Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1190 of 1190 [17848 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 1188, 1189, 1190
Author Message
Slavko Rede
science forum beginner

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:41 am    Post subject: Re: A Natural Axiom which disproves the Continuum Hypothesis

Here is the observation of the formal structure of sets that leads to a natural and simple axiom, called the Axiom of Set Equality, the consequences of which I described in my previous letter.

A finite set can be given as a list of its elements enclosed inside of a pair of the brackets {}. Let's imagine that an infinite set can be given in the same way. Since elements of sets are in standard (ZF) set theory again sets, every set consists in fact only of brackets. Let the external pair of the brackets of a set have depth 0, the external pair of the brackets of the elements of this set have depth 1 ..., etc. If we erase from the set all brackets of the depth greater than n, then we obtain a hereditarily finite set. The larger that n is, the less brackets we erase in this way, and the better approximation of the original set we should obtain, since for n = oo (infinity) we do not erase any bracket at all.

Let's denote by An the set obtained by erasing from a set A all brackets of depth greater than n. The sequence A0 = {}, A1, A2, A3, ... should determine A uniquely, since Aoo = A. Although this does not hold in ZF, we can build a set theory AS (approximations of sets) in which we adopt this intuitive conclusion as an axiom - the Axiom of Set Equality.

A set A is in AS uniquely determined by its developing sequence of approximations: A0 = {}, A1, A2, A3, .... Since for the construction of this sequence the potential infinity is sufficient, AS belongs to the area of constructive mathematics. The role of the Axiom of Separation is taken over by the Axiom of Set Construction which guarantees that a set exists if we can generate its developing sequence by an algorithm or randomly. As the developing sequences of a set and of its complement can overlap, a set is in general not disjoint with its complement.

All the theorems which are stated in my previous letter are proved in the book:

A Disproof of the Continuum Hypothesis by a Natural Axiom (http://www.lulu.com/content/353581)

Slavko Rede
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz1
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 604

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:44 am    Post subject: Re: maths for programming C++

07/17/2006
at 05:57 PM, stush@rocketmail.com said:

 Quote: Simply not true unless you want to program like a 14 year old.

A lot of commercial software *looks* like it was programmed by a 14
year old, and not a bright one at that.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

Sine Nomine

Joined: 25 May 2005
Posts: 59

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:22 pm    Post subject: Re: 130 free shares BCE; VonNeumann Gametheory playing StockMarket Re: comparing BCE & Aliant with AT&T

<a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message

you really should get out of wireline and wireless when you can,
there is too much capacity, too much customer churn, prices are declining,
infrastructure costs skyrocketing, and this has been happening for many
years. There is no big good news for wireless, wireline in the future.
Read up on AT&T an see how one bad CEO can completly ruin an excellent
company.
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:24 pm    Post subject: Re: is entropy the Faraday law analog or the Ampere law analog Re:

as I have read, albeit without fully comprehending the theory,
Maxwell actually tried to hide Ampere's electrodynamics. anyway,
your syllogisms are hard to follow.

for instance, what is the neccesary *reason* for 'wires
to have ball-electrons, and nerves to have cloud-electrons' --
why should there be any difference?

 Quote: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is more simple than the entropy. It is obvious that Faraday's law is more simple than is Ampere-Maxwell. There is that asymmetry in the Maxwell theory that Faraday becomes simple and Ampere-Maxwell complex with its displacement current. So the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the analog of Faraday's Law of Maxwell Equations and Entropy (4th law of thermodynamics) is the analog of Ampere-Maxwell.

thus:
wow, we've hit upon the ultimate or freudian bananapeel;
Surrogate Factoring means,
"let the God-am math community do it,
using C-SETI-ware applied to the bananashippingfunctor!"...
A Man, a Plan, a Banana.

 Quote: In Chaos Theory, this is known as The Banana Effect. But, I thought JSH was attempting to factor the larger bunches of Bananas into smaller bunches(factors) which allow faster shipping and packing of said bananas. But he is late! He continues to drag his feet. He is slacking on the job, he wants others to do it for him, surrogoat something something.......... Meanwhile we contunue to use a primative sorting algorithum to get the damn banana boxes full, and it dosen't work very well, sometimes we just have to stuff them in sideways.

thus:
note the key phrase, which I hasn't noticed
til a day after I posted it, that
they actually did have an amendment
to *extend* the God-am preclearance rules
-- how much further, I know not -- although
it may have been illegal to pass it.

 Quote: Of the four amendments defeated in the House, three had the support of a majority of the chamber's 231 Republicans. Only the suggestion that the Voting Rights Act be extended to cover other jurisdictions was defeated by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

thus:
how is that a series?... phi is the golden section,
or the totient function?

