Jump to content

jnana

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jnana

    A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed mathematics ends in contradiction-Euclidean geometry is destroyed

    in Trash Can

    Posted

    Colin leslie dean proves

    A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed mathematics ends in contradiction-Euclidean geometry is destroyed

    mathematician will tell you √2 does not terminate

    yet in the same breath tell you that a 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle can be constructed,

    even though they admit √2 does not terminate

    thus you cant construct a √2 hypotenuse

    thus a 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed, which contradicts what mathematicians tell you

    thus maths ends in contradiction

    Euclidean geometry is destroyed

     

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf

    or

    https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

    -3

    Evolutionary theory ends in nonsense

    in Trash Can

    Posted · Edited by jnana
    add

    colin leslie dean proves

     

    Evolutionary theory-evolving species - ends in nonsense

     


    so what is a species


    just a definition


    https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/species/


    "A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce
    naturally with one another and create fertile offspring"


    Or from your own biology site


    https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/species

    “One can also define species as an individual belonging to a group of
    organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and
    (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring .”


    but


     species hybridization contradicts that


    https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2019.00113


    "When organisms from two different species mix, or breed together, it is
    known as hybridization"


    "Fertile hybrids create a very complex problem in science, because this breaks
    a rule from the Biological Species Concept"


    so the definition of species is nonsense


    note


    when Biologist cant tell us what a species is -without contradiction
    thus evolution theory ie evolving species is nonsense

     

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf

     

    or

    https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

     

    -1

    hijack from The proving of the GoldBach conjecture by using the Zermelo Fraenkel axioms

    in Trash Can

    Posted

    colin leslie dean proves

     

    ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness

    The Foundations of Mathematics end in meaningless jibbering nonsense

    A)

    Mathematics ends in contradiction-6 proofs

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf

     

    and

    https://www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradiction

    Proof 5

    ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness

    https://brilliant.org/wiki/zfc/

    ZFC. ZFC, or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, is an axiomatic system used to formally define set theory (and thus mathematics in general).

    but

    ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness

    proof

    it all began with Russells paradox

    and to get around the consequences of it

    Modern set theory just outlaws/blocks/bans this Russells paradox by the introduction of the ad hoc axiom the Axiom schema of specification ie axiom of separation

    which wiki says

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

    "The restriction to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variants. "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

    "Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variant"

    now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves

    the axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russells paradox

    but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative

    http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf

    "in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the seperation axiom which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formular p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the sets this is impredicativity according to the VCP this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity"

    thus

    ZFC

    thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself

    thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1)ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent Now we have paradoxes like

    Russells paradox

    Banach-Tarskin paradox

    Burili-Forti paradox

    with the axiom of seperation banning itself

    ZFC is thus inconsistent

    and thus

    ALL mathematics is just rubbish meaningless jibbering nonsense

     

    -1

    Foundations of Mathematics

    in Trash Can

    Posted

    The Foundations of Mathematics end in meaningless jibbering nonsense

    A)

    Mathematics ends in contradiction-6 proofs

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf

     

    and

    https://www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradiction

    Proof 5

    ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness

    https://brilliant.org/wiki/zfc/

    ZFC. ZFC, or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, is an axiomatic system used to formally define set theory (and thus mathematics in general).

    but

    ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness

    proof

    it all began with Russells paradox

    and to get around the consequences of it

    Modern set theory just outlaws/blocks/bans this Russells paradox by the introduction of the ad hoc axiom the Axiom schema of specification ie axiom of separation

    which wiki says

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

    "The restriction to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variants. "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

    "Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variant"

    now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves

    the axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russells paradox

    but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative

    http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf

    "in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the seperation axiom which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formular p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the sets this is impredicativity according to the VCP this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity"

    thus

    ZFC

    thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself

    thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1)ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent Now we have paradoxes like

    Russells paradox

    Banach-Tarskin paradox

    Burili-Forti paradox

    with the axiom of seperation banning itself

    ZFC is thus inconsistent

    and thus

    ALL mathematics is just rubbish meaningless jibbering nonsense

     

     

    B)

     

    Godels theorems end in meaninglessness

    1)

    Godels
    sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem
    ie the axiom of reducibiility -thus his proof is invalid-and thus
    godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem

    http://www.enotes.com/topic/Axiom_of_reducibility

    russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative
    statements where banned

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/Godels-incompleteness-theorem-inva...

    but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v
    and formular 40

    and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR

    “P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano
    axioms the logic of PM” ie AR

    now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant
    to ban

    The impredicative statement Godel constructs is
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems#F...

