Discussion:
What is the positive quantity closest to zero?
(too old to reply)
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-10 21:31:01 UTC
Permalink
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real
as the unlimited small.

If you keep dividing the unlimited small
it never reaches zero math.

If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
what other number line can get rid of that?
It would always have its New beginning instead.
That is the real of the sub finite beginning
quantity represented first after zero
on a real number line.

If you divide beyond infinity you
are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.

Mitchell Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-11 05:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real
as the unlimited small.
If you keep dividing the unlimited small
it never reaches zero math.
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
what other number line can get rid of that?
It would always have its New beginning instead.
That is the real of the sub finite beginning
quantity represented first after zero
on a real number line.
If you divide beyond infinity you
are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is a beginning to every number line.

Mitchell Raemsch
Alan Mackenzie
2020-04-11 12:29:38 UTC
Permalink
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
line"):
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.

That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first on
the number line.
.... as is that.

Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise by
now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained this to
you.
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-11 18:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
No. You are a moron... it has its beginning first quantity...
Post by Alan Mackenzie
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first on
the number line.
.... as is that.
Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise by
now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained this to
you.
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?

Mitchell Raemsch
Alan Mackenzie
2020-04-11 19:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
Please define what you mean by "zero math".
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
Glad you agree with me, there.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
Of the real number line, yes.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
No. You are a moron...
I'm not a moron, thank you very much.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
it has its beginning first quantity...
You are simply mistaken, here.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.
.... as is that.
Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise
by now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained
this to you.
[ .... ]
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity at the beginning
of a quantity line...?
Zero on the number line is zero. To talk about a "first" zero is silly.
You'll need to say what you mean by "quantity line" - it's not a
mathematically understood term.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
If a "first point" doesn't exist, it needn't, and can't, go anywhere.
Your question is a bit like asking where unicorns live.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-11 19:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
Sub finite is for dividing by more than infinite...
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
Zero math myth wins all of the way...
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
Please define what you mean by "zero math".
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
Glad you agree with me, there.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
Of the real number line, yes.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
No. You are a moron...
I'm not a moron,
Sure you are. You can't get rid of the
truth of the beginning of a number line
first...
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
it has its beginning first quantity...
You are simply mistaken, here.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.
.... as is that.
Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise
by now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained
this to you.
[ .... ]
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity at the beginning
of a quantity line...?
Zero on the number line is zero. To talk about a "first" zero is silly.
You'll need to say what you mean by "quantity line" - it's not a
mathematically understood term.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
If a "first point" doesn't exist, it needn't, and can't, go anywhere.
Its after zero math...
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Your question is a bit like asking where unicorns live.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Sergio
2020-04-11 20:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
1
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
Sub finite is for dividing by more than infinite...
in + finite = infinite

sub + finite = subfinite
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
Zero math myth wins all of the way...
ZOD Math rules Zero Math daily.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
Please define what you mean by "zero math".
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
Glad you agree with me, there.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
Of the real number line, yes.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
No. You are a moron...
I'm not a moron,
Sure you are. You can't get rid of the
truth of the beginning of a number line
first...
you mean number CIRCLE
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
it has its beginning first quantity...
You are simply mistaken, here.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.
.... as is that.
Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise
by now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained
this to you.
[ .... ]
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity at the beginning
of a quantity line...?
Zero on the number line is zero. To talk about a "first" zero is silly.
You'll need to say what you mean by "quantity line" - it's not a
mathematically understood term.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
If a "first point" doesn't exist, it needn't, and can't, go anywhere.
Its after zero math...
yep, ZOD Math rejected Zero math as nothing.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Your question is a bit like asking where unicorns live.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Michael Moroney
2020-04-11 20:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
There is no "first" after zero on a number line of real numbers.
There is no "first" negative number less than zero, either.

There is a "first quantity" for the natural numbers. It is called "1".
The reals are not quantized.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
Sub finite is for dividing by more than infinite...
Gibberish.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
Zero math myth wins all of the way...
You never defined "zero math".
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
No. You are a moron...
I'm not a moron,
Sure you are. You can't get rid of the
truth of the beginning of a number line
first...
Stuff you make up is not "truth". It is just stuff which you made up.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
If a "first point" doesn't exist, it needn't, and can't, go anywhere.
Its after zero math...
What is "zero math"?
Alan Mackenzie
2020-04-12 12:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first". You're
mistaken, totally. There is no "first number" after zero. There is an
infinitude of numbers following zero, and any such number has an
infinitude of numbers before it. What is so difficult about
understanding this?
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
Sub finite is for dividing by more than infinite...
There isn't anything "more than infinite". There is no "infinity" on the
real number line, either.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
Zero math myth wins all of the way...
That's meaningless terminology, used only by yourself. It's rather rude
to use such words without saying what you mean by them.

[ .... ]
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-12 17:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first".
What is next to zero? You are obsessed with trying to get rid of it...

Mitchell Raemsch
Sergio
2020-04-12 18:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first".
What is next to zero? You are obsessed with trying to get rid of it...
Mitchell Raemsch
use a broom and get that dust which is next to Zero.
Alan Mackenzie
2020-04-12 19:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real as the
unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first".
What is next to zero? You are obsessed with trying to get rid of it...
Not at all. How can one get rid of something which doesn't exist?

The fact is, mathematicians over the last few centuries have sorted out
all these things about "infinity" infinitesimals, "being next to", and
so on. That stuff is all solid knowledge now, and you insisting on
there being something on the real line "next to zero" is about as clever
as asserting that the Earth is flat.

