Ross Finlayson wrote:
This "Moment and Motion: more theory, one theory",
is in the thick of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=5fnnGzDlslQ&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=45
Calling forces "fictitious" about the gyroscopic
(sic!)
Again, "the gyroscopic" is not a term/thing. "gyroscopic" is an
*adjective*:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
[word salad] DesCartesRen|- _Descartes_, also known by his latinized name Cartesius; hence the
name *Cartesian coordinate system*.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren|-_Descartes>
[word salad]
stupid like a door, inbreed wanker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn puts the foot in his mouth again:
Holy shit, I read "the dick of it".Ross Finlayson wrote:
This "Moment and Motion: more theory, one theory",
is in the thick of it.
Am 21.01.2026 um 21:58 schrieb Junior Karameros:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Holy shit, I read "the dick of it".This "Moment and Motion: more theory, one theory",
is in the thick of it.
.
.
.
I read Moese instead of Moebius.
Moebius schrieb:
Am 21.01.2026 um 21:58 schrieb Junior Karameros:
Holy shit, I read "the dick of it".Ross Finlayson wrote:
This "Moment and Motion: more theory, one theory",
is in the thick of it.
.
.
.
On 01/22/2026 06:12 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
But that does not answer my question, which slightly reformulated is:
"If the force is constant, is then the proper
acceleration constant?"
Can you answer yes or no, please?
It would be easier if it were so,
yet, there are two inductive accounts that don't agree.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 01/22/2026 06:12 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
But that does not answer my question, which slightly reformulated is:
"If the force is constant, is then the proper
acceleration constant?"
Can you answer yes or no, please?
It would be easier if it were so,
yet, there are two inductive accounts that don't agree.
not if the target is fixed, lol, good point. Here, they stole patents in america in 1920s. A 21 yo country boy, without electricity, invented the
TV. No shame, they are stealing everything. New speech now called "the international rules order", nowhere to found, as the make shit up as they
go
Timeline Begins in 1800N+f - Pt 3
https://youtu.be/jjd3WdYrUIw
On 01/22/2026 09:37 AM, Daye Tzipushtanov wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 01/22/2026 06:12 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
But that does not answer my question, which slightly reformulated is:
"If the force is constant, is then the proper
acceleration constant?"
Can you answer yes or no, please?
It would be easier if it were so,
yet, there are two inductive accounts that don't agree.
not if the target is fixed, lol, good point. Here, they stole patents in
america in 1920s. A 21 yo country boy, without electricity, invented the
TV. No shame, they are stealing everything. New speech now called "the
international rules order", nowhere to found, as the make shit up as they
go
Timeline Begins in 1800N+f - Pt 3
https://youtu.be/jjd3WdYrUIw
Philo T. Farnsworth? He ended up getting a pretty good deal out of RCA.
Of course, that's a square monitor, yet Vulcans prefer round monitors.
How about the thyrototron as an ideal electrical component:
that's simple and would be obvious to anybody "in the field".
On 01/22/2026 09:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 01/22/2026 09:37 AM, Daye Tzipushtanov wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 01/22/2026 06:12 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
But that does not answer my question, which slightly reformulated is: >>>>> "If the force is constant, is then the proper
acceleration constant?"
Can you answer yes or no, please?
It would be easier if it were so,
yet, there are two inductive accounts that don't agree.
not if the target is fixed, lol, good point. Here, they stole patents in >>> america in 1920s. A 21 yo country boy, without electricity, invented the >>> TV. No shame, they are stealing everything. New speech now called "the
international rules order", nowhere to found, as the make shit up as
they
go
Timeline Begins in 1800N+f - Pt 3
https://youtu.be/jjd3WdYrUIw
Philo T. Farnsworth? He ended up getting a pretty good deal out of RCA.
Of course, that's a square monitor, yet Vulcans prefer round monitors.
How about the thyrototron as an ideal electrical component:
that's simple and would be obvious to anybody "in the field".
Grandpa got "Channel 1". "DASE: Distributed Authoring Streaming
Environment."
The ringing voltage of a telephone bell is quite higher than
usual line noise.
The Batavia-Baikal neutrinophone communicates in what is
essentially _real_ time, _all the way through the Earth_.
A model of light and imaging as free, if metered, information,
makes for an account of FTL comms.
Den 21.01.2026 16:11, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
I bet you [Maciej Wo+|niak] won't give a sensible answer.
You never do.
I was wrong about that.
You gave a very sensible answer.
So you have understood that the object is accelerating in the direction
the force acting on it is pulling it.
This direction is along the string towards your hand. The acceleration
is:
a = F/m
Den 24.01.2026 07:51, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
The vertical component of the force acting on the object is:
-a-a Fb|N = 9.8 N-a (constant upwards)
So what?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
So according to Newton's law F = ma the acceleration of the object is a
= F/m = 9.8 m/s-# (upwards)
Den 22.01.2026 22:31, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
So the vertical acceleration is:Nope. The vertical component of the velocity is constant and 0. No
ab|N = Fb|N/m = 9.8 m/s-# (upwards)
vertical acceleration, sorry.
So if a constant horizontal Force F = 9.8 N is acting on an object with
mass m, then the acceleration of the object will be constant a = F/m =
9.8 m/s-#
But if a constant vertical Force F = 9.8 N is acting on an object with
mass m, then the acceleration of the object will be constant a = 0 m/s-#
So Newton's law F = ma is only valid for horizontal forces. Right?
Am Montag000026, 26.01.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
You mean I should learn that the law F = ma is invalid if F is aThat 'F' in connection with gravity is usually called 'weight'.
vertical force?
That is the force, by which a material object pushes against the
surface,
upon which it stands (or sits).
Den 28.01.2026 20:04, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
Hint: d-#v/dt-# = 10 m/s-#
Should be:
Hint: dv/dt = 10 m/s-#
Den 28.01.2026 20:04, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
Hint: d-#v/dt-# = 10 m/s-#
Should be:
Hint: dv/dt = 10 m/s-#
On 01/28/2026 11:10 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.01.2026 20:04, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
Hint: d-#v/dt-# = 10 m/s-#
Should be:
Hint: dv/dt = 10 m/s-#
I like the guy who one time put it:
"I: am a measure-man".
