Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (research)

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s math 
Sujet : Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (research)
De : ross.a.finlayson (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ross Finlayson)
Groupes : sci.math
Date : 15. Nov 2024, 03:22:47
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <OVudncPVM4LpLav6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
On 11/13/2024 06:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/13/2024 05:43 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
On 11/13/2024 7:05 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
Jim Burns formulated on Wednesday :
On 11/13/2024 4:29 PM, WM wrote:
On 13.11.2024 20:38, Jim Burns wrote:
>
----
 Bob.
>
KING BOB!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjAg-8qqR3g
>
If,
  in a set A which
  can match one of its proper subsets B,
>
That is nonsense too.
>
[repaired]
>
A finite sequence of claims in which
each claim is true.or.not.first.false
is
a finite sequence of claims in which
each claim is true.
>
Some claims are true and we know it
because
they claim that
when we say this, we mean that,
and we, conscious of our own minds, know that
when we say this, we mean that.
>
Some claims are not.first.false and we know it
because
we can see that
no assignment of truth.values exists
in which they are first.false.
q is not first.false in ⟨ p p⇒q q ⟩.
>
Some finite sequences of claims are
each true.or.not.first.false
and we know it.
>
When we know that,
we know each claim is true.
>
We know each claim is true, even if
it is a claim physically impossible to check,
like it would be physically impossible
to check each one of infinitely.many.
>
We know because
it's not checking the individuals
by which we know.
It's a certain sequence of claims existing
by which we know.
>
In my source window:
>
[...]
That is nonsense too.
>
A finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀
in which
each claim is true.or.not.first.false
is
a finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀
in which
each claim is true.
[...]
>
================================================
I follow some of this mostly from context. :)
>
Sorry about that.
The other fonts weren't strictly necessary,
I just had a brainstorm over
how to (maybe) explain logical validity better,
and I couldn't resist.
>
>
>
Some usual laws, or criteria, rather, of convergence,
fail, for example Stirling's formula.
>
When are they ever wrong? Are there simply more
than a usual naive law of large numbers what's
merely the law of small numbers?
>
Then, asymptotic freedom, or the Arago spot, make
examples of what do not arrive from inductive inference.
>
So, these super-classical concerns are a thing.
>
There's one rhyme,
"I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights, ...."
>
Also usually called slippery slope,
shifting sands, or ad absurdam.
>
Usually of course arrived at ultimately.untrue
from more objective concerns.
>
Take a look to Chrysippus, he establishes great
grounds for modal (mood-al) logic and relevance logic about
hundreds of years before Plotinus arrived at
the "material inductive implication" the "quasi-modal",
and provides reasoning for more thorough accounts
when people might not have time to read and follow
both Aristotle's Prior, and Posterior sur-rounds
of inference.
>
Or, "not.first.false" must yet also be "not.ultimately.untrue",
when _all_ the cases are run out.
>
(Or, maybe it's the other way, ....)
>
As long as you might agree that _all_ your stipulations be
read off in any order, that might help, it's a usual
criterion of constructivism.
>
For structuralists and not merely the shallow feels.
>
>
A finitary Kronecker's lemma and large deviations in the Strong Law of Large numbers on Banach spaces
Duality on symmetric multiple polylogarithms
Continuity of matings of Kleinian groups and polynomials
Complexity of Finite Borel Asymptotic Dimension
On limiting distributions of arithmetic functions
Products of pseudofinite structures
Spectral equivalence of nearby Lagrangians
Sparser Abelian High Dimensional Expanders
Probability Laws Concerning Zeta Integrals
-- https://www.arxiv.org/list/math/recent
Unified analysis of non-Markovian open quantum systems in Gaussian environment using superoperator formalism
A generalization of the martingale property of entropy production in stochastic systems
Superintegrability and Coulomb-Oscillator Duality
Central limit theorem for the focusing Φ4-measure in the infinite volume limit
Type IIA String Theory and tmf with Level Structure
Emergent Geometry from Quantum Probability
-- https://www.arxiv.org/list/math-ph/recent
Pretty much each of these involves continuum analysis
and non-standard continuum analysis, what with regards
to what foundations _owes_ mathematics of a theory
with continuity (infinitesimals), and laws of large numbers (infinities).
Of course, which break-down or stop right away not.first.false.
A sampling of the past week or two, ....

