Science > Physics > #104 In fact the definition of Reals as *all possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a diagonal method ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"a_plutonium" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2007 08:25:00 PM |
| Object: |
#104 In fact the definition of Reals as *all possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a diagonal method ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
The fact that All Possible Digit Arrangements as a definition of the
Reals resists all
of Cantor's diagonal argument is very noteworthy and we can actually
see it with
finite place values.
Alright, my critics keep carping about doing the Cantor diagonal on
infinite
place valued Reals, as if infinite place values is going to save and
salvage
Cantors schemata. So below I set up all the Reals between 0 and 1
and I find the particular Real that Cantor claims is not in the list
itself.
But to everyone's surprise the Real that Cantor claims was not in the
list
is actually in the list itself and forthwith, Cantor is proven to be
wrong. So that by
example of finite place value such as 1 place value for Cantor's
method
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
That change each digit above to try to find a new Cantor number is
impossible
for we cannot change the 9 to be something new and not on the list,
nor 8, nor 7.
And Cantor's method collapses and falls apart with every finite place
value under
*ALL Possible Digit Arrangements*
So now I give the Infinite Place Value and I show you where Cantor's
diagonal method
fails and does not deliver a new number that is not on the original
list.
999999........9999999999
999999........9999999998
999999....... 99999999997
999999........99999999996
999999........9999999995
999999....... 99999999994
999999........99999999993
999999........9999999992
999999....... 99999999991
999999........99999999990
999999........99999999989
999999....... 99999999988
.
.
.
.
8888888......88888888888
.
.
.
.
7777777777.......777777777
.
.
.
6666666666.......666666666
.
.
.
555555555........5555555555
.
.
.
500000000.......000000000000
midpoint
499999999.......9999999999999
.
.
.
4444444444.......444444444444
.
.
.
3333333333..........333333333333
.
.
.
2222222222.........2222222222222
.
.
.
111111111111.........111111111
.
.
.
.
.
000000........000000011
000000........000000010
000000.......0000000009
000000........000000008
000000........000000007
000000.......0000000006
000000.......0000000005
000000........0000000004
000000........0000000003
000000.......00000000002
000000.......00000000001
000000.......00000000000
Now the diagonal starts at the upper left corner with "9" and goes
downward
ending with the "0" in 0000....0000. Now here in Cantor Diagonal
Schemata
he changes a 9 to 0, and a 8 to 9 and a 7 to 8, and a 6 to 7, and a 5
to 6, and
a 4 to 5 and a 3 to 4, and a 2 to 3, and a 1 to 2, and a 0 to 1.
So Cantor's alleged new number looks like this
0000000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111111.........1
That number is an infinite number no doubt about that but it is less
than 1 percent of the way (sic)
of the numbers from 0 to .....9999999.
And the only important question here is whether that number already
exists in the
original list. And the answer is a resounding yes, that it already
existed in the original
list even with what Cantor calls a change in every number by changing
one digit
in its place value.
Again we go to the example of 1 place value or 2 place value
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Or two place value
99
98
97
.
.
.
04
03
02
01
00
And we see that it is impossible to generate a "new Cantor number" that
does
not already exist in the list.
So if it is impossible to generate a new Cantor number regardless of
whether the
list is finite place value or infinite place value under *All Possible
Digit Arrangements*
then of course there is a huge flaw and error in Cantor's program.
And the error was that he, nor anyone else thought that what if we say
Reals are
all possible digit arrangements. Does the Cantor program stand up
logically under
that test and experiment? And the answer is that it falls to pieces.
Does anyone know what the definition of Reals was during the 1870s
when
Cantor was plying his diagonal method? Anyone know what Cantor's own
idea of a Real Number was?
Does anyone know if any mathematician before 1993 said that Reals are
all possible digit arrangements of rightward infinite strings with a
finite portion
leftwards. I perhaps have a "first" on that idea, but would need to
make sure.
Anyway the title of this post tells it all. The more I think about the
situation
the more clearer it becomes. That if the Reals were all possible digit
arrangements
then Cantor and any Cantor-follower should give up before even
starting. That they are
defeated on the spot and in their tracks. That the concept of all
possible digit arrangements
precludes anyone from finding a "Cantor new Real" no matter what they
do, because
All possible digit arrangements does not allow room for any new Real.
It is self contradictory to even begin to look for some Real not on a
list of all possible
digit arrangements.
So, for those that still worship Cantor, and those are really silly
people with dafty minds, then
they have alot of explaining to do. They have to explain why the
Cantor Reals is a smaller
set than the All-Possible-Digit-Arrangement Reals. They have to
explain what Reals exist in
the Digit Arrangement Reals that do not exist in the Cantor Reals and
for which the diagonal
method fetches these so called unlisted Cantor Reals.
And laughable how Cantor sets up his bogus proof of Reductio Ad
Absurdum supposing the
Reals are Countably Infinite and then applying a diagonal to fetch out
some alleged unlisted Real.
Ironic because the Reals as All Possible Digit Arrangements is already
Countable because
all possible digit arrangements already arranges the Reals so that
they are Countable. So it
is laughable that Cantor supposes the Reals as Countable when they
already are countable.
And because the Reals are All Possible Digit Arrangements terminates
the ability for Cantor
to fetch a new Real. When you have All Possible Digit Arrangements,
you cannot find any Real
that is not already listed.
So I think the whole entire problem of Cantor and his transfinites
concocted from a erroneous
method of diagonal, came about in the 19th century when mathematics
just was not equipped
enough with clear thinking as to What are the Reals? and the
misfortune that no mathematician
from Cantor to 1993 hit upon the idea that All Possible Digit
Arrangements is the logical anchor
for the Reals as a definition. Keep in mind that in the 1870s Peano
was just working out the
axioms for Natural Numbers and so the concept and notion and
definition of Reals was in a
state of fogginess and would remain so until 1993.
Now I am going to have to devote a full chapter on the common
knowledge in Physics that definitions
are, and important definitions at that, are built from a Probablity
Schemata. The definition of
Quantum Numbers of quantum states are probabilitistic such as the N,
L, m_L and m_s. My point
is that the definition of Reals as all possible digit arrangements and
the definition of P-adics
as all possible digit arrangements (although in opposite infinite
string directions), well, if
good enough for Physics then it is darn well good enough for
Mathematics to have central ideas
defined probabilistically. So I should devote a full chapter early on
in this book to the probability
definition of Real and P-adics. There is plenty of room since this
textbook is over a 1,000 pages
but there is not one single space or room in the Reals for a Cantor
diagonal number.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: #104 In fact the definition of Reals as *all possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a diagonal method ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 09:23:55 PM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
The Diagonal Method does not have to do anything with
*defining* the reals, you are mistaken. It proves
something about the reals, namely that they cannot be
counted. It does not *define* them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #105 In fact the definition of Reals as *all possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a diagonal method ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 12:20:37 PM |
|
|
Proginoskes wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:34 am, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...] So below I set up all the Reals between 0 and 1
and I find the particular Real that Cantor claims is not in the list
itself.