I think what he meant by that, was both
that as an observer himself, he could only
see what _was_ away, distant, yet at the
same time, it's to include that his own
objective view was included, "I am: a measure-man".
That I thought was one of the most profound
accounts of perspective and projection, and
the discussion around it was pretty good.
If you're familiar with the Vedic accounts of
Atman and Brahman, one way to look at them is
as of their being a technical sort of discussion
about perspective and projection and the objective
and subjective and the absolute and relative in
the geometry and motion, of individuals. The
interplay of the Vedics about the Atman and Brahman
include that often what's considered is "trading places",
that the key aspect of objectivity, is, inter-subjectivity.
So, then about accounts of the gravitational equivalence
principle, distance and length are not necessarily the
same thing, and the far and near their norm and metric
are not necessarily the same thing. The gravitational
equivalence principle just like the energy equivalence
principle is an _abstraction_ toward a _restriction_,
generally enough about the "severe abstraction" of the
"mechanical reduction" as one can read about, for example,
quite more thoroughly in the "A Dictionary of The History
of Science".
(Here there's considered what must be a _realists's_ and
thusly an _anti-reductionists's_ account, of theory
overall not just instances of instants of heuristics
of planks of platforms of partial accounts of physics.)
So, that "galaxies don't fly apart because their entire
frame is rotating", is just a totally usual sort of account
since the most ancient recorded traditions on matters of
observation and reflection, and then as well about the most
scrutinized accounts or since Aristotle, "there is no un-moved
mover" yet "circular movement is eternal".
"I am a measure-man."
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.01.2026 20:04, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
Hint: d-#v/dt-# = 10 m/s-#
Should be:
Hint: dv/dt = 10 m/s-#
idiot, you have to put the time in it, to find the speed, wrt the place
the time is starting, if not offset.
The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Wayne Timerbaev":
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.01.2026 20:04, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
Hint: d-#v/dt-# = 10 m/s-#
Should be:
Hint: dv/dt = 10 m/s-#
idiot, you have to put the time in it, to find the speed, wrt the place
the time is starting, if not offset.
Since the acceleration is the time derivative of velocity, from the fundamental theorem of calculus follows that, if the motion is along a
On 01/28/2026 09:00 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 01/28/2026 08:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
It seems like the idea of Lense-Thirring was that
"frame-dragging" was measurable, so, it was possible
to establish what "drift-velocity" was, "aether-drift".
The Lense--Thirring precession has nothing to do with what I wrote, and
nothing with an "aether-drift". You are babbling incoherently again.
Then what seems funny is that the velocity of Earth
in the larger, larger, larger, galactic scale:
is 1/2 2.998 x 10^8 m/s.
Utter nonsense.
Larmor forces are as after Heaviside and
FitzGerald, that empirical field thus belonging
to the electricians not the reductionist, and
for Faraday rotation.
FitzGerald for space contraction is sort of
for Carl Neumann for the Lorentzian.
Planck then is for as after Rayleigh-Jeans
what went into opto-electronic effect,
for which a neat formalism may be built
from these parts.
For all what people say Einstein, or the
consequences of relativity of motion, say,
he said a lot of things, including that "there
is an aether, in effect", also for example
"there is a clock-hypothesis, in effect".
Those are paraphrase. Those are paraphrase,
and include Einstein's wider notions on
the theory, including for example his stated
opinion that the real theory is a total field
theory.
Mentioning Lense-Thirring was simply as
after your mention that velocity was
indeterminate, since, it's not, so, the
relevance apparently is lost on you -
not necessarily others, though.
About light's speed actually being derived
instead of defined, and giving it an explanation,
then furthermore about how mathematics is
going to be giving it an explanation, is not
"Utter nonsense". Au contraire, it is not just
the absence of sense, it's the presence of sense.
Otherwise there's no sense to it at all - why
light's measured speed is what it is, or that
it's constant.
In deep space, in a vacuum, at absolute zero,
for the briefest instant of time, ....
Obviously or one imagines I'm not novel in
suggesting that light's speed is derived
instead of defined.
For example, it's a usual exercise of fundamental
physics to have as few fundamental constants as
possible, though, not _too_ simple.
About constants 'c' with regards to respective
field equations, of course it should be widely
known in physics, as it is at least since the
time of O.W. Richardson's "The Electron Theory
of Matter" or circa 1920, that electrostatics
and electrodynamics and light each have their
own constant 'c', which sort of happen to agree
if within about an order of magnitude.
Then the idea that the measured value and the
quantity is actually terrestrial or according
to the aether-drift, it sort of happens that
it is.
Then for making that there's the L-principle
of Einstein's relativity that light-speed is
a constant, then is to be resolved as for
matters of perspective and projection, since
that's how finite Man can diagram a usual
"point at infinity".
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000026, 26.01.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
You mean I should learn that the law F = ma is invalid if F is aThat 'F' in connection with gravity is usually called 'weight'.
vertical force?
That is the force, by which a material object pushes against the
surface,
upon which it stands (or sits).
times 10, gives a small error of about 2%. Amazing how many imbeciles
around here confuses a constant with acceleration.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.01.2026 20:04, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
Hint: d-#v/dt-# = 10 m/s-#
Should be:
Hint: dv/dt = 10 m/s-#
idiot, you have to put the time in it, to find the speed, wrt the place
the time is starting, if not offset.
On 1/31/2026 2:04 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 1/31/2026 10:58 PM, Python wrote:
A lie. Like always.
Not that I expect them, of course, from a piece of relativistic shit.
Show your code base or shut up, pathetic impostor EfyU
Fuck yourself or kiss my ass, poor stinker EfyU
Wow. Pretty kinky... ;^o
On 1/31/2026 2:04 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 1/31/2026 10:58 PM, Python wrote:
A lie. Like always.
Not that I expect them, of course, from a piece of relativistic shit.
Show your code base or shut up, pathetic impostor EfyU
Fuck yourself or kiss my ass, poor stinker EfyU
Wow. Pretty kinky... ;^o
On 02/01/2026 12:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/31/2026 2:04 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:That is off-topic and considered poor behavior.
