| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"gravity" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2005 10:15:13 PM |
| Object: |
1 + 1 = 2 |
it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2. yet you
guys have all the intricacies of the universe figured out.
michael
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 03:30:22 PM |
|
|
"gravity" <gravity1@m-net.arbornet.org> wrote in message
news:434f22c2$0$59981$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2. yet you
guys have all the intricacies of the universe figured out.
Then you obviously know nothing about physics. As Einstein said - "One
thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against
reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing
we have."
Bill
michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
15 Oct 2005 10:02:38 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"gravity" <gravity1@m-net.arbornet.org> wrote in message
news:434f22c2$0$59981$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2. yet you
guys have all the intricacies of the universe figured out.
Then you obviously know nothing about physics. As Einstein said - "One
thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against
reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing
we have."
Bertrand Russell's huge mistake was overlooking the inescapable fact
that 1+1=2 is not commutative. Once that error is corrected all
mathematics is rendered clear and inerrant. One must respect the
"Sufficiently Large Values of One" theorem.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
15 Oct 2005 04:59:28 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43511A0E.287310C5@hate.spam.net...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"gravity" <gravity1@m-net.arbornet.org> wrote in message
news:434f22c2$0$59981$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2. yet
you
guys have all the intricacies of the universe figured out.
Then you obviously know nothing about physics. As Einstein said - "One
thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against
reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious
thing
we have."
Bertrand Russell's huge mistake was overlooking the inescapable fact
that 1+1=2 is not commutative. Once that error is corrected all
mathematics is rendered clear and inerrant. One must respect the
"Sufficiently Large Values of One" theorem.
I suspect the above is a bit of a joke. But just in case it is not could
you elaborate?
Thanks
Bill
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
16 Oct 2005 02:06:29 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43511A0E.287310C5@hate.spam.net...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"gravity" <gravity1@m-net.arbornet.org> wrote in message
news:434f22c2$0$59981$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2. yet
you
guys have all the intricacies of the universe figured out.
Then you obviously know nothing about physics. As Einstein said - "One
thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against
reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious
thing
we have."
Bertrand Russell's huge mistake was overlooking the inescapable fact
that 1+1=2 is not commutative. Once that error is corrected all
mathematics is rendered clear and inerrant. One must respect the
"Sufficiently Large Values of One" theorem.
I suspect the above is a bit of a joke. But just in case it is not could
you elaborate?
This place is degenerated into a cesspool.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
16 Oct 2005 04:47:34 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4352A4B5.DC344B95@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
Uncle Al <=> Wanker
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: ***** YOU TOO |
15 Oct 2005 01:30:14 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43511A0E.287310C5@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles posted the
orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical and
vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
done. They literally drool foaming spit.
They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and attempt
assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place. What
do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
are.
The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation, public
disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
LITLE PEOPLE LIKE UNCLE SNIPCRAP HATE THAT and will
throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
Standard
of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result. The net result is
the
trivially reproducible falsification of Special Relativity in existing
mathematics
all over the world. Professionals call this "science." We don't care
what
god-fearing witch burners and wog haters call it.
Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an unsuccessful
rogue
researcher.
It's happening. Let the universe decide.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** YOU TOO |
16 Oct 2005 01:57:46 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles <=> Jämmerkichkeit
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** YOU TOO |
16 Oct 2005 04:45:44 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4352A2AA.5F14A3EB@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip crap]
|
| Androcles <=> Jämmerkichkeit
|
| --
| Uncle Al
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al <=> Wanker
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** YOU TOO |
15 Oct 2005 08:15:47 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
Kewl. I guess the pressure of existing finally got to him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
13 Oct 2005 11:52:37 PM |
|
|
"gravity" <gravity1@m-net.arbornet.org> wrote in message
news:434f22c2$0$59981$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
| it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2. yet
you
| guys have all the intricacies of the universe figured out.
|
| michael
|
Bertie was wrong. Round here, 1 = (1+1)/(1 + 1*1/1²)
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Order of the Solar Temple" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 12:02:05 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:pQG3f.22336$ey6.19416@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"gravity" <gravity1@m-net.arbornet.org> wrote in message
news:434f22c2$0$59981$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
| it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2. yet
you
| guys have all the intricacies of the universe figured out.
|
| michael
|
Bertie was wrong. Round here, 1 = (1+1)/(1 + 1*1/1²)
Androcles.
