Ask Marilyn , the female WM?

[Mild Shock]

Holy shit, what would Cantor say?

Q: Dear Marilyn:
Which is the biggest, an infinite line,
an infinite circle, or an infinite plane?

A: Dear Reader:
I'd say an infinite plane. When comparing
only a line and a circle, no matter how
large they grow, the circle would have the
greater number of points. (For example, a
one-mile-wide circular line "straightened
out" would be over three miles long.) If
the circle were "filled in" as well, it
would have an even greater number of points
an its surface. An unbounded plane surface,
however, would have even more because it
could be said to consist of an infinite
number of infinite lines, laid side by side.
However bad it would be to mow along an
infinite sidewalk, it would be worse to
mow the entire lawn it bordered.

https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/184/mode/2up

[Moebius]

Post by Mild Shock
Holy shit, what would Cantor say?

Er würde vermutlich im Grab rotieren... :-)

Post by Mild Shock
Which is the biggest, an infinite line,
an infinite circle, or an infinite plane?
I'd say an infinite plane. When comparing
only a line and a circle, no matter how
large they grow, the circle would have the
greater number of points. (For example, a
one-mile-wide circular line "straightened
out" would be over three miles long.) If
the circle were "filled in" as well, it
would have an even greater number of points
an its surface. An unbounded plane surface,
however, would have even more because it
could be said to consist of an infinite
number of infinite lines, laid side by side.
However bad it would be to mow along an
infinite sidewalk, it would be worse to
mow the entire lawn it bordered.
https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/184/mode/2up

Wow! ... Eine KI?

[Mild Shock]

Marilyn vos Savant, gained fame for holding the Guinness
World Record for the highest recorded IQ.

She answered:

Q: Dear Marilyn:
What will be the best and the worst aspects of computers
that will do our thinking for us someday.

A: Dear Reader:
They have no emotions, and they have no emotions.

https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/192/mode/2up

I recently read 12 Bytes, summarized by ChatGPT:

"What was once taboo—anthropomorphic AI,
emotional robots, and even the concept of girlfriend
robots—is now entering mainstream discussions,
thanks to advancements in AI, robotics, and
societal shifts. While these technologies raise
serious ethical and psychological questions, they also
offer potential solutions to issues like loneliness,
emotional fulfillment, and even sexual companionship.

Jeanette Winterson’s prediction of girlfriend robots in
"12 Bytes" is a reflection of where technology seems
to be headed, but it’s also a call for us to consider
the deeper implications of integrating robots into our
emotional and social lives. Emotion simulation might
be the key to their acceptance, but we’ll need to
navigate the balance between the benefits and the
ethical challenges that come with this new frontier."

Post by Moebius

Post by Mild Shock
Holy shit, what would Cantor say?

Er würde vermutlich im Grab rotieren... :-)

Post by Mild Shock
Which is the biggest, an infinite line,
an infinite circle, or an infinite plane?
I'd say an infinite plane. When comparing
only a line and a circle, no matter how
large they grow, the circle would have the
greater number of points. (For example, a
one-mile-wide circular line "straightened
out" would be over three miles long.) If
the circle were "filled in" as well, it
would have an even greater number of points
an its surface. An unbounded plane surface,
however, would have even more because it
could be said to consist of an infinite
number of infinite lines, laid side by side.
However bad it would be to mow along an
infinite sidewalk, it would be worse to
mow the entire lawn it bordered.
https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/184/mode/2up

Wow! ... Eine KI?

[Moebius]

Post by Mild Shock
Marilyn vos Savant, gained fame for holding the Guinness
World Record for the highest recorded IQ.

Ah, diese Marilyn. Die kenn' ich noch vom "Ziegenproblem" her, wo sie
Recht hatte.

Post by Mild Shock
What will be the best and the worst aspects of computers
that will do our thinking for us someday.
They have no emotions, and they have no emotions.

Nice. Who can argue with t h a t? 🙂

[Mild Shock]

Hi,

“Man will never reach the moon regardless
of all future scientific advances.”
― Dr. Lee Forest

We are already knocking on the door of emotional
AI, given that many things mentioned in this 2 years
old video, are now artificial via Generative AI.