And how is "select now()::interval"
in sql? I mean - in sql, not in sql_by_some_idiot.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/01/2026 12:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/31/2026 2:04 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:That is off-topic and considered poor behavior.
And how is "select now()::interval"
in sql? I mean - in sql, not in sql_by_some_idiot.
not really, you smelly farts, former it-supporter, still not grasp what g
is. Say it right now.
On 02/02/2026 04:06 AM, Stuart Jivoderov wrote:
That is off-topic and considered poor behavior.
not really, you smelly farts, former it-supporter, still not grasp what
g is. Say it right now.
Flatulence serves a proper biological function,
and one should have a usual measure of exercise of the diaphragm and
pelvic floor with regards to the natural equilibriation of
gastrointestinal control.
On 2/2/2026 8:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| You sit in your car with an accelerometer in your hand.
| The accelerometer shows that your acceleration is a = 2 m/s-#.
| According to the accelerometer dv/dt = 2 m/s-#.
| What is v?
Can you explain why this is not a normal accelerometer?
Because, poor trash, a driver that wouldn't have windows in his car and
was unable to distinguish between the acceleration of his car and
gravity - could only survive in your moronic gedankenwelt.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/2/2026 8:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:[...]
Perplexing, an it-supporter more stupid than another it-supporter
Ortilio Turusov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/2/2026 8:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:[...]
Perplexing, an it-supporter more stupid than another it-supporter
Maciej Wo+|niak is an "IT supporter"? How did you get that idea?
And who do you think is the other "IT supporter"?
Just curious.
One does not have to {use|be in} an inertial frame of reference for
one's measurements.
Sure, you can also make measurements in non-intertial frames of
reference.
On 2/10/2026 4:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 06:05 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 03:44 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 10:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 01:17 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 9:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 12:21 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 8:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/04/2026 07:55 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/02/2026 |a 16:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 2/4/2026 3:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
One must distinguish between a function that is _identically_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero,Actually, one has to be even more careful with one's wording. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
i.e.
whose value is zero _everywhere_, and a function whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> value is
zero
_for a
finite number of arguments in its domain_.
> The derivative of the former function *is* actually zero >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
it is a
special case of a constant function, but the derivative of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
latter
function is not necessarily zero.
As we can see from periodic functions like the sine function, >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
even
possible that a function is zero for a countably infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
arguments (e.g. all integer multiples of -C) but still not all >>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments.
And one can even think of a pathological case: The Dirichlet >>>>>>>>>>>>> function
1_raU(x) = {1 if x ree raU;
0 if x ree raU
is zero for *uncountably* infinitely many arguments in its >>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
because
they are real numbers but not rational numbers, and
non-zero for
*countably*
infinitely made arguments in its domain because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
numbers
(the latter are members of a countably infinite set, as Cantor >>>>>>>>>>>>> proved).
Thomas, poor trash, Pythagoreas has proven
that for any right triangle a^2+b^2 =c^2.
Than a hundred of others provided a hundred
of independent proofs for the same.
Did it prevent idiots like yourself
from denying that?
Do you think Cantor's theorems are more
proven?
It is, to say the least, somewhat surreal to have a
discussion on
the
fondations of mathematics and the status of mathematical truth, >>>>>>>>>>> theorems, etc. involving Maciej Wozniak.
The ontological status of mathematical truth involves
the teleological status of mathematical truth as is
a usual conversation of Derrida on Husserl "proto-geometry". >>>>>>>>>
But this pseudophilosophical mumble is no
answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
Well that's simple, they're both what they are,
then the issue must be underneath them both, that
they have made what results mostly a usual ignorance
about the law of large numbers being the law of small numbers. >>>>>>>>
Somebody like Hilbert with a "postulate of continuity"
after somebody like Leibnitz with a "postulate of perfection"
or otherwise making lines from points or points from lines,
harken to Xenocrates and Democritus, or about that Aristotle
has at least two models of continua.
Integer Continuum <- Duns Scotus, Spinoza
Line-Reals <- Xenocrates, Hilbert
Field-Reals <- Archimedes, Weierstrass
Signal-Reals <- Shannon/Nyquist
Long-Line Continuum <- duBois-Reymond
But this pseudophilosophical mumble (well,
I can delete pseudo, but I can't delete mumble)
is no answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
The answer is they're not,
Right. That leads to the next one.
Why for a relativistic idiot Cantor's
(and any other except Euclidean set)
theorems are (proven so undeniable)
and Pythagorean theorem (and any other
from Euclidean set) is (proven
but counterexampled).
Where does the difference come from?
Not from the proofs, we already agreed
(?) that. Would it be possible that
mathematical proofs are really just
some smokescreen for pure faith?
Not necessarily, since proofs are believable.
Well, proofs of Pythagorean theorem HAVE
BEEN believable - for 2000 years - until
some idiots asserted they're really not and
waved their arms. How does it correspond to
"neo-Platonism", Epicurean sense-relations,
occamism and nominalism?
The "riddle of induction" is that since the time
of Aristotle, with both prior and posterior analytics,
since Philo and Plotinus the "neo-Platonists",
a simple inductive half-account grounded in the
Epicurean sense-relations simply makes for
Occamism the nominalism a bare skein of truth,
since its greater account demands experience of reason.
Then, that it's "truth" involved is a matter of
the voluntary, has that it's a tragedy that since
the humility demands letting it be optional,
that the vainglorious twist it.
Or, you know, it varies.
The "strong mathematical platonism", though,
and the "strong logicist positivism", together,
may make for better than a "weak logicist positivism".
Make for better, you say? Any proof
of that? What does "better" mean,
anyway?
Anyway, when the culture recognizes a string
of letters as good for itself it's getting
the stamp "true" to be repeated. When the
culture recognizes a string of letters as
not good for itself it's getting the stamp
"false"to be blocked. That's basically it.
Mistakes happen.
Now if you read something like the "T-theory,
A-theory, theatheory" thread, after that
"The fundamental joke of logic" bit,
where I made all the AI reasoners of the
day fall in line and agree to converge,
these might answer your questions.
Then, here, about "Galaxies don't fly apart
because their entire frame is rotating",
where I begin to describe why Dark Matter
is really Luminous Matter that's been
misunderstood, and about continuum mechanics
and all, then at least there's a Mathematical
Foundations that's strong.
