Epsilon = Invariant Proportion

lama · lama *(Suspended)*

Epsilon = Invariant Proportion

About 3.14... = circumference/diameter:

Let us say that Epsilon is equivalent to the invariant proportion that can be found in the triangles below.

(VERY IMPORTANT:
When Epsilon = Invariant Proportion, then there is no connection to words like 'smaller' or 'bigger' or 'size' or 'magnitude' or 'Quantity', and the reason is clearly explained)

Code:

,
|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    |
|    |\
|    | \
|    |  \
|    |   \
|    |    |
|    |    |\
|    |    | \
|    |    |  \
|    |    |   |
|    |    |   |\
|    |    |   | \
|    |    |   |  |
|    |    |   |  |\
|____|____|___|__|_\

Each arbitrary right triangle's area is smaller than any arbitrary left triangle's area, but the internal proportion of each triangle remains unchanged, so it does not depend on size or magnitude (please think about circumference/diameter ratio, which does not depend on a circle's size).

If we have finitely many triangles then this proportion can be found finitely many times.

But in the case of infinitely many triangles, this proportion can be found infinitely many times.

Since Epsilon is equivalent to this proportion, it cannot be found if and only if this proportion cannot be found.

It is clear that if the proportion can be found infinitely many times, than it cannot be eliminated, and if it is eliminated, it means that it is found only finitely many times.

In other words, any collection of infinitely many elements can be found if and only if some epsilon that belongs to it also can be found, and if this Epsilon cannot be found, then there are only two options, which are:

a) The collection does not exist.

b) The collection is a finite collection.

Conclusion:

There is an inseparable connection between the PERMANENT EXISTENCE of an epsilon and the collection of infinitely many elements that is related to it.

In other words, there is no way to calculate the exact SUM of infinitely many elements, because the SUM of infinitely many elements cannot be more than SUM – epsilon, and therefore the accurate SUM of infinitely many elements does not exist.

Therefore 3.14... < The accurate value of circumference/diameter.

About |N|:

The idea of Epsilon = An invariant proportion, is not limited only to a collection that can be found on infinitely many different scale levels.

In other words, we can use this idea in order to show that the accurate value of |N| is undefined by definition, where the definition is not else then the ZF Axiom of Infinity, for example:

Code:

,     ,     ,     ,     ,
|\    |\    |\    |\    |\
| \   | \   | \   | \   | \
|  \  |  \  |  \  |  \  |  \
| 1 \ | 2 \ | 3 \ |...\ | n \  n+1
|____\|____\|____\|____\|____\ ... ad infinitum.

In this case Epsilon = 1, but then we can clearly see the mistake of Cantor's approach, because if n+Epsilon is in N (by the ZF Axiom of Infinity), then the accurate value of N is undefined because we have a permanent state of |N| - Epsilon.

What to you think?

matt grime · matt grime *(Organism)*

Doron, you grace us with your presence, and inane ramblings, again.

Glad to see you've not learned anything about mathematics in your absence.

bloodhound · bloodhound *(Organism)*

hmm. this definitely reads like a doron post. complete with colours as well.

matt grime · matt grime *(Organism)*

Oh, it is, lama was one of his aliases in another forum that got banned.

NSX · NSX *(Molecule)*

What is an invariant proportion?

I can't be bothered to read up on google what it is :P

lama · lama *(Suspended)*

Dear Matt,

After your warm wellcome, please reply a detailed answer about post #1.

Thank you.

Sayonara³ · Sayonara³ *(Doomy doom ♫)*

Multiple accounts are not allowed.

Pick one.

lama · lama *(Suspended)*

I pick lama.

Sayonara³ · Sayonara³ *(Doomy doom ♫)*

Righto.

lama · lama *(Suspended)*

Originally Posted by NSX
What is an invariant proportion?

Please think about circumference/diameter ratio, which does not depend on a circle's size.

The same holds for the infinitely many triangles in post #1.

ydoaPs · ydoaPs *(just lost the game)*

Originally Posted by lama
Please think about circumference/diameter ratio, which does not depend on a circle's size.

The same holds for the infinitely many triangles in post #1.

there are circumstances when the $\pi$ is not constant.

matt grime · matt grime *(Organism)*

ok, here is the only reply you'll get:

1. what has the fact that you can draw pictures got to do with provin anything about taking a limit, and then proving that something in the limit at infinity makes any sense?