What is 'dopamine fasting' and
is it good for you? – BBC REEL

The video explains also some pros and cons:

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Marilyn vos Savant, gained fame for holding the Guinness
World Record for the highest recorded IQ.

Ah, diese Marilyn. Die kenn' ich noch vom "Ziegenproblem" her, wo sie
Recht hatte.

Post by Mild Shock
What will be the best and the worst aspects of computers
that will do our thinking for us someday.
They have no emotions, and they have no emotions.

Nice. Who can argue with t h a t? 🙂

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Mild Shock
Holy shit, what would Cantor say?
Which is the biggest, an infinite line,
an infinite circle, or an infinite plane?
I'd say an infinite plane. When comparing
only a line and a circle, no matter how
large they grow, the circle would have the
greater number of points. (For example, a
one-mile-wide circular line "straightened
out" would be over three miles long.) If
the circle were "filled in" as well, it
would have an even greater number of points
an its surface. An unbounded plane surface,
however, would have even more because it
could be said to consist of an infinite
number of infinite lines, laid side by side.
However bad it would be to mow along an
infinite sidewalk, it would be worse to
mow the entire lawn it bordered.
https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/184/mode/2up

There's Katz' OUTPACING,
I imagine Cantor wouldn't say
much as he's been six feet deep
about a hundred years.


Then when that columnist "greatest IQ
in the world" gets into either of the
"material implication" or "Monty Haul",
now either of those are _wrong_, and
here it looks to be an intentional aggravation,
anyways that's not funny on sci.math
and many might wonder whether it's just plain fake.


Anyways Katz' OUTPACING simply enough makes for
a size relation that's "proper superset is bigger",
then with some naive "points" comprising the things,
all only one set of them, in "the space".

Mostly though you'd get "I was in either New Math I or
New Math II and my thusly modern mathematics has that
according to cardinals, those all have the same cardinal
as point-sets, while for example in size relations of
how they relate inversely matters of perspective and
projective, I can definitely see how a simple sort of
logical geometry can result that what relations exist,
in cardinality, according to functional relations,
make for furthermore simple size relations based on
'logical geometry' and cardinality, so that the fact
that I was taught transfinite cardinals before I ever
learned calculus, isn't so embarrassing when it's
got no applicability".


Anyways you can just futz a 'logical geometry' where
some matters of relations of those as then invariant
makes a simple hierarchy of those that happen to relate
as whatever's a transitive inequality in infinite sets,
transfinite cardinality.


Anyways that's stupid probably and that's merely bait.

[Mild Shock]

I admit an interesting person.
I wonder what happened here:

A few months after Andrew Wiles said he had proved Fermat's Last
Theorem, Savant published the book The World's Most Famous Math Problem
(October 1993),[27] which surveys the history of Fermat's Last Theorem
as well as other mathematical problems.

Especially contested was Savant's statement that Wiles' proof should be
rejected for its use of non-Euclidean geometry. Savant stated that
because "the chain of proof is based in hyperbolic (Lobachevskian)
geometry",

and because squaring the circle is seen as a "famous impossibility"
despite being possible in hyperbolic geometry, then "if we reject a
hyperbolic method of squaring the circle, we should also reject a
hyperbolic proof of Fermat's last theorem."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Fermat's_Last_Theorem

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Mild Shock
Holy shit, what would Cantor say?
Which is the biggest, an infinite line,
an infinite circle, or an infinite plane?
I'd say an infinite plane. When comparing
only a line and a circle, no matter how
large they grow, the circle would have the
greater number of points. (For example, a
one-mile-wide circular line "straightened
out" would be over three miles long.) If
the circle were "filled in" as well, it
would have an even greater number of points
an its surface. An unbounded plane surface,
however, would have even more because it
could be said to consist of an infinite
number of infinite lines, laid side by side.
However bad it would be to mow along an
infinite sidewalk, it would be worse to
mow the entire lawn it bordered.
https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/184/mode/2up

