
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. 
19th August 2019, 04:23 AM  #3401 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

From my first post about A, A is a formal system of infinitely many wffs (which is strong enough in order to deal with Arithmetic, exactly because it is an extension of ZF(C)), where all the infinitely many wffs are already included in A, exactly because Infinity is taken in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity (By Platonic (or Actual) Infinity there exists a set of infinitely many things (for example: wffs) as a complete whole).
The maneuvers of jsfisher around A's existence, this is exactly the thing that makes no sense. Here is jsfisher's last reply, which clearly demonstrates his nonsensical maneuvers around A's existence: and he does them in order to avoid the following question: Keep in mind that ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity is taken in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity, such that there a exists a certain set with infinitely many things as a complete whole. I take the property of Platonic Infinity from ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity and relate it to A. Nothing more. Now, please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? (To the other posters:
Quote:
Moreover
Quote:
Also, Infinity is one of the main philosophical subjects, studied by philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and many more philosophers along the years. The attepmt to define a clear cut distinction between Philosophy and Mathematics in case of Logic and Infinity, is itself some kind of Philosophy, and in this case jsfisher's philosophy about the discussed subject) 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

19th August 2019, 06:13 AM  #3402 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954

Almost. The Axiom is not "taken"; it simply is. A certain set exists; it has certain properties. The von Neumann ordinal is the minimal example of such a set, so we have one example of the set guaranteed to exist. The Axiom alone gives no guidance as to whether there are others.
Your insistence on bringing in philosophic babble is, well, yours.
Quote:
You probably want to clean that up, and when you do, please explain what "relate it to" means. 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

19th August 2019, 07:05 AM  #3403 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Let's see: "The Axiom is ... simply is."
jsfisher, maybe this is a very interesting statement. Probably a lot of mathematical work can by done by it and maybe also a profound communication between people can be done by it. Unfortunately, I do not find such tautology as very useful in our discussion. Such set is guaranteed to exist in terms of Platonic (or Actual Infinity) Infinity (which according to it there exists an infinite set as a complete whole). Your insistence to establish a clear cut border between Philosophy and Mathematics (and in the discussed case, Logic) is, well, your philosophy. It means that a certain property of x is also a property of y, and in the considered case Infinity is established in terms of Platonic Infinity, both on x and y. Please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

19th August 2019, 07:14 AM  #3404 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

19th August 2019, 07:44 AM  #3405 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

The certain property is Platonic (or Actual) Infinity, which is related to ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity (x) and ZF(C) extension (y).
Quote:
ω is not established without the existence of the infinite set of all natural numbers, and the infinite set of all natural numbers is not established (by ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity) as a complete whole (which enables ω to exist "After all natural numbers") without the "philosophic babble" of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity. Please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

19th August 2019, 09:01 AM  #3406 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954

The property would be "infinite" not "infinity", but let's move on.
Quote:
Quote:
And assuming there is something infinite about the Axiom and the set theories, how does this relation of a common property between the two give rise to this set, A? (By the way, for Z' to be an extension of Z where Z' and Z are formal systems like, say, ZF, everything that is decidable in Z must be equally decidable in Z'. There may be additional things decidable in Z', but Z' may not contradict Z.) 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

20th August 2019, 02:44 AM  #3407 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Let's not move on. The certain property is Infinity in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity.
Platonic Infinity is what The Axiom of Infinity establishes, by using finitely many symbols, for example: The infinite set of von Neumann ordinals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura...umann_ordinals). Axiom schema (and therefore Infinity) are parts of ZF(C). As done by Godel First Incompleteness Theorem, but in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity (which means that all wffs (whether they are axioms or theorems) are already included in this extension (called formal system A). Formal system A has infinitely many wffs in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity (formal system A is taken as a complete whole). In the considered case Z' (which is a complete extension of Z in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity) is indeed strong enough to deal with Arithmetic (as decidable in Z), but unlike Z, all its infinitely many wffs are already included in it (Z' is complete in terms of Platonic Infinity) as follows: Each wff is encoded by a Gödel number, where at least one of these wffs, called G, states "There is no number m such that m is the Gödel number of a proof in Z', of G" (since G needs a proof, it is not an axiom but a theorem). Since all wffs are already in Z' and all Gödel numbers are already in Z' (because Infinity is taken in terms of Platonic Infinity) there is a Gödel number of a proof of G in Z', which contradicts G in Z', exactly because Z' is complete (in terms of Platonic Infinity) and therefore inconsistent exactly because Infinity is taken in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity. Conclusion: Platonic (or Actual) Infinity is the cause of the contradiction (and therefore the inconstancy) of Z' (which is an extension of Z).  Please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