And it's stronger than Euclidean theory
- because....
On 02/10/2026 07:29 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 06:05 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 03:44 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 10:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 01:17 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 9:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 12:21 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 8:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/04/2026 07:55 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/02/2026 |a 16:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 2/4/2026 3:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
One must distinguish between a function that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _identically_Actually, one has to be even more careful with one's wording. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
zero,
i.e.
whose value is zero _everywhere_, and a function whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value is
zero
_for a
finite number of arguments in its domain_.
-a > The derivative of the former function *is* actually zero >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
it is a
special case of a constant function, but the derivative of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
latter
function is not necessarily zero.
As we can see from periodic functions like the sine function, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
even
possible that a function is zero for a countably infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
arguments (e.g. all integer multiples of -C) but still not all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments.
And one can even think of a pathological case: The Dirichlet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
-a-a 1_raU(x) = {1 if x ree raU;
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 0 if x ree raU
is zero for *uncountably* infinitely many arguments in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
because
they are real numbers but not rational numbers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-zero for
*countably*
infinitely made arguments in its domain because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
numbers
(the latter are members of a countably infinite set, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cantor
proved).
Thomas, poor trash, Pythagoreas has proven
that for any right triangle a^2+b^2 =c^2.
Than a hundred of others provided-a a hundred
of independent proofs for the same.
Did it prevent-a idiots like yourself
from denying-a that?
Do you think Cantor's theorems are more
proven?
It is, to say the least, somewhat surreal to have a
discussion on
the
fondations of mathematics and the status of mathematical truth, >>>>>>>>>>>> theorems, etc. involving Maciej Wozniak.
The ontological status of mathematical truth involves
the teleological status of mathematical truth as is
a usual conversation of Derrida on Husserl "proto-geometry". >>>>>>>>>>
But this pseudophilosophical mumble is no
answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
Well that's simple, they're both what they are,
then the issue must be underneath them both, that
they have made what results mostly a usual ignorance
about the law of large numbers being the law of small numbers. >>>>>>>>>
Somebody like Hilbert with a "postulate of continuity"
after somebody like Leibnitz with a "postulate of perfection" >>>>>>>>> or otherwise making lines from points or points from lines,
harken to Xenocrates and Democritus, or about that Aristotle >>>>>>>>> has at least two models of continua.
Integer Continuum <- Duns Scotus, Spinoza
Line-Reals <- Xenocrates, Hilbert
Field-Reals <- Archimedes, Weierstrass
Signal-Reals <- Shannon/Nyquist
Long-Line Continuum <- duBois-Reymond
But this pseudophilosophical mumble (well,
I can delete pseudo, but I can't delete mumble)
is no answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
The answer is they're not,
Right. That leads to the next one.
Why for a relativistic idiot Cantor's
(and any other except Euclidean set)
theorems are (proven so undeniable)
and Pythagorean theorem (and any other
from Euclidean set) is (proven
but counterexampled).
Where does the-a difference come from?
Not from the proofs, we already agreed
(?) that. Would it be possible that
mathematical proofs are really just
some smokescreen for pure faith?
Not necessarily, since proofs are believable.
Well, proofs of Pythagorean theorem HAVE
BEEN believable - for 2000 years - until
some idiots asserted they're really not and
waved-a their arms. How-a does it correspond to
"neo-Platonism", Epicurean sense-relations,
occamism and nominalism?
The "riddle of induction" is that since the time
of Aristotle, with both prior and posterior analytics,
since Philo and Plotinus the "neo-Platonists",
a simple inductive half-account grounded in the
Epicurean sense-relations simply makes for
Occamism the nominalism a bare skein of truth,
since its greater account demands experience of reason.
Then, that it's "truth" involved is a matter of
the voluntary, has that it's a tragedy that since
the humility demands letting it be optional,
that the vainglorious twist it.
Or, you know, it varies.
The "strong mathematical platonism", though,
and the "strong logicist positivism", together,
may make for better than a "weak logicist positivism".
Make for better, you say? Any proof
of that? What does "better" mean,
anyway?
Anyway, when the culture recognizes a string
of letters as good for itself it's getting
the stamp "true" to be repeated. When the
culture recognizes a string of letters-a as
not good for itself it's getting the stamp
"false"to be blocked. That's basically it.
Mistakes happen.
Now if you read something like the "T-theory,
A-theory, theatheory" thread, after that
"The fundamental joke of logic" bit,
where I made all the AI reasoners of the
day fall in line and agree to converge,
these might answer your questions.
Then, here, about "Galaxies don't fly apart
because their entire frame is rotating",
where I begin to describe why Dark Matter
is really Luminous Matter that's been
misunderstood, and about continuum mechanics
and all, then at least there's a Mathematical
Foundations that's strong.
And it's stronger than Euclidean theory
- because....
Axiomless natural geometry: may arrive after
inference itself after axiomless natural deduction
On 2/10/2026 4:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 07:29 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 06:05 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 03:44 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 10:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 01:17 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 9:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 12:21 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 8:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/04/2026 07:55 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/02/2026 |a 16:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 2/4/2026 3:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
One must distinguish between a function that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _identically_Actually, one has to be even more careful with one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording.
zero,
i.e.
whose value is zero _everywhere_, and a function whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value is
zero
_for a
finite number of arguments in its domain_.
> The derivative of the former function *is* actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
because
it is a
special case of a constant function, but the derivative of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
latter
function is not necessarily zero.
As we can see from periodic functions like the sine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
it is
even
possible that a function is zero for a countably infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
arguments (e.g. all integer multiples of -C) but still not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
arguments.
And one can even think of a pathological case: The Dirichlet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
1_raU(x) = {1 if x ree raU;
0 if x ree raU
is zero for *uncountably* infinitely many arguments in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
because
they are real numbers but not rational numbers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-zero for
*countably*
infinitely made arguments in its domain because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
numbers
(the latter are members of a countably infinite set, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cantor
proved).
Thomas, poor trash, Pythagoreas has proven
that for any right triangle a^2+b^2 =c^2.