There's Katz' OUTPACING,
I imagine Cantor wouldn't say
much as he's been six feet deep
about a hundred years.
Then when that columnist "greatest IQ
in the world" gets into either of the
"material implication" or "Monty Haul",
now either of those are _wrong_, and
here it looks to be an intentional aggravation,
anyways that's not funny on sci.math
and many might wonder whether it's just plain fake.
Anyways Katz' OUTPACING simply enough makes for
a size relation that's "proper superset is bigger",
then with some naive "points" comprising the things,
all only one set of them, in "the space".
Mostly though you'd get "I was in either New Math I or
New Math II and my thusly modern mathematics has that
according to cardinals, those all have the same cardinal
as point-sets, while for example in size relations of
how they relate inversely matters of perspective and
projective, I can definitely see how a simple sort of
logical geometry can result that what relations exist,
in cardinality, according to functional relations,
make for furthermore simple size relations based on
'logical geometry' and cardinality, so that the fact
that I was taught transfinite cardinals before I ever
learned calculus, isn't so embarrassing when it's
got no applicability".
Anyways you can just futz a 'logical geometry' where
some matters of relations of those as then invariant
makes a simple hierarchy of those that happen to relate
as whatever's a transitive inequality in infinite sets,
transfinite cardinality.
Anyways that's stupid probably and that's merely bait.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Mild Shock
I admit an interesting person.
A few months after Andrew Wiles said he had proved Fermat's Last
Theorem, Savant published the book The World's Most Famous Math Problem
(October 1993),[27] which surveys the history of Fermat's Last Theorem
as well as other mathematical problems.
Especially contested was Savant's statement that Wiles' proof should be
rejected for its use of non-Euclidean geometry. Savant stated that
because "the chain of proof is based in hyperbolic (Lobachevskian)
geometry",
and because squaring the circle is seen as a "famous impossibility"
despite being possible in hyperbolic geometry, then "if we reject a
hyperbolic method of squaring the circle, we should also reject a
hyperbolic proof of Fermat's last theorem."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Fermat's_Last_Theorem

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Mild Shock
Holy shit, what would Cantor say?
Which is the biggest, an infinite line,
an infinite circle, or an infinite plane?
I'd say an infinite plane. When comparing
only a line and a circle, no matter how
large they grow, the circle would have the
greater number of points. (For example, a
one-mile-wide circular line "straightened
out" would be over three miles long.) If
the circle were "filled in" as well, it
would have an even greater number of points
an its surface. An unbounded plane surface,
however, would have even more because it
could be said to consist of an infinite
number of infinite lines, laid side by side.
However bad it would be to mow along an
infinite sidewalk, it would be worse to
mow the entire lawn it bordered.
https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/184/mode/2up

There's Katz' OUTPACING,
I imagine Cantor wouldn't say
much as he's been six feet deep
about a hundred years.
Then when that columnist "greatest IQ
in the world" gets into either of the
"material implication" or "Monty Haul",
now either of those are _wrong_, and
here it looks to be an intentional aggravation,
anyways that's not funny on sci.math
and many might wonder whether it's just plain fake.
Anyways Katz' OUTPACING simply enough makes for
a size relation that's "proper superset is bigger",
then with some naive "points" comprising the things,
all only one set of them, in "the space".
Mostly though you'd get "I was in either New Math I or
New Math II and my thusly modern mathematics has that
according to cardinals, those all have the same cardinal
as point-sets, while for example in size relations of
how they relate inversely matters of perspective and
projective, I can definitely see how a simple sort of
logical geometry can result that what relations exist,
in cardinality, according to functional relations,
make for furthermore simple size relations based on
'logical geometry' and cardinality, so that the fact
that I was taught transfinite cardinals before I ever
learned calculus, isn't so embarrassing when it's
got no applicability".
Anyways you can just futz a 'logical geometry' where
some matters of relations of those as then invariant
makes a simple hierarchy of those that happen to relate
as whatever's a transitive inequality in infinite sets,
transfinite cardinality.
Anyways that's stupid probably and that's merely bait.

There are many open conjectures in standard number theory
that will always be so, because, a) they're independent
standard number theory, b) there's no standard model of
integers, c) there are variously fragments and extensions
where they are/aren't so.

The Wiles Shaniyama/Timura up out of Bourbaki Groethendieck
about elliptic curves, some have as one of these examples,
to give elliptic curve cryptography a veneer of validity,
when it's not so.


Anyways if you add an Archimedean spiral to edge and compass,
then circle-squaring is classical with the third tool.