Mathematics is a matter of rigorous proof, not a matter of opinion.
Several people here, including me, have given you a proof that your
supposed "first number next to zero" can not exist. Yet you ignore this
proof. Maybe you haven't made the effort to understand it. I recommend
you to go back and do that now. If you really can't understand it, then
I would recommend you simply to accept it on the grounds lots of other
people over the centuries have checked it and found it to be true.

Otherwise you just look like one more idiot on sci.math. There are
quite enough of these as it is without you adding to their number.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Ross A. Finlayson
2020-04-12 19:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real as the
unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first".
What is next to zero? You are obsessed with trying to get rid of it...
Not at all. How can one get rid of something which doesn't exist?
The fact is, mathematicians over the last few centuries have sorted out
all these things about "infinity" infinitesimals, "being next to", and
so on. That stuff is all solid knowledge now, and you insisting on
there being something on the real line "next to zero" is about as clever
as asserting that the Earth is flat.
Mathematics is a matter of rigorous proof, not a matter of opinion.
Several people here, including me, have given you a proof that your
supposed "first number next to zero" can not exist. Yet you ignore this
proof. Maybe you haven't made the effort to understand it. I recommend
you to go back and do that now. If you really can't understand it, then
I would recommend you simply to accept it on the grounds lots of other
people over the centuries have checked it and found it to be true.
Otherwise you just look like one more idiot on sci.math. There are
quite enough of these as it is without you adding to their number.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Consider a jig-saw puzzle
with a grid on one side
and concentric circles the other.

Though we don't see them cross
for either side of the puzzle,
there is flipping over the entire puzzle.

I.e., it can be assembled either way,
but flipping the entire puzzle is different
than flipping any one piece, and each piece
only fits in the puzzle one way.

The pieces with lines and pieces with curves
don't go in each other's puzzle at all -
but the corners and the edges are the same,
and they both build the same puzzle.


In fact, infinitesimals are so simple.
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-12 22:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real as the
unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first".
What is next to zero? You are obsessed with trying to get rid of it...
Not at all. How can one get rid of something which doesn't exist?
Who created it but the mathematician? Are you saying they
don't exist and only you do?

So why are those mathematicians wrong about real math?
So no one can draw a number line now because you say so?
No.
When its drawn the drawer always has to start it
somewhere to give it a beginning... zero math and
first quantity math are nearest to each other never
being the same... even as you keep dividing.


Mitchell Raemsch
Sergio
2020-04-13 04:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real as the
unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first".
What is next to zero? You are obsessed with trying to get rid of it...
Not at all. How can one get rid of something which doesn't exist?
Who created it but the mathematician? Are you saying they
don't exist and only you do?
So why are those mathematicians wrong about real math?
So no one can draw a number line now because you say so?
No.
When its drawn the drawer always has to start it
somewhere to give it a beginning... zero math and
first quantity math are nearest to each other never
being the same... even as you keep dividing.
Mitchell Raemsch
Real Mathematicians reject fake math.
John
2020-04-13 02:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real as the
unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first".
What is next to zero? You are obsessed with trying to get rid of it...
Not at all. How can one get rid of something which doesn't exist?
The fact is, mathematicians over the last few centuries have sorted out
all these things about "infinity" infinitesimals, "being next to", and
so on. That stuff is all solid knowledge now, and you insisting on
there being something on the real line "next to zero" is about as clever
as asserting that the Earth is flat.
Mathematics is a matter of rigorous proof, not a matter of opinion.
Several people here, including me, have given you a proof that your
supposed "first number next to zero" can not exist. Yet you ignore this
proof. Maybe you haven't made the effort to understand it. I recommend
you to go back and do that now. If you really can't understand it, then
I would recommend you simply to accept it on the grounds lots of other
people over the centuries have checked it and found it to be true.
Okay, here's the thing in simplistic terms. Anyone older than three
and with an I.Q. larger than their shoe size pleas bear with me to
the end. I *know* I'm not being rigorous but rigour doesn't do the
trick with Archies and Mitches. Maybe comedy will?

So, let us begin:

We have Zero, a number. We *display* this number as a point on a line
that we call "The Real Number Line". This is only a drawing, a model,
a *picture*, not reality but let us work with it.

To the "right" of Zero we have lots and lots and lots of positive
numbers and to the left just as many [hmmm, is that true?] *negative*
numbers.

Archaic Poo and Mr Gabriel are wrong. Negative numbers do exist and
they can be *pictured* using our little line. [Well, they do exist
just as existy as positive ones do and there is *probably* just as
many of them. Maybe. Well, it's got a fair chance of being so.]

Now, look at Mr. Zero, sitting there in the "middle", all fluffy and
round and cosy. Nice, yes? Okay, so we are going to walk from Zero
along our line to some very, very small number that is nearly Zero. So
we start our journey at "the very smallest number right next to Zero"
[let us call this number "Hunny" because Hunny is very close to me
and, in Mathematics, I'm about as close to a person of zero skills as
can be] then jump to the next most close number "Hunny plus a littly
bit", then the next and the next and so on until we get to the number
we first thought of.

So far, so easy, yes?

So, exactly how small *is* Hunny? *How* "close to Zero" is she?

Well, she's bigger than half-a-Hunny, isn't she? That seems obvious
as half a cake is smaller than the whole cake was. She's even bigger
than a Hunny divided by four and Hunny-over-twenty and a ten thousand
millionth of a Hunny.