Than a hundred of others provided a hundred
of independent proofs for the same.
Did it prevent idiots like yourself
from denying that?
Do you think Cantor's theorems are more
proven?
It is, to say the least, somewhat surreal to have a
discussion on
the
fondations of mathematics and the status of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth,
theorems, etc. involving Maciej Wozniak.
The ontological status of mathematical truth involves
the teleological status of mathematical truth as is
a usual conversation of Derrida on Husserl "proto-geometry". >>>>>>>>>>>
But this pseudophilosophical mumble is no
answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
Well that's simple, they're both what they are,
then the issue must be underneath them both, that
they have made what results mostly a usual ignorance
about the law of large numbers being the law of small numbers. >>>>>>>>>>
Somebody like Hilbert with a "postulate of continuity"
after somebody like Leibnitz with a "postulate of perfection" >>>>>>>>>> or otherwise making lines from points or points from lines, >>>>>>>>>> harken to Xenocrates and Democritus, or about that Aristotle >>>>>>>>>> has at least two models of continua.
Integer Continuum <- Duns Scotus, Spinoza
Line-Reals <- Xenocrates, Hilbert
Field-Reals <- Archimedes, Weierstrass
Signal-Reals <- Shannon/Nyquist
Long-Line Continuum <- duBois-Reymond
But this pseudophilosophical mumble (well,
I can delete pseudo, but I can't delete mumble)
is no answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
The answer is they're not,
Right. That leads to the next one.
Why for a relativistic idiot Cantor's
(and any other except Euclidean set)
theorems are (proven so undeniable)
and Pythagorean theorem (and any other
from Euclidean set) is (proven
but counterexampled).
Where does the difference come from?
Not from the proofs, we already agreed
(?) that. Would it be possible that
mathematical proofs are really just
some smokescreen for pure faith?
Not necessarily, since proofs are believable.
Well, proofs of Pythagorean theorem HAVE
BEEN believable - for 2000 years - until
some idiots asserted they're really not and
waved their arms. How does it correspond to
"neo-Platonism", Epicurean sense-relations,
occamism and nominalism?
The "riddle of induction" is that since the time
of Aristotle, with both prior and posterior analytics,
since Philo and Plotinus the "neo-Platonists",
a simple inductive half-account grounded in the
Epicurean sense-relations simply makes for
Occamism the nominalism a bare skein of truth,
since its greater account demands experience of reason.
Then, that it's "truth" involved is a matter of
the voluntary, has that it's a tragedy that since
the humility demands letting it be optional,
that the vainglorious twist it.
Or, you know, it varies.
The "strong mathematical platonism", though,
and the "strong logicist positivism", together,
may make for better than a "weak logicist positivism".
Make for better, you say? Any proof
of that? What does "better" mean,
anyway?
Anyway, when the culture recognizes a string
of letters as good for itself it's getting
the stamp "true" to be repeated. When the
culture recognizes a string of letters as
not good for itself it's getting the stamp
"false"to be blocked. That's basically it.
Mistakes happen.
Now if you read something like the "T-theory,
A-theory, theatheory" thread, after that
"The fundamental joke of logic" bit,
where I made all the AI reasoners of the
day fall in line and agree to converge,
these might answer your questions.
Then, here, about "Galaxies don't fly apart
because their entire frame is rotating",
where I begin to describe why Dark Matter
is really Luminous Matter that's been
misunderstood, and about continuum mechanics
and all, then at least there's a Mathematical
Foundations that's strong.
And it's stronger than Euclidean theory
- because....
Axiomless natural geometry: may arrive after
inference itself after axiomless natural deduction
And jedi knights may wave their lightsabers.
The truth is, however, an evolutionary
[thus - random, but not quite] fluctuation
of our culture, and so is logic.
On 02/10/2026 08:10 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 07:29 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 06:05 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 03:44 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 10:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 01:17 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 9:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 12:21 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 8:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/04/2026 07:55 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/02/2026 |a 16:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2026 3:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
One must distinguish between a function that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _identically_Actually, one has to be even more careful with one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording.
zero,
i.e.
whose value is zero _everywhere_, and a function whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value is
zero
_for a
finite number of arguments in its domain_.
-a > The derivative of the former function *is* actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
because
it is a
special case of a constant function, but the derivative of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
latter
function is not necessarily zero.
As we can see from periodic functions like the sine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
it is
even
possible that a function is zero for a countably infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
arguments (e.g. all integer multiples of -C) but still not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
arguments.
And one can even think of a pathological case: The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirichlet
function
-a-a 1_raU(x) = {1 if x ree raU;
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 0 if x ree raU
is zero for *uncountably* infinitely many arguments in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
because
they are real numbers but not rational numbers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-zero for
*countably*
infinitely made arguments in its domain because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
numbers
(the latter are members of a countably infinite set, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cantor
proved).
Thomas, poor trash, Pythagoreas has proven
that for any right triangle a^2+b^2 =c^2.
Than a hundred of others provided-a a hundred
of independent proofs for the same.
Did it prevent-a idiots like yourself
from denying-a that?
Do you think Cantor's theorems are more
proven?
It is, to say the least, somewhat surreal to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on
the
fondations of mathematics and the status of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth,
theorems, etc. involving Maciej Wozniak.
The ontological status of mathematical truth involves >>>>>>>>>>>>> the teleological status of mathematical truth as is
a usual conversation of Derrida on Husserl "proto-geometry". >>>>>>>>>>>>
But this pseudophilosophical mumble is no
answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
Well that's simple, they're both what they are,
then the issue must be underneath them both, that
they have made what results mostly a usual ignorance
about the law of large numbers being the law of small numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>
Somebody like Hilbert with a "postulate of continuity"
after somebody like Leibnitz with a "postulate of perfection" >>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise making lines from points or points from lines, >>>>>>>>>>> harken to Xenocrates and Democritus, or about that Aristotle >>>>>>>>>>> has at least two models of continua.
Integer Continuum <- Duns Scotus, Spinoza
Line-Reals <- Xenocrates, Hilbert
Field-Reals <- Archimedes, Weierstrass
Signal-Reals <- Shannon/Nyquist
Long-Line Continuum <- duBois-Reymond
But this pseudophilosophical mumble (well,
I can delete pseudo, but I can't delete mumble)
is no answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
The answer is they're not,
Right. That leads to the next one.
