On 6/19/2024 8:32 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/19/2024 01:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/19/2024 09:43 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual
| An individual is
| that which exists as a distinct entity.
>
Nice thing about the English language:
There are separate grammatical categories for
what exists as distinct entities (count nouns)
and what doesn't (mass nouns).
>
Is the continuum a count noun or a mass noun?
(Not the best question. English ≠ math)
>
It seems to me that it crosses back and forth.
Points are definitely a count noun.
But the idea of a continuum seems
inescapably not.individuals.
>
Perhaps that count/mass dimorphism is
why the occasional poster rejects uncountability.
>
Well good sir,
mostly it's that firstly there's that
the "infinite limit" must concede that
it's actually infinite
and that
the limit is not only "close enough"
yet actually that
it achieves the limit, the sum,
because deduction arrives at that
otherwise it's no more than half,
and, not close enough.
That reason confuses 'infinite' with 'humongous'.
If I recall correctly,
I have pointed this confusion out to you, and
your riposte has been (framed non.technically)
that, yes, that's 'infinite': 'humongous'.
So, I'm wondering why you have clung so tightly to
this specific confusion.
Then there's
for division and divisibility,
the "infinite-divisibility" and
for this sort of "actually complete infinite limits"
the "infinitely-divided".
The infinitely.divided means the continuum limit.
The continuum limit means lattice.spacing → 0
The continuum is such that, for each split,
the foresplit holds a last point or
the hindsplit holds a first point.
The continuum limit is not the continuum.
in part because
the continuum limit is countable and
the continuum is uncountable.
Then it's pretty much exactly
most people's usual notion of that
an infinitude of integers,
regular both in increment and in dispersion,
so equi-distributed and equi-partitioning
the space of integers, is
the same kind of thing when shrunk to [0,1],
the space of [0,1]
as by the same members, that it fulfills
extent, density, completeness, measure,
thusly that
the Intermediate Value Theorem holds,
then thusly
any relevant standard analysis about calculus
holds, or has forms that hold.
The humongous shrunk to [0,1] stays
equi-distributed and equi-partitioning
However, the infinite is different, and
an analogous claim for the infinite is inconsistent.
No,
the intermediate value theorem does not hold
for the → 0 limit.lattice.
AKA the continuum limit.
What it is is that at one point
I wrote non-standard field axioms for [-1, 1],
so, now the usual
"the complete ordered field being unique
up to isomorphism"
is a distinctness result
instead of a uniqueness result.
The complete ordered field remains
the complete ordered field.
You have the freedom to write
non.standard field axioms.
If they don't describe the complete ordered field,
then they aren't complete.ordered.field axioms.
It does not follow from
not.the.complete.ordered.field being countable that
the complete ordered field is countable.
Then, another thing is about
a deconstructive account of complex analysis about
the very definition of complex numbers a + bi and
the definition of the operations upon them.
The thing is that division, for complex numbers,
the definition of division, can be de-constructed,
left and right,
so that now there are non-principal branches of
division, in complex numbers.
The complex field remains
the complex field.
The complex field has
single.valued division for non.0 numbers.
You have the freedom to describe (deconstructively?)
something with a different division.
It will be something different, not.the.complex.field.
You (RF) have what I consider a non.standard use
of the word 'hypocrisy'.
'Hyposcrisyᴿꟳ' seems to refer to (for example)
the practice of not.calling cats 'elephants'.
If that is what you mean, and you want
less hypocrisyᴿꟳ (whatever reasons you have),
you would do better by pointing out
the advantages of calling cats 'elephants'
(whatever advantages it has),
as distinct from calling cats 'elephants' yourself,
and distinct from entertaining us with stories of
classical figures calling cats 'elephants', etc.
V
Re: V