Let's see, we can call "a ten thousand millionth of a Hunny" "Bob".
So, Bob must be smaller than Hunny, yes? After all, Bob is Hunny
*DIVIDED BY* 10,000,000,000 so it must be smaller. Sort of like the
way a single Mitch is smaller than the entire population of Man.

But ... if Bob is *smaller* than Hunny, that means Bob is CLOSER TO
ZERO than Hunny.

Oh. Oh, dear. Oh, deary, deary me. That means that my lovely little
Hunny is *not* now the closest number to Zero, Bob is lots and lots of
numbers closer.

So? Is *BOB* the closest number to Zero? The number that comes on the
"line" just after Zero?

Hell, no. Guess why?

Oh, yes, you are all right and you all get a virtual biscuit to go
with your virtual tea. [Which I'm not making as I find it tiring just
making my own.]

Bob isn't the closest number to Zero, even though he's closer than my
little Hunny because we can divide *BOB* by millions and millions and
millions and lots of more millions to get Gerty.

Then we can divide Gerty, who is *way* closer to Zero than Bob ever
dreamed of being, by more and more millions to make Rexy the
Wondermouse Number.

Mitch, old pal, can you see the problem?

Can you see the pattern?

We can *always divide Rexy the Wondermouse Number and all of the
littler numbers by vary, very large numbers or by two and three and
seven and sixty-six sextillion and five to make numbers even smaller,
even closer to curvy, lonely Miss Zero.

If we do all of this dividing and dividing and more dividing for
years and years and years, we get teentsy tiny numbers that make Hunny
look truly colossal.

And all of those numbers are closer to Zero than Hunny is.

Fuck "infinity", fuck "infinitesimal", we can pick *any* arbitrary
Hunny as our "number that is closest to Missy Zero", divide it as
often by as many and as large numbers as we chose to find numbers a
lot closer than is our chosen Hunny.


Now, Mitch, do you see the problem?
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Otherwise you just look like one more idiot on sci.math. There are
quite enough of these as it is without you adding to their number.
Are you sure we don't need more? Quarantine gets boring. We may need
new chewtoys and carloads of clowns to chastise comically.

We have to keep our minds sharp for the bright day, far in the
distant future when we beat Winnie-the-Flu to emerge onto the glorious
day lit surface of the world Man once owned.

Chewing on Mitches and Archies is also fun.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Raemsch
Do you understand, now? *Can* you understand?

The "Real Number Line", the "set of Real Numbers", it's continuous
and there is no "closest to Zero". Just as there is no "closest to
five" or "next number after Pi".

It's all a smoothie without lumpies and we can always cut it into
teentsier bitties.

All cool, now?

J.
Ross A. Finlayson
2020-04-13 16:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real as the
unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
There is no such first negative quantity, either.
So what comes first after zero when you draw
a number line?
You're obsessed with this idea that something must "come first".
What is next to zero? You are obsessed with trying to get rid of it...
Not at all. How can one get rid of something which doesn't exist?
The fact is, mathematicians over the last few centuries have sorted out
all these things about "infinity" infinitesimals, "being next to", and
so on. That stuff is all solid knowledge now, and you insisting on
there being something on the real line "next to zero" is about as clever
as asserting that the Earth is flat.
Mathematics is a matter of rigorous proof, not a matter of opinion.
Several people here, including me, have given you a proof that your
supposed "first number next to zero" can not exist. Yet you ignore this
proof. Maybe you haven't made the effort to understand it. I recommend
you to go back and do that now. If you really can't understand it, then
I would recommend you simply to accept it on the grounds lots of other
people over the centuries have checked it and found it to be true.
Okay, here's the thing in simplistic terms. Anyone older than three
and with an I.Q. larger than their shoe size pleas bear with me to
the end. I *know* I'm not being rigorous but rigour doesn't do the
trick with Archies and Mitches. Maybe comedy will?
We have Zero, a number. We *display* this number as a point on a line
that we call "The Real Number Line". This is only a drawing, a model,
a *picture*, not reality but let us work with it.
To the "right" of Zero we have lots and lots and lots of positive
numbers and to the left just as many [hmmm, is that true?] *negative*
numbers.
Archaic Poo and Mr Gabriel are wrong. Negative numbers do exist and
they can be *pictured* using our little line. [Well, they do exist
just as existy as positive ones do and there is *probably* just as
many of them. Maybe. Well, it's got a fair chance of being so.]
Now, look at Mr. Zero, sitting there in the "middle", all fluffy and
round and cosy. Nice, yes? Okay, so we are going to walk from Zero
along our line to some very, very small number that is nearly Zero. So
we start our journey at "the very smallest number right next to Zero"
[let us call this number "Hunny" because Hunny is very close to me
and, in Mathematics, I'm about as close to a person of zero skills as
can be] then jump to the next most close number "Hunny plus a littly
bit", then the next and the next and so on until we get to the number
we first thought of.
So far, so easy, yes?
So, exactly how small *is* Hunny? *How* "close to Zero" is she?
Well, she's bigger than half-a-Hunny, isn't she? That seems obvious
as half a cake is smaller than the whole cake was. She's even bigger
than a Hunny divided by four and Hunny-over-twenty and a ten thousand
millionth of a Hunny.
Let's see, we can call "a ten thousand millionth of a Hunny" "Bob".
So, Bob must be smaller than Hunny, yes? After all, Bob is Hunny
*DIVIDED BY* 10,000,000,000 so it must be smaller. Sort of like the
way a single Mitch is smaller than the entire population of Man.
But ... if Bob is *smaller* than Hunny, that means Bob is CLOSER TO
ZERO than Hunny.
Oh. Oh, dear. Oh, deary, deary me. That means that my lovely little
Hunny is *not* now the closest number to Zero, Bob is lots and lots of
numbers closer.
So? Is *BOB* the closest number to Zero? The number that comes on the
"line" just after Zero?
Hell, no. Guess why?
Oh, yes, you are all right and you all get a virtual biscuit to go
with your virtual tea. [Which I'm not making as I find it tiring just
making my own.]
Bob isn't the closest number to Zero, even though he's closer than my
little Hunny because we can divide *BOB* by millions and millions and
millions and lots of more millions to get Gerty.
Then we can divide Gerty, who is *way* closer to Zero than Bob ever
dreamed of being, by more and more millions to make Rexy the
Wondermouse Number.
Mitch, old pal, can you see the problem?
Can you see the pattern?
We can *always divide Rexy the Wondermouse Number and all of the
littler numbers by vary, very large numbers or by two and three and
seven and sixty-six sextillion and five to make numbers even smaller,
even closer to curvy, lonely Miss Zero.
If we do all of this dividing and dividing and more dividing for
years and years and years, we get teentsy tiny numbers that make Hunny
look truly colossal.
And all of those numbers are closer to Zero than Hunny is.
Fuck "infinity", fuck "infinitesimal", we can pick *any* arbitrary
Hunny as our "number that is closest to Missy Zero", divide it as
often by as many and as large numbers as we chose to find numbers a
lot closer than is our chosen Hunny.
Now, Mitch, do you see the problem?
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Otherwise you just look like one more idiot on sci.math. There are
quite enough of these as it is without you adding to their number.
Are you sure we don't need more? Quarantine gets boring. We may need
new chewtoys and carloads of clowns to chastise comically.
We have to keep our minds sharp for the bright day, far in the
distant future when we beat Winnie-the-Flu to emerge onto the glorious
day lit surface of the world Man once owned.
Chewing on Mitches and Archies is also fun.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Raemsch
Do you understand, now? *Can* you understand?
The "Real Number Line", the "set of Real Numbers", it's continuous
and there is no "closest to Zero". Just as there is no "closest to
five" or "next number after Pi".
It's all a smoothie without lumpies and we can always cut it into
teentsier bitties.
All cool, now?
J.
Thanks, this is warmly received, in amateur.

