. the supremum property is of outmost importans in a lot of things, including calculus.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And this intuitive and so simple question not necessarily directed to those described as professional mathematicians since we know exactly how are those captured by so many meaningless definitions that make it impossible for them to think outside their so tinny box or far behind their long noses
Actually they have thought on all of this long before you were born so don't put yourself on a pedestal. They are smarter than you, more knowledgable than you and know the value of these things.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
People hiding their true identities by using many fictional and masked names
You mean like YOUR OWN FUCKING NAME!? Hypocrite!
Not at all, you can check up my name from (IIT-B), India, graduated in (1987)
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Neither does anyone need them nor can anyone use them. At least not in mathematics. The only occupation for such non-existing creatures is matheology.
************************
Post by Zelos Malum
We can use a lot of them and it is not about the individual numbers. The fact is, mathematics cares very little about the individual numbers or elements of anything. It is the general structure of things that is important. The fact that reals have the supremum property is what is valuable about them.
Some people do have some respect for themselves when they do notice the author's request not to have responses from fictional characters as you "Zeros"

Hence, no consideration to whatever you write unless you confess truly who are you

Remember what did I say in the first message, here again:

People hiding their true identities by using many fictional and masked names are not at all encouraged or welcomed to comment or participate in this important topic since we know in advance their well-exposed and so ill behaviours and intentions for their own purposes, and truly they have nothing to add or nothing to lose when they usually do participate so foolishly just to protect their own products that are full of pure global ignorance

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 7th, 2017
Zelos Malum
2017-11-09 06:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Not at all, you can check up my name from (IIT-B), India, graduated in (1987)
Unless you post a picture with your ID, all information clearly visible, and give me your adress, contact information to your job and all, you may just as well just have pulled that from someone else and I have no reason to believe you.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Hence, no consideration to whatever you write unless you confess truly who are you
With other words, you have nothing to come with so you just cry and make up excuses. Assume I give you A name, how would you know if I was honest? You can't so again, whats the point?
Quadibloc
2017-11-08 09:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible
to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless
notation in mind only?
The real number line is a nice, simple thing.

A line consisting only of the rational numbers is more complicated. And because
squares have diagonals, and circles have both a circumference and a radius, we
would have to add other numbers to that.

One can use functions like the log and trig functions on rational numbers to
construct other numbers that are no longer rational.

But that can also be done with other less well-known functions, like the Bessel
functions or the Gamma function. These were new functions that can be defined
using things like integrals from the older, simpler functions, but they aren't
just combinations of them by arithmetic operations.

Mathematicians can come up with new functions, making more numbers
constructible. So those numbers must have existed all along.

Thus, a construct which refers simply to "all the numbers", which doesn't give
the appearance of implying that if you take a stick and cut it with a knife, the
exact length of the result has to be constructible with mathematical operations
(and why would anyone want to think that?) avoids the situation where new
numbers pop out of an impenetrable fog...

John Savard
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-08 10:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible
to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless
notation in mind only?
The real number line is a nice, simple thing.
A line consisting only of the rational numbers is more complicated. And because
squares have diagonals, and circles have both a circumference and a radius, we
would have to add other numbers to that.
One can use functions like the log and trig functions on rational numbers to
construct other numbers that are no longer rational.
But that can also be done with other less well-known functions, like the Bessel
functions or the Gamma function. These were new functions that can be defined
using things like integrals from the older, simpler functions, but they aren't
just combinations of them by arithmetic operations.
Mathematicians can come up with new functions, making more numbers
constructible. So those numbers must have existed all along.
Thus, a construct which refers simply to "all the numbers", which doesn't give
the appearance of implying that if you take a stick and cut it with a knife, the
exact length of the result has to be constructible with mathematical operations
(and why would anyone want to think that?) avoids the situation where new
numbers pop out of an impenetrable fog...
John Savard
Then it must be an easy task for you to design exactly a cube in our physical reality with any distance length of its side such that the cube represents a sum or a difference of two other cubes with positive distinct integer sides? can you? wonder!

BKK
Jim Burns
2017-11-09 02:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 12:21:29 AM UTC-7,
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers,
if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by
constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
The real number line is a nice, simple thing.
I snipped all your good reasons because I have nothing
to add to them.