But to everyone's surprise the Real that Cantor claims was not in the
list
is actually in the list itself and forthwith, Cantor is proven to be
wrong. So that by
example of finite place value such as 1 place value for Cantor's
method
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
That change each digit above to try to find a new Cantor number is
impossible
for we cannot change the 9 to be something new and not on the list,
nor 8, nor 7.
No one has ever claimed that Cantor's argument works for a FINITE
list. As people have repeatedly told you.
[...]
So now I give the Infinite Place Value and I show you where Cantor's
diagonal method
fails and does not deliver a new number that is not on the original
list.
999999........9999999999
999999........9999999998
999999....... 99999999997
999999........99999999996
999999........9999999995
999999....... 99999999994
999999........99999999993
999999........9999999992
999999....... 99999999991
999999........99999999990
999999........99999999989
999999....... 99999999988
.
.
.
.
8888888......88888888888
.
.
.
.
7777777777.......777777777
.
.
.
6666666666.......666666666
.
.
.
555555555........5555555555
.
.
.
500000000.......000000000000
midpoint
499999999.......9999999999999
.
.
.
4444444444.......444444444444
.
.
.
3333333333..........333333333333
.
.
.
2222222222.........2222222222222
.
.
.
111111111111.........111111111
.
.
.
.
.
000000........000000011
000000........000000010
000000.......0000000009
000000........000000008
000000........000000007
000000.......0000000006
000000.......0000000005
000000........0000000004
000000........0000000003
000000.......00000000002
000000.......00000000001
000000.......00000000000
Now the diagonal starts at the lower left corner with "9" and goes
downward
ending with the "0" in 0000....0000. Now here in Cantor Diagonal
Schemata
he changes a 9 to 0, and a 8 to 9 and a 7 to 8, and a 6 to 7, and a 5
to 6, and
a 4 to 5 and a 3 to 4, and a 2 to 3, and a 1 to 2, and a 0 to 1.
So Cantor's alleged new number looks like this
0000000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111111.........1
That number is an infinite number no doubt about that but it is less
than 1 percent
of the numbers from 0 to .....9999999.
And the only important question here is whether that number already
exists in the
original list. And the answer is a resounding yes, that it already
existed in the original
list even with what Cantor calls a change in every number by changing
one digit
in its place value.
Okay; which line does this number exist on? Then we go to the
The reason I put the midpoint in there was an important reason,
because
that number is in the infinite swath-band of all the Reals that begin
with
0s
This swath band block of all Reals from 0 to 0999999.....
09999999999..........
..
..
..
00000000000...........
So the number
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
is in the mid-region of that swath band of all Reals between 0 and 1
Now, that number above has these as neighbors
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......99.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......98.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......97.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......96.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
..
..
..
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......11.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......09.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......08.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
..
..
..
Now under ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS, that number
that Cantor's diagonal fetched is already on his list and so when
Cantor announces he has a new number, he is making a huge mistake
because all he did was find a number that already existed in his list.
Just as running a diagonal on all the 1 place value only ends up
repeating
another number that exists. Or on 2 place value etc etc.
So the lesson to learn is that All Digit Arrangements are so full of
numbers
that running a Diagonal and changing one digit does not give you a new
number not on the list.
So when Cantor runs a second diagonal for his above, he will find out
that
changing the midpoint of that previous diagonal number ends up with
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
And the question is what will Cantor change the 10 midpoint? No matter
what his diagonal changes the 10 to say 33 or 98 or 65, whatever, the
All Possible Digit Arrangement Definition already has that number as
I diagrammed above.
appropriate place of the number on that line and find out that the
number 9999....8888....7777...(etc) does not agree at that digit.
Sloppiness does not prove Cantor was wrong.
Again we go to the example of 1 place value or 2 place value
A non-sequitur; lots of irrelevacy deleted at this point.
The sloppiness of your mind is understandable in that you are a
hatemonger first, and
only secondly do you engage in a reasoned conversation.
Now, since you are found to be so wrong, do me a favor and tell me
what was on Cantor's
mind as a definition of a Real Number when he proposed his diagonal
method in circa 1870s?
I need to know whether transcendentals played into Cantor's picture
and understanding of Reals
because the concept of a Real number as a transcendental should have
discouraged any
mathematician in the 19th century to have ever ventured into making
such bold and unsound claims
of infinity. In other words, being stupid and silly about what is
Transcendental Real? and then
crafting some silly and stupid diagonal when Cantor never tested the
diagonal on finite place values
but jumps directly to infinite sets, is a sign of stupidity, not
genius.
So, what was the definition of Real Number when Cantor was crafting
his diagonal method?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #106 The Axiom of Choice is strengthened by ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 12:55:00 PM |
|
|
Marshall wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:18 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, Cantor believers have to either accept All Possible Digit
Arrangements or reject it. If they accept
All Possible Digit Arrangements then the Diagonal
number that Cantor swears by is a
nonexistant number, for it is bogus, for all possible digit
arrangement eliminates Cantor's alleged new number.
Hmm. It would appear that you have found a contradiction
embedded inside Cantor's RAA proof of the uncountability
of the reals.
I wonder if there are other famous RAA proofs that have
contradictions in them? It bears investigating I think.
Marshall
Call me greedy, I don't mind. When I discover something important, I
usually try to pluck
all the fruit before others come barging in and pick some fruit.
So the world's finest and best definition of Real Numbers is All
Possible Digit Arrangements
to infinite place value of a rightward infinite string with a tiny
finite portion leftwards. For the
symmetry is obeyed that allows us to go from P-adics to Reals and
where both are similar
but vastly different.
So this world's finest definition of Reals already shows us how wrong
and errorfilled is Cantor's
diagonal and Cantor's claim that Reals are uncountable. Cantor was all
wrong and was all wet.
But Marshall leads me to ask whether the defintion of Reals as All
Possible Digit Arrangements
clears up any other errors of mathematics. So my first pick would be
to question the Axiom
of Choice.
Now in my foggy mind over when I first encountered the Axiom of Choice
was I believe in Euclidean
geometry where Euclid implied the axiom of Choice to do one of his
proofs. Don't hold me to that
but if that is true, then the axiom of choice is really indispensible.
For if geometry requires
the Axiom of Choice then it is a true axiom. I need to find out about
this need of Axiom of Choice
for the Euclidean Geometry proof program so I will not discuss that
further here.