    “the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: “G cannot be proved to be
    true within the theory T””

    now godels use of AR bans godels G statement

    thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his
    own axiom bans
    but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is
    flawed
     

    2)

    from

    http://pricegems.com/articles/Dean-Godel.html

    "Mr. Dean complains that Gödel "cannot tell us what makes a mathematical statement true", but Gödel's Incompleteness theorems make no attempt to do this"

    Godels 1st theorem

    “....., there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)


    but

    Godel did not know what makes a maths statement true

    thus his theorem is meaningless

    checkmate

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Mathematics

    Gödel thought that the ability to perceive the truth of a mathematical or logical proposition is a matter of intuition, an ability he admitted could be ultimately beyond the scope of a formal theory of logic or mathematics[63][64] and perhaps best considered in the realm of human comprehension and communication, but commented: Ravitch, Harold (1998). "On Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics".,Solomon, Martin (1998). "On Kurt Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics"

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/GODEL5.pdf

     

    and

    https://www.scribd.com/document/32970323/Godels-incompleteness-theorem-invalid-illegitimate

    0

    hijack from Foundations of Mathematical Physics

    in Trash Can

    Posted

    Mathematics ends in contradiction-6 proofs

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf

     

    and

    https://www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradiction

    Proof 5

    ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness

    https://brilliant.org/wiki/zfc/

    ZFC. ZFC, or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, is an axiomatic system used to formally define set theory (and thus mathematics in general).

    but

    ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness

    proof

    it all began with Russells paradox

    and to get around the consequences of it

    Modern set theory just outlaws/blocks/bans this Russells paradox by the introduction of the ad hoc axiom the Axiom schema of specification ie axiom of separation

    which wiki says

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

    "The restriction to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variants. "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

    "Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variant"

    now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves

    the axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russells paradox

    but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative

    http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf

    "in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the seperation axiom which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formular p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the sets this is impredicativity according to the VCP this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity"

    thus

    ZFC

    thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself

    thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1)ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent Now we have paradoxes like

    Russells paradox

    Banach-Tarskin paradox

    Burili-Forti paradox

    with the axiom of seperation banning itself

    ZFC is thus inconsistent

    and thus

    ALL mathematics is just rubbish meaningless jibbering nonsense

     

     

     

     

    Godels theorems end in meaninglessness

    1)

    Godels
    sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem
    ie the axiom of reducibiility -thus his proof is invalid-and thus
    godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem

    http://www.enotes.com/topic/Axiom_of_reducibility

    russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative
    statements where banned

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/Godels-incompleteness-theorem-inva...

    but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v
    and formular 40

    and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR

    “P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano
    axioms the logic of PM” ie AR

    now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant
    to ban

    The impredicative statement Godel constructs is
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems#F...

    “the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: “G cannot be proved to be
    true within the theory T””

    now godels use of AR bans godels G statement

    thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his
    own axiom bans
    but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is
    flawed
     

    2)

    from

    http://pricegems.com/articles/Dean-Godel.html

    "Mr. Dean complains that Gödel "cannot tell us what makes a mathematical statement true", but Gödel's Incompleteness theorems make no attempt to do this"