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Nov 24 * Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers501Jim Burns
4 Nov 24 `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers500WM
4 Nov 24  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers499Jim Burns
4 Nov 24   +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers474WM
5 Nov 24   i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers473Jim Burns
5 Nov 24   i +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers4Jim Burns
5 Nov 24   i i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (re-Vitali-ized)3Ross Finlayson
5 Nov 24   i i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (re-Vitali-ized)2Ross Finlayson
6 Nov 24   i i  `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (re-Vitali-ized)1Chris M. Thomasson
6 Nov 24   i +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers463WM
6 Nov 24   i i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers462Jim Burns
6 Nov 24   i i +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers459WM
6 Nov 24   i i i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers458Jim Burns
6 Nov 24   i i i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers457WM
6 Nov 24   i i i  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers456Jim Burns
7 Nov 24   i i i   `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers455WM
7 Nov 24   i i i    +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers7Jim Burns
7 Nov 24   i i i    i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers6WM
7 Nov 24   i i i    i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers5Jim Burns
7 Nov 24   i i i    i  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers4WM
7 Nov 24   i i i    i   +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Jim Burns
7 Nov 24   i i i    i   i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
7 Nov 24   i i i    i   `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1Chris M. Thomasson
7 Nov 24   i i i    `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers447Jim Burns
7 Nov 24   i i i     `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers446WM
8 Nov 24   i i i      `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers445Jim Burns
8 Nov 24   i i i       `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers444WM
8 Nov 24   i i i        +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers13Richard Damon
8 Nov 24   i i i        i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers12WM
8 Nov 24   i i i        i +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Richard Damon
9 Nov 24   i i i        i i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
8 Nov 24   i i i        i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers9joes
8 Nov 24   i i i        i  +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers7Moebius
8 Nov 24   i i i        i  i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers6Moebius
9 Nov 24   i i i        i  i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers5WM
9 Nov 24   i i i        i  i  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers4Chris M. Thomasson
10 Nov 24   i i i        i  i   `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers3Moebius
10 Nov 24   i i i        i  i    `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2WM
10 Nov 24   i i i        i  i     `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1Chris M. Thomasson
9 Nov 24   i i i        i  `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
8 Nov 24   i i i        +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (doubling-spaces)2Ross Finlayson
8 Nov 24   i i i        i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (doubling-spaces)1Ross Finlayson
8 Nov 24   i i i        `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers428Jim Burns
9 Nov 24   i i i         `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers427WM
10 Nov 24   i i i          `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers426Jim Burns
10 Nov 24   i i i           `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers425WM
10 Nov 24   i i i            +- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (exponential)1Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24   i i i            +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers387Jim Burns
11 Nov 24   i i i            i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers386WM
11 Nov 24   i i i            i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers385Jim Burns
11 Nov 24   i i i            i  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers384WM
11 Nov 24   i i i            i   +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers5FromTheRafters
12 Nov 24   i i i            i   i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers4WM
12 Nov 24   i i i            i   i +- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1FromTheRafters
12 Nov 24   i i i            i   i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2joes
12 Nov 24   i i i            i   i  `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
12 Nov 24   i i i            i   +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Jim Burns
12 Nov 24   i i i            i   i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
12 Nov 24   i i i            i   `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers376Jim Burns
12 Nov 24   i i i            i    `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers375WM
12 Nov 24   i i i            i     `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers374Jim Burns
12 Nov 24   i i i            i      `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers373WM
13 Nov 24   i i i            i       +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Jim Burns
13 Nov 24   i i i            i       i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
13 Nov 24   i i i            i       `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers370Jim Burns
13 Nov 24   i i i            i        `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers369WM
13 Nov 24   i i i            i         `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers368Jim Burns
13 Nov 24   i i i            i          `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers367WM
14 Nov 24   i i i            i           `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers366Jim Burns
14 Nov 24   i i i            i            +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers6FromTheRafters
14 Nov 24   i i i            i            i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers5Jim Burns
14 Nov 24   i i i            i            i +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers3Ross Finlayson
15 Nov 24   i i i            i            i i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (research)2Ross Finlayson
15 Nov 24   i i i            i            i i `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (research)1Ross Finlayson
14 Nov 24   i i i            i            i `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1FromTheRafters
14 Nov 24   i i i            i            `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers359WM
14 Nov 24   i i i            i             +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers289Jim Burns
15 Nov 24   i i i            i             i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers288WM
15 Nov 24   i i i            i             i +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2joes
15 Nov 24   i i i            i             i i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
15 Nov 24   i i i            i             i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers285Jim Burns
15 Nov 24   i i i            i             i  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers284WM
15 Nov 24   i i i            i             i   `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers283Chris M. Thomasson
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    +- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1Moebius
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers278Moebius
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i+- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1Moebius
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i+* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Moebius
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    ii`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers274Chris M. Thomasson
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers273Chris M. Thomasson
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Chris M. Thomasson
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1Moebius
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers13FromTheRafters
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers12Chris M. Thomasson
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Moebius
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1Moebius
17 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers7Moebius
17 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers6Chris M. Thomasson
17 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers5Moebius
17 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i i  +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Moebius
17 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i i  i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1WM
17 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i i  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Chris M. Thomasson
17 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2FromTheRafters
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    i  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers257Moebius
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    +- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers1Moebius
16 Nov 24   i i i            i             i    `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers2Moebius
14 Nov 24   i i i            i             `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers69Jim Burns
10 Nov 24   i i i            `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers36Chris M. Thomasson
6 Nov 24   i i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (opinions)2Ross Finlayson
6 Nov 24   i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers5WM
4 Nov 24   `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers24Chris M. Thomasson

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal