|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
Author: VirgilVirgil
Date: Dec 19, 2006 23:12
> Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
>>>> Completely untrue. Do you think mathematicians are being
>>>> "inconsistent" and "show controversy" because both Euclidean and
>>>> Non-Euclidean geometries are...
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: VirgilVirgil
Date: Dec 19, 2006 23:09
> Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
>>> Is Hoyle now being spokesman for the Flat Earth Society?
>>
>> LOL, I guess I should be careful in the event one takes my remarks that
>> way. :-)
>>
>> (I have to admit, of all cranks, the Flat Earth-ers have to be my
>> favorite...
>
> My favorites are those who believe that the earth is the center of the
> universe - and go into a rage when anyone questions them. Now who does
> that sound like?
Rather like CB himself, who rages against those who will not do is
homework for him.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Pentcho ValevPentcho Valev
Date: Dec 19, 2006 22:38
Classically, Einstein's criminal cult extracted their billions from
miracles deduced from Einstein's false principle of constancy of the
speed of light. However a few years ago Einsteinians realized in horror
that taxpayers were not excited anymore about a twin that sees his
brother's clock running slow but then returns and proves younger etc.
That was the end of the constant speed of light affair and a natural
beginning of the variable speed of light affair.
The new business is dangerous for two reasons: first, variable speed of
light could wipe out Einstein's criminal cult altogether; second,
variable speed of light per se is unable to produce miracles and
therefore excitement among taxpayers is by no means guaranteed. So new
business plans involve the following tasks. First, the meaning of
"variable" should be confused: the attention should shift from
"depending on the speed of the light source" to something different,
e.g. "faster in the past, slower now". Second, the variability of the
speed of light should be served in fantastically small portions, so
fantastically small that excitement is unavoidably restored and, what
is even more important, Einstein's theory remains essentially correct:
|
| Show full article (1.72Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Charlie-BooCharlie-Boo
Date: Dec 19, 2006 22:26
Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
>> Yes they would. They are different because they ask different
>> questions. They aren't different answers - they are different
>> questions. One asks about lines on the plane, another about lines on
>> e.g. a sphere. Naturally you get a different answer. There is no
>> inconsistency in Geometry. How in the world could engineering work if
>> Mathematicians didn't agree on the nature of geometry?
>>
>> You are starting with different systems, different questions. In our
>> case, we are starting with just one system, Set Theory, with multiple
>> answers to the same question.
>
> Sigh. If they are different Geometries, then they are different Set
> Theories.
The different Geometries address lines in different contexts. The
different Set Theories all address one thing, formalizing the intuitive
notion of a set. You are confusing the theory with the formalization.
|
| Show full article (6.14Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Charlie-BooCharlie-Boo
Date: Dec 19, 2006 22:02
Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
>>> Completely untrue. Do you think mathematicians are being
>>> "inconsistent" and "show controversy" because both Euclidean and
>>> Non-Euclidean geometries are taught? It's the same thing here
>>
>> That is a false analogy. Euclidian and Non-Euclidean Geometry are two
>> different branches of Mathematics, dealing with different spaces of
>> points.
>
> They branch at exactly one axiom: the Parallel Postulate. In precisely
> the same way, ZFC branches from ZF with regard to the Axiom of Choice.
> You may choose to think of "two Geometries" but "only one Set Theory",
> but that is only in your imagination. There is exactly one assumption
> difference between either Set Theory and either Geometry.
You overlook various differences among the Set Theories, such as the
questions of whether a set can be an element of itself, whether there
is a universal set, etc. If only one question had different answers,
then how could there be dozens of Set Theories (there could only be
two)?
>> How would the situation be different if there was in fact controversy
>> surrounding Set Theory? You decline to answer this particular
>> question. I don't believe you can, because the true answer...
|
| Show full article (6.53Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Charlie-BooCharlie-Boo
Date: Dec 19, 2006 21:22
Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
>> Is Hoyle now being spokesman for the Flat Earth Society?
>
> LOL, I guess I should be careful in the event one takes my remarks that
> way. :-)
>
> (I have to admit, of all cranks, the Flat Earth-ers have to be my
> favorite...
My favorites are those who believe that the earth is the center of the
universe - and go into a rage when anyone questions them. Now who does
that sound like? (Note: Despite possible appearances, one can formally
define and decide what constitutes rage - so be careful with arbitrary
declarations!)
C-B
> if for no other reason than I am curious as to how - in this
> day and age - they are able to maintain its credibility even in their
> own minds.)
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: VirgilVirgil
Date: Dec 19, 2006 21:14
> Please be the first to prove here something outside of Set Theory,
> propositional or predicate calculus, and Number Theory (the areas where
> axioms are often cited as being allowed in ZFC proofs) using ZFC (to
> substantiate your claim.)
>
> C-B
How much is it worth to you?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: VirgilVirgil
Date: Dec 19, 2006 21:12
> MoeBlee wrote:
>> Charlie-Boo wrote:
>>> No, I seriously want to see the axioms and rules used, and where you
>>> got them from.
>>
>> Then get a textbook.
>>
>> MoeBlee
>
> Ok. I went and bought one (in Harvard Square.) I checked and all the
> examples of ZFC proofs concerning numbers use PA axioms. Sorry, but I
> was right.
Every troll claims that.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