2. who says we calculate the sum of infinitely many things? ONce more you're confiusing applying mathematical operations with a definition of a limit.

3. the cardinality of the natural numbers is not a natural number, so there is no reason to suppose it behaves as one

3. aleph-0 isn't a "value" it is an equivalence class of sets

4. yo'uve failed to define an arithmetic for cardinal numbers so your last bit about addin epsilon, an invariant proportion, to a cardinal amkes no sense

5. you've not actually defined this invariant proportion, merely offered an example, and nto said why this is a cardinal number that can be "added" to aleph-0

6. do you even know the definition of cardinal numbers?

7. cantors definition of cardinals is about bijections of (infinite) sets, so why don't you write a mathematical argument as to why it;s flawed other than saying that infinite sets can't be complete, which is not a mathematical statement, by the way.

8 why don't you actually look up the definitions of terms you use so you don't make mistakes?

9. why do you think that everything must behave as you wish rather than actually proving what is true?

zaphod · zaphod *(Meson)*

this a ****ed up thread.

lama · lama *(Suspended)*

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
ok, here is the only reply you'll get:

What do you mean by this?

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
1. what has the fact that you can draw pictures got to do with provin anything about taking a limit, and then proving that something in the limit at infinity makes any sense?

1. there is nothing in the pictures exactly that there is nothing in some agreed formal notations, all is in our mind in this case, and you can understand things not because of a spesific way of representation.

If you lost your ability to think abstract thoughts that are not depends on some agreed representation, then I cannot help you.

More to the point, in my abstract and precise model I show that there is an inseparable connection between the PERMANENT EXISTENCE of an epsilon that is based on an invariant proportion, and the collection of infinitely many elements that is related to it.

This model is too simple to be not immediately understood, it can make hard time only to persons that their abstraction abilities are limited to the agreed formal linear way of written notations.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
2. who says we calculate the sum of infinitely many things?

If ALL n is in N then we cannot avoid the idea of a SUM when we think about |N|.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
3. the cardinality of the natural numbers is not a natural number,...

3. Yes I know, and this is exactly the reason that no natural number is the SUM of all Natural numbers, according to Cantor's approach, which forces a universal quantification, on a collection of infinitely many elements, which is a fundamental mistake, as I clearly show in my abstract model.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
4. yo'uve failed to define an arithmetic for cardinal numbers

Wrong, I improved the arithmetic between infinitely many elements, for example:

By Cantor Aleph0 = |N|, which is the cardinality of N set.

By Cantor: aleph0+1=aleph0, aleph0-2^aleph0 has no meaning, aleph0 < 2^aleph0, 3^aleph0=2^aleph0, etc...

My solution to Aleph0 concept

My concept of aleph0 is based on "cloud-like" magnitude of any collection of infinitely many elements.

For example:

aleph0+1 > aleph0

If A = aleph0 and B = aleph0 - 2^aleph0, then A > B by 2^aleph0, where both A and B are collections of infinitely many elements.

Also 3^aleph0 > 2^aleph0 > aleph0 > aleph0 - 1, etc...

Fore more details please look at: http://www.geocities.com/complementa...agonalView.pdf

Strictly speaking, Actual infinity (infinitely long non-composed element) is too strong to be used as an input.

Potential infinity (infinitely many elements, which never reaches Actual infinity, and therefore cannot be completed) is the name of the game. For further information please look at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/9999.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Anyx.pdf

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
5. you've not actually defined this invariant proportion

5. All you have is to look at my representation, and by using its abstract model in your mind you immediately define the invariant proportion, unless you have no ability to think abstract thoughts.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
6. do you even know the definition of cardinal numbers?

6. Yes (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CardinalNumber.html) and their extension to transfinite cardinals can be done only if we force a universal quantification on a collection of infinitely many elements, which is something that cannot be done, and I clearly and very simply show it in my abstract model.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
7. cantors definition of cardinals is about bijections of...

7. This bijection cannot be found between collections of infinitely many elements, because endless mapping is a meaningless thing.

More to the point: a collection of infinitely many elements cannot be completed, as I clearly show in post #1.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
8 why don't you actually look up the definitions of terms you use so you don't make mistakes?

8. Thank you for your advice Matt, but I already did it, and the results of what I discovered are clearly and simply shown in my abstract model at post #1

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
9. why do you think that everything must behave as you wish rather than actually proving what is true?

9. Ho, dear Matt, no one of us really Knows the true, and therefore why do you think that everything must behave as you wish?

bloodhound · bloodhound *(Organism)*

Originally Posted by lama

7. This bijection cannot be found between collections of infinitely many elements, because endless mapping is a meaningless thing.

Hmmmm.... that goes againt everything i haven learned in my 1 and a half years of mathematics.

you obviously can find a bijection between natural numbers and the rationals

thats how countably infinite is defined.

or f(x)=x defines a simple bijection from R to R

matt grime · matt grime *(Organism)*

I don't think this breaks my promise to respond only once to Doron as it is a reply to bloodhound. (and i must resist the temptation to pooint out his mathematical errors again).

Bloodhound, Doron doesn't actually know what a bijection is, or any of the mathematical objects he may use. He may point out a wolfram link as if that explains he understands it, but that isn't the case. His is a simple premise, that any statement that includes a "for all" is automatically false for an infinite set. We know that to be nonsense.

For instance where does he define 'endless'? We may have a vague notion that helps explain it, but that doesn't define it se we can use it. Just lookat his attempt at defininf invariant proportion.

One need only look at his idea that Cantor defined transfinite arithmetic to see that he's completely ignorant - Conway did that, and there is Robinson's variation. Why, for instance is it important to him that we haven't defined aleph-0 -aleph-1? They are not natural numbers, or a ring for that matter, in any obvious non-trivial way. Of course there is a philosophical issue here that is fundamental: Cantor took the axiom of choice as true in order to well order the cardinal numbers. The cardinal numbers are of course too big to be a set, so there's another important delciate philosophical issue.

After all aleph-0 is just a symbol, defined bty the use: a set has card aleph-0 if ther is a bijection with N. Very simple.

Very hard is the question of whether 2^aleph-0 which is by definition the cardinality of the power set of N has cardinality aleph-1, the smallest uncountable cardinal. In fact it is independent of ZFC.

But none of what has been written in post 1 makes any coherent sense.

lama · lama *(Suspended)*

Matt,

No one can conclude anything by using mapping between collections with infinitely many elements, because these collections are un-bounded and therefore not completed by their very own nature.

All what Cantor did is to show a bijection between a collection of finitely many elements, and then he forced a universal quantification on these collections, in order to get by force his required result.

But this result is clearly ill-defined because we cannot conclude something about a collection of infinitely many elements by trying to eliminate by force its unbounded nature in order to define our requested results.

Cantor’s extension-by-force of cardinality and ordiality simply does not hold water, so Matt you are the one that continue to force your ill-defined conditions on collections of infinitely many elements by forcing on them a universal quantification.

By this forcing method you lose your ability to distinguish between a collection of finitely many elements (where a universal quantification can be related to them) and a collection of infinitely many elements (where a universal quantification cannot be related to them) and this is exactly the deep difference between these kinds of collections, that actually gives us the ability to perfectly distinguish between them.

If you ignore this deep and simple difference, then your system is based on ill-defined terms.

Simple as that, so do not sell us stories about your "well-defined" universe.

Also please pay attention to the very important fact, which is:

I am not a constructivist that says that collections of infinitely many elements do not exist.

I clearly say that collections of infinitely many elements do exist and they are deeply and totally different from finite collections, and the first and the most important difference is:

We cannot force on them a universal quantification, as I clearly and simply show in my abstract model at post #1.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
...aleph-0 -aleph-1? They are not natural numbers

I totally agree with you, but I add that they are ill-defined by Cantor, therefore must not be a part of the Language of Mathematics and its logical reasoning.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
His is a simple premise, that any statement that includes a "for all" is automatically false for an infinite set. We know that to be nonsense.

Really??

In Post #1 I clearly and simply show that I am right!!!

If you want to show that I am wrong you have to introduce to all of us your model that clearly explain, by using only infinitely many elements, why you are right and I am wrong.

You did not do it, you are just talking about it, and just talking is exactly nothing in this case.

Also I have noticed that you look at yourself as some kind of a duke or a king, that shares his wisdom with his worshiped people.

So, King Matt:

I clime that King Cantor is naked … , please prove me wrong!!!

In a collection of infinitely many elements, an Epsilon is an invariant NEXT state (which is an inherent property of any collection of infinitely many alamants) that cannot give us the ability to force a universal quantification on this kind of a collection.

Originally Posted by Bloodhound
f(x)=x defines a simple bijection from R to R

You can conclude accurate things by using mapping, only between collections with finitely many elements.