 Quote: S(n) with 0 <= n, defined as (x^n + y^n) mod z + (z^n - x^n) mod y + (z^n - y^n) mod x and this series isof interest to those interested in random number generators, and a few interested in FLT. Now, I think I have got an upper limit on n | S(n) = 0. It's phi(x)*phi(y)*phi(z)/8. Why 8? 'Cause phi is always even for any non-small number, and there are three terms, I guess... 2^3 = 8. Hell, I don't know. It just seems to work out. I've tested every x.y.z with gcd(x.y,z) =1 and x

thus:
compression is only & always deployed around tension.

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Re: is entropy the Faraday law analog or the Ampere law analog Re:

could this not be the penintimate etymology of "silly?"

 Quote: as I have read, albeit without fully comprehending the theory, Maxwell actually tried to hide Ampere's electrodynamics. anyway, your syllogisms are hard to follow.

thus:
note the key phrase, which I hasn't noticed
til a day after I posted it, that
they actually did have an amendment
to *extend* the God-am preclearance rules
-- how much further, I know not -- although
it may have been illegal to pass it.

 Quote: Of the four amendments defeated in the House, three had the support of a majority of the chamber's 231 Republicans. Only the suggestion that the Voting Rights Act be extended to cover other jurisdictions was defeated by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

thus:
compression is only & always deployed around tension.

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
Rand Simberg
science forum beginner

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 18

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH!

jonathan wrote:

 Quote: Lets just argue the facts of this debate then. The mathematics of killfiling follows.... The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker. QED~

That's not a fact. It's just a poorly argued and invalid opinion.
jonathan
science forum beginner

Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 25

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:48 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH!

"Scott Hedrick" <diespammers-dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7uzvg.16850\$iP1.4980@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
 Quote: scarlson@sas.org> wrote in message news:1153320019.850566.152290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... OM now has as little credibility in the mind of any fair-minded reader of this forum as does Mr. Guth. If he wants to improve his reputation there's just one road to take---the high road! Well, here's the high road for you:

Lets just argue the facts of this debate then.

The mathematics of killfiling follows....

The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional
to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker.

QED~

 Quote:
Scott Hedrick
science forum beginner

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:27 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH!

news:evVvg.15535\$Bx.7282@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
 Quote: The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker.

You wish. It *actually* means that the list maker is showing mercy by *not*
choosing to apply correction to those on the list.

Clearly, Mr. High Road failed to read historical posts in this forum. As
LaToya and others like her show, unfortunately, the high road tends to fail
responses to Brad Guth, he'd see where plenty of people have taken the high
road with him and gotten nothing but insults. Brad Guth is a moron, as shown
by his confusing Venus and Mars, and he is a True Believer (TM), which means
he is essentially on a religious jihad, and has no interest in the facts
where they conflict with his faith.

You come close to the same, on occasion.
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

 Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:51 am    Post subject: Re: 130 free shares BCE; VonNeumann Gametheory playing StockMarket Re: comparing BCE & Aliant with AT&T Now I should have waited to the end of the trading day for BCE went down to about 22.82 and saved about \$300 or 10 more shares of BCE. But experience tells me it is difficult to impossible to know which way it goes. Most of my buying has been in situations where the price keeps climbing. And most of my selling finds me in situations where the price seems to be in a falling mode. So I take the practical stance where I want to buy and ask if the current price is reasonable. And 23.11 was very reasonable to me. And it bothers me not whether it falls lower during the day. And this is the beauty of Crossover technique. When selling company A to buy more shares of company B and wait for another Crossover to repeat, only in the reverse direction. It matters little as to whether A or B falls more or climbs more during the switch. What matters then, is how many free shares. And by engaging in the switch I have already satisfied my mind that it is worth it. Now I do have some questions about BCE. (1) Is its current dividend sustainable as before the Aliant deal as it is now that some wirelines have gone to Aliant. (2) Can BCE build a new wireline infrastructure of that given to Aliant and can Aliant rebuild a new wireless unit that which was given to BCE in this deal? This question judges the merits of whether BCE made a good deal with Aliant. If Aliant can just rebuild a new wireless unit whereas BCE cannot replace its wireline given to Aliant, would be problematic. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
jonathan
science forum beginner

Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 25

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:40 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH!

"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@trash.org> wrote in message
news:DrWdnUUsgtI7oF3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
 Quote: jonathan wrote: Lets just argue the facts of this debate then. The mathematics of killfiling follows.... The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker. QED~ That's not a fact. It's just a poorly argued and invalid opinion.