1 + 1 = 10 in binary, so you are wrong because you did not specify the
numbering system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gravity" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 12:09:33 AM |
|
|
"Order of the Solar Temple" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:434f3bc6$0$99942$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
1 + 1 = 10 in binary, so you are wrong because you >did not specify the
numbering system.
in certain rings, doesn't 1 + 1 = 0? i should brush up on my abstract
algebra.
michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 03:54:05 AM |
|
|
[alt.support.schizophrenia removed, not that the other groups are much more
on topic]
gravity wrote:
in certain rings, doesn't 1 + 1 = 0?
Of course. There are even fields in which 1 + 1 = 0. And they're useful. For
example, the error correction built into CDs and DVDs involves arithmetic
over a field with this property.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 12:16:43 AM |
|
|
gravity wrote:
"Order of the Solar Temple" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:434f3bc6$0$99942$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
1 + 1 = 10 in binary, so you are wrong because you >did not specify the
numbering system.
in certain rings, doesn't 1 + 1 = 0? i should brush up on my abstract
algebra.
michael
Perhaps modulo arithmetic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 08:43:38 AM |
|
|
gravity wrote:
it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2.
That was 1910-1913. About twenty years later G=F6del blew it all away.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
"G=F6del's second incompleteness theorem shows that basic arithmetic
cannot be used to prove its own consistency, so it certainly cannot be
used to prove the consistency of anything stronger. In other words, the
statement "there are no contradictions in the Principia system" cannot
be proven true or false in the Principia system unless there are
contradictions in the system (in which case it can be proven both true
and false)."
Fortunately, physics does not rely on a closed logical system.
Consistency is proven empirically, and this requirement for
experimental validation of logical conclusions means that the
scientific method is an open system rather than a closed on.
yet you guys have all the intricacies of the universe figured out.
Not really. We have a long way to go, but we have a vehicle (the
scientific method) that we feel confident will get us there. It
certainly has gotten us further than any other 'truth-testing' scheme
such as logic or faith or supernatural inspiration.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 08:03:30 AM |
|
|
In article <1129297418.768200.313990@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote:
gravity wrote:
it took Bertrand Russell 400 pages to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2.
That was 1910-1913. About twenty years later Gödel blew it all away.
And any reasonable FORTRAN compiler would complain about mixed
mode.
<snip>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 09:06:49 AM |
|
|
Yes, the scientific method is the way to go. Godel's spoiler utilizes
self-reference, basicly an elborate version of the Epimenides paradox,
"This statement is false". Cybernetics can navigate around such
hazards, for it is all about communication and control. You detect
Godel constructs through experience. "Oh, yes, I've seen that, I'll
merely side-step it." Just as one side-steps an open bear trap. Just
as a civilization hopefully side-steps other traps, such as
overpopulation, mindless arms races, depletion of
resources......infinity.
Things sure are complex. What we need is some type of latter-day
Einstein to come along and develop a Theory of Complexity to help us
out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 11:10:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Yes, the scientific method is the way to go. Godel's spoiler utilizes
self-reference, basicly an elborate version of the Epimenides paradox,
"This statement is false". Cybernetics can navigate around such
hazards, for it is all about communication and control. You detect
Godel constructs through experience. "Oh, yes, I've seen that, I'll
merely side-step it." Just as one side-steps an open bear trap. Just
as a civilization hopefully side-steps other traps, such as
overpopulation, mindless arms races, depletion of
resources......infinity.
Things sure are complex. What we need is some type of latter-day
Einstein to come along and develop a Theory of Complexity to help us
out.
We already have it. The theory of algorithmic complexity has existed
since the 1970's. The leading problem (still unsolved) is does P = NP?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 11:09:36 AM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
Fortunately, physics does not rely on a closed logical system.