20th August 2019, 06:28 AM  #3408 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954

Many bits of nonsense saved for a later time so as to not further defocus the current thread arc.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For it to exist, you would need a membership function with respect to your set, A, for the Axiom Schema of Restricted Comprehension. You just need a function that determines whether x is a member of A. You don't have one. Merely speculating that a set must exist because you want it to does not make it so. Throwing your philosophic baggage at the problem doesn't change that. 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

20th August 2019, 08:01 AM  #3409 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Another hands waving of yours.
I agree with you, G is just one statement, as written at the end of my previous post (" Z' " is used instead of "A"). In order to claim that there are countably infinite number of axioms, you first have to accept that there is an infinite set in terms of a complete whole. This is a finite GIT version that can't deduce anything about a set in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity. By GIT infinite version (in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity, which, as can be seen, was not deduced by you) all the Godel numbers that encode wffs, are already in A, where one of them encodes G wff statement (which is actually a theorem, since it is proven in A). The Axiom Schema of Restricted Comprehension does not exist, if Infinity is not taken in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity. If you reject what I wrote about this axiom, you also reject the existence of the infinite set of all natural numbers as a complete whole. Your clear cut separation between Philosophy and Mathematics, does not change the fact that it is actually your Philosophy.  Please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

20th August 2019, 09:15 AM  #3410 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954

You are making up your own theorems, now, too?
Quote:
The set theory corresponding to your set, A, is not an extension of ZF (or ZFC). There are statements in ZF that would be contradicted in your socalled extended set theory. As I said before, the set you claim exists does not. You require it represent an extension to ZF that is Godel complete. No such set exists. 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

20th August 2019, 10:55 PM  #3411 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

It is made up exactly as ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity made up things in terms of Platonic (or Actual Infinity), which enables mathematicians like you to declare that the infinite set if all natural numbers, exists.
This is my argument right from the beginning of the last discussion, which is: The very notion of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity necessarily involved with logical contradiction and therefore inconsistency, exactly because a collection of infinitely many things is taken in terms of a complete whole. Until this very moment you are still missing my argument, which is (again, since you are still missing it): The very notion of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity necessarily involved with logical contradiction and therefore inconsistency, exactly because a collection of infinitely many things is taken in terms of a complete whole. Because of this logical fallacy also the infinite set of all natural numbers does not exist. Actually, the very notion of Transfinite System does not exist (in terms of logical consistency), exactly because it is established on the notion of collection of infinitely many things in terms of a complete whole.  Again, there is a noninteresting solution about the discussed subject, as follows: G states: "There is no number m such that m is the Godel number of a proof in A, of G" If G is already an axiom in A (where A is an infinite set of axioms, such that Infinity is taken in terms of Platonic Infinity) it is actually a wff that is true in A, which does not have any Godel number that is used in order to encode G's proof (since axioms are true wffs that do not need any proof in A). But then no proof is needed and mathematicians are out of job (therefore it is an unwanted solution).  Please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

21st August 2019, 04:14 AM  #3412 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

21st August 2019, 04:47 AM  #3413 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Let's see:
"In words, there is a set I (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in I, and such that whenever any x is a member of I, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x} is also a member of I." (Please compare it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_...rmal_statement, where m is replaced by x). If Infinity in this axiom is not taken in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity, even the infinite set of all natural numbers does not exist and jsfisher's "...just mathematics" actually does not establish the Transfinite system.  jsfisher, please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