However, I would like to say that _also_ the real number line
is a good description of a continuous line with numbers
marked on it. The main difference between a line of real
numbers and a line of rational numbers (or of algebraic
numbers, or of constructible numbers) is that _there are_
_no holes in the real number line_ (It is Dedekind complete.)

We don't think our number lines should have holes in them.
Our real number axioms express this concept in clear language
which we can use to reason with.

There are many equivalent ways to express the same concept.
-- If two continuous curves cross in the real plane,
the curves meet at some point.
-- For any two collections of points on the real line,
non-empty, with one set completely to the right of the other,
there is at at least one point between them.
-- For every upper-bounded non-empty set of real numbers,
there exists a least upper bound.
-- And many more.

One consequence of Dedekind completeness of the number line
is that there are non-constructible numbers.

This is essentially the reason that there are non-constructible
numbers: no one cares that there are numbers that are not
constructible, but we do care that our continuous lines
behave like continuous lines.

----
By the way, there is nothing unusual about there being too
many of something to describe or construct or count.

Suppose we have the set of natural numbers. Now, suppose
we have the power set of the natural numbers, the set of
all subsets of the set of natural numbers.

There are more subsets of the natural numbers (uncountably
many) than there are definitions of _anything_ including
subsets of the natural numbers (at most countably many).
Therefore, there are undefinable subsets of the natural
numbers.

What was that sound? Was it the foundations of the
universe trembling? No, it wasn't. The universe is fine,
it's just that there are some things we can't define.
(Or, elsewhere, construct.)
WM
2017-11-09 06:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Burns
There are more subsets of the natural numbers (uncountably
many) than there are definitions of _anything_ including
subsets of the natural numbers (at most countably many).
In order to prove that you need to contradict mathematics, namely the theorem:

For all n in |N: f(n) = |{n, n+1, n+2, ...}| > 10 ==> lim f(n) =/= 0.
Post by Jim Burns
Therefore, there are undefinable subsets of the natural
numbers.
The conclusion from an invalid premise.
Post by Jim Burns
What was that sound? Was it the foundations of the
universe trembling?
Fortunately the real universe is not touched by matheology.
Post by Jim Burns
No, it wasn't. The universe is fine,
it's just that there are some things we can't define.
passeth all reasonable. That's a parallel with other theology.

Regards, WM
j4n bur53
2017-11-08 13:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The transcendental numbers are uncountable.
Anyway nice trivial lemmas here:

if S' subset S and S countable, then S' countable
if S subset S' and S uncountable, then S' uncountable
https://www.math.brown.edu/~res/MFS/handout8.pdf

Just contraposition, use C(.) for countable:

S' subset S & C(S) -> C(S')

<=>

S' subset S -> (C(S) -> C(S'))

Use other variables:

S subset S' -> (C(S') -> C(S))

Use comntraposition:

S subset S' -> (~C(S) -> ~C(S'))

<=>

S subset S' & ~C(S) -> ~C(S')


So if we could prove the transcendental numbers
uncountable, we would have proved the real numbers
uncountable. Since T subset R.

Anybody up for a direct proof?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
And this intuitive and so simple question not necessarily directed to those described as professional mathematicians since we know exactly how are those captured by so many meaningless definitions that make it impossible for them to think outside their so tinny box or far behind their long noses
But this Q is directed mainly to those amateurs in many fields as mathematics, logic, philosophy, Engineering, independent thinkers, ... etc, as it is very easy for them to recognize reality from fictions since they are quite lucky not to be so much mind pulleted by so many mathematical decisions or non-sensible definitions that are inherited and were imposed on the mathematician's shoulders as absolute facts
People hiding their true identities by using many fictional and masked names are not at all encouraged or welcomed to comment or participate in this important topic since we know in advance their well-exposed and so ill behaviours and intentions for their own purposes, and truly they have nothing to add or nothing to lose when they usually do participate so foolishly just to protect their own products that are full of pure global ignorance
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 6th, 2017
Dan Christensen
2017-11-08 14:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
The troll BKK, like the others here, believes that he can achieve in science and engineering everything that we can do in real analysis using a only a subset of the real numbers. It is really nothing more than an article of faith or religious dogma at this point. So far, he has not been able to demonstrate how his goofy system would work, or that real analysis is, any sense, broken or inconsistent.