Why for a relativistic idiot Cantor's
(and any other except Euclidean set)
theorems are (proven so undeniable)
and Pythagorean theorem (and any other
from Euclidean set) is (proven
but counterexampled).
Where does the-a difference come from?
Not from the proofs, we already agreed
(?) that. Would it be possible that
mathematical proofs are really just
some smokescreen for pure faith?
Not necessarily, since proofs are believable.
Well, proofs of Pythagorean theorem HAVE
BEEN believable - for 2000 years - until
some idiots asserted they're really not and
waved-a their arms. How-a does it correspond to
"neo-Platonism", Epicurean sense-relations,
occamism and nominalism?
The "riddle of induction" is that since the time
of Aristotle, with both prior and posterior analytics,
since Philo and Plotinus the "neo-Platonists",
a simple inductive half-account grounded in the
Epicurean sense-relations simply makes for
Occamism the nominalism a bare skein of truth,
since its greater account demands experience of reason.
Then, that it's "truth" involved is a matter of
the voluntary, has that it's a tragedy that since
the humility demands letting it be optional,
that the vainglorious twist it.
Or, you know, it varies.
The "strong mathematical platonism", though,
and the "strong logicist positivism", together,
may make for better than a "weak logicist positivism".
Make for better, you say? Any proof
of that? What does "better" mean,
anyway?
Anyway, when the culture recognizes a string
of letters as good for itself it's getting
the stamp "true" to be repeated. When the
culture recognizes a string of letters-a as
not good for itself it's getting the stamp
"false"to be blocked. That's basically it.
Mistakes happen.
Now if you read something like the "T-theory,
A-theory, theatheory" thread, after that
"The fundamental joke of logic" bit,
where I made all the AI reasoners of the
day fall in line and agree to converge,
these might answer your questions.
Then, here, about "Galaxies don't fly apart
because their entire frame is rotating",
where I begin to describe why Dark Matter
is really Luminous Matter that's been
misunderstood, and about continuum mechanics
and all, then at least there's a Mathematical
Foundations that's strong.
And it's stronger than Euclidean theory
- because....
Axiomless natural geometry: may arrive after
inference itself after axiomless natural deduction
And jedi knights may wave their lightsabers.
The truth is, however, an evolutionary
[thus - random, but not quite] fluctuation
of our culture, and so is logic.
It's Euclidean, ....
It's a "strong super-euclidean geometry".
Don't worry, you can't break it with logic.
On 2/10/2026 5:15 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 08:10 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 07:29 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 06:05 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 03:44 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 10:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 01:17 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 9:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 12:21 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 8:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/04/2026 07:55 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/02/2026 |a 16:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2026 3:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
One must distinguish between a function that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _identically_Actually, one has to be even more careful with one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording.
zero,
i.e.
whose value is zero _everywhere_, and a function whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value is
zero
_for a
finite number of arguments in its domain_. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The derivative of the former function *is* actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
because
it is a
special case of a constant function, but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivative of
the
latter
function is not necessarily zero.
As we can see from periodic functions like the sine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
it is
even
possible that a function is zero for a countably infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
arguments (e.g. all integer multiples of -C) but still not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
arguments.
And one can even think of a pathological case: The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirichlet
function
1_raU(x) = {1 if x ree raU;
0 if x ree raU
is zero for *uncountably* infinitely many arguments in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
because
they are real numbers but not rational numbers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-zero for
*countably*
infinitely made arguments in its domain because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
numbers
(the latter are members of a countably infinite set, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cantor
proved).
Thomas, poor trash, Pythagoreas has proven
that for any right triangle a^2+b^2 =c^2.
Than a hundred of others provided a hundred
of independent proofs for the same.
Did it prevent idiots like yourself
from denying that?
Do you think Cantor's theorems are more
proven?
It is, to say the least, somewhat surreal to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on
the
fondations of mathematics and the status of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth,
theorems, etc. involving Maciej Wozniak.
The ontological status of mathematical truth involves >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the teleological status of mathematical truth as is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a usual conversation of Derrida on Husserl "proto-geometry". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But this pseudophilosophical mumble is no
answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
Well that's simple, they're both what they are,
then the issue must be underneath them both, that
they have made what results mostly a usual ignorance
about the law of large numbers being the law of small numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Somebody like Hilbert with a "postulate of continuity" >>>>>>>>>>>> after somebody like Leibnitz with a "postulate of perfection" >>>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise making lines from points or points from lines, >>>>>>>>>>>> harken to Xenocrates and Democritus, or about that Aristotle >>>>>>>>>>>> has at least two models of continua.
Integer Continuum <- Duns Scotus, Spinoza
Line-Reals <- Xenocrates, Hilbert
Field-Reals <- Archimedes, Weierstrass
Signal-Reals <- Shannon/Nyquist
Long-Line Continuum <- duBois-Reymond
But this pseudophilosophical mumble (well,
I can delete pseudo, but I can't delete mumble)
is no answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
The answer is they're not,
Right. That leads to the next one.
Why for a relativistic idiot Cantor's
(and any other except Euclidean set)
theorems are (proven so undeniable)
and Pythagorean theorem (and any other
from Euclidean set) is (proven
but counterexampled).
Where does the difference come from?
Not from the proofs, we already agreed
(?) that. Would it be possible that
mathematical proofs are really just
some smokescreen for pure faith?
Not necessarily, since proofs are believable.
Well, proofs of Pythagorean theorem HAVE
BEEN believable - for 2000 years - until
some idiots asserted they're really not and
waved their arms. How does it correspond to
"neo-Platonism", Epicurean sense-relations,
occamism and nominalism?
The "riddle of induction" is that since the time
of Aristotle, with both prior and posterior analytics,
since Philo and Plotinus the "neo-Platonists",
a simple inductive half-account grounded in the
Epicurean sense-relations simply makes for
Occamism the nominalism a bare skein of truth,
since its greater account demands experience of reason.
Then, that it's "truth" involved is a matter of
the voluntary, has that it's a tragedy that since
the humility demands letting it be optional,
that the vainglorious twist it.