23rd August 2019, 01:47 AM  #3414 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Syntactically (by formalism without semantics) There is a set A (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in A, and such that whenever any x is a member of A, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x} is also a member of A.
So Syntactically x > xU{x} is the bijective membership function of A. Now we are using also Semantics (adding some meaning) by establish some models about this function, as follows: Model 1: Let x be an axiom (wff that is not proven) in A. Let xU{x} be a theorem (wff that is proven) in A. Let A be an infinite set of wffs, where Infinity is taken in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity (A is taken as a complete whole). Each wff (wff that is proven) is encoded by a Gödel number, where one of these wffs, called G, states "There is no number m such that m is the Gödel number of a proof in A, of G" (since G needs a proof, it is not an axiom but a theorem). Since all wffs (wffs that are proven) are already in A and all Gödel numbers are already in A (because Infinity is taken in terms of Platonic Infinity) there is a Gödel number of a proof of G in A, which contradicts G in A, exactly because A is complete (in terms of Platonic Infinity) and therefore inconsistent. Model 2: Let x or xU{x} be axioms (wff that is not proven) in A. G axiom states: "There is no number m such that m is the Godel number of a proof in A, of G" Since G is already an axiom in A (where A is an infinite set of axioms, such that Infinity is taken in terms of Platonic Infinity) it is actually a wff that is true in A, which does not have any Godel number that is used in order to encode G's proof (since axioms are true wffs that do not need any proof in A). But then no proof is needed and mathematicians are out of job (therefore it is an unwanted solution). 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

23rd August 2019, 03:59 AM  #3415 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

So in both models infinitely in terms of Platonic (or Actual) Infinity (which according to it there exists a collection of things as a complete whole) does not establish an interesting formal system.
An alternative to such noninteresting formal systems, is established such that Platonic (or Actual) Infinity is noncomposed (it is not established in terms of collections that are taken as a complete whole) as already given in the following posts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3302 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3303 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3304 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3305 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

31st August 2019, 06:30 AM  #3416 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

A clearer version of my argument (as firstly was given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3414)
Gödel numbers are used to encode wffs of formal systems that are strong enough in order to deal with Arithmetic. In my argument, Gödel numbers are used to encode wffs as follows: Syntactically (by formalism without semantics) there is set A (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is a member of A, and such that whenever any x is a member of A, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x}, is also a member of A. So Syntactically x → xU{x} is the bijective membership function of A. Now we are using also Semantics (adding some meaning) by establish some models about this function, as follows: Model 1: Let any x be an axiom (wff that is not proven) in A. Let any xU{x} be a theorem (wff that is proven) in A. Let A be an infinite set of wffs, where Infinity is taken in terms of Actual Infinity (A is taken as a complete whole). Each wff (wff that is proven (some xU{x})) is encoded by a Gödel number, where one of these wffs, called G, states: "There is no number m such that m is the Gödel number of a proof in A, of G". Since all wffs are already in A and therefore all Gödel numbers are already in A (because Infinity is taken in terms of Actual Infinity) there is a Gödel number of an axiom (some x) that proves G (some xU{x}) in A, which is a contradiction in A. Therefore, A is inconsistent. Model 2: Let any x or any xU{x} be axioms (wffs that are not proven) in A. G axiom states: "There is no number m such that m is the Gödel number of a proof in A, of G" Since G is already an axiom in A (where A is an infinite set of axioms, such that Infinity is taken in terms of Actual Infinity) it is actually a wff that is true in A, which does not have any Gödel number that is used in order to encode G's proof (since axioms are true wffs that do not need any proof in A). But then no proof is needed and mathematicians are out of job (therefore it is an unwanted solution).  So, in both models infinitely in terms of Actual Infinity (an infinite set that is taken as a complete whole) does not establish an interesting formal system.  Please pay attention to the following remarks, before you reply: Since A is a set of infinitely many wffs that are taken as a complete whole (this is exactly what Actual Infinity is about) there cannot be a Gödel number that is not already in A, whether whether some wff is an axiom or a theorem in A (see Model 1). So, one can't use G as a wff that is unproven in A, as done in case of GIT, since if one does this, one deduces in terms of Potential Infinity, which is not a part of my argumnt. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st September 2019, 01:18 PM  #3417 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