You know calculus where, when you divide the line,
you always divide it evenly and you always keep
the divisions the same and always keep track of
the height (here, zero, for the line) of each of
the equal divisions, until no matter how many times
somebody would want to count, there are at least
twice as many divisions. Any one of the divisions
looks like zero but when you add them up it's the line.

This way when there's a function that looks like
x^2, you know it is 1/3 x^3 under it.

You might know geometry and not need power law of
calculus to read off the area, but still someone
can draw twice as many lines and make analysis.

Just like "counting to infinity", "going to zero"
is useful in mathematics, moreso with zero being
in the middle while infinity is usually at the end.

The point is to keep track of what you are doing
besides what you have done, going to zero, and
from establishing that with infinite induction,
which is bounded induction given to cases in the
integers to go infinite, not worrying or caring
that there's the infinite case besides.

That's the point of _having to use the tools_
and keeping them in a standard way, here this
unbounded, instead of just pointing at infinity
and zero. Also it does work that way, very
carefully and exactly. (With infinity and zero.)
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-13 18:42:29 UTC
Permalink
No one can count to infinity.
And no one can divide to zero.
You would have to start there.

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2020-04-11 20:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
"First zero" makes no sense. There is only one zero.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
As the reals are continuous, contiguous and dense, there cannot be any first
point. That just doesn't make sense. See where those terms were explained
earlier in this thread.
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-12 17:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Oh really moron?
What makes the difference?
First quantity is first quantity...
There is a beginning or first quantity there always.
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.

Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
"First zero" makes no sense. There is only one zero.
Zero math is no quantity math coming first.
And there are two zeros... man's relative
and the absolute...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
As the reals are continuous, contiguous and dense, there cannot be any first
point.
Then what is next to zero when you draw the first on the number line?
Sergio
2020-04-12 18:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Oh really moron?
What makes the difference?
First quantity is first quantity...
There is a beginning or first quantity there always.
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
"First zero" makes no sense. There is only one zero.
Zero math is no quantity math coming first.
And there are two zeros... man's relative
and the absolute...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
As the reals are continuous, contiguous and dense, there cannot be any first
point.
Then what is next to zero when you draw the first on the number line?
+ 1 and -1 when you draw the number circle...
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-12 18:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Oh really moron?
What makes the difference?
First quantity is first quantity...
There is a beginning or first quantity there always.
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
"First zero" makes no sense. There is only one zero.
Zero math is no quantity math coming first.
And there are two zeros... man's relative
and the absolute...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
As the reals are continuous, contiguous and dense, there cannot be any first
point.
Then what is next to zero when you draw the first on the number line?
+ 1 and -1 when you draw the number circle...
That doesn't have a place on a circle....
Show your circle's absolute place of 1...
how do determine zero for a line of any kind?
zero math is first? how is it assigned to any line?