Consistency is proven empirically, and this requirement for
experimental validation of logical conclusions means that the
scientific method is an open system rather than a closed on.
Logical consistency (aka coherence of theory) is -assumed- in physical
theories. The only issue is whether the predictions are empirically
correct or not.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
14 Oct 2005 11:56:04 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
tadchem wrote:
Fortunately, physics does not rely on a closed logical system.
Consistency is proven empirically, and this requirement for
experimental validation of logical conclusions means that the
scientific method is an open system rather than a closed on.
Logical consistency (aka coherence of theory) is -assumed- in physical
theories.
Aristotelian physics was 'logically consistent' - at least according to
the prevailing standards of logic. It was also empirically wrong.
'Logical' consistency in physics is pretty, but not necessary.
Empirical verifiability is necessary, even when it isn't 'pretty.'
The only issue is whether the predictions are empirically correct or
not.
Agreed. That is what elevates physical science above the competition.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
15 Oct 2005 11:03:24 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
tadchem wrote:
Fortunately, physics does not rely on a closed logical system.
Consistency is proven empirically, and this requirement for
experimental validation of logical conclusions means that the
scientific method is an open system rather than a closed on.
Logical consistency (aka coherence of theory) is -assumed- in physical
theories. The only issue is whether the predictions are empirically
correct or not.
Bob Kolker
Nothing is assumed. You are mistaken once more, caught again trying to
perpetuate your own misconceptions.
Consistency -- all derived formulas based on the theory are true
Completness -- all possible formulas are derivable from the theory
Goedel: An axiomatic system can either be complete or consistent but
not both.
Einstein's SR is inconbsistent because two of its axioms (constancy of
speed of light and POR) result in the twin paradox. Whether it is
complete or not, that's another story.
But, why looking at consistency when Einstein's SR is no more than a
fool's fantasy that fails empirical verification:
Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- fails
verification
Axiom 2: Space-time is a 4-D continuum -- fails verification
Axiom 3: the laws of physics must be the same in all inertial reference
frames --- fails verification
Axiom 4: The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference
frames --- fails verification
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
15 Oct 2005 03:24:12 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Nothing is assumed. You are mistaken once more, caught again trying to
perpetuate your own misconceptions.
Newton's three laws of motion are postulates or assumptions. THey are
not true a prior.
Consistency -- all derived formulas based on the theory are true
Wrong again. Consistency = there exists a wff of the formal theory that
is not derivable as a theorem.
Completness -- all possible formulas are derivable from the theory
Wrong again. If all possible formulas were derivable then p and -p is
derivable and the theory is inconsistent.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
17 Oct 2005 07:27:04 AM |
|
|
In article <3rd6rgFj6cliU1@individual.net>, "Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> writes:
Mike wrote:
Nothing is assumed. You are mistaken once more, caught again trying to
perpetuate your own misconceptions.
Newton's three laws of motion are postulates or assumptions. THey are
not true a prior.
Consistency -- all derived formulas based on the theory are true
Wrong again. Consistency = there exists a wff of the formal theory that
is not derivable as a theorem.
Consistency = there does not exist a wff W of the formal theory such
that both W and ~W are deriveable theorems.
Incompleteness = there exists a wff of the formal theory that is
not derivable as a theorem.
Completness -- all possible formulas are derivable from the theory
Wrong again. If all possible formulas were derivable then p and -p is
derivable and the theory is inconsistent.
Completeness -- for any wff W of the formal theory, either W is
deriveable as a theorem or ~W is.
An inconsistent formal system for which "anything follows from a
contradiction" holds is neccessarily complete.
John Briggs
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
17 Oct 2005 02:13:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <3rd6rgFj6cliU1@individual.net>, "Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> writes:
Mike wrote:
Nothing is assumed. You are mistaken once more, caught again trying to
perpetuate your own misconceptions.
Newton's three laws of motion are postulates or assumptions. THey are
not true a prior.