3rd September 2019, 02:34 AM  #3418 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

3rd September 2019, 04:39 PM  #3419 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954

Repeating your false claim doesn't make it true. Nothing maps to the empty set.
Be that as it may, it isn't a membership function, either, since it doesn't answer the question, "Is m a member of set A?" F(x) = x U {x} doesn't.
Quote:
The Axiom is silent on whether, for example, {{{{ }}}} is in the set. The Axiom must to be coupled with other axioms to conclude von Neumann's ordinal is a set in ZF. 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

3rd September 2019, 10:27 PM  #3420 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Repeating your false claim doesn't make it true. As for the empty set, it is a member of A (as given below) and nothing maps to the empty set since it is a domain object (as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3418).
There is set A (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is a member of A, and such that whenever any x is a member of A, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x}, is also a member of A. So, both x and xU{x} are members of A. So, Syntactically x → xU{x} is the bijective membership function of A (no x, xU{x} or any gödel number m are missing from A). m is a Gödel number of a proof of some xU{x} in A (according to model 1 (seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3416)) exactly because A is determined in terms of Actual Infinity as a complete whole (no m, x or xU{x} are missing from A). I am not talking about ZF, but about the construction of A such that Infinity is taken as a complete whole (no x, xU{x} or any gödel number m are missing from A). If you don't like xU{x}, it can easily be replaced by {x} as follows: {} → {{}} {{}} → {{{}}} {{{}}} → {{{{}}}}} ... etc. For example, syntactically (by formalism without semantics) there is set A (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is a member of A, and such that whenever any x is a member of A, the set {x}, is also a member of A. So, both x and {x} are members of A. So, Syntactically x → {x} is the bijective membership function of A (no x, {x} or any gödel number m are missing from A). 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

4th September 2019, 05:17 AM  #3421 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

4th September 2019, 07:27 AM  #3422 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

The two following equivalent examples are taken from Traditional Mathematics:
Example 1: There is set A (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is a member of A, and such that whenever any x is a member of A, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x}, is also a member of A. So, both x and xU{x} are members of A. {} → {{}} {{}} → {{},{{}}} {{},{{}}} → {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}} ... etc. are all members of A in example 1. So, Syntactically x → xU{x} is the bijective membership function of A (no x, xU{x} or any gödel number m are missing from A). Example 2: There is set A (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is a member of A, and such that whenever any x is a member of A, the set formed by {x}, is also a member of A. So, both x and {x} are members of A. {} → {{}} {{}} → {{{}}} {{{}}} → {{{{}}}}} ... etc. are all members of A in example 2. So, Syntactically x → {x} is the bijective membership function of A (no x, {x} or any gödel number m are missing from A).  Example 2 easily replaces example 1 (which is used in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3416) without changing the argument.  Wrong , {} → {{}} and {{}} → {} are inverses of each other.  jsfisher, please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

7th September 2019, 11:28 AM  #3423 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Please observe the following semantic diagram:
As can be seen, there is bijection between XAxioms and YTheorems, as follows: {} → {{}} {{}} → {{},{{}}} {{},{{}}} → {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}} ... → ... It is a bijection since XAxioms and YTheorems are inverses of each other as follows: Xaxiom proves Ytheorem and Ytheorem is proven by Xaxiom. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

21st January 2020, 12:50 AM  #3424 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Here is a quote taken from wikipedia: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counta...ithout_details )
Quote:
For example: writing n ↔ 2n says nothing about an accurate value of A > any given n. As long as this is the case "..." is not some technical problem of writing down infinitely many elements, but it is actually an essential property of literally being an infinity set (which means that no set of infinitely many objects has an accurate amount of objects, as its essential property). For more details, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3422 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3423 . 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