But what I will discuss in detail is how the Axiom of Choice fares
with All Possible Digit Arrangements
as the definition of Reals.
Before I started this thread, every mathematician in the world thought
that a number like this
as a P-adic
0999999999.........99999999999999999
does not exist
and every mathematician prior to this thread would have said this is
not a Real Number
1.099999999999999999999999999999999999999..........9999999999990
Yes, your eyes are correct in that is a Real Number whose last digit
is a "0" with an infinity
of 9s in between.
So that if the Internet were alive and running in 1870 and Georg
Cantor was reading this thread,
that he would never need to bother with a diagonal to alter a digit in
every Real Number.
Because all the Cantor needed was say
here is a Real Number that no diagonal method can ever forge.
And all that Cantor needed to do is plop down this number
0.099999999......999999990
because no diagonal can craft such a number and Cantor would have been
hard pressed
to show that this number is even a Real Number
But it is a Real Number!!!!!!!!
Just as this is a genuine P-adic Number of 099999999......999999990
where its predecessor is 0999999.....9999999989 and its successor is
0999999.....99999991
Now let me get back to the Axiom of Choice. If Cantor cannot create
that above
Real Number by diagonals, what can create that number is the Axiom of
Choice
That as I go from the Ones place value I choice a 0 as I go to the
Tens place value
I choice a 9, as I go to the Hundreds place value I choice another 9
and so on until I
come to the Infinity Place Value and I choice not another 9 but I
choice a 0.
So, in other words, Cantor's diagonal cannot forge or create or craft
the Real Number that
is
0.0999999999999.....999999999999990
but that the Axiom of Choice and forge that Real Number in the All
Possible Digit Arrangement
Definition of Reals.
And it is no wonder that Choice became an axiom and not diagonal. And
that today, mathematics
has an Axiom of Choice, not an Axiom of Diagonal.
So, the Axiom of Choice is another facet of the Definition that the
Reals are created probabilitistically
as All Possible Digit Arrangements. The concept of choice comes from
probability theory
and All Possible Digit Arrangements comes from probability theory.
Now I bet you, that Axiom of Choice and All Possible Digit
Arrangements are integral to one
another and are dependent on one another.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: #106 The Axiom of Choice is strengthened by ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 03:21:31 PM |
|
|
you are impolite to your correspondents,
such as DS and KQ, above;
you could easily configure your items to be amended only
by yourself and AP, since you rarely answer them. after all,
if you didn't have the constant distraction of us,
you might become your own best critic, at last.
your first example, below, is equivalent to 1.10000...0000,
using a zero as the "last, infinitely rightward digit;" so,
what is become of the paradox?... or, are you saying that
that last 0 prevents the "infinite" sequence from turning-over,
odometer-style, as if it were just a nine?
perhaps it's just silly,
to make the sole ambiguity of Stevin's decimals
into such a molehill, but I think it might be ingenious,
to posit a most-right- or left-ward digit, but then
you have to actually work a consistent arithmetic
that uses that; did you try to do that?... that is,
"genious is 99.44% perspiration," other than carpal tunnel syndrome!
all the fruit before others come barging in and pick some fruit.
1.099999999999999999999999999999999999999..........9999999999990
Because all the Cantor needed was say
here is a Real Number that no diagonal method can ever forge.
And all that Cantor needed to do is plop down this number
0.099999999......999999990
because no diagonal can craft such a number and Cantor would have been
hard pressed
to show that this number is even a Real Number
Now I bet you, that Axiom of Choice and All Possible Digit
Arrangements are integral to one
another and are dependent on one another.
"Time is not a dimension; or,
it's the only dimension." --Are Buckafka Fullofit, _Synergetics_
Many, many fields are heavy on math. None of them
should be cross posting to sci.math. Nor sci.logic.
GR is completely off topic in sci.math.
thus:
foremost, Harry Potter is a literary referant,
as well as simply an adumbration
of the imperialist "public school" a l'Oxford,
where Dame Maggie and Sir Tony got their policy,
Hey, George, let's you and Saddam fight!)...
of course, by exposure to geometry and
the higher arithmetic, they'll have
had some exposure to letteracy (sik),
as well as linguistic expression
of the other elements of *mathematics*
(Latin: quadrivium;
trivium, the "3 Rs" of a literate slave).
--14 Italian Senators Call for Cheney Impeachment
Aug. 1, 2007 (EIRNS)-
The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee
(LPAC) issued the following release today.
Fourteen members of the Italian Senate have signed a call "to the
Members of Congress to support Rep. Kucinich's House Resolution 333
for the Impeachment of ***** Cheney."
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/070801italian_senators_call.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #109 another lesson in "education" which is often missed in classrooms, pretending to be other people as per Brian Q. Hutchins and John Baez as Uncle Ai (AL) ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 04:38:20 PM |
|
|
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum wrote:
you are impolite to your correspondents,
such as DS and KQ, above;
you could easily configure your items to be amended only
by yourself and AP, since you rarely answer them. after all,
if you didn't have the constant distraction of us,
you might become your own best critic, at last.
The Drexel Math Forum pegs the above author as a Brian Quincy Hutchins
that lives in
California, nearby to John Baez in California of Riverside UC
Riverside campus.
And I peg Brian as the author of this under the name Uncle AL (as a
computer program
with several personae authors)
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. St
upid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.
Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.
So the Uncle Al posts are several people such as Hutchins as Baez all
going under
one name Uncle Al. And of course Hutchins branches out into other
silly fake names
such as the above.
Anyway, in life, if you have to pretend to be someone else or
consistently hide behind
fake names then you are squandering your life.
In youth we often have heroes and pretend to be them, but then we grow
up, but we do not
grow up properly or mature if we still are playing these childish kid
games of pretension.
One of the reasons or better yet excuses for an Uncle Al is to air a
pitiful new theory of
physics, and Baez too ashamed to air it under his name so he airs it
under the name
Uncle Al.
I peg Hutchins as the primary author of the above "stooopid post" for
his hyphenations
and other language fingerprints.
And it is a shame that Baez is in education, for he really never did
grow up by hiding behind
fake names.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: #109 another lesson in "education" which is often missed in classrooms, pretending to be other people as per Brian Q. Hutchins and John Baez as Uncle Ai (AL) ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
15 Oct 2007 03:23:42 PM |
|
|
you are rude, and you didn't even mention what I wrote
about your ap-adics, just above -- you have yet
to demonstrate any of the alleged arithmetic,
in short, even if the idea, of a beginning or ending digit
in front of or behind an infinite string of digits,
is acutally workable. go ahead, break out the pencil & paper,
and try it out, as I have done, years ago!
otherwise, you're just scrabbling on the precipice
with your feet dangling in numerological vacuum,
sucking you away.
at least, I satisified myself as to Munk's statement
about digits repeating both ways across the decimal point,
but that may be the only simple thing to do --
it's not even arithmetic, yet, except in comparing the two sides.
