Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-)

On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Ross Finlayson submitted this idea :

On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
>
>
A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology
>
>
They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the
reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only
possible
but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the
crude
positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous truth:
abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of their
being.
>
The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the
fractures in
their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null
axiom
delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a
higher
order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an
invitation
— a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s
unyielding depth.
>
Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is primary,
and
locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. The
decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’
errand; the
total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen
Physfit's
dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin
echoing the
nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called
fictitious
forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws —
energy
flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear dogma.
>
The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their
truncated
Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who among
them
has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the
ouroboros
hiss its eternal truth?
>
And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about
virtual
particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their
sinking
paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a deeper
geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the surface
of the
Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is their
crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the Ding-an-Sich
meets
the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, paradoxical
harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But
when
their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths
collapse
into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And the
stamp
of truth, unlike their noise, is forever.
>
>
Ross A. Kosmanson
April 4, 2025
Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan
>
>
>

>
Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that it's
been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired
Kosmanson.
>
Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's
interest
in more of it and if it costs you I could front it.
>
Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he volunteer,
given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be wrong".
>
The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at all,
yet, something, at all.
>
There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the
super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while
others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be not-particles.
(... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's falsifiable
and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on
the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.)
>
>
About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one
of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua,
that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous
domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality
of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive impasse,
have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the repleteness
of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and
then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether
that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN
mathematics,
that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its dumbness).
>
>
If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you
weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have
a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure.
>
So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's
that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one.
>
>
>
Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd
be quite more to it.
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an
infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems in a
blog
for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them one
would
begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, but
would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved it of
course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that
problem
had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling infinities.
>
Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem:
>
(beginning of the quote)
>
>
   "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense light
went
back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't even an
opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was
horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room!
>
He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself
quite
hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before he had
waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas area.
>
He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48
hours has
passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look
inside
refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had
cooked on
the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the computer to
order
something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a
healthy
nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" button,
after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of
getting
to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit was
not a
robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the correct
answer, otherwise food nommo.
>
The question went like this:
>
     "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers
0.999999...
and 1 ?"
>
The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix
point. So
of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was not a
difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that funky
form,
using an infinite series of digit 9.
>
But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot.
Bye!"
>
Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus had
allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started
jotting down:
>
     x = 0.99999....
>
Therefore:
>
     10x = 9.99999....
>
Now he subtracted the former from the latter:
>
     10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
>
Which simplifies to:
>
     9x = 9
>
And therefore:
>
     x = 1
>
"What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day).
>
Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... "
>
>
(end of quote)
>
>
So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen
about? :)
>
>
>
>
>

>
Once I was reading a book or article,
and was introduced the introduction of .999 (...),
vis-a-vis, 1. A cohort of subjects was surveyed
their opinion and belief whether .999, dot dot dot,
was equal to, or less than, one. About half said
same and about half said different.
>
>
It's two different natural notations that happen
to collide and thus result being ambiguous.
>
So, then these days we have the laws of arithmetic
introduced in primary school, usually kindergarten,
about the operations on numbers, and also inequalities,
and the order in numbers.
>
Yet, even the usual account of addition and its
inverse and its recursion and that's inverse,
as operators, of whole numbers, has a different
account, of increment on the one side, and, division
on the other, sort of like the Egyptians only had
division or fractions and Egyptian fractions,
and tally marks are only increment, that though
it was the Egyptian fractions that gave them a
mathematics, beyond the simplest sort of conflation
of "numbering" and "counting".
>
So, where ".999 vis-a-vis 1" has a deconstructive account,
to eliminate its ambiguities with respect to what it's
to model, or the clock-arithmetic and field-arithmetic,
even arithmetic has a deconstructive account, then,
even numbering versus counting has a deconstructive account,
to help eliminate what are the usually ignored ambiguities.
>
>
So, pre-calculus, the course, goes to eliminate or talk
away the case .999, dot dot dot, different 1. Yet,
it can be reconstrued and reconstructed, on its own
constructive account. So, it's a convention.
>
>
It's "multiplicity theory", see, that any, "singularity
theory", which results as of admitting only the principal
branch of otherwise a "bifurcation" or "opening" or "catastrophe"
or "perestroika (opening)", as they are called in mathematics,
branches, that singularity theory is a multiplicity theory,
yet the usual account has that it's just nothing,
or that it's apeiron and asymptotic.
>
>
So, there's a clock arithmetic where there's a reason why
that there's a .999, dot dot dot, _before_ 1.0, in the
course of passage of values from 0, to 1, and, it's also
rather particularly only between 0 and 1, as what results
thusly a whole, with regards to relating it to the modularity
of integers, the integral moduli.
>
Thusly, real infinity has itself correctly and constructively
back in numbers for "standard infinitesimals" here called
"iota-values".
>
Then, this is totally simple and looks like f(n) = n/d,
for n goes from zero to d and d goes to infinity, this
is a limit of functions for this function which is not-
a- real- function yet is a nonstandard function and that
has real analytical character, it's a discrete function
that's integrable and whose integral equals 1, it illustrates
a doubling-space according to measure theory in the measure problem,
it's its own anti-derivative so all the tricks about the exponential
function in functional analysis have their usual methods about it,
it's also a pdf and CDF of the natural integers at uniform random,
of which there are others, because there are at least three laws
of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three
models of continuous domains, and, at least three probability
distributions of the naturals at uniform random.
>
So, "iota-values" are not the same thing as the raw differential,
which differential analysts will be very familiar with as usually
not- the- raw- differential yet only as under the integral bar
in the formalism, yet representing about the solidus or divisor bar
the relation of two quantities algebraically, then indeed there's
that "iota-values" are as of some "standard infinitesimals", yet
only under the limit of function the "natural/unit equivalency
function"
the N/U EF, about [0,1]. This thus results a model of
a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual standard
linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's
a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous domains.
>
>
The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus
and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic,
is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications
of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that
two different systems of notation can see it variously, then
that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it.
>
If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these,
or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only
a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the super-classical
and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't.
>
Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical,
then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were
just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in pre-calculus
said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must
complete,
the geometric series.

>
Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of
uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece
between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different representations
of the same mathematical object.

>
>
Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is
bullshit :)
>
The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is indeed
0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1.
>
Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for
mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct
observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not speak for
physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI all. It
is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help physics
in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for humans.
>
If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then beg for
it :)
>
>

>
No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding.
>
It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of
"equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being Cauchy",
then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and
measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's
acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated
with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of geometry,
where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate
of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle
of perfection".
>
Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so
that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and
as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate.
>
Two wrongs is two wrongs.
>
>

>
>
But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that
concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this thing. The
point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were
actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere
"code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial parts of
work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be
programmers. This was the whole point of that blog.
>
And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real programmer. I
understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. Nobody
else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" there
were actually programmers.
>
That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not delved
(or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what
you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review stuff
so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to
that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny.
>
Would you like to see the solution?

  You mean what's its model of atomicity?
 Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that.
 

Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet.
X = 0.9999...
10X = (9 +1)0.9999...
10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999...
after subtraction of first equation from the last one:
10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999...
9X = 9(0.9999...)
X = 0.9999...
Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating that test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a "code monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer.
But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... !