Mitchell Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-12 18:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Oh really moron?
What makes the difference?
First quantity is first quantity...
There is a beginning or first quantity there always.
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
"First zero" makes no sense. There is only one zero.
Zero math is no quantity math coming first.
And there are two zeros... man's relative
and the absolute...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
As the reals are continuous, contiguous and dense, there cannot be any first
point.
Then what is next to zero when you draw the first on the number line?
+ 1 and -1 when you draw the number circle...
If your circle is a round closed curve it cannot
replace a straight number line.
Where is your points of zero and two one's on the your circle
curve applied? show how you place a no quantity of any quantity
on your closed round curve?

What about your circle's radius's?
Do they make a difference...?


Mitchell Raemsch
Sergio
2020-04-13 04:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Sergio
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Oh really moron?
What makes the difference?
First quantity is first quantity...
There is a beginning or first quantity there always.
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
"First zero" makes no sense. There is only one zero.
Zero math is no quantity math coming first.
And there are two zeros... man's relative
and the absolute...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
As the reals are continuous, contiguous and dense, there cannot be any first
point.
Then what is next to zero when you draw the first on the number line?
+ 1 and -1 when you draw the number circle...
If your circle is a round closed curve it cannot
replace a straight number line.
Where is your points of zero and two one's on the your circle
curve applied? show how you place a no quantity of any quantity
on your closed round curve?
What about your circle's radius's?
Do they make a difference...?
Mitchell Raemsch
circle radius can be 100 km, but they don't make paper that large.

different radius does not change the numbers on the circle line at all,
they only get bigger or smaller.

Zero stays in the same place, the middle
Michael Moroney
2020-04-13 01:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Oh really moron?
Yes, really, Moron Mitch.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
What makes the difference?
The integers are quantized, in units of 1.
There is no integer larger than 5 but less than 6.
The reals don't have that property.
Add the restriction of an actual starting point, and you have the natural
numbers. So with them, 0 is 0, and your "first quantity" is called 1.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
First quantity is first quantity...
When it exists.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
There is a beginning or first quantity there always.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Did you ever consider the idea
that you just may be wrong about that?
Post by Mitch Raemsch
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
No such thing as "fully divided". Give me your "fully divided" number and I
will give you back a smaller number, your "fully divided" number divided by 2.
Or 10, or 1 trillion, or 1 googleplex if I feel like it.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
"First zero" makes no sense. There is only one zero.
Zero math is no quantity math coming first.
And there are two zeros... man's relative
I don't have a relative named Zero.

Or for "two zeros", are you talking about the computer +0 and -0 from a couple
days ago?
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
There is no first point. The reals are continuous.
I already showed you the proof, several times. Are you too stupid to understand
it?
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
As the reals are continuous, contiguous and dense, there cannot be any first
point.
Then what is next to zero when you draw the first on the number line?
When I draw it? That would be an approximation of a number line, not any
actual number line. I can't draw a line infinitely long in both directions, a
drawn line won't be perfectly straight, and my line will be made of bits of
graphite (if I use a pencil) so it will have irregular gaps and not continuous.
It can be, and is, only a representation of a number line.
FromTheRafters
2020-04-13 01:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Oh really moron?
Yes, really, Moron Mitch.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
What makes the difference?
The integers are quantized, in units of 1.
There is no integer larger than 5 but less than 6.
The reals don't have that property.
Add the restriction of an actual starting point, and you have the natural
numbers. So with them, 0 is 0, and your "first quantity" is called 1.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
First quantity is first quantity...
When it exists.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
There is a beginning or first quantity there always.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Did you ever consider the idea
that you just may be wrong about that?
Post by Mitch Raemsch
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
No such thing as "fully divided". Give me your "fully divided" number and I
will give you back a smaller number, your "fully divided" number divided by
2. Or 10, or 1 trillion, or 1 googleplex if I feel like it.
Googolplex. :)
Michael Moroney
2020-04-13 02:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
No such thing as "fully divided". Give me your "fully divided" number and I
will give you back a smaller number, your "fully divided" number divided by
2. Or 10, or 1 trillion, or 1 googleplex if I feel like it.
Googolplex. :)
My bad. :-)