I don't know enough math or physics, to qualify Al's experimental
work,
nor to critique Baez's summaries of weird math;
if you want to say, we're some kind of triumvirate,
that's just fine with me;
I've tried to change my psuedonym, but,
Google won't let me. as far as "anonymity" goes,
I'll apply my actual name with the copyright thing,
when necessary; why bother, otherwise, since
Homebound Security already would know?
And I peg Brian as the author of this under the name Uncle AL (as a
computer program
with several personae authors)
thus:
i thought, many Us was solopsism, *before* I found Deutsch's
admission.
that fuzzee logeek is a formalism of QM, is just another way
of saying, "but,
you don't have to reify the copenhagenschoolers --
Schroedinger's cat is dead; longlive Schroedinger's cat!"s
the best model of atoms is Moon's geometrical one,
so far, as furthered by ...
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/moonsubpg.html
Fuzzy logic as far as it goes is really not a formalism for QM so much
as an excuse for not getting to the bottom of quantum effects in
purely mechanical terms. It's just a way of saying in effect that we
don't have a clue what's going on but that's ok because we're pretty
much clueless anyway.
thus:
_Synergetics_ should be put in the bibliography,
the link to Bob's scan of the text, that is now
in the "external links" section. it's a fun book to scan,
although there's no math at all, except
for implicit use of pythag.th. (and trig.,
in Color Plates One and Two .-)
there are actualy "uncoveries" that RBF et al made,
that most of his fans are barely aware of. of course,
tensegrity is now a very appreciabe scientific field, or
many fields, which was first uncovered by Ken Snelson,
in association with Bucky.
I have a model of fullerenes, the one
that Bucky should have found!
--name withheld by request of every one
PS: that there's no math in _S_ is good -- you have to supply it.
unfortunately,
the "Buckywitches" seem to believe that "nature's coordinate system"
had
made the rest of math obsolete, which is totally unfounded. (now,
the only real "mystaque" that I've found in _S_, is the whole section
on "Scheherezade Numbers," which is a sad attempt
at the higher arithmetic of Fermat, Gauss et al; numbertheory,
the queen of the sciences.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ken quirici" |
|
| Title: Re: #105 In fact the definition of Reals as *all possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a diagonal method ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 12:46:07 PM |
|
|
On 2007-10-14 13:20:37 -0400, a_plutonium <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> said:
Proginoskes wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:34 am, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...] So below I set up all the Reals between 0 and 1
and I find the particular Real that Cantor claims is not in the list
itself.
But to everyone's surprise the Real that Cantor claims was not in the
list
is actually in the list itself and forthwith, Cantor is proven to be
wrong. So that by
example of finite place value such as 1 place value for Cantor's
method
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
That change each digit above to try to find a new Cantor number is
impossible
for we cannot change the 9 to be something new and not on the list,
nor 8, nor 7.
No one has ever claimed that Cantor's argument works for a FINITE
list. As people have repeatedly told you.
[...]
So now I give the Infinite Place Value and I show you where Cantor's
diagonal method
fails and does not deliver a new number that is not on the original
list.
999999........9999999999
999999........9999999998
999999....... 99999999997
999999........99999999996
999999........9999999995
999999....... 99999999994
999999........99999999993
999999........9999999992
999999....... 99999999991
999999........99999999990
999999........99999999989
999999....... 99999999988
.
.
.
.
8888888......88888888888
.
.
.
.
7777777777.......777777777
.
.
.
6666666666.......666666666
.
.
.
555555555........5555555555
.
.
.
500000000.......000000000000
midpoint
499999999.......9999999999999
.
.
.
4444444444.......444444444444
.
.
.
3333333333..........333333333333
.
.
.
2222222222.........2222222222222
.
.
.
111111111111.........111111111
.
.
.
.
.
000000........000000011
000000........000000010
000000.......0000000009
000000........000000008
000000........000000007
000000.......0000000006
000000.......0000000005
000000........0000000004
000000........0000000003
000000.......00000000002
000000.......00000000001
000000.......00000000000
Now the diagonal starts at the lower left corner with "9" and goes
downward
ending with the "0" in 0000....0000. Now here in Cantor Diagonal
Schemata
he changes a 9 to 0, and a 8 to 9 and a 7 to 8, and a 6 to 7, and a 5
to 6, and
a 4 to 5 and a 3 to 4, and a 2 to 3, and a 1 to 2, and a 0 to 1.
So Cantor's alleged new number looks like this
0000000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111111.........1
That
number is an infinite number no doubt about that but it is less
than 1 percent
of the numbers from 0 to .....9999999.
And the only important question here is whether that number already
exists in the
original list. And the answer is a resounding yes, that it already
existed in the original
list even with what Cantor calls a change in every number by changing
one digit
in its place value.
Okay; which line does this number exist on? Then we go to the
The reason I put the midpoint in there was an important reason,
because
that number is in the infinite swath-band of all the Reals that begin
with
0s
This swath band block of all Reals from 0 to 0999999.....
09999999999..........
.
.
.
00000000000...........
So the number
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
is
in the mid-region of that swath band of all Reals between 0 and 1
Now, that number above has these as neighbors
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......99.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......98.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......97.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......96.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
..
..
..
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......11.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......09.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......08.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
..
..
..
Now
under ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS,
How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
(if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
that number
that Cantor's diagonal fetched is already on his list and so when
Cantor announces he has a new number, he is making a huge mistake
because all he did was find a number that already existed in his list.
Just as running a diagonal on all the 1 place value only ends up
repeating
another number that exists. Or on 2 place value etc etc.
So the lesson to learn is that All Digit Arrangements are so full of
numbers
that running a Diagonal and changing one digit does not give you a new
number not on the list.
So when Cantor runs a second diagonal for his above, he will find out
that
changing the midpoint of that previous diagonal number ends up with
0000.....9.....8.....7.....6......10.....5......4.....3.....2.....1111.........1
And
the question is what will Cantor change the 10 midpoint? No matter
what his diagonal changes the 10 to say 33 or 98 or 65, whatever, the
All Possible Digit Arrangement Definition already has that number as
I diagrammed above.
appropriate place of the number on that line and find out that the
number 9999....8888....7777...(etc) does not agree at that digit.
Sloppiness does not prove Cantor was wrong.
Again we go to the example of 1 place value or 2 place value
A non-sequitur; lots of irrelevacy deleted at this point.
The sloppiness of your mind is understandable in that you are a
hatemonger first, and
only secondly do you engage in a reasoned conversation.