Meanwhile, real analysis keeps going from strength to strength as the basis for just about all of modern science and technology. It must be frustrating as hell for BKK and his fellow trolls here, but their various and silly "square wheel" projects don't seem to going anywhere.


Dan
Dan Christensen
2017-11-08 14:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
BKK and his fellow cranks and trolls here seem to believe, as an article of faith or religious dogma, that they can achieve everything in science and engineering that we can now do in real analysis using only a subset of the real numbers. Good luck with that, guys, but you are destined to fail. Your complete lack of any real progress after all these years (decades in some cases) should convince of you that.


Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
WM
2017-11-08 21:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
BKK and his fellow cranks and trolls here seem to believe, as an article of faith or religious dogma, that they can achieve everything in science and engineering that we can now do in real analysis using only a subset of the real numbers.
We can prove that not more is possible.
Post by Dan Christensen
Good luck with that, guys, but you are destined to fail. Your complete lack of any real progress after all these years (decades in some cases) should convince of you that.
It convinces us of the fact that set theory can cause real brain damage. Of course you cannot be healed. But discussions like these are very helpful in convincing normal people including young students that set theory is really detrimentalto clear thinking.

Regards, WM
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-08 21:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Except that the reals are uncountable.
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
BKK and his fellow cranks and trolls here seem to believe, as an article of faith or religious dogma, that they can achieve everything in science and engineering that we can now do in real analysis using only a subset of the real numbers.
We can prove that not more is possible.
Post by Dan Christensen
Good luck with that, guys, but you are destined to fail. Your complete lack of any real progress after all these years (decades in some cases) should convince of you that.
It convinces us of the fact that set theory can cause real brain damage. Of course you cannot be healed. But discussions like these are very helpful in convincing normal people including young students that set theory is really detrimentalto clear thinking.
Regards, WM
b***@gmail.com
2017-11-08 22:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Also there are uncountably many different Penrose tilings.

Penrose's Pentaplexity article on aperiodic tiling:
Eureka 39(1978) 16-32
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/radin/pentaplexity.html

In plane geometry, the einstein problem asks about the
existence of a single prototile that by itself forms
an aperiodic set of prototiles, that is, a shape that
can tessellate space, but only in a nonperiodic way.

Proposed solutions -
2010 by Joshua Socolar and Joan Taylor
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4279
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
j4n bur53
2017-11-08 22:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Penrose looks happy:

Roger Penrose in the foyer of the Mitchell
Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy,
Texas A&M University, standing on a
floor with a Penrose tiling
Loading Image...
Post by b***@gmail.com
Also there are uncountably many different Penrose tilings.
Eureka 39(1978) 16-32
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/radin/pentaplexity.html
In plane geometry, the einstein problem asks about the
existence of a single prototile that by itself forms
an aperiodic set of prototiles, that is, a shape that
can tessellate space, but only in a nonperiodic way.
Proposed solutions -
2010 by Joshua Socolar and Joan Taylor
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4279
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
j4n bur53
2017-11-08 22:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
WM, you should look on the bright side, Roger
Penrose can be happy, since the tiling is

aperiodic, there will be no other copy
of Roger Penrose standing where he stands,

so he is quite unique. (Doesn't hold for
WM, BKK, JG, AP, stupidity, stupidity is

all non-unique, just zero, easily replicable).
Post by j4n bur53
Roger Penrose in the foyer of the Mitchell
Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy,
Texas A&M University, standing on a
floor with a Penrose tiling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling#/media/File:RogerPenroseTileTAMU2010.jpg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Also there are uncountably many different Penrose tilings.
Eureka 39(1978) 16-32
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/radin/pentaplexity.html
In plane geometry, the einstein problem asks about the
existence of a single prototile that by itself forms
an aperiodic set of prototiles, that is, a shape that
can tessellate space, but only in a nonperiodic way.
Proposed solutions -
2010 by Joshua Socolar and Joan Taylor
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4279
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-11 07:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j4n bur53
WM, you should look on the bright side, Roger
Penrose can be happy, since the tiling is
aperiodic, there will be no other copy
of Roger Penrose standing where he stands,
so he is quite unique. (Doesn't hold for
WM, BKK, JG, AP, stupidity, stupidity is
all non-unique, just zero, easily replicable).
Post by j4n bur53
Roger Penrose in the foyer of the Mitchell
Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy,
Texas A&M University, standing on a
floor with a Penrose tiling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling#/media/File:RogerPenroseTileTAMU2010.jpg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Also there are uncountably many different Penrose tilings.
Eureka 39(1978) 16-32
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/radin/pentaplexity.html
In plane geometry, the einstein problem asks about the
existence of a single prototile that by itself forms
an aperiodic set of prototiles, that is, a shape that
can tessellate space, but only in a nonperiodic way.
Proposed solutions -
2010 by Joshua Socolar and Joan Taylor
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4279
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
@ bursigan, j4, jan burse ...etc with all your allies