Or, you know, it varies.
The "strong mathematical platonism", though,
and the "strong logicist positivism", together,
may make for better than a "weak logicist positivism".
Make for better, you say? Any proof
of that? What does "better" mean,
anyway?
Anyway, when the culture recognizes a string
of letters as good for itself it's getting
the stamp "true" to be repeated. When the
culture recognizes a string of letters as
not good for itself it's getting the stamp
"false"to be blocked. That's basically it.
Mistakes happen.
Now if you read something like the "T-theory,
A-theory, theatheory" thread, after that
"The fundamental joke of logic" bit,
where I made all the AI reasoners of the
day fall in line and agree to converge,
these might answer your questions.
Then, here, about "Galaxies don't fly apart
because their entire frame is rotating",
where I begin to describe why Dark Matter
is really Luminous Matter that's been
misunderstood, and about continuum mechanics
and all, then at least there's a Mathematical
Foundations that's strong.
And it's stronger than Euclidean theory
- because....
Axiomless natural geometry: may arrive after
inference itself after axiomless natural deduction
And jedi knights may wave their lightsabers.
The truth is, however, an evolutionary
[thus - random, but not quite] fluctuation
of our culture, and so is logic.
It's Euclidean, ....
It's a "strong super-euclidean geometry".
Doesn't matter.
Don't worry, you can't break it with logic.
Logic is greatly overestimated, it never
worked against faith. And anyway, breaking
with it anything it can break would be as
wise as it is in the case of muscles.
On 02/10/2026 08:31 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 5:15 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 08:10 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 07:29 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 06:05 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 03:44 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 10:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 01:17 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 9:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 12:21 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 8:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/04/2026 07:55 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/02/2026 |a 16:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2026 3:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
One must distinguish between a function that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _identically_Actually, one has to be even more careful with one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording.
zero,
i.e.
whose value is zero _everywhere_, and a function whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value is
zero
_for a
finite number of arguments in its domain_. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The derivative of the former function *is* actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
because
it is a
special case of a constant function, but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivative of
the
latter
function is not necessarily zero.
As we can see from periodic functions like the sine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
it is
even
possible that a function is zero for a countably infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
arguments (e.g. all integer multiples of -C) but still not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
arguments.
And one can even think of a pathological case: The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirichlet
function
1_raU(x) = {1 if x ree raU;
0 if x ree raU
is zero for *uncountably* infinitely many arguments in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
domain
because
they are real numbers but not rational numbers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-zero for
*countably*
infinitely made arguments in its domain because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
numbers
(the latter are members of a countably infinite set, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cantor
proved).
Thomas, poor trash, Pythagoreas has proven
that for any right triangle a^2+b^2 =c^2.
Than a hundred of others provided a hundred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of independent proofs for the same.
Did it prevent idiots like yourself
from denying that?
Do you think Cantor's theorems are more
proven?
It is, to say the least, somewhat surreal to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on
the
fondations of mathematics and the status of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth,
theorems, etc. involving Maciej Wozniak.
The ontological status of mathematical truth involves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the teleological status of mathematical truth as is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a usual conversation of Derrida on Husserl "proto-geometry". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But this pseudophilosophical mumble is no
answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
Well that's simple, they're both what they are,
then the issue must be underneath them both, that
they have made what results mostly a usual ignorance >>>>>>>>>>>>> about the law of large numbers being the law of small numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Somebody like Hilbert with a "postulate of continuity" >>>>>>>>>>>>> after somebody like Leibnitz with a "postulate of perfection" >>>>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise making lines from points or points from lines, >>>>>>>>>>>>> harken to Xenocrates and Democritus, or about that Aristotle >>>>>>>>>>>>> has at least two models of continua.
Integer Continuum <- Duns Scotus, Spinoza
Line-Reals <- Xenocrates, Hilbert
Field-Reals <- Archimedes, Weierstrass
Signal-Reals <- Shannon/Nyquist
Long-Line Continuum <- duBois-Reymond
But this pseudophilosophical mumble (well,
I can delete pseudo, but I can't delete mumble)
is no answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
The answer is they're not,
Right. That leads to the next one.
Why for a relativistic idiot Cantor's
(and any other except Euclidean set)
theorems are (proven so undeniable)
and Pythagorean theorem (and any other
from Euclidean set) is (proven
but counterexampled).
Where does the difference come from?
Not from the proofs, we already agreed
(?) that. Would it be possible that
mathematical proofs are really just
some smokescreen for pure faith?
Not necessarily, since proofs are believable.
Well, proofs of Pythagorean theorem HAVE
BEEN believable - for 2000 years - until
some idiots asserted they're really not and
waved their arms. How does it correspond to
"neo-Platonism", Epicurean sense-relations,
occamism and nominalism?
The "riddle of induction" is that since the time
of Aristotle, with both prior and posterior analytics,
since Philo and Plotinus the "neo-Platonists",
a simple inductive half-account grounded in the
Epicurean sense-relations simply makes for
Occamism the nominalism a bare skein of truth,
since its greater account demands experience of reason.
Then, that it's "truth" involved is a matter of
the voluntary, has that it's a tragedy that since
the humility demands letting it be optional,
that the vainglorious twist it.
Or, you know, it varies.
The "strong mathematical platonism", though,
and the "strong logicist positivism", together,
may make for better than a "weak logicist positivism".
Make for better, you say? Any proof
of that? What does "better" mean,
anyway?
Anyway, when the culture recognizes a string
of letters as good for itself it's getting
the stamp "true" to be repeated. When the
culture recognizes a string of letters as
not good for itself it's getting the stamp
"false"to be blocked. That's basically it.
Mistakes happen.
Now if you read something like the "T-theory,
A-theory, theatheory" thread, after that
"The fundamental joke of logic" bit,
where I made all the AI reasoners of the
day fall in line and agree to converge,
these might answer your questions.
Then, here, about "Galaxies don't fly apart
because their entire frame is rotating",
where I begin to describe why Dark Matter
is really Luminous Matter that's been
misunderstood, and about continuum mechanics
and all, then at least there's a Mathematical
Foundations that's strong.