So, many proposed theorems of what are open conjectures in
number theory, like Fermat, Goldbach, Szmeredi, and so on,
are foolish and only reflect unstated assumptions.

[Mild Shock]

WM the male Marilyn, neiter WM nor Marilyn
have any substance. At least ChatGPT disagrees:

- Elliptic curves are not "hyperbolic," and
Wiles’ proof does not make improper use of
hyperbolic geometry. If vos Savant mentioned
hyperbolic geometry in her critique, it
likely reflects a misunderstanding of the
mathematical concepts involved.

- The Grothendieck axiom in question (e.g.,
Grothendieck universes) is a large cardinal-like
assumption, but Wiles' proof did not require
such axioms for its validity.

Who is right?

See also:
https://chatgpt.com/share/66fd8d7c-3c4c-8013-8afe-b5bfdff7b8ee

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Mild Shock
I admit an interesting person.
A few months after Andrew Wiles said he had proved Fermat's Last
Theorem, Savant published the book The World's Most Famous Math Problem
(October 1993),[27] which surveys the history of Fermat's Last Theorem
as well as other mathematical problems.
Especially contested was Savant's statement that Wiles' proof should be
rejected for its use of non-Euclidean geometry. Savant stated that
because "the chain of proof is based in hyperbolic (Lobachevskian)
geometry",
and because squaring the circle is seen as a "famous impossibility"
despite being possible in hyperbolic geometry, then "if we reject a
hyperbolic method of squaring the circle, we should also reject a
hyperbolic proof of Fermat's last theorem."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Fermat's_Last_Theorem

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Mild Shock
Holy shit, what would Cantor say?
Which is the biggest, an infinite line,
an infinite circle, or an infinite plane?
I'd say an infinite plane. When comparing
only a line and a circle, no matter how
large they grow, the circle would have the
greater number of points. (For example, a
one-mile-wide circular line "straightened
out" would be over three miles long.) If
the circle were "filled in" as well, it
would have an even greater number of points
an its surface. An unbounded plane surface,
however, would have even more because it
could be said to consist of an infinite
number of infinite lines, laid side by side.
However bad it would be to mow along an
infinite sidewalk, it would be worse to
mow the entire lawn it bordered.
https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/184/mode/2up

There's Katz' OUTPACING,
I imagine Cantor wouldn't say
much as he's been six feet deep
about a hundred years.
Then when that columnist "greatest IQ
in the world" gets into either of the
"material implication" or "Monty Haul",
now either of those are _wrong_, and
here it looks to be an intentional aggravation,
anyways that's not funny on sci.math
and many might wonder whether it's just plain fake.
Anyways Katz' OUTPACING simply enough makes for
a size relation that's "proper superset is bigger",
then with some naive "points" comprising the things,
all only one set of them, in "the space".
Mostly though you'd get "I was in either New Math I or
New Math II and my thusly modern mathematics has that
according to cardinals, those all have the same cardinal
as point-sets, while for example in size relations of
how they relate inversely matters of perspective and
projective, I can definitely see how a simple sort of
logical geometry can result that what relations exist,
in cardinality, according to functional relations,
make for furthermore simple size relations based on
'logical geometry' and cardinality, so that the fact
that I was taught transfinite cardinals before I ever
learned calculus, isn't so embarrassing when it's
got no applicability".
Anyways you can just futz a 'logical geometry' where
some matters of relations of those as then invariant
makes a simple hierarchy of those that happen to relate
as whatever's a transitive inequality in infinite sets,
transfinite cardinality.
Anyways that's stupid probably and that's merely bait.

There are many open conjectures in standard number theory
that will always be so, because, a) they're independent
standard number theory, b) there's no standard model of
integers, c) there are variously fragments and extensions
where they are/aren't so.
The Wiles Shaniyama/Timura up out of Bourbaki Groethendieck
about elliptic curves, some have as one of these examples,
to give elliptic curve cryptography a veneer of validity,
when it's not so.
Anyways if you add an Archimedean spiral to edge and compass,
then circle-squaring is classical with the third tool.
So, many proposed theorems of what are open conjectures in
number theory, like Fermat, Goldbach, Szmeredi, and so on,
are foolish and only reflect unstated assumptions.