(However, Google does call its headquarters the Googleplex.)
FromTheRafters
2020-04-13 08:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
No such thing as "fully divided". Give me your "fully divided" number and
I will give you back a smaller number, your "fully divided" number divided
by 2. Or 10, or 1 trillion, or 1 googleplex if I feel like it.
Googolplex. :)
My bad. :-)
(However, Google does call its headquarters the Googleplex.)
Apparently a mention by Douglas Adams too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Google#Name
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-13 02:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
What about the first negative quantity?
No such thing as that, either. Same proof can be used.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
Zero math is the name for the no quantity beginning.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
I am using a straight line...
what is yours?
How do you get around your beginning?
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
No.
The reals extend infinitely in both directions.
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Alan Mackenzie
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
SO draw a number line without a beginning quantity...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
It is a mistake to see the beginning of a number line?
For the naturals, no. For the reals, yes.
Oh really moron?
Yes, really, Moron Mitch.
What is that moron morony?
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
What makes the difference?
The integers are quantized, in units of 1."
But the first quantity isn't an integer.
It is quantized at the infinitely small...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
First quantity is first quantity...
When it exists.
What do you mean by exist then?
You are the one that is saying math number lines don't exist.
Tell math that...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
There is a beginning or first quantity there always.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Did you ever consider the idea
that you just may be wrong about that?
Post by Mitch Raemsch
And that is sub finite math... below
the finite math. It has been fully divided.
No such thing as "fully divided".
Sure there is. If it is unlimited divided already.
That is the first quantity whether divided further or not.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
How do you have a first zero without a first quantity
at the beginning of a quantity line...?
"First zero" makes no sense. There is only one zero.
There are two. One for man's relative the
other for the absolute...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Zero math is no quantity math coming first.
And there are two zeros... man's relative
I don't have a relative named Zero.
The temperature does...
It has two...
Post by Michael Moroney
Or for "two zeros", are you talking about the computer +0 and -0 from a couple
days ago?
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Where does that first point go on the line if as you
say it doesn't exist?
There is no first point. The reals are continuous.
I already showed you the proof, several times. Are you too stupid to understand
Prove that proof. The beginning of continuous quantity
is the first quantity... that infinitely divided point
is the sub finite beginning of size.
Post by Michael Moroney
it?
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Michael Moroney
As the reals are continuous, contiguous and dense, there cannot be any first
point.
Then what is next to zero when you draw the first on the number line?
Post by Michael Moroney
When I draw it?
No. anyone can draw it and it always gets a beginning starting it...
Post by Michael Moroney
That would be an approximation of a number line, not any
What are your approximated quantities...
All quantities are specific.
Post by Michael Moroney
actual number line. I can't draw a line infinitely long in both directions, a
drawn line won't be perfectly straight, and my line will be made of bits of
graphite (if I use a pencil) so it will have irregular gaps and not continuous.
It can be, and is, only a representation of a number line.
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-13 04:26:45 UTC
Permalink
There is a first quantity after zero.
It is the sub finite first.

Mitchell Raemsch
Ross A. Finlayson
2020-04-12 18:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first on
the number line.
.... as is that.
Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise by
now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained this to
you.
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
That's agreeable.

Notice you can reserve the adjectival "on"
the line and "in" the linear separately -
it can go a long way to reflect careful
adherence to the notion of at least two
set-theoretic models of continuous domains,
1) the field's points "on" the line and
2) the ("line-continuous") segment's points "in" the line.


Otherwise "infinitesimals" (and, "the paradoxes
of infinitesimals") have of course had usual
words and mathematics since Zeno, Archimedes, ...
Newton, Leibniz, MacLaurin, ...,
Peano, Veronese, Stolz, ...,
Robinson, Bell, Nelson, ....

Fluxions, differentials, "iota-values", "infinitesimals", ....

Superstring theory, measure theory, ....


Quantum mechanics is for continuum mechanics.
Ross A. Finlayson
2020-04-12 18:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first on
the number line.
.... as is that.
Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise by
now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained this to
you.
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
That's agreeable.
Notice you can reserve the adjectival "on"
the line and "in" the linear separately -
it can go a long way to reflect careful
adherence to the notion of at least two
set-theoretic models of continuous domains,
1) the field's points "on" the line and
2) the ("line-continuous") segment's points "in" the line.
Otherwise "infinitesimals" (and, "the paradoxes
of infinitesimals") have of course had usual
words and mathematics since Zeno, Archimedes, ...
Newton, Leibniz, MacLaurin, ...,
Peano, Veronese, Stolz, ...,
Robinson, Bell, Nelson, ....
Fluxions, differentials, "iota-values", "infinitesimals", ....
Superstring theory, measure theory, ....
Quantum mechanics is for continuum mechanics.
This seems apropos: "Hermann Cohen's
_Principle of the Infinitesimal Method_:
A Defense", Edgar 2019 -- https://philarchive.org/archive/EDGHCP-2

"Contrary to Russell's suggestion, Cohen's views in the PIM
do not entail the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum.
Thus whatever other shortcomings Cohen's views might have
from Russell's perspective, they are both coherent and, I will argue,
deeply philosophically motivated."

"See Giovanelli (2016) for an excellent survey
of critical neo-Kantian responses to Cohen's PIM."

"More specifically, Russell thinks, Cohen’s commitment
to infinitesimals is inconsistent with one significant feature
of the modern concept of limits: it does not appeal
to any infinite or infinitesimal numbers, but instead
appeals only to finite numbers. Thus, Russell insists,
the modern concept of limits shows, contrary to Cohen’s view,
that calculus is not committed to infinitesimals."

"... on the modern concept of limits ...
we say that as x approaches a and f(x) approaches L,
the difference between f(x) and L can be made to be smaller
than any finite value, which is as small as we like. The concept
thus involves no appeal to infinite or infinitesimal numbers."

"This point -- that the modern concept of limits involves
no appeal to infinite or infinitesimal numbers --
is essential to Russell’s most serious criticisms of Cohen."

"Yet Cohen insists that infinitesimals are necessary
for the methods of calculus and the mathematically-
precise physics that makes use of it."

"... Russell thinks a commitment to infinitesimals
saddles mathematics with the paradoxes of
the infinitesimal and continuum."

The author goes on to defend Cohen as why
that's not so much not-necessarily-so, as,
not-necessarily-wrong.