    Godels 1st theorem

    “....., there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)


    but

    Godel did not know what makes a maths statement true

    thus his theorem is meaningless

    checkmate

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Mathematics

    Gödel thought that the ability to perceive the truth of a mathematical or logical proposition is a matter of intuition, an ability he admitted could be ultimately beyond the scope of a formal theory of logic or mathematics[63][64] and perhaps best considered in the realm of human comprehension and communication, but commented: Ravitch, Harold (1998). "On Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics".,Solomon, Martin (1998). "On Kurt Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics"

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/GODEL5.pdf

     

    and

    https://www.scribd.com/document/32970323/Godels-incompleteness-theorem-invalid-illegitimate

     

     

     

    0

    Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure

    in General Philosophy

    Posted

    Magister colin leslie dean
     
    proves
     
    Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish
     
     
    As stated
     

    https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/kant2.htm



    “The Critique of Pure Reason is unified by a single line of argument involving just two or three central ideas, which, in spite of a certain complexity and obscurity in its development, can be fairly summed up as follows: Kant poses the question, "How is synthetic, a priori knowledge possible?"”
     
    a priori knowledge is
     
     
     
    a priori judgments are
     
     “Latent in the distinction between the a priori  and the a posteriori
    for Kant is the antithesis between necessary truth and contingent truth
    (a truth is necessary if it cannot be denied without contradiction)
    The former applies to a priori judgments, which are arrived at independently of experience and hold universally).”


    kants notion that mathematics and euclidean geometry is a priori is shown to be rubbish thus his claim that mathematics and euclidean geometry is synthetic a priori is rubbish

    thus

    Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Kant.pdf

    or

    www.scribd.com/document/690781235/Commentary-Kants-Critique-of-Pure-Reason-is-shown-to-be-a-failure-and-complete-rubbish-criticisms-epsitemology-ontology-metaphysics-synthetic-a


    examples
     
    1)from number theory
     
    2) from geometry
     
    example
     
    1) from number theory

    from mathematics

    let x=0.999...(the 9s dont stop thus is an infinite decimal thus non-integer)

    10x =9.999...

    10x-x =9.999…- 0.999…

    9x=9

    x= 1(an integer)

    maths prove an interger=/is a non-integer

    maths ends in contradiction-thus mathematics cant be a priori
     
    with mathematics ending in contradiction you can prove anything in mathematics
     
     ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem
     
    and
     
    you can disprove Fermat's last theorem
     
    you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system you can prove anything
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

    In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion
     
    thus
     
    thus mathematics cant be a priori
     
    thus
     
    Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish
     
    2) from geometry
     
     
    A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed-mathematics ends in contradiction
     
     
    proof
     
    mathematicians will tell you
     
    √2 does not terminate
     
    yet in the same breath tell you
     
    A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle can be constructed
     
    even though they admit √2 does not terminate
     
    thus you cant construct a √2 hypotenuse

    thus you cannot construct 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle

    thus geometry ends in contradiction-thus geometry cant be a priori
     
    thus


    Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish

     

     
    you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system you can prove anything

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

    In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion
     
     
    thus


    Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish
    -4

    Determinism shown to end contradiction

    in Modern and Theoretical Physics

    Posted

    Magister colin leslie dean has shown
     
    Determinism shown to end contradiction
     
    Determinism shown to end in Meaninglessness nonsense
     
    Causal determinism 
     
    “Causal determinism, sometimes synonymous with historical determinism (a sort of path dependence), is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature."  “Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions”
     
    take the 3 body problem –as a simplification of all things in the universe

    But note all the universe is made up of things in interrelationships with everything else

    if we take Newton’s law of gravitation
     
    F = G(m1m2)/R2.
     
    Thus when we move object A it effects the other two objects B and C
    But when objects B and C move that effects object A


    So
     
    we can say that A in effect caused its own motion
     thus we can say the antecedent cause of A is infact just the antecedent A itself
     
    in other words the cause of the cause is the cause
     
    just nonsense meaninglessness
     
    note

    because all things in the universe are interrelationships with everything else
     
    then

    from the above all things are their own antecedent cause
     
    just nonsense meaninglessness



    thus causation is both logically nonsense and science itself must then be meaningless nonsense
     
     
    0
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.