21st January 2020, 03:16 AM  #3425 
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 268


21st January 2020, 03:43 AM  #3426 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

"Having the same size" does not actually define the accurate size in case of infinite sets (bijection is simply a 1to1 and onto proportion between the given infinite sets), so there is no rock solid basis in your argument. Try again.
Again: writing n ↔ 2n says nothing about an accurate value of A > any given n. If A is defined only by bijection, it is not satisfied in terms of actual infinity ("Having the same size" holds only in case of potential infinity where we do not care about any accurate size but only about the 1to1 and onto proportion between the given infinite sets) and this is exactly my argument about A in case of infinite sets. In other words, the transfinite mathematical universe (which is based on the notion of actual infinity) is not well defined. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

23rd January 2020, 04:23 AM  #3427 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

By Traditional Mathematics infinite set N = {1,2,3,...} is in bejection with any infinite subset of it, so according to https://math.stackexchange.com/quest...edirect=1&lq=1 there are no infinite subsets of N with cardinality less than N.
By this reasoning it is concluded that N is the smallest cardinality > than any given n. Please pay attention that the accurate value of N is undefined and so is the case about the value of the cardinality of any infinite subset of it. All what traditional mathematicians care is about the bijection between the mapped sets, and yet they claim that even if the accurate value of the cardinality of N or any cardinality of any infinite subset of it is not accurately defined, one can claim that such sets are complete (all of their members are already included, exactly as the members of finite nonempty sets are already included in their sets). In other words, traditional mathematicians ignore the essential fact that any nonempty finite set has a cardinality with an accurate value (and therefore can be considered as a complete set) where the infinite set N or any infinite subset of it, do not have cardinalities with accurate value (and therefore can't be considered as complete sets). So, the bijection between infinite set N = {1,2,3,...} and any infinite subset of it, can't be used in order to conclude that they are also complete. In that case infinite set N = {1,2,3,...} and any infinite subset of it, can't be defined in terms of actual infinity. So, we have left with potential infinity as the fundamental notion about infinite set N = {1,2,3,...} and any infinite subset of it, where bijection is not the only possible matching between them, for example: 2 ↔ 1 4 ↔ 2 6 ↔ 3 8 ... In this case there are potentially infinite two sets, where the left set always has one more object. Moreover, the same argument holds for any kind of sets, for example: # ↔ & % ↔ ? @ ↔ ! * ... 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

28th January 2020, 04:58 AM  #3428 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

More about the completeness of the collection of natural numbers.
I use here the word "collection" instead of "set" since set is usually defined as a collection of distinct objects where order is irrelevant. It is easily understood that by ordering the objects of a given collection, it does not change the number of its objects, even in the case of sets (where order is irrelevant). So cardinality (the number of objects of a given set) is not influenced by any order. N = {1,2,3,...} easily enables to match between a given object and a given cardinality, such that every possible object of N is already a member of N and yet the cardinality of N is not accurately defined exactly because the biggest member of N does not exist (N can't be taken as an object of its own rhight exactly because the number of its members (its cardinality) is not accurately defined). The inability to show some n that is not already a member N can't be used alone in order to conclude that N is a complete set, exactly because the inability to define the biggest member of N also must be considered. Unfortunately, traditional mathematicians built their mathematical frameworks by using only the inability to show some n that is not already a member N, in order to (wrongly) conclude that N is a complete mathematical object (or in their jargon "an object of its own right" as written in the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)). Henri Poincare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_...finite_numbers is very clear about the transfinite system (which is a wrong attempt to define the infinite in terms of collection). There is no wonder that jsfisher (a traditional mathematician) can't answer to the question written at the and of http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3422 . 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

29th January 2020, 12:04 AM  #3429 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Why do you think that https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...mbers%22&btnG= has no results?
If you have other suggestions than "the completeness of the set of natural numbers" in order to provide some results, please write it. Thank you. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

22nd March 2020, 12:43 PM  #3430 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