From what I know so far of "Marburg neo-Kantian
criticism", so do I.
Ross A. Finlayson
2020-04-12 19:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first on
the number line.
.... as is that.
Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise by
now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained this to
you.
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
That's agreeable.
Notice you can reserve the adjectival "on"
the line and "in" the linear separately -
it can go a long way to reflect careful
adherence to the notion of at least two
set-theoretic models of continuous domains,
1) the field's points "on" the line and
2) the ("line-continuous") segment's points "in" the line.
Otherwise "infinitesimals" (and, "the paradoxes
of infinitesimals") have of course had usual
words and mathematics since Zeno, Archimedes, ...
Newton, Leibniz, MacLaurin, ...,
Peano, Veronese, Stolz, ...,
Robinson, Bell, Nelson, ....
Fluxions, differentials, "iota-values", "infinitesimals", ....
Superstring theory, measure theory, ....
Quantum mechanics is for continuum mechanics.
This seems apropos: "Hermann Cohen's
A Defense", Edgar 2019 -- https://philarchive.org/archive/EDGHCP-2
"Contrary to Russell's suggestion, Cohen's views in the PIM
do not entail the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum.
Thus whatever other shortcomings Cohen's views might have
from Russell's perspective, they are both coherent and, I will argue,
deeply philosophically motivated."
"See Giovanelli (2016) for an excellent survey
of critical neo-Kantian responses to Cohen's PIM."
"More specifically, Russell thinks, Cohen’s commitment
to infinitesimals is inconsistent with one significant feature
of the modern concept of limits: it does not appeal
to any infinite or infinitesimal numbers, but instead
appeals only to finite numbers. Thus, Russell insists,
the modern concept of limits shows, contrary to Cohen’s view,
that calculus is not committed to infinitesimals."
"... on the modern concept of limits ...
we say that as x approaches a and f(x) approaches L,
the difference between f(x) and L can be made to be smaller
than any finite value, which is as small as we like. The concept
thus involves no appeal to infinite or infinitesimal numbers."
"This point -- that the modern concept of limits involves
no appeal to infinite or infinitesimal numbers --
is essential to Russell’s most serious criticisms of Cohen."
"Yet Cohen insists that infinitesimals are necessary
for the methods of calculus and the mathematically-
precise physics that makes use of it."
"... Russell thinks a commitment to infinitesimals
saddles mathematics with the paradoxes of
the infinitesimal and continuum."
The author goes on to defend Cohen as why
that's not so much not-necessarily-so, as,
not-necessarily-wrong.
From what I know so far of "Marburg neo-Kantian
criticism", so do I.
"An abduction is a process that one might say
supplements induction and deduction
in our efforts to ‘explain’ the continuum. "

"As Deleuze (1990) suggests, the _interval_
is more than a naïve measure, more than
a hasty line drawn in the sand, but instead
a gesture that affirms all of chance,
a gesture that affirms indeterminacy
as a plenitude rather than a lack."
-- de Freitas "The mathematical continuum: A haunting problematic", 2018
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme/vol15/iss1/9/

There's lots of recent literature in infinitesimal apologetics....
Finlayson has a slate about ZF (and the usual development
in standard modern mathematics) and a countable continuum.


From Edgar: "Following Kant, Cohen thinks this kind of magnitude
is essential for mathematical natural science, since it is the kind
of magnitude that measures, for example, the units of space and
time described by a mathematically precise physics. But the priority
of the infinite and continuous requires that extensive magnitudes
be defined by appeal to infinities or continua."

"In addition to the textual evidence that Cohen sees a connection
between continuity and reason, there is powerful systematic evidence
that the principle of sufficient reason is the deepest commitment
driving Cohen’s arguments. "

Cohen's "infinitesimal equality" is much the same as
"here are two set-theoretic models of reals each with
their own machinery about the same continuous domain,
the results as between them are defined by results in
magnitude and quantity". I.e. he points to the results
after transfer principle, here "bridge" results.

"... In particular, it entails that mathematical natural science
can represent extensive magnitudes only if it also represents
infinitesimal magnitudes."

Here then this idea of "bridge" results, the idea is "how it is",
besides also "that and why it exists".



"Cohen thus praises the way Leibniz makes the concept
of the differential fundamental to his account of motion,
while also giving a positive assessment of Newton’s appeal
to fluents in _his_ mechanics."

"When [Cohen] praises Leibniz’s view, he is drawing a contrast
between Leibniz’s view and Descartes’ view that physical reality
is essentially extension."

"Against Descartes, Cohen agrees with Leibniz that infinitesimal
magnitudes are necessary for the representation of reality."