If you disagree with me, then you have to show how a universal quantification can be related to a collection of infinitely many elements.

Can you do this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some general point of view:

There is more than one school of thought in the world of Mathematics.

Please look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

matt grime · matt grime *(Organism)*

Sod it, one more, eh?

"If you disagree with me, then you have to show how a universal quantification can be related to a collection of infinitely many elements."

Define "related", define "completed". It is not up to us to show anything because you've not asked of us anything that is written in or about mathematics as is understood by anyone else. Until you phrase your posts in such a way as someone else can make sense of them then we cannot do anything but point out that with the ordinary meanings to all the words you're talking complete rubbish.

For all x in R x^2 is positive. What's wrong with that?

I'm well aware of the different schools of thought in math, Doron, only I seem to understand them and you appear wilfully ignorant of them.

lama · lama *(Suspended)*

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
For all x in R x^2 is positive. What's wrong with that?

No, it has to be: For each x in R x^2 is positive, because I clearly show that if R is a collection of infinitely many elements, then we cannot use a universal quantification on such a collection, because:

In a collection of infinitely many elements, an Epsilon is an invariant NEXT state (which is an inherent property of any collection of infinitely many elements) that cannot give us the ability to force a universal quantification on this kind of a collection.

Do you really can't see this beautiful state?

An inherent and invariant NEXT state prevents the use of a universal quantification, it is simple, and it is right in front of your mind, don't you see it?

Actually, a collection of infinitely many elements cannot exist without the permanent existence of this Epsilon, and this is an amazing thing, because it gives us the deep insight that the existence of infinitely many elements actually depends on the existence of a single element as its inherent permanent NEXT state.

Also please pay attention that I use the word 'state' and not 'process', in order to clarify that I am talking about a timeless simultaneous NEXT, which is an inherent signature of any collection of infinitely many elements...

We can use ALL only when we have a collection of finitely many elements.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
I'm well aware of the different schools of thought in math, Doron, only I seem to understand them and you appear wilfully ignorant of them.

Please look at my paper about these schools:

http://www.geocities.com/complementa.../TheBestOf.pdf

Now please give your work about these schools, in order to show to all of us, how do you understand these schools of thoughts.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
Define "related", define "completed".

The simple English meaning to "related".

"Completed" means that its end can be found.

Originally Posted by Matt Grime
the ordinary meanings to all the words you're talking complete rubbish.

We do not have to think twice in order to understand that Cantor's approach is a complete rubbish that cannot be exist even as an abstract universe.

haggy · haggy *(Quark)*

Doron, we love your MyWay_XOR_TheHighway attitude

lama (Suspended)	December 20th, 2004, 6:56 AM #1
Epsilon = Invariant Proportion Epsilon = Invariant Proportion About 3.14... = circumference/diameter: Let us say that Epsilon is equivalent to the invariant proportion that can be found in the triangles below. (VERY IMPORTANT: When Epsilon = Invariant Proportion, then there is no connection to words like 'smaller' or 'bigger' or 'size' or 'magnitude' or 'Quantity', and the reason is clearly explained) Code: , \|\ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| \| \| \|\ \| \| \ \| \| \ \| \| \ \| \| \| \| \| \|\ \| \| \| \ \| \| \| \ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|\ \| \| \| \| \ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|\ \|____\|____\|___\|__\|_\ Each arbitrary right triangle's area is smaller than any arbitrary left triangle's area, but the internal proportion of each triangle remains unchanged, so it does not depend on size or magnitude (please think about circumference/diameter ratio, which does not depend on a circle's size). If we have finitely many triangles then this proportion can be found finitely many times. But in the case of infinitely many triangles, this proportion can be found infinitely many times. Since Epsilon is equivalent to this proportion, it cannot be found if and only if this proportion cannot be found. It is clear that if the proportion can be found infinitely many times, than it cannot be eliminated, and if it is eliminated, it means that it is found only finitely many times. In other words, any collection of infinitely many elements can be found if and only if some epsilon that belongs to it also can be found, and if this Epsilon cannot be found, then there are only two options, which are: a) The collection does not exist. b) The collection is a finite collection. Conclusion: There is an inseparable connection between the PERMANENT EXISTENCE of an epsilon and the collection of infinitely many elements that is related to it. In other words, there is no way to calculate the exact SUM of infinitely many elements, because the SUM of infinitely many elements cannot be more than SUM – epsilon, and therefore the accurate SUM of infinitely many elements does not exist. Therefore 3.14... < The accurate value of circumference/diameter. About \|N\|: The idea of Epsilon = An invariant proportion, is not limited only to a collection that can be found on infinitely many different scale levels. In other words, we can use this idea in order to show that the accurate value of \|N\| is undefined by definition, where the definition is not else then the ZF Axiom of Infinity, for example: Code: , , , , , \|\ \|\ \|\ \|\ \|\ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| \ \| 1 \ \| 2 \ \| 3 \ \|...\ \| n \ n+1 \|____\\|____\\|____\\|____\\|____\ ... ad infinitum. In this case Epsilon = 1, but then we can clearly see the mistake of Cantor's approach, because if n+Epsilon is in N (by the ZF Axiom of Infinity), then the accurate value of N is undefined because we have a permanent state of \|N\| - Epsilon. What to you think? Last edited by lama; December 24th, 2004 at 7:28 AM..
Joined Dec 2004 \| 76 posts Rep Power: 0 \| Reputation:

Sayonara³ (Doomy doom ♫)	December 20th, 2004, 8:41 AM #7
Administrator Multiple accounts are not allowed. Pick one. ______________ The Dictionary is not a technical resource.
Joined Jul 2002 \| 10,565 posts \| Location: UK Rep Power: 20 \| Reputation:

Sayonara³ (Doomy doom ♫)	December 20th, 2004, 8:45 AM #9
Administrator Righto. ______________ The Dictionary is not a technical resource.
Joined Jul 2002 \| 10,565 posts \| Location: UK Rep Power: 20 \| Reputation:

lama (Suspended)	December 20th, 2004, 8:56 AM #10
Originally Posted by NSX What is an invariant proportion? Please think about circumference/diameter ratio, which does not depend on a circle's size. The same holds for the infinitely many triangles in post #1.
Joined Dec 2004 \| 76 posts Rep Power: 0 \| Reputation:

ydoaPs (just lost the game)	December 20th, 2004, 12:51 PM #11
Originally Posted by lama Please think about circumference/diameter ratio, which does not depend on a circle's size. The same holds for the infinitely many triangles in post #1. there are circumstances when the $\pi$ is not constant. ______________ If you liked this post, click on the link next to my green squares. 14% of the people in a recent Pew poll said that FOX News is "mostly liberal." Originally Posted by Phi for All Let's make ydoaPs president then. Moderator at SomeFaith
Joined Jul 2004 \| 5,397 posts \| Location: Earth Rep Power: 13 \| Reputation: \| ydoaPs's Blog

matt grime (Organism)	December 20th, 2004, 7:15 AM #2
Doron, you grace us with your presence, and inane ramblings, again. Glad to see you've not learned anything about mathematics in your absence.
Joined Feb 2004 \| 1,178 posts Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

bloodhound (Organism)	December 20th, 2004, 7:45 AM #3
hmm. this definitely reads like a doron post. complete with colours as well.
Joined Apr 2004 \| 1,241 posts \| Location: Nottingham Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

matt grime (Organism)	December 20th, 2004, 8:20 AM #4
Oh, it is, lama was one of his aliases in another forum that got banned.
Joined Feb 2004 \| 1,178 posts Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

NSX (Molecule)	December 20th, 2004, 8:34 AM #5
What is an invariant proportion? I can't be bothered to read up on google what it is :P
Joined Feb 2003 \| 598 posts \| Location: Toronto, Canada Rep Power: 8 \| Reputation: \|

lama (Suspended)	December 20th, 2004, 8:37 AM #6
Dear Matt, After your warm wellcome, please reply a detailed answer about post #1. Thank you.
Joined Dec 2004 \| 76 posts Rep Power: 0 \| Reputation:

lama (Suspended)	December 20th, 2004, 8:44 AM #8
I pick lama.
Joined Dec 2004 \| 76 posts Rep Power: 0 \| Reputation:

matt grime (Organism)	December 20th, 2004, 12:56 PM #12
ok, here is the only reply you'll get: 1. what has the fact that you can draw pictures got to do with provin anything about taking a limit, and then proving that something in the limit at infinity makes any sense? 2. who says we calculate the sum of infinitely many things? ONce more you're confiusing applying mathematical operations with a definition of a limit. 3. the cardinality of the natural numbers is not a natural number, so there is no reason to suppose it behaves as one 3. aleph-0 isn't a "value" it is an equivalence class of sets 4. yo'uve failed to define an arithmetic for cardinal numbers so your last bit about addin epsilon, an invariant proportion, to a cardinal amkes no sense 5. you've not actually defined this invariant proportion, merely offered an example, and nto said why this is a cardinal number that can be "added" to aleph-0 6. do you even know the definition of cardinal numbers? 7. cantors definition of cardinals is about bijections of (infinite) sets, so why don't you write a mathematical argument as to why it;s flawed other than saying that infinite sets can't be complete, which is not a mathematical statement, by the way. 8 why don't you actually look up the definitions of terms you use so you don't make mistakes? 9. why do you think that everything must behave as you wish rather than actually proving what is true?
Joined Feb 2004 \| 1,178 posts Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

zaphod (Meson)	December 20th, 2004, 2:56 PM #13
this a ****ed up thread.
Joined Nov 2004 \| 90 posts Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

lama (Suspended)	December 20th, 2004, 4:06 PM #14
Originally Posted by Matt Grime ok, here is the only reply you'll get: What do you mean by this? Originally Posted by Matt Grime 1. what has the fact that you can draw pictures got to do with provin anything about taking a limit, and then proving that something in the limit at infinity makes any sense? 1. there is nothing in the pictures exactly that there is nothing in some agreed formal notations, all is in our mind in this case, and you can understand things not because of a spesific way of representation. If you lost your ability to think abstract thoughts that are not depends on some agreed representation, then I cannot help you. More to the point, in my abstract and precise model I show that there is an inseparable connection between the PERMANENT EXISTENCE of an epsilon that is based on an invariant proportion, and the collection of infinitely many elements that is related to it. This model is too simple to be not immediately understood, it can make hard time only to persons that their abstraction abilities are limited to the agreed formal linear way of written notations. Originally Posted by Matt Grime 2. who says we calculate the sum of infinitely many things? If ALL n is in N then we cannot avoid the idea of a SUM when we think about \|N\|. Originally Posted by Matt Grime 3. the cardinality of the natural numbers is not a natural number,... 3. Yes I know, and this is exactly the reason that no natural number is the SUM of all Natural numbers, according to Cantor's approach, which forces a universal quantification, on a collection of infinitely many elements, which is a fundamental mistake, as I clearly show in my abstract model. Originally Posted by Matt Grime 4. yo'uve failed to define an arithmetic for cardinal numbers Wrong, I improved the arithmetic between infinitely many elements, for example: By Cantor Aleph0 = \|N\|, which is the cardinality of N set. By Cantor: aleph0+1=aleph0, aleph0-2^aleph0 has no meaning, aleph0 < 2^aleph0, 3^aleph0=2^aleph0, etc... My solution to Aleph0 concept My concept of aleph0 is based on "cloud-like" magnitude of any collection of infinitely many elements. For example: aleph0+1 > aleph0 If A = aleph0 and B = aleph0 - 2^aleph0, then A > B by 2^aleph0, where both A and B are collections of infinitely many elements. Also 3^aleph0 > 2^aleph0 > aleph0 > aleph0 - 1, etc... Fore more details please look at: http://www.geocities.com/complementa...agonalView.pdf Strictly speaking, Actual infinity (infinitely long non-composed element) is too strong to be used as an input. Potential infinity (infinitely many elements, which never reaches Actual infinity, and therefore cannot be completed) is the name of the game. For further information please look at: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/9999.pdf http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Anyx.pdf Originally Posted by Matt Grime 5. you've not actually defined this invariant proportion 5. All you have is to look at my representation, and by using its abstract model in your mind you immediately define the invariant proportion, unless you have no ability to think abstract thoughts. Originally Posted by Matt Grime 6. do you even know the definition of cardinal numbers? 6. Yes (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CardinalNumber.html) and their extension to transfinite cardinals can be done only if we force a universal quantification on a collection of infinitely many elements, which is something that cannot be done, and I clearly and very simply show it in my abstract model. Originally Posted by Matt Grime 7. cantors definition of cardinals is about bijections of... 7. This bijection cannot be found between collections of infinitely many elements, because endless mapping is a meaningless thing. More to the point: a collection of infinitely many elements cannot be completed, as I clearly show in post #1. Originally Posted by Matt Grime 8 why don't you actually look up the definitions of terms you use so you don't make mistakes? 8. Thank you for your advice Matt, but I already did it, and the results of what I discovered are clearly and simply shown in my abstract model at post #1 Originally Posted by Matt Grime 9. why do you think that everything must behave as you wish rather than actually proving what is true? 9. Ho, dear Matt, no one of us really Knows the true, and therefore why do you think that everything must behave as you wish? Last edited by lama; December 20th, 2004 at 4:09 PM..
Joined Dec 2004 \| 76 posts Rep Power: 0 \| Reputation:

bloodhound (Organism)	December 20th, 2004, 4:23 PM #15
Originally Posted by lama 7. This bijection cannot be found between collections of infinitely many elements, because endless mapping is a meaningless thing. Hmmmm.... that goes againt everything i haven learned in my 1 and a half years of mathematics. you obviously can find a bijection between natural numbers and the rationals thats how countably infinite is defined. or f(x)=x defines a simple bijection from R to R
Joined Apr 2004 \| 1,241 posts \| Location: Nottingham Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

matt grime (Organism)	December 21st, 2004, 1:23 AM #16
I don't think this breaks my promise to respond only once to Doron as it is a reply to bloodhound. (and i must resist the temptation to pooint out his mathematical errors again). Bloodhound, Doron doesn't actually know what a bijection is, or any of the mathematical objects he may use. He may point out a wolfram link as if that explains he understands it, but that isn't the case. His is a simple premise, that any statement that includes a "for all" is automatically false for an infinite set. We know that to be nonsense. For instance where does he define 'endless'? We may have a vague notion that helps explain it, but that doesn't define it se we can use it. Just lookat his attempt at defininf invariant proportion. One need only look at his idea that Cantor defined transfinite arithmetic to see that he's completely ignorant - Conway did that, and there is Robinson's variation. Why, for instance is it important to him that we haven't defined aleph-0 -aleph-1? They are not natural numbers, or a ring for that matter, in any obvious non-trivial way. Of course there is a philosophical issue here that is fundamental: Cantor took the axiom of choice as true in order to well order the cardinal numbers. The cardinal numbers are of course too big to be a set, so there's another important delciate philosophical issue. After all aleph-0 is just a symbol, defined bty the use: a set has card aleph-0 if ther is a bijection with N. Very simple. Very hard is the question of whether 2^aleph-0 which is by definition the cardinality of the power set of N has cardinality aleph-1, the smallest uncountable cardinal. In fact it is independent of ZFC. But none of what has been written in post 1 makes any coherent sense.
Joined Feb 2004 \| 1,178 posts Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

lama (Suspended)	December 21st, 2004, 2:06 AM #17
Matt, No one can conclude anything by using mapping between collections with infinitely many elements, because these collections are un-bounded and therefore not completed by their very own nature. All what Cantor did is to show a bijection between a collection of finitely many elements, and then he forced a universal quantification on these collections, in order to get by force his required result. But this result is clearly ill-defined because we cannot conclude something about a collection of infinitely many elements by trying to eliminate by force its unbounded nature in order to define our requested results. Cantor’s extension-by-force of cardinality and ordiality simply does not hold water, so Matt you are the one that continue to force your ill-defined conditions on collections of infinitely many elements by forcing on them a universal quantification. By this forcing method you lose your ability to distinguish between a collection of finitely many elements (where a universal quantification can be related to them) and a collection of infinitely many elements (where a universal quantification cannot be related to them) and this is exactly the deep difference between these kinds of collections, that actually gives us the ability to perfectly distinguish between them. If you ignore this deep and simple difference, then your system is based on ill-defined terms. Simple as that, so do not sell us stories about your "well-defined" universe. Also please pay attention to the very important fact, which is: I am not a constructivist that says that collections of infinitely many elements do not exist. I clearly say that collections of infinitely many elements do exist and they are deeply and totally different from finite collections, and the first and the most important difference is: We cannot force on them a universal quantification, as I clearly and simply show in my abstract model at post #1. Originally Posted by Matt Grime ...aleph-0 -aleph-1? They are not natural numbers I totally agree with you, but I add that they are ill-defined by Cantor, therefore must not be a part of the Language of Mathematics and its logical reasoning. Originally Posted by Matt Grime His is a simple premise, that any statement that includes a "for all" is automatically false for an infinite set. We know that to be nonsense. Really?? In Post #1 I clearly and simply show that I am right!!! If you want to show that I am wrong you have to introduce to all of us your model that clearly explain, by using only infinitely many elements, why you are right and I am wrong. You did not do it, you are just talking about it, and just talking is exactly nothing in this case. Also I have noticed that you look at yourself as some kind of a duke or a king, that shares his wisdom with his worshiped people. So, King Matt: I clime that King Cantor is naked … , please prove me wrong!!! In a collection of infinitely many elements, an Epsilon is an invariant NEXT state (which is an inherent property of any collection of infinitely many alamants) that cannot give us the ability to force a universal quantification on this kind of a collection. Originally Posted by Bloodhound f(x)=x defines a simple bijection from R to R You can conclude accurate things by using mapping, only between collections with finitely many elements. If you disagree with me, then you have to show how a universal quantification can be related to a collection of infinitely many elements. Can you do this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some general point of view: There is more than one school of thought in the world of Mathematics. Please look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics Last edited by lama; December 23rd, 2004 at 8:36 AM..
Joined Dec 2004 \| 76 posts Rep Power: 0 \| Reputation:

matt grime (Organism)	December 21st, 2004, 6:39 AM #18
Sod it, one more, eh? "If you disagree with me, then you have to show how a universal quantification can be related to a collection of infinitely many elements." Define "related", define "completed". It is not up to us to show anything because you've not asked of us anything that is written in or about mathematics as is understood by anyone else. Until you phrase your posts in such a way as someone else can make sense of them then we cannot do anything but point out that with the ordinary meanings to all the words you're talking complete rubbish. For all x in R x^2 is positive. What's wrong with that? I'm well aware of the different schools of thought in math, Doron, only I seem to understand them and you appear wilfully ignorant of them. Last edited by matt grime; December 21st, 2004 at 7:00 AM..
Joined Feb 2004 \| 1,178 posts Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

lama (Suspended)	December 21st, 2004, 9:17 AM #19
Originally Posted by Matt Grime For all x in R x^2 is positive. What's wrong with that? No, it has to be: For each x in R x^2 is positive, because I clearly show that if R is a collection of infinitely many elements, then we cannot use a universal quantification on such a collection, because: In a collection of infinitely many elements, an Epsilon is an invariant NEXT state (which is an inherent property of any collection of infinitely many elements) that cannot give us the ability to force a universal quantification on this kind of a collection. Do you really can't see this beautiful state? An inherent and invariant NEXT state prevents the use of a universal quantification, it is simple, and it is right in front of your mind, don't you see it? Actually, a collection of infinitely many elements cannot exist without the permanent existence of this Epsilon, and this is an amazing thing, because it gives us the deep insight that the existence of infinitely many elements actually depends on the existence of a single element as its inherent permanent NEXT state. Also please pay attention that I use the word 'state' and not 'process', in order to clarify that I am talking about a timeless simultaneous NEXT, which is an inherent signature of any collection of infinitely many elements... We can use ALL only when we have a collection of finitely many elements. Originally Posted by Matt Grime I'm well aware of the different schools of thought in math, Doron, only I seem to understand them and you appear wilfully ignorant of them. Please look at my paper about these schools: http://www.geocities.com/complementa.../TheBestOf.pdf Now please give your work about these schools, in order to show to all of us, how do you understand these schools of thoughts. Originally Posted by Matt Grime Define "related", define "completed". The simple English meaning to "related". "Completed" means that its end can be found. Originally Posted by Matt Grime the ordinary meanings to all the words you're talking complete rubbish. We do not have to think twice in order to understand that Cantor's approach is a complete rubbish that cannot be exist even as an abstract universe. Last edited by lama; December 22nd, 2004 at 6:35 AM..
Joined Dec 2004 \| 76 posts Rep Power: 0 \| Reputation:

haggy (Quark)	December 21st, 2004, 10:21 AM #20
Doron, we love your MyWay_XOR_TheHighway attitude
Joined Jul 2004 \| 42 posts \| Location: ZA Rep Power: 6 \| Reputation:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
common invariant subspaces of two matrices	mjacobi	Linear Algebra and Group Theory	1	May 22nd, 2008 11:49 PM
epsilon and delta definition of limit	kidia	Analysis and Calculus	0	April 24th, 2006 3:42 PM
epsilon delta limit proofs	danielS	Analysis and Calculus	3	October 17th, 2005 6:45 AM
Epsilon Delta Proof	kidia	Analysis and Calculus	5	August 23rd, 2005 3:28 PM
epsilon and deltas!!! aggh lol	Sarahisme	Homework Help	2	April 3rd, 2005 6:02 AM