The Axiom Of Infinity (by words, based on Wikipedia): "There is set A (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is a member of A, and such that whenever any x is a member of A, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x}, is also a member of A."
Please pay attention that given any A successor, it is finite since it is constructed exactly by all the finitely many previous A members, by induction. But there is nothing in induction that guarantees infinitely many members in A just because it is our wishful thinking, so no axiom that is based on induction guarantees infinitely many members. For example, let's take N (the set of natural numbers). The inability to show some n that is not already a member of N, can't be used alone in order to conclude that N is a complete and infinite set, exactly because the inability to define the biggest member of N, also must be considered. Since the biggest number of N does not exist, N accurate value is actually undefined. It is claimed that order is irrelevant in case of sets, but it is easily understood that order does not change the cardinality (the number of members) of a given set, so the inability to define the biggest member of N has a direct influence about its cardinality and in the considered case N accurate value is actually undefined. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

23rd March 2020, 01:33 PM  #3431 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,913

Everyone has stopped responding to your crap cliams.
Have you any idea why that might be?. In keeping with woo beliefs, you likely believe that people have ceased because your god like beliefs cannot be contested. In reality, people get bored with a crank eventually. Now to be fair, most of those are not science cranks. There is the telepathy crew. There are the dowsing crew. There are the astrology crew. There are the flat earth crew. There the creationist crew. And on and on. You particular flavour of belief garners no special condideration. You are just one more wild claim in a sea of wild claims screaming for attention. Who cares? Why is your claim more special than all of the other thousands? 
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... 

23rd March 2020, 05:40 PM  #3432 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,235

Just because doronshadmi doesn't understand infinity .... That's it.

__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

9th June 2020, 12:30 AM  #3433 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

Comments addressed to the claimant rather than the claim, are fundamentally worthless because they do not deal with the claim. So, this time please deal with the content of claim http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3430 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

9th June 2020, 11:37 PM  #3434 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,235


__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

11th June 2020, 02:58 AM  #3435 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

11th June 2020, 03:35 AM  #3436 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

In case of infinitely many ordered numbers, given any a and b numbers, such that a<b (where a and b are not taken only as integers), there is always at least one c number such that a<c<b.
Since order does not change the amount of the members, the fact that there is always at least one c number such that a<c<b, is equivalent to the fact that N biggest member does not exist. So, whether there is always at least one next c number between any two given a<b numbers (where a and b are not taken only as integers), or given any N member, there is always at least one next member that is bigger than it, in both cases the accurate infinite amount is undefined. Again, there is no wonder that jsfisher (a traditional mathematician) can't answer to the question written at the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3422 exactly because the notion of N as an accurate value is no more than an arbitrary agreement based on no more than a belief among group of persons called traditional mathematicians, which force completeness on collections of infinitely many objects. Infinity as a complete whole in terms of collections, is no more than a belief. Traditional mathematicians believe that there is value N, which is greater than any member of N AND also accurately measures the amount of N members, but this belief is false since order does not change the amount of N members, and since the biggest member of N does not exist (since given any N member, there is always at least one member that is bigger than it), it is impossible to define an accurate value N, which is greater than any member of N. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

11th June 2020, 06:55 AM  #3437 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,235

Again, infinity is not a number or fixed amount. You just can't subtract 100 from infinity and get a number.

__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

11th June 2020, 08:11 AM  #3438 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,954


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

12th June 2020, 01:13 AM  #3439 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

N is defined (by belief) as fixed amount by traditional mathematicians (the accurate cardinality of any inductive set) where N is such set.
What you say actually supports my argument that N accurate value is undefined, unlike the agreed belief among traditional mathematicians (for example, jsfisher's belief, which can't deal (yet) with my question to him about the considered subject). Please observe this: jsfisher, please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? jsfisher does not give (yet) any answer to that question and I wonder why 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

12th June 2020, 01:22 AM  #3440 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,262

jsfisher ,"there is" does not define A as an infinite complete whole set, as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3430.
Also you did not reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3430 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3436. Moreover: jsfisher, please explain what do you mean by "The Axiom of Infinity establishes a set in terms of Mathematics." (especially the highlighted part)? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

