1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.MATH

  • Re: Replacement of Cardinality (effective bounds)

    From Jim Burns@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Aug 24 18:39:29 2024
    On 8/24/2024 4:50 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On 08/24/2024 11:08 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
    WM has brought this to us :
    Le 23/08/2024 à 20:06, joes a écrit :

    The unit fractions don’t reach 0.

    Of course not.
    Therefore they must cease before.

    Why must they cease at all?

    He can just axiomatize it so,
    saying that there's a rule.

    Yes,
    he can axiomatize it so.
    However,
    axioms set what the conversation is about.

    Yes,
    WM can change what his conversation is about.
    So can you. So can anyone.
    WM cannot change what his conversation is about while
    keeping it part of the unchanged conversation.

    I'm not declaring a rule,
    anymore than it's a rule that circles are round.
    It is how it is.

    Suppose, purely hypothetically, that I have accused
    all Germans of being assholes, and
    WM intends to push back against this foul calumny.
    "There are many very nice Norwegians", he says.

    My advice would be to not.make this argument,
    that its effect would be pretty much the opposite of
    what WM might want for an effect.

    There are striking parallels between
    axiomatizing it so (changing what's discussed),
    and a different country (changing what's discussed).

    Yes, clearly, WM can do it.
    Much less clear is why WM would do it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Burns@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Aug 25 13:47:39 2024
    On 8/24/2024 8:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On 08/24/2024 03:39 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
    On 8/24/2024 4:50 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On 08/24/2024 11:08 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
    WM has brought this to us :
    Le 23/08/2024 à 20:06, joes a écrit :

    The unit fractions don’t reach 0.

    Of course not.
    Therefore they must cease before.

    Why must they cease at all?

    He can just axiomatize it so,
    saying that there's a rule.

    Yes, clearly, WM can do it.
    Much less clear is why WM would do it.

    Still, you can just look at it that
    he has a speech impediment,
    and in some generous reading
    he's the only go-between that somehow
    you must explain in his terms, what's in your terms.

    You mean, I must explain like this?

    In a finiteⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ order ⟨A,<⟩
    each non.empty subset S ⊆ A holds minᑉ.S and maxᑉ.S

    I will consider doing that.

    So here, it's simplest as
    a system of bounds, modeled in the unbounded,
    instead of just
    a usual system of no bounds, modeled in the unbounded.
    I.e. it's just the sort of opposite that you've chosen
    or have a natural or imposed sort of slur about
    whether they're bounds in the unbounded
    or not-bounds in the un-bounded.

    Huh?

    Anyways
    you've declared many times that
    you're quite deaf to claims that
    Russell's axiom is in any way false,

    Since I like to know what I'm declaring,
    what is Russell's axiom?

    Speaking of axioms in general,
    it is a theorem that,
    if the axioms do not imply a contradiction,
    then they are not false of _everything_
    then a model exists.

    Also, too,
    if a model exists,
    if the axioms are not false of _everything_
    then the axioms do not imply any contradiction.

    so,
    I'm not quite sure what it is
    that will make it so that
    anyone who'd care to try and follow your argument
    would have to always insert
    a slate of boilerplate argument

    The usual practice in mathematical argument is
    to insert the boilerplate text once, somewhere,
    and then pass to the alert reader the job of finding
    the relevant previous paragraph or previous chapter
    or previous volume or previous school.

    My (questionable) understanding is that it's considered
    insulting to always insert the boilerplate.
    Perhaps it's seen as tacitly calling the reader
    less.than.alert.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)