Now, since you are found to be so wrong, do me a favor and tell me
what was on Cantor's
mind as a definition of a Real Number when he proposed his diagonal
method in circa 1870s?
I need to know whether transcendentals played into Cantor's picture
and understanding of Reals
because the concept of a Real number as a transcendental should have
discouraged any
mathematician in the 19th century to have ever ventured into making
such bold and unsound claims
of infinity. In other words, being stupid and silly about what is
Transcendental Real? and then
crafting some silly and stupid diagonal when Cantor never tested the
diagonal on finite place values
but jumps directly to infinite sets, is a sign of stupidity, not
genius.
So, what was the definition of Real Number when Cantor was crafting
his diagonal method?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 03:48:19 PM |
|
|
ken quirici wrote:
How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
(if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
Now here is a second example of a bozo who posts to sci.math. The
first example
is the Arizona State University professor who spams hatred and seldom
any wisdom
or information.
But the problem of the above second bozo is a problem that is often
occurring in colleges
and universities and which should be addressed in this book.
It is a problem I am very closely familar with because of my
experience in the 1970s of a
math classroom where a student was there who would make a "horrible
math teacher" and
yet the University never seemed to try to persuade this student that
math education was never
his path in life and that he would probably go out and make a
miserable math teacher and
ruin an hour of every class day for a large number of students.
The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
and guidance those students
who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
have professors who do not have
the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
mathematician or a math teacher and
that his true calling is really somewhere else.
So our Colleges and Universities fail miserably in guidance and
probably one of the biggest strong
suits of a small College is that such guidance exists, or can exist to
save alot of students of the
misery of graduating in a subject or field that they will be miserable
in.
I do not remember the first post of Ken Quirici, but usually for me I
can tell if a person is a oaf
or buffoon of mathematics by the first or second post. And I knew Ken
was an oaf by his second
post, but I have the tendency to use oafs. I use them to act as a
"filler". When I have an oaf
like Chris Heckman, he is a better oaf than is Ken Quirici. So I do
not killfile all oafs because
then my discussion becomes more of a monologue and that repulses other
readers. So I use these
oafs to make the conversation look like a conversation.
And there is a huge difference between Chris Heckman and Ken Quirici.
Chris at least has the ability
to understand mathematics, when he does not let his hatred flood his
mind. But Ken does not
have that ability to understand mathematics, at least none of his
posts that I ever read show of
a ability to understand mathematics. Now if Ken has a philosophy
degree, then okay, I can
forgive his oafishness because philosophers waffle on like Ken
waffles. But if Ken has a degree
in mathematics, then that is pretty alarming because I would hazard to
guess that he got it
from a large university that has pitifully low standards where no
professor at that university guided
Ken by saying "Hey, you are not cut out for mathematics".
Now one possibility is that Ken went to one of these large
Universities which had few guidance
couselors and where the math professors did not have the heart to tell
Ken, that math was beyond
him and that Ken should go into Accounting or Hotel Managing but not
mathematics.
So one possible answer is that Ken has some physical handicap or some
other handicap and that the
combination of a handicap and a large University that none of the
professors there had the heart
to tell Ken, math is beyond you, and that instead they graduated Ken.
So, yes, I should bring up a slice of Education System in the USA, in
a book written to teach
students what the P-adics are and the best way to make the P-adics
available to a High School
Student.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proginoskes" |
|
| Title: Why does AP hate Mathematics and mathematicians? Was: A hate-filled post. Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
15 Oct 2007 01:29:36 AM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 1:48 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
and guidance those students
who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
have professors who do not have
the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
mathematician or a math teacher and
that his true calling is really somewhere else. [...]
Gee, I will tell this to students who don't want to go into the
sciences and engineering. I guess that makes me the best kind of
professor possible, eh, AP?
And now, from the beginning once again:
[...]
It [referring to Ken Quirici, a HUMAN BEING] is a problem I am
very closely familar with because of my
experience in the 1970s of a
math classroom where a student was there who would make a "horrible
math teacher" and
yet the University never seemed to try to persuade this student that
math education was never
his path in life and that he would probably go out and make a
miserable math teacher and
ruin an hour of every class day for a large number of students.
Is that why you hate Mathematics and mathematicians, then, AP? Because
you had a bad math teacher? Well, boo hoo, cry me a river, crybaby.
Getting serious now: Everyone has had a bad experience with a teacher.
Those of us with some shred of humanity have managed to put it behind
ourselves, and do not let the hatred boil up inside until it bursts
out.
The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
and guidance those students
who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
have professors who do not have
the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
mathematician or a math teacher and
that his true calling is really somewhere else. [...]
Gee, I will tell this to students who don't want to go into the
sciences and engineering. I guess that makes me the best kind of
teacher possible, eh, AP?
I do not remember the first post of Ken Quirici, but usually for me I
can tell if a person is a oaf
or buffoon of mathematics by the first or second post. And I knew Ken
was an oaf by his second
post, but I have the tendency to use oafs. I use them to act as a
"filler". When I have an oaf
like Chris Heckman, he is a better oaf than is Ken Quirici. So I do
not killfile all oafs because
then my discussion becomes more of a monologue and that repulses other
readers. So I use these
oafs to make the conversation look like a conversation.
Now that e-mail I got from KQ is starting to make sense. AP is not
motivated by whether his mathematics is correct; he just wants someone
that he can sling mud at, while claiming he's a genius.
And there is a huge difference between Chris Heckman and Ken Quirici.
Chris at least has the ability
to understand mathematics, when he does not let his hatred flood his
mind. But Ken does not
have that ability to understand mathematics, at least none of his
posts that I ever read show of
a ability to understand mathematics. Now if Ken has a philosophy
degree, then okay, I can
forgive his oafishness because philosophers waffle on like Ken
waffles. But if Ken has a degree
in mathematics, then that is pretty alarming because I would hazard to
guess that he got it
from a large university that has pitifully low standards where no
professor at that university guided
Ken by saying "Hey, you are not cut out for mathematics".
Well, at least it's not a Bachelors of Art. It isn't, is it, KQ?
Now one possibility is that Ken went to one of these large
Universities which had few guidance
couselors and where the math professors did not have the heart to tell
Ken, that math was beyond
him and that Ken should go into Accounting or Hotel Managing but not
mathematics.
One had to wonder what kind of counselling _AP_ got when he was in
college. My guess is that no one ever told him that he didn't have to
study mathematics. Or else he didn't listen. Certainly, when I
suggested that AP turn his "Atom Totality Universe" into a novel (the
L. Ron Hubbard approach), he didn't take _that_ suggestion, even
though he could approach it as "fact disguised as fiction".