Well I've been plonked bout as often as anyone around.
And you doubt me? Another relationship is that plonking
is most likely to occur just after the plonker has been
boxed into a corner on a debate. Now that I've seen
at least a hundred times.

I mean it takes milliseconds to skip past a poster you don't
care to read. And why even tell someone you're killfiling them?
Unless it's meant to hurt or drive them away.

You may find Brad offensive, my point is I find OM's type
of killfiling makes this ng look like a tight-assed clique of
jr high school girls that have nothing better to do than
plan ways to make others look like pathetic losers.

You've seen the movie Carrie right.....

s
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH!

"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:V23wg.19449\$iP1.6052@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
 Quote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message news:DrWdnUUsgtI7oF3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com... jonathan wrote: Lets just argue the facts of this debate then. The mathematics of killfiling follows.... The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker. QED~ That's not a fact. It's just a poorly argued and invalid opinion. Well I've been plonked bout as often as anyone around.

You have no data to back up that assertion. You have
no idea, for example, how many people have silently
added you or any other poster to their killfiles, and
what particular criteria each person uses in order to
determine who is killfile-worthy.

 Quote: And you doubt me?

Simply due to the above assertion of facts that you
cannot possibly have is reason to doubt you.

 Quote: Another relationship is that plonking is most likely to occur just after the plonker has been boxed into a corner on a debate. Now that I've seen at least a hundred times.

One man's corner is another man's open field. I've
often noted that cranks will allegedly killfile
a poster who corners them logically, but they never
really seem to do so, as they would appear to crave
the attention. Reasonable, rational (and sometimes
credentialed) posters often engage the loons for a
time in an attempt to straighten out woolly thinking
or misconceptions, or to prevent neophytes from
being confused by a lot of nonsense. Only when the
crank is deemed irretrievably delusional and their
posts repetitive and just plain annoying do they
get killfiled.

 Quote: I mean it takes milliseconds to skip past a poster you don't care to read. And why even tell someone you're killfiling them? Unless it's meant to hurt or drive them away.

It may be merely to serve as a warning to others to
beware of a troll trap.

It's also true that there are a good many people who
of off-topic or delusional crap that cranks and trolls
reams of detailed replies (often quoting the entirety
of the troll's manifesto).

 Quote: You may find Brad offensive, my point is I find OM's type of killfiling makes this ng look like a tight-assed clique of jr high school girls that have nothing better to do than plan ways to make others look like pathetic losers. You've seen the movie Carrie right.....

As far as I know there are a limited number of ways
to killfile a poster based upon the characteristics of
the newsreader being used. How can you object as you
do to the way the software works? Perhaps you intended
to take exception to the missive that OM sent to the
group outlining his reasons for recommending that BG
be killfiled?

Well, this is the Internet, where common courtesy and
decorum are not truly enforceable. It seems in fact
to be a magnet for marginal personalities who take
advantage of the relative anonymity to act out in ways
they couldn't do in a room full of people. That's
life. Grow a thicker skin and get on with it.
Brian Lunergan
science forum beginner

Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH!

jonathan wrote:
 Quote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message news:DrWdnUUsgtI7oF3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com... jonathan wrote: Lets just argue the facts of this debate then. The mathematics of killfiling follows.... The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker. QED~ That's not a fact. It's just a poorly argued and invalid opinion. Well I've been plonked bout as often as anyone around. And you doubt me? Another relationship is that plonking is most likely to occur just after the plonker has been boxed into a corner on a debate. Now that I've seen at least a hundred times. I mean it takes milliseconds to skip past a poster you don't care to read. And why even tell someone you're killfiling them? Unless it's meant to hurt or drive them away.

If that worked spam would not be the bain of the internet it has grown
into. Ignoring things (or deleting them) does not make them go away. You
have to act against the problem.

 Quote: You may find Brad offensive, my point is I find OM's type of killfiling makes this ng look like a tight-assed clique of jr high school girls that have nothing better to do than plan ways to make others look like pathetic losers.

Would blocked sender be more palatable? I block who I choose to block not
because I'm some immature prude, but because I accept the mature stand that
freedom of speech doesn't mean the speaker can spout whatever, wherever,
whenever. I am not obliged to listen to or read profanity, childish
behaviour, or poorly thought out argument done for the sake of arguing.
Call it a kill file or blocked sender list or what ever you wish. It's the
virtual way to ignore a conversation you have no interest in sinking into.

--
Brian Lunergan
Nepean, Ontario

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1190 of 1190 [17848 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 1188, 1189, 1190 View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:44 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics pre-fourier piecewise continuous function simple misunder... Chris1171 Undergraduate 1 Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:06 pm Eric Davis's misunderstanding of the Higgs origin of inertia Jack Sarfatti Particle 0 Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:14 pm