I see no paradoxes or contradictions or foundational incompleteness in the beliefs that I uphold (mathematical or otherwise). — Philosopher19
That a set cannot be both a member of itself and a member of other than itself is the equivalent of saying that a shape cannot be both a square and a triangle — Philosopher19
From the point of the set N, it looks like it is. But from the point of the set P, it looks like it is only a half set to N. What's going on?We don't. He proved that they are the same size. — TonesInDeepFreeze
He did it again! He completely skipped recognizing the refutation given him. — TonesInDeepFreeze
By the way, we don't need to use temporal phrases such as "at the same time". Set theory does not mention temporality.
Then the rest of your z's and v's is irrelevant if it is supposed to refute the proofs I gave. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I will just say this. That a set cannot be both a member of itself and a member of other than itself is the equivalent of saying that a shape cannot be both a square and a triangle (I have taken out the "at the same time" and the effect is still the same). — Philosopher19
I don't think I'm the one that has been showing the disrespect — Philosopher19
I don't think I entered the discussion closed-minded or dogmatic. — Philosopher19
"expert" in the field — Philosopher19
They want to hold on to their paradoxical or contradictory theory — Philosopher19
incomplete — Philosopher19
act as though they are the knowledgeable ones whilst all others are ignorant — Philosopher19
What good is an expert in multishapism geometry that deals with the study of shapes such as round triangles and circular pentagons? — Philosopher19
Is it logically possible for a set to be both a member of itself and a member of other than itself? If it is a member of other than itself, then it is not a member of itself, is it? And if it is a member of itself, it is not a member of other than itself is it? — Philosopher19
All of them are here:
godisallthatmatters.com — Philosopher19
I don't know anyone who has said that all others are ignorant. You are ignorant on the subject. That doesn't entail that others are ignorant on it. Indeed, there are people who critique classical set theory who are extremely knowledgeable about it. Critiques of set theory are quite fair game and bring profound insights into the subject. But those are knowledgeable, responsible and thoughtful critiques. And better yet, they are critiques that are followed up with actual mathematical alternatives to classical set theory. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I gave you a refutation. You started with insults — Philosopher19
You started with insults — Philosopher19
emotional or biased — Philosopher19
You have not yet answered:
Is it logically possible for a set to be both a member of itself and a member of other than itself? If it is a member of other than itself, then it is not a member of itself, is it? And if it is a member of itself, it is not a member of other than itself is it? — Philosopher19
And don't say to me something like "some set theories allow for this or that". — Philosopher19
There is no need to dance around anything. — Philosopher19
Is it logically possible for a set to be both a member of itself and a member of other than itself? If it is a member of other than itself, then it is not a member of itself, is it? And if it is a member of itself, it is not a member of other than itself is it?
— Philosopher19
Where is my response? Is it me who ignores you or you who ignores me? — Philosopher19
The relative consistency of those theories indicates that it is not contradictory that a set is a member of itself and also a member of other sets. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Is it logically possible for a set to be both a member of itself and a member of other than itself? If it is a member of other than itself, then it is not a member of itself, is it? And if it is a member of itself, it is not a member of other than itself is it? — Philosopher19
And don't say to me something like "some set theories allow for this or that". I'm asking a basic logical question that has a basic and straight forward answer. There is no need to dance around anything. Just deal with the main issue at hand. — Philosopher19
I don't know anyone who has said that all others are ignorant. You are ignorant on the subject. That doesn't entail that others are ignorant on it. Indeed, there are people who critique classical set theory who are extremely knowledgeable about it. Critiques of set theory are quite fair game and bring profound insights into the subject. But those are knowledgeable, responsible and thoughtful critiques. And better yet, they are critiques that are followed up with actual mathematical alternatives to classical set theory.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
I didn't say all others are ignorant. I just said there are people who are like this. I did not specify who. — Philosopher19
Did you read anything from the link I gave you? — Philosopher19
It is blatantly contradictory for x to be both x and not x. — Philosopher19
It is blatantly contradictory for a set to be both a member of itself and not a member of itself. — Philosopher19
Yet you want to persist by saying things like the above. — Philosopher19
Once again:
It is blatantly contradictory for x to be both x and not x. It is blatantly contradictory for a set to be both a member of itself and not a member of itself. — Philosopher19
It is blatantly contradictory for x to be both x and not x. It is blatantly contradictory for a set to be both a member of itself and not a member of itself.
Who would reject this but the contradictory/unreasonable/irrational/absurd/insincere? — Philosopher19
is there real math behind the north pole of the riemann sphere? — Mark Nyquist
Says the guy who tried arguing Cardinalities don't have size yet they do, as per the theorem I produced to prove you wrong. Since some Cardinalities are greater than others, we can say that some infinities are larger or even smaller than others. That you got your ass handed to you by someone suffering from "dunning-kruger" — Vaskane
just goes to show you've got a lot to learn, but I'm happy to correct you any time pal. — Vaskane
I'm happy to correct you any time pal. — Vaskane
Here's actually some advice to all non-mathematicians (from a non-mathematician):
If you really can ask an interesting foundational question that isn't illogical or doesn't lacks basic understanding, you actually won't get an answer... because it really is an interesting foundational question!
Yet if the answer is, please start from reading "Elementary Set Theory" or something similar then yes, you do have faulty reasoning. — ssu
The "math boys" here at the forum tend to respond with 'go read some math texts' to anyone who disagrees with them on fundamental principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's like telling an atheist to go read some theology, as if this is the way to turn the person around. — Metaphysician Undercover
The "math boys" here at the forum tend to respond with 'go read some math texts' to anyone who disagrees with them on fundamental principles — Metaphysician Undercover
. I am more concerned with what issues you solve with your beliefs. — Lionino
It seems to be a collection of semantic games — Lionino
You have mentioned, for example, that the limit concept is flawed, although it works well most of the time. But I don't recall your argument beyond that point. A more complete knowledge of space and time and points and continuity? Oh yes, something about the Fourier transform and the Uncertainty principle. What are your suggestions to fix that up? Intuitive mathematics? Remind me where doing something specific makes it better. — jgill
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.