But I do have to admit that AP is right about one thing, and this is
an issue which came up a few months ago at ASU: The counselling here
leaves much to be desired. The department is thinking of hiring one
person who would serve as a full-time counsel, regarding classes. It
seems that the advisors in other, non-technical, departments aren't
sure which math classes they should send their students to ...
--- Christopher Heckman
So one possible answer is that Ken has some physical handicap or some
other handicap and that the
combination of a handicap and a large University that none of the
professors there had the heart
to tell Ken, math is beyond you, and that instead they graduated Ken.
So, yes, I should bring up a slice of Education System in the USA, in
a book written to teach
students what the P-adics are and the best way to make the P-adics
available to a High School
Student.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Angus Rodgers" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does AP hate Mathematics and mathematicians? Was: A hate-filled post. Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
15 Oct 2007 04:43:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:29:36 -0000, Proginoskes
<CCHeckman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Why do you reply incessantly to AP? If it weren't for
you, I would probably see very little evidence of his
posting, having killfiled him long ago.
I am now regretfully considering killfiling you also,
for this reason alone. I have no objection to the
contents of your posts unrelated to AP, and would not
want to miss any posts about mathematics, so it seems
only fair to ask you to explain. Please do not be
offended.
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proginoskes" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does AP hate Mathematics and mathematicians? Was: A hate-filled post. Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
15 Oct 2007 04:58:31 AM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 2:43 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:29:36 -0000, Proginoskes
<CCHeck...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Why do you reply incessantly to AP? If it weren't for
you, I would probably see very little evidence of his
posting, having killfiled him long ago.
I am now regretfully considering killfiling you also,
for this reason alone. I have no objection to the
contents of your posts unrelated to AP, and would not
want to miss any posts about mathematics, so it seems
only fair to ask you to explain. Please do not be
offended.
It's like seeing an accident on a highway, and you slow down to take a
look ...
Since AP doesn't seem to respond with anything other than hatred any
more, I won't have many more exchanges with him. At least I hope so.
--- Christopher Heckman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Angus Rodgers" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does AP hate Mathematics and mathematicians? Was: A hate-filled post. Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
15 Oct 2007 08:17:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:58:31 -0000, Proginoskes
<CCHeckman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:43 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:29:36 -0000, Proginoskes
<CCHeck...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Why do you reply incessantly to AP? If it weren't for
you, I would probably see very little evidence of his
posting, having killfiled him long ago.
I am now regretfully considering killfiling you also,
for this reason alone. I have no objection to the
contents of your posts unrelated to AP, and would not
want to miss any posts about mathematics, so it seems
only fair to ask you to explain. Please do not be
offended.
It's like seeing an accident on a highway, and you slow
down to take a look ...
Although I wouldn't literally do that, and for somewhat
similar reasons I also don't like to poke fingers into
(other!) psychological wrecks either, I do understand
the fascination to some extent.
I confess to a certain degree of morbid fascination with
JSH (although I try not to interact with him too much,
and usually have him killfiled, although I don't at the
moment). I like to compare and contrast his psychology
with mine, to "find my inner James Harris", as someone
so memorably put it. And in his own way he writes both
amusingly and coherently, even though he's as daft as a
brush. I don't feel any similar kinship with AP, but
perhaps that's because I just happen not to have paid
him as much attention.
So I don't grudge you your interest; I just wish there
were fewer postings on this one single topic which, at
least for the moment, doesn't interest me.
Since AP doesn't seem to respond with anything other than hatred any
more, I won't have many more exchanges with him. At least I hope so.
OK, you're saved from the terrible fate of my killfile. :-)
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
.
|
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does AP hate Mathematics and mathematicians? Was: A hate-filled post. Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
15 Oct 2007 09:22:14 PM |
|
|
just out of *some* sort of curiousity,
do you have the whether-or-not-killedfile function,
automated?
I confess to a certain degree of morbid fascination with
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Quirici" |
|
| Title: Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 04:34:41 PM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 4:48 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
ken quirici wrote:
How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
(if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
Now here is a second example of a bozo who posts to sci.math. The
first example
is the Arizona State University professor who spams hatred and seldom
any wisdom
or information.
But the problem of the above second bozo is a problem that is often
occurring in colleges
and universities and which should be addressed in this book.
It is a problem I am very closely familar with because of my
experience in the 1970s of a
math classroom where a student was there who would make a "horrible
math teacher" and
yet the University never seemed to try to persuade this student that
math education was never
his path in life and that he would probably go out and make a
miserable math teacher and
ruin an hour of every class day for a large number of students.
The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
and guidance those students
who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
have professors who do not have
the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
mathematician or a math teacher and
that his true calling is really somewhere else.
So our Colleges and Universities fail miserably in guidance and
probably one of the biggest strong
suits of a small College is that such guidance exists, or can exist to
save alot of students of the
misery of graduating in a subject or field that they will be miserable
in.
I do not remember the first post of Ken Quirici, but usually for me I
can tell if a person is a oaf
or buffoon of mathematics by the first or second post. And I knew Ken
was an oaf by his second
post, but I have the tendency to use oafs. I use them to act as a
"filler". When I have an oaf
like Chris Heckman, he is a better oaf than is Ken Quirici. So I do
not killfile all oafs because
then my discussion becomes more of a monologue and that repulses other
readers. So I use these
oafs to make the conversation look like a conversation.
And there is a huge difference between Chris Heckman and Ken Quirici.
Chris at least has the ability
to understand mathematics, when he does not let his hatred flood his
mind. But Ken does not
have that ability to understand mathematics, at least none of his
posts that I ever read show of
a ability to understand mathematics. Now if Ken has a philosophy
degree, then okay, I can
forgive his oafishness because philosophers waffle on like Ken
waffles. But if Ken has a degree
in mathematics, then that is pretty alarming because I would hazard to
guess that he got it
from a large university that has pitifully low standards where no
professor at that university guided
Ken by saying "Hey, you are not cut out for mathematics".
Now one possibility is that Ken went to one of these large
Universities which had few guidance
couselors and where the math professors did not have the heart to tell
Ken, that math was beyond
him and that Ken should go into Accounting or Hotel Managing but not
mathematics.
So one possible answer is that Ken has some physical handicap or some
other handicap and that the
combination of a handicap and a large University that none of the
professors there had the heart
to tell Ken, math is beyond you, and that instead they graduated Ken.
So, yes, I should bring up a slice of Education System in the USA, in
a book written to teach
students what the P-adics are and the best way to make the P-adics
available to a High School
Student.
Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Oh, I forgot - what an arsehole you are, Ludwig Poehlmann.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Quirici" |
|
| Title: Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 04:33:34 PM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 4:48 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
ken quirici wrote:
How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
(if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
Now here is a second example of a bozo who posts to sci.math. The
first example
is the Arizona State University professor who spams hatred and seldom
any wisdom
or information.