The whole problem with you is mainly your damn references, just see this that is much worth than all the references you do always bring with you for sure



BKK
John Gabriel
2017-11-11 09:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by j4n bur53
WM, you should look on the bright side, Roger
Penrose can be happy, since the tiling is
aperiodic, there will be no other copy
of Roger Penrose standing where he stands,
so he is quite unique. (Doesn't hold for
WM, BKK, JG, AP, stupidity, stupidity is
all non-unique, just zero, easily replicable).
Post by j4n bur53
Roger Penrose in the foyer of the Mitchell
Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy,
Texas A&M University, standing on a
floor with a Penrose tiling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling#/media/File:RogerPenroseTileTAMU2010.jpg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Also there are uncountably many different Penrose tilings.
Eureka 39(1978) 16-32
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/radin/pentaplexity.html
In plane geometry, the einstein problem asks about the
existence of a single prototile that by itself forms
an aperiodic set of prototiles, that is, a shape that
can tessellate space, but only in a nonperiodic way.
Proposed solutions -
2010 by Joshua Socolar and Joan Taylor
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4279
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
@ bursigan, j4, jan burse ...etc with all your allies
The whole problem with you is mainly your damn references, just see this that is much worth than all the references you do always bring with you for sure
http://youtu.be/BFKSnYdLeO0
Ha, ha! Loved that video. I think that singer has more brains than Burse or Malum with all their memorisations.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-11 10:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by j4n bur53
WM, you should look on the bright side, Roger
Penrose can be happy, since the tiling is
aperiodic, there will be no other copy
of Roger Penrose standing where he stands,
so he is quite unique. (Doesn't hold for
WM, BKK, JG, AP, stupidity, stupidity is
all non-unique, just zero, easily replicable).
Post by j4n bur53
Roger Penrose in the foyer of the Mitchell
Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy,
Texas A&M University, standing on a
floor with a Penrose tiling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling#/media/File:RogerPenroseTileTAMU2010.jpg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Also there are uncountably many different Penrose tilings.
Eureka 39(1978) 16-32
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/radin/pentaplexity.html
In plane geometry, the einstein problem asks about the
existence of a single prototile that by itself forms
an aperiodic set of prototiles, that is, a shape that
can tessellate space, but only in a nonperiodic way.
Proposed solutions -
2010 by Joshua Socolar and Joan Taylor
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4279
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
@ bursigan, j4, jan burse ...etc with all your allies
The whole problem with you is mainly your damn references, just see this that is much worth than all the references you do always bring with you for sure
http://youtu.be/BFKSnYdLeO0
Ha, ha! Loved that video. I think that singer has more brains than Burse or Malum with all their memorisations.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
BKK
Definitely yes, and much better than most of the fictional characters hired TROLLS here at sci.math who usually do one main task, (cheating the people), sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-11 10:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by j4n bur53
WM, you should look on the bright side, Roger
Penrose can be happy, since the tiling is
aperiodic, there will be no other copy
of Roger Penrose standing where he stands,
so he is quite unique. (Doesn't hold for
WM, BKK, JG, AP, stupidity, stupidity is
all non-unique, just zero, easily replicable).
Post by j4n bur53
Roger Penrose in the foyer of the Mitchell
Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy,
Texas A&M University, standing on a
floor with a Penrose tiling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling#/media/File:RogerPenroseTileTAMU2010.jpg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Also there are uncountably many different Penrose tilings.
Eureka 39(1978) 16-32
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/radin/pentaplexity.html
In plane geometry, the einstein problem asks about the
existence of a single prototile that by itself forms
an aperiodic set of prototiles, that is, a shape that
can tessellate space, but only in a nonperiodic way.
Proposed solutions -
2010 by Joshua Socolar and Joan Taylor
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4279
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
@ bursigan, j4, jan burse ...etc with all your allies
The whole problem with you is mainly your damn references, just see this that is much worth than all the references you do always bring with you for sure
http://youtu.be/BFKSnYdLeO0
BKK
Dumbarse, answer me this. Do you understand the value of the supremum property?
WM
2017-11-09 06:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
This statement is based on a theory that violates logic and that violates mathematics. Mathematics proves

For all n in |N: f(n) = |{n, n+1, n+2, ...}| > 10 ==> lim f(n) =/= 0

Set theor< requires li9m f(b) = 0.

The violation of logic is: There is a countable model of axioms VII and IV.

Axiom VII. The domain contains at least a set Z which contains the null-set as an element and is such that each of its elements a is related to another element of the form {a}, or which with each of its elements a contains also the related set {a} as an element.

Axiom IV. Every set T is related to a second set (T) (the '"power set" of T), which contains all subsets of T and only those as elements.

A model of a theory is a structure that satisfies the sentences of that theory, in particular its axioms.

Regards, WM
Zeit Geist
2017-11-09 07:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
This statement is based on a theory that violates logic and that violates mathematics. Mathematics proves
For all n in |N: f(n) = |{n, n+1, n+2, ...}| > 10 ==> lim f(n) =/= 0
Set theor< requires li9m f(b) = 0.
R u drunk. Or is it a stroke?
Either way, you’re a crank.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2017-11-09 07:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
This statement is based on a theory that violates logic and that violates mathematics. Mathematics proves
For all n in |N: f(n) = |{n, n+1, n+2, ...}| > 10 ==> lim f(n) =/= 0
Set theory requires lim f(b) = 0.
Regards, WM
WM
2017-11-09 07:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by b***@gmail.com
Except that the reals are uncountable.
This statement is based on a theory that violates logic and that violates mathematics. Mathematics proves
For all n in |N: f(n) = |{n, n+1, n+2, ...}| > 10 ==> lim f(n) =/= 0
Set theory requires lim f(n) = 0.
Regards, WM
Dan Christensen
2017-11-08 22:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
BKK and his fellow cranks and trolls here seem to believe, as an article of faith or religious dogma, that they can achieve everything in science and engineering that we can now do in real analysis using only a subset of the real numbers.
We can prove that not more is possible.
Makes no sense, Mucke.
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Good luck with that, guys, but you are destined to fail. Your complete lack of any real progress after all these years (decades in some cases) should convince of you that.
It convinces us of the fact that set theory can cause real brain damage. Of course you cannot be healed. But discussions like these are very helpful in convincing normal people including young students that set theory is really detrimentalto clear thinking.
Brave words for someone who time and again has claimed to have found inconsistencies in set theory, but could not prove it in using the axioms of set theory as would be required. Just silly diagrams and a lot of hand waving.

And forget about set theory and real analysis, Mucke -- did you ever manage to prove that 1 =/= 2 in your goofy number system? First things first, as they say.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
WM
2017-11-09 06:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Christensen
It convinces us of the fact that set theory can cause real brain damage. Of course you cannot be healed. But discussions like these are very helpful in convincing normal people including young students that set theory is really detrimental to clear thinking.
Brave words for someone who time and again has claimed to have found inconsistencies in set theory, but could not prove it in using the axioms of set theory as would be required.
Axiom VII. The domain contains at least a set Z which contains the null-set as an element and is such that each of its elements a is related to another element of the form {a}, or which with each of its elements a contains also the related set {a} as an element.

Axiom IV. Every set T is related to a second set (T) (the '"power set" of T), which contains all subsets of T and only those as elements.

A model of a theory is a structure that satisfies the sentences of that theory, in particular its axioms.

There is no countable model of axioms IV and VII.

Regards, WM
Zeit Geist
2017-11-09 07:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
It convinces us of the fact that set theory can cause real brain damage. Of course you cannot be healed. But discussions like these are very helpful in convincing normal people including young students that set theory is really detrimental to clear thinking.
Brave words for someone who time and again has claimed to have found inconsistencies in set theory, but could not prove it in using the axioms of set theory as would be required.
Axiom VII. The domain contains at least a set Z which contains the null-set as an element and is such that each of its elements a is related to another element of the form {a}, or which with
each of its elements a contains also the related set {a} as an element.
Post by WM
Axiom IV. Every set T is related to a second set (T) (the '"power set" of T), which contains all subsets of T and only those as elements.
A model of a theory is a structure that satisfies the sentences of that theory, in particular its axioms.
There is no countable model of axioms IV and VII.
Get a clue, please.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
Dan Christensen
2017-11-09 13:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
It convinces us of the fact that set theory can cause real brain damage. Of course you cannot be healed. But discussions like these are very helpful in convincing normal people including young students that set theory is really detrimental to clear thinking.
Brave words for someone who time and again has claimed to have found inconsistencies in set theory, but could not prove it in using the axioms of set theory as would be required.
Axiom VII. The domain contains at least a set Z which contains the null-set as an element and is such that each of its elements a is related to another element of the form {a}, or which with each of its elements a contains also the related set {a} as an element.
You mean, the axiom of infinity? Usually stated as follows:

There exists set I: [Null in I & For all x in I: [x U {x} in I]]

where Null is the empty set.
Post by WM
Axiom IV. Every set T is related to a second set (T) (the '"power set" of T), which contains all subsets of T and only those as elements.
Usually stated:

For all sets X: There exists set Y: For all Z: [Z in Y <=> For all w in Z: w in X]
Post by WM
A model of a theory is a structure that satisfies the sentences of that theory, in particular its axioms.
There is no countable model of axioms IV and VII.
There is nothing about "model" in the axioms of set theory (e.g. in ZFC). If you want to show that model theory is inconsistent, you will have to state the axioms of model theory and derive a contradiction using those axioms. Good luck with that. But then, you would STILL have to derive a contradiction using only the axioms of set theory which you have failed to do yet again, Mucke!


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
WM
2017-11-09 16:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
There is no countable model of axioms IV and VII.
There is nothing about "model" in the axioms of set theory (e.g. in ZFC).
There is nothing about "about" and about "axioms" and about many other things in the axioms of ZFC. That's because some peripherical knowledge is indispensably required when doing mathematics.
Post by Dan Christensen
If you want to show that model theory is inconsistent,
No. Model theory is of no interest. I show that every structure that satisfies the above ZF axioms, usually but not necessarily denoted as a model of these axioms, is uncountable.

Regards, WM
Dan Christensen
2017-11-09 17:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
There is no countable model of axioms IV and VII.
There is nothing about "model" in the axioms of set theory (e.g. in ZFC).
There is nothing about "about" and about "axioms" and about many other things in the axioms of ZFC.
In the WP article on ZFC, there are only 9 axioms (including 2 axiom schemas).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

If you want to show that they are inconsistent (you haven't yet), you will have to be able to both prove and disprove some theorem of ZFC using only these axioms and the ordinary rules of logic (FOL).
Post by WM
That's because some peripherical knowledge is indispensably required when doing mathematics.
Not at this level. Every assumption must be made explicit. No improvisations or hand waving allowed.
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
If you want to show that model theory is inconsistent,
No. Model theory is of no interest. I show that every structure that satisfies the above ZF axioms, usually but not necessarily denoted as a model of these axioms, is uncountable.
You have failed yet again to demonstrate any inconsistencies in set theory, Mucke. How long have you been at this?


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
WM
2017-11-10 14:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
That's because some peripherical knowledge is indispensably required when doing mathematics.
Not at this level. Every assumption must be made explicit.
How to make something explicit without using text that you don't understand?
Post by Dan Christensen
No improvisations or hand waving allowed.
Therefore we use only FOL and the axioms of ZF and find that they make ZF uncountable without refering to anything else (that others may call a model but that you don't know and that threfore should not be used when talking to you).

