Re: Contradiction of bijections as a measure for infinite sets

On 4/2/2024 11:52 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/02/2024 04:25 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 4/2/2024 6:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/02/2024 02:40 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

My exploration of Unicode is a little treat
I give myself for having to repeat the same thing
over and over and over.

>
Doesn't it repeat itself,
and we just echo it?

>
Speech with no speaker?
Not a thing I've seen around here, at least.
>
Perhaps that is the target which ChatGPT and such as
are aiming at. I ask you to take me at my word
when I claim to be a Natural.Intelligence,
something between a chimp and an angel.

Yeah, we know you're sort of genius.

To clarify,
I am claiming that I'm a human being.
I am sort.of.a.genius compared to the most recent
version of Hasbro Build.A.Brain and its ilk.
I'm confident that you are too.
It will be interesting to find out
how long that will stay true.

Yet, are you a platonist?
A mathematical platonist?

I think this covers it:
| Most writers on the subject seem to agree that
| the typical working mathematician is
| a Platonist on weekdays and
| a formalist on Sundays.
|
— Philip J. Davis
It would be an impressive exaggeration to call me
"a working mathematician", but
I can mathematick, I have, and I will.
When I mathematick,
real numbers exist. Full stop.
When I want an answer, it's easier to think about
teeny.tiny.dot.real.numbers ...somewhere ...somehow.
Existing Platonically.
However,
when I want to give a reason to mathematick,
"Look at these formulas" just seems to me
way more effective than
"Somewhere... somehow... there are teeny.tiny.dots".
And that's formalist.
I think you've mostly seen formalist.me.
Mostly, I've been doing
Sunday.style big.picture stuff.
Hand me a different problem, and
you'll discover a different me.