But the problem of the above second bozo is a problem that is often
occurring in colleges
and universities and which should be addressed in this book.
It is a problem I am very closely familar with because of my
experience in the 1970s of a
math classroom where a student was there who would make a "horrible
math teacher" and
yet the University never seemed to try to persuade this student that
math education was never
his path in life and that he would probably go out and make a
miserable math teacher and
ruin an hour of every class day for a large number of students.
The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
and guidance those students
who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
have professors who do not have
the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
mathematician or a math teacher and
that his true calling is really somewhere else.
So our Colleges and Universities fail miserably in guidance and
probably one of the biggest strong
suits of a small College is that such guidance exists, or can exist to
save alot of students of the
misery of graduating in a subject or field that they will be miserable
in.
I do not remember the first post of Ken Quirici, but usually for me I
can tell if a person is a oaf
or buffoon of mathematics by the first or second post. And I knew Ken
was an oaf by his second
post, but I have the tendency to use oafs. I use them to act as a
"filler". When I have an oaf
like Chris Heckman, he is a better oaf than is Ken Quirici. So I do
not killfile all oafs because
then my discussion becomes more of a monologue and that repulses other
readers. So I use these
oafs to make the conversation look like a conversation.
And there is a huge difference between Chris Heckman and Ken Quirici.
Chris at least has the ability
to understand mathematics, when he does not let his hatred flood his
mind. But Ken does not
have that ability to understand mathematics, at least none of his
posts that I ever read show of
a ability to understand mathematics. Now if Ken has a philosophy
degree, then okay, I can
forgive his oafishness because philosophers waffle on like Ken
waffles. But if Ken has a degree
in mathematics, then that is pretty alarming because I would hazard to
guess that he got it
from a large university that has pitifully low standards where no
professor at that university guided
Ken by saying "Hey, you are not cut out for mathematics".
Now one possibility is that Ken went to one of these large
Universities which had few guidance
couselors and where the math professors did not have the heart to tell
Ken, that math was beyond
him and that Ken should go into Accounting or Hotel Managing but not
mathematics.
So one possible answer is that Ken has some physical handicap or some
other handicap and that the
combination of a handicap and a large University that none of the
professors there had the heart
to tell Ken, math is beyond you, and that instead they graduated Ken.
So, yes, I should bring up a slice of Education System in the USA, in
a book written to teach
students what the P-adics are and the best way to make the P-adics
available to a High School
Student.
Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Unbelievable. Not a word about my argument. When I
think back on the probably 2 or 3 years I've been
posting to his threads, and how inane and childish
his attempts at mathematics are, and the outlandish
arrogance he manifests, and the refusal to
acknowledge error (and anybody who's posted here
is quite aware of how willing I am to acknowledge
my own errors), and the refusal to hear any
contradiction of his hideous 'theories', and
they are ugly, truly ugly, his ideas, it's clear
I've been wasting a lot of my time. And it's
my own fault for not pulling the plug a lot
sooner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Knox" |
|
| Title: Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 05:49:41 PM |
|
|
In article <1192397614.119740.155390@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Ken Quirici <ken.quirici@excite.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:48 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
ken quirici wrote:
How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
(if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
Now here is a second example of a bozo who posts to sci.math. The
first example
is the Arizona State University professor who spams hatred and seldom
any wisdom
or information.
But the problem of the above second bozo is a problem that is often
occurring in colleges
and universities and which should be addressed in this book.
It is a problem I am very closely familar with because of my
experience in the 1970s of a
math classroom where a student was there who would make a "horrible
math teacher" and
yet the University never seemed to try to persuade this student that
math education was never
his path in life and that he would probably go out and make a
miserable math teacher and
ruin an hour of every class day for a large number of students.
The problem is that our large Universities have little time to counsel
and guidance those students
who clearly are in the wrong career path. And these large colleges
have professors who do not have
the "heart" to tell a student that he is not meant to be a
mathematician or a math teacher and
that his true calling is really somewhere else.
So our Colleges and Universities fail miserably in guidance and
probably one of the biggest strong
suits of a small College is that such guidance exists, or can exist to
save alot of students of the
misery of graduating in a subject or field that they will be miserable
in.
I do not remember the first post of Ken Quirici, but usually for me I
can tell if a person is a oaf
or buffoon of mathematics by the first or second post. And I knew Ken
was an oaf by his second
post, but I have the tendency to use oafs. I use them to act as a
"filler". When I have an oaf
like Chris Heckman, he is a better oaf than is Ken Quirici. So I do
not killfile all oafs because
then my discussion becomes more of a monologue and that repulses other
readers. So I use these
oafs to make the conversation look like a conversation.
And there is a huge difference between Chris Heckman and Ken Quirici.
Chris at least has the ability
to understand mathematics, when he does not let his hatred flood his
mind. But Ken does not
have that ability to understand mathematics, at least none of his
posts that I ever read show of
a ability to understand mathematics. Now if Ken has a philosophy
degree, then okay, I can
forgive his oafishness because philosophers waffle on like Ken
waffles. But if Ken has a degree
in mathematics, then that is pretty alarming because I would hazard to
guess that he got it
from a large university that has pitifully low standards where no
professor at that university guided
Ken by saying "Hey, you are not cut out for mathematics".
Now one possibility is that Ken went to one of these large
Universities which had few guidance
couselors and where the math professors did not have the heart to tell
Ken, that math was beyond
him and that Ken should go into Accounting or Hotel Managing but not
mathematics.
So one possible answer is that Ken has some physical handicap or some
other handicap and that the
combination of a handicap and a large University that none of the
professors there had the heart
to tell Ken, math is beyond you, and that instead they graduated Ken.
So, yes, I should bring up a slice of Education System in the USA, in
a book written to teach
students what the P-adics are and the best way to make the P-adics
available to a High School
Student.
Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Unbelievable. Not a word about my argument. When I
think back on the probably 2 or 3 years I've been
posting to his threads, and how inane and childish
his attempts at mathematics are, and the outlandish
arrogance he manifests, and the refusal to
acknowledge error (and anybody who's posted here
is quite aware of how willing I am to acknowledge
my own errors), and the refusal to hear any
contradiction of his hideous 'theories', and
they are ugly, truly ugly, his ideas, it's clear
I've been wasting a lot of my time. And it's
my own fault for not pulling the plug a lot
sooner.
I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 05:58:33 PM |
|
|
Barb Knox wrote:
I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
Ken aspires to be the same mathematical oaf that you are, Barbara
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Knox" |
|
| Title: Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 06:29:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1192402713.667478.33280@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
a_plutonium <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote:
Barb Knox wrote:
I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
Ken aspires to be the same mathematical oaf that you are, Barbara
(oh bother -- difficult ... to ... fight ... the ... urge ... to ...
give ... a ... serious ... response ...)