And it's stronger than Euclidean theory
- because....
Axiomless natural geometry: may arrive after
inference itself after axiomless natural deduction
And jedi knights may wave their lightsabers.
The truth is, however, an evolutionary
[thus - random, but not quite] fluctuation
of our culture, and so is logic.
It's Euclidean, ....
It's a "strong super-euclidean geometry".
Doesn't matter.
Don't worry, you can't break it with logic.
Logic is greatly overestimated, it never
worked against faith. And anyway, breaking
with it anything it can break would be as
wise as it is in the case of muscles.
It's not just a good idea, ....
On 02/10/2026 08:32 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 08:31 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 5:15 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 08:10 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 07:29 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 06:05 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 03:44 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 10:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 01:17 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 9:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/10/2026 12:21 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/10/2026 8:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/04/2026 07:55 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/02/2026 |a 16:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2026 3:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
One must distinguish between a function that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _identically_Actually, one has to be even more careful with one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording.
zero,
i.e.
whose value is zero _everywhere_, and a function whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value is
zero
_for a
finite number of arguments in its domain_. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The derivative of the former function *is* actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
because
it is a
special case of a constant function, but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivative of
the
latter
function is not necessarily zero.
As we can see from periodic functions like the sine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
it is
even
possible that a function is zero for a countably >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite
number of
arguments (e.g. all integer multiples of -C) but still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
all
arguments.
And one can even think of a pathological case: The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirichlet
function
1_raU(x) = {1 if x ree raU;
0 if x ree raU
is zero for *uncountably* infinitely many arguments in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
domain
because
they are real numbers but not rational numbers, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-zero for
*countably*
infinitely made arguments in its domain because they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational
numbers
(the latter are members of a countably infinite set, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cantor
proved).
Thomas, poor trash, Pythagoreas has proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that for any right triangle a^2+b^2 =c^2.
Than a hundred of others provided a hundred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of independent proofs for the same.
Did it prevent idiots like yourself
from denying that?
Do you think Cantor's theorems are more
proven?
It is, to say the least, somewhat surreal to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on
the
fondations of mathematics and the status of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth,
theorems, etc. involving Maciej Wozniak.
The ontological status of mathematical truth involves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the teleological status of mathematical truth as is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a usual conversation of Derrida on Husserl
"proto-geometry".
But this pseudophilosophical mumble is no
answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
Well that's simple, they're both what they are,
then the issue must be underneath them both, that
they have made what results mostly a usual ignorance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the law of large numbers being the law of small >>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
Somebody like Hilbert with a "postulate of continuity" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> after somebody like Leibnitz with a "postulate of perfection" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise making lines from points or points from lines, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> harken to Xenocrates and Democritus, or about that Aristotle >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has at least two models of continua.
Integer Continuum <- Duns Scotus, Spinoza
Line-Reals <- Xenocrates, Hilbert
Field-Reals <- Archimedes, Weierstrass
Signal-Reals <- Shannon/Nyquist
Long-Line Continuum <- duBois-Reymond
But this pseudophilosophical mumble (well,
I can delete pseudo, but I can't delete mumble)
is no answer to the question whether Cantor's
theorems are proven somehow better than
Pythagorean.
The answer is they're not,
Right. That leads to the next one.
Why for a relativistic idiot Cantor's
(and any other except Euclidean set)
theorems are (proven so undeniable)
and Pythagorean theorem (and any other
from Euclidean set) is (proven
but counterexampled).
Where does the difference come from?
Not from the proofs, we already agreed
(?) that. Would it be possible that
mathematical proofs are really just
some smokescreen for pure faith?
Not necessarily, since proofs are believable.
Well, proofs of Pythagorean theorem HAVE
BEEN believable - for 2000 years - until
some idiots asserted they're really not and
waved their arms. How does it correspond to
"neo-Platonism", Epicurean sense-relations,
occamism and nominalism?
The "riddle of induction" is that since the time
of Aristotle, with both prior and posterior analytics,
since Philo and Plotinus the "neo-Platonists",
a simple inductive half-account grounded in the
Epicurean sense-relations simply makes for
Occamism the nominalism a bare skein of truth,
since its greater account demands experience of reason.
Then, that it's "truth" involved is a matter of
the voluntary, has that it's a tragedy that since
the humility demands letting it be optional,
that the vainglorious twist it.
Or, you know, it varies.
The "strong mathematical platonism", though,
and the "strong logicist positivism", together,
may make for better than a "weak logicist positivism".
Make for better, you say? Any proof
of that? What does "better" mean,
anyway?
Anyway, when the culture recognizes a string
of letters as good for itself it's getting
the stamp "true" to be repeated. When the
culture recognizes a string of letters as
not good for itself it's getting the stamp
"false"to be blocked. That's basically it.
Mistakes happen.
Now if you read something like the "T-theory,
A-theory, theatheory" thread, after that
"The fundamental joke of logic" bit,
where I made all the AI reasoners of the
day fall in line and agree to converge,
these might answer your questions.
Then, here, about "Galaxies don't fly apart
because their entire frame is rotating",
where I begin to describe why Dark Matter
is really Luminous Matter that's been
misunderstood, and about continuum mechanics
and all, then at least there's a Mathematical
Foundations that's strong.
And it's stronger than Euclidean theory
- because....
Axiomless natural geometry: may arrive after
inference itself after axiomless natural deduction
And jedi knights may wave their lightsabers.
The truth is, however, an evolutionary
[thus - random, but not quite] fluctuation
of our culture, and so is logic.
It's Euclidean, ....
It's a "strong super-euclidean geometry".
Doesn't matter.
Don't worry, you can't break it with logic.
Logic is greatly overestimated, it never
worked against faith. And anyway, breaking
with it anything it can break would be as
wise as it is in the case of muscles.
It's not just a good idea, ....
See, pretty simple.
"Logos 2000: Foundations briefly"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjtXZ5mBVOc&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F795DGcwSvwHj-GEbdhPJNe&index=40
This video essay briefly outlines Mathematical Foundations
with regards to "infinity" and "continuity", modernly.
There are a number of comments elicited from
one of those "AI systems" these days.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 16:18:12 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,384 |