On 12/03/2024 04:16 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
On 12/2/2024 10:23 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 12/02/2024 05:22 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
>
[...]
>
You mean like "do you pick?".
>
Remember "do you pick?".
>
I vaguely remember sometime when that question appeared.
>
See, in mathematics, all of which are mathematical
objects, in one theory called mathematics, there's
the anti-diagonal argument, which here used to be
called the diagonal argument which is the wrong name,
has after an only-diagonal argument, what results
that you either get both or none, though that the
only-diagonal itself is constructive for itself
while the anti-diagonal is a non-constructive argument
when you look at it that way.
>
So, "do you pick?".
>
I think us long-term readers can generously,
generously, aver the "Burse's memories", are,
at best, regularly erased.
>
Many of which elicited a spark of thought
then out-went-the-lights. Most of which
went starkers bat-shit.
>
So, do you even remember?
Or did you just get told again?
>
If a prerequisite of being told is
knowing what one has been told,
then you didn't tell me then
and you haven't told me just now.
So, the answer is neither.
>
I sincerely hope that my own posts aren't as opaque.
I can only pledge to explain 'not.first.false' and its ilk
to the best of my ability, upon request.
>
Ross, if you are concerned about hurting my feelings
by making your explanations too obvious,
please dismiss your concerns.
>
Please make your explanations of what you mean
as obvious as you can.
I am tough.
I can take the embarrassment of
having something _clearly_ explained to me.
>
>
Yet, I think that I've always been both
forthcoming and forthright in providing
answers, and context, in this loooong
conversation where we, we two, have exchanged
hundreds upon hundreds unto thousands of posts,
which most always end with you clamming up,
balking, walking away, and later claiming ignorance.
For example, "Zeno's watch", "Zeno's bridge",
about deductive inference usually, "not.ultimately.untrue",
where recently I thought it was very brave of you
when you admitted that "not.first.false" is not
so much justifying itself and not un-justifying itself,
with regards to the "yin-yang ad infinitum", which
inductively is a constant yet in its completion
is different, as examples of most usually "super-classical
reasoning", with regards to things like Zeno and
Aristotle and Democritus and Eudoxus, classical expositions
of the super-classical, then, for examples, about
measure-theory and doubling-spaces, and most all
of these different subject-parenthesized-refine
sub-threads of otherwise the giant soft-ball straw-man
sock-bot trolling, that each of these, like the
"infinite middle" bit, and each of these, have
resulting "balk & walk", except usually in base-ball
a pitcher's balk results the batter getting a walk,
not the pitcher.
So, "only-diagonal" and "pick one, get both", is
just an example of using reasoning, your reasoning,
not against you, per se, yet _for_ mathematics, so,
if you choose not to agree, then I suppose it can
be said that not so much you left mathematics, as,
it left you.
So, doubling-spaces and doubling-measures, the extra-ordinary,
at least three models of continuous domains that are
_not_ all the same, with regards to the "bridge" results
that connect them, in set theory about the transfer principle,
help arrive at there's a giant stack of these things,
that, as an arbitrary inductive-inference follower,
it gratified my greatly that you arrived at that
you arrived at having made a purely deductive inference
that must have been more than merely-inductive.
Then, super-classical reasoning, has many examples,
motion, continuity, infinity, higher geometry,
the hypergeometric, Dirac delta, Fourier analysis,
doubling spaces, Cantor space(s), the independence
of number theory from ordinary arithmetic, the
very extra-ordinariness of arithmetic, all these
are here and any one of which is more than merely
inductive.
So, "not.first.false", or "not.ultimately.untrue"?
Please feel free to form any questions whatsover
and I'd hope to be glad to thoroughly, conclusively,
in a detailed manner, and quite rigorously eventually,
and rather formally directly, give answers.
For example "are various Goldbach conjectures
independent number theory?" Yes. How about
Szemeredi and arithmetic progressions? How
about Borel vs Combinatorics?
How about well-ordering the reals?
It's so that I deprecate ordinal assignment of cardinals,
Dedekind cuts of rationals, material implication, very
strongly deprecating material implication and excluding
it from "classical" logic and naming it correctly
"quasi-modal" logic, these kinds of ways.
Then, if there's an onus upon you to read the
entire context before making any decision,
will you ever read this?
I do, I even wrote it.
"not.ultimately.untrue"