Regards, WM
Dan Christensen
2017-11-10 18:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
That's because some peripherical knowledge is indispensably required when doing mathematics.
Not at this level. Every assumption must be made explicit.
How to make something explicit without using text that you don't understand?
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can just make up any old nonsense about it -- like your goofy number system where you couldn't even prove that 1 =/= 2.
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
No improvisations or hand waving allowed.
Therefore we use only FOL and the axioms of ZF and find that they make ZF uncountable without refering to anything else...
To prove that ZFC is inconsistent, you must be able to both prove and disprove the same theorem using only FOL and the axioms ZFC. Good luck with that.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
WM
2017-11-11 09:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Therefore we use only FOL and the axioms of ZF and find that they make ZF uncountable without refering to anything else (that others may call a model but that you don't know and that threfore should not be used when talking to you).
To prove that ZFC is inconsistent, you must be able to both prove and disprove the same theorem using only FOL and the axioms ZFC.
No. My share is done, showing that the power set of the set defined in Axiom VII is uncountable. The other part has been settled by Skolem already.
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
No improvisations or hand waving allowed.
Where is that detected? In Skolem's proof? In Hessenbergs proof using axioms VII and IV without any models?

Regards, WM
Zelos Malum
2017-11-11 10:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Therefore we use only FOL and the axioms of ZF and find that they make ZF uncountable without refering to anything else (that others may call a model but that you don't know and that threfore should not be used when talking to you).
To prove that ZFC is inconsistent, you must be able to both prove and disprove the same theorem using only FOL and the axioms ZFC.
No. My share is done, showing that the power set of the set defined in Axiom VII is uncountable. The other part has been settled by Skolem already.
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
No improvisations or hand waving allowed.
Where is that detected? In Skolem's proof? In Hessenbergs proof using axioms VII and IV without any models?
Regards, WM
The fact that |2^N| is uncountable is not an issue in mathematics.
WM
2017-11-11 19:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Therefore we use only FOL and the axioms of ZF and find that they make ZF uncountable without refering to anything else (that others may call a model but that you don't know and that threfore should not be used when talking to you).
To prove that ZFC is inconsistent, you must be able to both prove and disprove the same theorem using only FOL and the axioms ZFC.
No. My share is done, showing that the power set of the set defined in Axiom VII is uncountable. The other part has been settled by Skolem already.
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
No improvisations or hand waving allowed.
Where is that detected? In Skolem's proof? In Hessenbergs proof using axioms VII and IV without any models?
The fact that |2^N| is uncountable is not an issue in mathematics.
And the fact that N or Z or an equivalent set is in every model of ZF is not an issue either.

Regards, WM
Dan Christensen
2017-11-11 16:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Therefore we use only FOL and the axioms of ZF and find that they make ZF uncountable without refering to anything else (that others may call a model but that you don't know and that threfore should not be used when talking to you).
To prove that ZFC is inconsistent, you must be able to both prove and disprove the same theorem using only FOL and the axioms ZFC.
No. My share is done, showing that the power set of the set defined in Axiom VII is uncountable.
It is a well known result that the power set of any infinite set is uncountable. No contradiction there, Mucke.
Post by WM
The other part has been settled by Skolem already.
Bullshit.
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
No improvisations or hand waving allowed.
Where is that detected? In Skolem's proof? In Hessenbergs proof using axioms VII and IV without any models?
So far, no one, especially not you or your fellow crack-pots here, have been able to demonstrate any inconsistencies in ZFC. Must be frustrating as hell for you.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
WM
2017-11-11 19:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
Therefore we use only FOL and the axioms of ZF and find that they make ZF uncountable without refering to anything else (that others may call a model but that you don't know and that threfore should not be used when talking to you).
To prove that ZFC is inconsistent, you must be able to both prove and disprove the same theorem using only FOL and the axioms ZFC.
No. My share is done, showing that the power set of the set defined in Axiom VII is uncountable.
It is a well known result that the power set of any infinite set is uncountable.
In every model of ZF.
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by WM
The other part has been settled by Skolem already.
Bullshit.
So said Zermelo too, not with your language of the gutter though.
Regards, WM
Peter Percival
2017-11-08 22:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is
Who is "we"? Clearly there is a large class of "we" (certainly most of
the human race) who do not need them. What of it?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible
numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-11 10:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only?
And this intuitive and so simple question not necessarily directed to those described as professional mathematicians since we know exactly how are those captured by so many meaningless definitions that make it impossible for them to think outside their so tinny box or far behind their long noses
But this Q is directed mainly to those amateurs in many fields as mathematics, logic, philosophy, Engineering, independent thinkers, ... etc, as it is very easy for them to recognize reality from fictions since they are quite lucky not to be so much mind pulleted by so many mathematical decisions or non-sensible definitions that are inherited and were imposed on the mathematician's shoulders as absolute facts
People hiding their true identities by using many fictional and masked names are not at all encouraged or welcomed to comment or participate in this important topic since we know in advance their well-exposed and so ill behaviours and intentions for their own purposes, and truly they have nothing to add or nothing to lose when they usually do participate so foolishly just to protect their own products that are full of pure global ignorance
Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
Nov. 6th, 2017
In simple words, the alleged historian top most genius mathematicians had invented and fabricated those alleged new real numbers as algebraic or transcendental numbers (excluding the real constructible numbers), where at the same time it is impossible for them to express those fabricated creatures except in a form of previously known as constructible numbers, where also it is impossible for them to describe them geometrically existant, hence a human brain farto real numberS,