We clearly can't ever be the SAME oaf, being different people, but
perhaps you mean the same TYPE of oaf. From what I've read of Ken's, I
would be pleased to be considered as being in the same category of
mathematical competence as him. Perhaps you could issue some sort of
certificate, suitable for framing, for "Official AP Oaf". I'd gladly
pay you the postage for one.
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "ken quirici" |
|
| Title: Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
22 Oct 2007 08:12:46 PM |
|
|
On 2007-10-14 19:29:04 -0400, Barb Knox <see@sig.below> said:
In article <1192402713.667478.33280@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
a_plutonium <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote:
Barb Knox wrote:
I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
Ken aspires to be the same mathematical oaf that you are, Barbara
(oh bother -- difficult ... to ... fight ... the ... urge ... to ...
give ... a ... serious ... response ...)
We clearly can't ever be the SAME oaf, being different people, but
perhaps you mean the same TYPE of oaf. From what I've read of Ken's, I
would be pleased to be considered as being in the same category of
mathematical competence as him. Perhaps you could issue some sort of
certificate, suitable for framing, for "Official AP Oaf". I'd gladly
pay you the postage for one.
Good Grief, I have never been complimented so soundly by someone
whose posts also I have admired from afar (and been too
ignorant to participate).
Also, hearty lol for your suggestion!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Proginoskes" |
|
| Title: Wasting My Time: Was: Re: #108 second failure of USA education system is guidance counseling at Colleges ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
15 Oct 2007 02:07:57 AM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 3:49 pm, Barb Knox <s...@sig.below> wrote:
[AP frothing at the mouth, and responses, deleted]
I'm curious why AP still has any serious respondents, and since you seem
to be in a reflective mood right now I'll ask you. What is it that you
hoped to accomplish by responding seriously to AP's rubbish?
Getting new ideas, that might work elsewhere. Of course, I don't
believe this is as feasible when I started several years ago.
--- Christopher Heckman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #110 the Heckman-Quirici-Cantor Fallacy discussed ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 05:53:00 PM |
|
|
Proginoskes wrote:
Things AP does not understand about Cantor's method:
(1) What it shows is that you cannot have a list of N numbers with N
digits that lists all the N-digit numbers. Hence, it doesn't apply if
you have a list of 10 numbers with 1 digit in them, as 10 and 1 are
different. It does not apply if you have a list of 100 numbers with 2
digits in them. AP's list of 9,8,7,...,1 is a non sequitur, a red
herring.
(2) AP claims that the number D obtained from Cantor's diagonalization
is in the list. In his sloppy mannor of "proving" things, he does not
say which specific item on the list D is. The truth is: He can't. On
his initial list of P-adics, the Nth digit of the Nth P-adic differs
from the Nth digit of D, for all N. Hence D cannot be _any_ P-adic on
the list. He is only confusing himself.
(3) AP's "axiom" that "there is only one type of infinity" (which is
at odds with Cantor's proof; hence the antagonism) is based on a
flawed fact: The reciprocal of infinity is not zero; it is an
infinitesimal. If you're going to treat infinity as a number, then
zero times infinity is still zero.
Christopher Heckman
ken quirici wrote:
How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
(if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
Obviously both Heckman and Quirici believe Cantor is correct and
right. And they
both believe that a diagonal will scrounge up a new Real that was not
on the list
of all Reals (between 0 and 1).
I keep telling them, but they are both blind, that All Possible Digit
Arrangements is
so full, that no diagonal can create a new number that is not already
there.
I have shown both Heckman and Quirici how it is impossible to
diagonalize finite place
value set of All Digit Arrangements, and impossible to extract any new
number from that
universe of place value. And because of infinite place value makes no
difference, since
All Possible Digit Arrangements goes beyond any diagonal procedure.
Still, both Heckman
and Quirici are blinded.
So, here, ....
Here is a number in the list of all Reals which is a number in the All
Possible Digit Arrangements
but is a number that no Cantor Diagonal can ever create:
099999999.......9999999999999999999999990
Cantor cannot craft or forge that Real Number by means of a diagonal
because there are alot
of numbers where the diagonal lands on a "9" and where Cantor is
obliged to change that 9
to something else.
So, I have given you a number that exists in All Possible Digit
Arrangements, but is a number
impossible for Cantor's diagonal to fetch.
So, to those that still believe Cantor had any truth, then the burden
is on them to explain why
Cantor's diagonal breaks apart in the face of All Possible Digit
Arrangements and why this set
is larger than Cantor's set.
I can easily answer that question. Cantor, like Zeno's paradox, was
never on the truth of the Reals
but that Cantor was a falsehood.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #111 the Heckman-Quirici-Barb,Knox -Cantor Fallacy discussed; students of Barb Knox to report back ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards" |
14 Oct 2007 06:10:22 PM |
|
|
a_plutonium wrote:
Proginoskes wrote:
Things AP does not understand about Cantor's method:
(1) What it shows is that you cannot have a list of N numbers with N
digits that lists all the N-digit numbers. Hence, it doesn't apply if
you have a list of 10 numbers with 1 digit in them, as 10 and 1 are
different. It does not apply if you have a list of 100 numbers with 2
digits in them. AP's list of 9,8,7,...,1 is a non sequitur, a red
herring.
(2) AP claims that the number D obtained from Cantor's diagonalization
is in the list. In his sloppy mannor of "proving" things, he does not
say which specific item on the list D is. The truth is: He can't. On
his initial list of P-adics, the Nth digit of the Nth P-adic differs
from the Nth digit of D, for all N. Hence D cannot be _any_ P-adic on
the list. He is only confusing himself.
(3) AP's "axiom" that "there is only one type of infinity" (which is
at odds with Cantor's proof; hence the antagonism) is based on a
flawed fact: The reciprocal of infinity is not zero; it is an
infinitesimal. If you're going to treat infinity as a number, then
zero times infinity is still zero.
Christopher Heckman
ken quirici wrote:
How many times do you have to be told? Cantor assumed he had
a countable list - ok, you can do it this way too - of all the reals.
Then he derived from that list a number which is not on the
list no matter how hard you kick and scream. It's not on the
list because it's constructed to be not on the list.
If you claim it's a list of all possible digit arrangements, the
number derived is STILL not on the list because it's constructed
to be not on the list. This is what's called a proof by
contradiction. You assume it has all possible digit arrangements
(if you choose - or you can choose all reals - or you can choose
any countable set of reals) and then derive, by valid
mathematical methods, a number not in the list.
If you by valid means use A to derive ~A, then A can't be true.
Obviously both Heckman and Quirici believe Cantor is correct and
right. And they
both believe | | | | | |