The summary section 10 on page 40 helps to explain
"For Cohen, the principle of continuity and, ultimately,
the principle of sufficient reason are methodological
commitments contained in mathematical natural science
and revealed in that science’s evolving history. They are
the methodological commitments that provide the rational
foundations for mathematical natural science, including
the rational foundation for the concepts of limits and infinitesimals.
Consequently, Cohen takes those principles to be foundational
principles of reason."
Ross Finlayson
2024-07-28 16:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Alan Mackenzie
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning followed by
a first positive... or sub finite real as the unlimited small.
If you draw the real number line (that's "real numbers", not "real
(i) It extends indefinitely in both directions;
(ii) Zero is on the line;
(iii) There is no smallest strictly positive number on it;
(iv) There is no notion of "sub finite" number on it.
That's mathematics with substance (as opposed to "zero math").
If you keep dividing the unlimited small it never reaches zero math.
That's meaningless, since you've never said what you mean by "zero math".
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
It depends on what sort of number you're considering. The real number
line has no beginning.
what other number line can get rid of that?
There's nothing to get rid of. The idea of a "beginning of a number
line" is simply a mistaken notion. Except for things like the natural
number line.
It would always have its New beginning instead. That is the real of
the sub finite beginning quantity represented first after zero on a
real number line.
Please learn some maths. Things like "real of the sub finite beginning"
are simply meaningless gibberish.....
If you divide beyond infinity you are defining the sub finite first on
the number line.
.... as is that.
Why do you keep posting stuff like this on sci.math? You must realise by
now that it is not coherent maths; so many people have explained this to
you.
Mitchell Raemsch
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
That's agreeable.
Notice you can reserve the adjectival "on"
the line and "in" the linear separately -
it can go a long way to reflect careful
adherence to the notion of at least two
set-theoretic models of continuous domains,
1) the field's points "on" the line and
2) the ("line-continuous") segment's points "in" the line.
Otherwise "infinitesimals" (and, "the paradoxes
of infinitesimals") have of course had usual
words and mathematics since Zeno, Archimedes, ...
Newton, Leibniz, MacLaurin, ...,
Peano, Veronese, Stolz, ...,
Robinson, Bell, Nelson, ....
Fluxions, differentials, "iota-values", "infinitesimals", ....
Superstring theory, measure theory, ....
Quantum mechanics is for continuum mechanics.
This seems apropos: "Hermann Cohen's
A Defense", Edgar 2019 -- https://philarchive.org/archive/EDGHCP-2
"Contrary to Russell's suggestion, Cohen's views in the PIM
do not entail the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum.
Thus whatever other shortcomings Cohen's views might have
from Russell's perspective, they are both coherent and, I will argue,
deeply philosophically motivated."
"See Giovanelli (2016) for an excellent survey
of critical neo-Kantian responses to Cohen's PIM."
"More specifically, Russell thinks, Cohen’s commitment
to infinitesimals is inconsistent with one significant feature
of the modern concept of limits: it does not appeal
to any infinite or infinitesimal numbers, but instead
appeals only to finite numbers. Thus, Russell insists,
the modern concept of limits shows, contrary to Cohen’s view,
that calculus is not committed to infinitesimals."
"... on the modern concept of limits ...
we say that as x approaches a and f(x) approaches L,
the difference between f(x) and L can be made to be smaller
than any finite value, which is as small as we like. The concept
thus involves no appeal to infinite or infinitesimal numbers."
"This point -- that the modern concept of limits involves
no appeal to infinite or infinitesimal numbers --
is essential to Russell’s most serious criticisms of Cohen."
"Yet Cohen insists that infinitesimals are necessary
for the methods of calculus and the mathematically-
precise physics that makes use of it."
"... Russell thinks a commitment to infinitesimals
saddles mathematics with the paradoxes of
the infinitesimal and continuum."
The author goes on to defend Cohen as why
that's not so much not-necessarily-so, as,
not-necessarily-wrong.
From what I know so far of "Marburg neo-Kantian
criticism", so do I.
Sergio
2020-04-11 16:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real
as the unlimited small.
If you keep dividing the unlimited small
it never reaches zero math.
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
what other number line can get rid of that?
It would always have its New beginning instead.
That is the real of the sub finite beginning
quantity represented first after zero
on a real number line.
If you divide beyond infinity you
are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.
Mitchell Raemsch
you can avoid these types of problems by not drawing a line, but by
drawing a circle, which has no beginning and no end, no problem.
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-11 18:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real
as the unlimited small.
If you keep dividing the unlimited small
it never reaches zero math.
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
what other number line can get rid of that?
It would always have its New beginning instead.
That is the real of the sub finite beginning
quantity represented first after zero
on a real number line.
If you divide beyond infinity you
are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.
Mitchell Raemsch
you can avoid these types of problems by not drawing a line
No. You do not go away from a real number line existing
without losing the argument... it has its beginning first...

Mitchell Raemsch
Sergio
2020-04-11 19:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Sergio
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real
as the unlimited small.
If you keep dividing the unlimited small
it never reaches zero math.
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
what other number line can get rid of that?
It would always have its New beginning instead.
That is the real of the sub finite beginning
quantity represented first after zero
on a real number line.
If you divide beyond infinity you
are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.
Mitchell Raemsch
you can avoid these types of problems by not drawing a line
No. You do not go away from a real number line existing
without losing the argument... it has its beginning first...
Mitchell Raemsch
not if it is a circle. think about it.

no beginning no end, all the numbers on it, including 0, 1,2, ....and
negitive numbers too.
Mitch Raemsch
2020-04-11 19:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio
Post by Mitch Raemsch
Post by Sergio
Post by Mitch Raemsch
if you draw a number line it has a zero boundary beginning
followed by a first positive... or sub finite real
as the unlimited small.
If you keep dividing the unlimited small
it never reaches zero math.
If you draw a number line it has a beginning...
what other number line can get rid of that?
It would always have its New beginning instead.
That is the real of the sub finite beginning
quantity represented first after zero
on a real number line.
If you divide beyond infinity you
are defining the sub finite first
on the number line.
Mitchell Raemsch
you can avoid these types of problems by not drawing a line
Then you are trying to avoiding what you cannot do in number line
math... no number lines don't go away in math because you say so...
Post by Sergio
Post by Mitch Raemsch
No. You do not go away from a real number line existing
without losing the argument... it has its beginning first...
Mitchell Raemsch
not if it is a circle. think about it.
Your circle line doesn't win the argument over the straight line...
You already lost over the number line with
a beginning... and that first quantity
is not going away in math.
Post by Sergio
no beginning no end, all the numbers on it, including 0, 1,2, ....and
negitive numbers too.
Zero and first quantity are the beginning of math.

Mitchell Raemsch
Loading...