And truly a stupid only who can't recognize EASILY this obvious brain fart of the professional mathematicians for sure

However, many other BIGGER Jokes had been discovered and PUBLISHED here about the mathematical mind hallucination

And much more to come for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-11 12:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bassam, you are the stupid one here whom refuses to learn and make up excuses to avoid having to face it.
John Gabriel
2017-11-11 13:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Bassam, you are the stupid one here whom refuses to learn and make up excuses to avoid having to face it.
If only you had half his brains! Chuckle.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-11 15:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Zelos Malum
Bassam, you are the stupid one here whom refuses to learn and make up excuses to avoid having to face it.
If only you had half his brains! Chuckle.
But the main problem with Zelos that he had Zero brains for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-11 16:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Zelos Malum
Bassam, you are the stupid one here whom refuses to learn and make up excuses to avoid having to face it.
If only you had half his brains! Chuckle.
Then I would be a retard like you and him.
John Gabriel at age 50.
2017-11-11 16:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Zelos Malum
Bassam, you are the stupid one here whom refuses to learn and make up excuses to avoid having to face it.
If only you had half his brains! Chuckle.
Then I would be a retard like you and him.
You proved once again your poor ability to produce inference.

Take some English classes.
Zelos Malum
2017-11-11 17:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gabriel at age 50.
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Zelos Malum
Bassam, you are the stupid one here whom refuses to learn and make up excuses to avoid having to face it.
If only you had half his brains! Chuckle.
Then I would be a retard like you and him.
You proved once again your poor ability to produce inference.
Take some English classes.
He is a retard, so his brain is retarded, and if I have his brain, then it would make me retarded.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-11 17:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by John Gabriel at age 50.
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by John Gabriel
Post by Zelos Malum
Bassam, you are the stupid one here whom refuses to learn and make up excuses to avoid having to face it.
If only you had half his brains! Chuckle.
Then I would be a retard like you and him.
You proved once again your poor ability to produce inference.
Take some English classes.
He is a retard, so his brain is retarded, and if I have his brain, then it would make me retarded.
Yes you are certainly retard, but not me unless you go around and refute any of my BUBLISHED conjectures around your head, formulas, ...etc

So, this is only your chance and nothingelse for sure
otherwise, don't encounter me and waste my and your time too

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-13 17:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Yes you are certainly retard, but not me unless you go around and refute any of my BUBLISHED conjectures around your head, formulas, ...etc
I have refuted them all, they are all based on your ignorance and not definitions. Which is why they are not proofs but idiocy.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-11-13 18:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Yes you are certainly retard, but not me unless you go around and refute any of my BUBLISHED conjectures around your head, formulas, ...etc
I have refuted them all, they are all based on your ignorance and not definitions. Which is why they are not proofs but idiocy.
Not any professional mathematician with known identity seems to agree with you, for sure, SO you are talking to your self for sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-11-13 19:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Yes you are certainly retard, but not me unless you go around and refute any of my BUBLISHED conjectures around your head, formulas, ...etc
I have refuted them all, they are all based on your ignorance and not definitions. Which is why they are not proofs but idiocy.
Not any professional mathematician with known identity seems to agree with you, for sure, SO you are talking to your self for sure
BKK
No mathematician agree with you so you are clearly quite wrong.
Loading...