Consistency -- all derived formulas based on the theory are true
Wrong again. Consistency = there exists a wff of the formal theory that
is not derivable as a theorem.
Consistency = there does not exist a wff W of the formal theory such
that both W and ~W are deriveable theorems.
That is a special case. The definition I gave applies to logics without
negation. It turns out that if P and -P is derivable then so is any wff.
And if any wff is derivable, then so is P and -P (which is a wff).
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
17 Oct 2005 02:38:02 PM |
|
|
In article <3ribf0Fjq2jqU7@individual.net>, "Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> writes:
briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
In article <3rd6rgFj6cliU1@individual.net>, "Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> writes:
Mike wrote:
Nothing is assumed. You are mistaken once more, caught again trying to
perpetuate your own misconceptions.
Newton's three laws of motion are postulates or assumptions. THey are
not true a prior.
Consistency -- all derived formulas based on the theory are true
Wrong again. Consistency = there exists a wff of the formal theory that
is not derivable as a theorem.
Consistency = there does not exist a wff W of the formal theory such
that both W and ~W are deriveable theorems.
That is a special case. The definition I gave applies to logics without
negation. It turns out that if P and -P is derivable then so is any wff.
And if any wff is derivable, then so is P and -P (which is a wff).
So a theory with one WFF ("true") and one axiom ("true") is inconsistent?
Interesting idiosyncracy of terminology then.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
17 Oct 2005 08:05:11 AM |
|
|
In article <DMJ+TwJjTpAl@eisner.encompasserve.org>, writes:
Incompleteness = there exists a wff of the formal theory that is
not derivable as a theorem.
Darn. Screwed up on this one. It negation also needs to not be a
theorem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
17 Oct 2005 10:27:42 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Mike wrote:
Nothing is assumed. You are mistaken once more, caught again trying to
perpetuate your own misconceptions.
Newton's three laws of motion are postulates or assumptions. THey are
not true a prior.
Idiot, the British School of Philosophy of science asserts Newton's
laws are empirical principles. Go phak with them, not with me.
Consistency -- all derived formulas based on the theory are true
Wrong again. Consistency = there exists a wff of the formal theory that
is not derivable as a theorem.
idiot.
Completness -- all possible formulas are derivable from the theory
Wrong again. If all possible formulas were derivable then p and -p is
derivable and the theory is inconsistent.
idiot
how many times I must call you an idiot for you to get it?
Mike
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
17 Oct 2005 02:16:35 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Completness -- all possible formulas are derivable from the theory
Wrong again. If all possible formulas were derivable then p and -p is
derivable and the theory is inconsistent.
idiot
It is true. If all formula could be derived as theormes the so could P
and -P in a logic with negation.
Your ignorance of formal logic is impressive.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
17 Oct 2005 05:19:32 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3ribknFjq2jqU9@individual.net...
| Mike wrote:
| >
| >>>Completness -- all possible formulas are derivable from the theory
| >>
| >>Wrong again. If all possible formulas were derivable then p and -p
is
| >>derivable and the theory is inconsistent.
| >>
| >
| >
| > idiot
|
| It is true. If all formula could be derived as theormes the so could P
| and -P in a logic with negation.
|
| Your ignorance of formal logic is impressive.
|
| Bob Kolker
Almost as impressive as your knowledge of mind (software)
and brain (hardware). :-)
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 + 1 = 2 |
17 Oct 2005 10:10:31 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
| Bob Kolker
Almost as impressive as your knowledge of mind (software)
and brain (hardware). :-)
I have complete knowledge of MY mind. It does not exist. What more can I
say about it? I have no knowledge whatsoever of YOUR mind or anyone
else's mind (myself excluded of course). I know a fair amount about
brains however. Almost everyone has a brain and its anatomy and
functioning (at least in gross terms) is reasonably well known these days.
I challange you to prove there you can find a mind in any body which you
do not own. Tell us how you do it, won't you? How do you distinguish
that case of a stranger having a mind vs a stranger being a very
complicated computer with a sophisticated program that simulates
external human behaviour. Can you do that?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
