EFF claim(s)

[xilman]

Originally Posted by bearnol

Personally I am a believer that there is only one absolute Truth.
You seem to be suggesting that mathematical truth depends on the observer?
J

Tell me: which of these statements do you believe to be the absolute Truth:

• there is precisely one line through a point which is parallel to given line which does not pass through that point;
• there are no lines through a point which are parallel to a given line which does not pass through that point;
• there is an infinite number of lines passing through a point which are all parallel to a given line which does not pass through that point?

Each of those three contradicts the other two so, by your thesis, only one can be True. Which is it?

Paul

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by bearnol

Infinity can be a string of integers (if we're considering an integral infinity). There are infinitely many integers as big as infinity.



For infinitely many Mersenne numbers, Mp is/are infinite. Thus the square root(s) of Mp are also infinite, hence there cannot be any factors larger than the square root(s) of Mp. (though I'm not sure I need this for my proof)

You are worse than a mere crank.

You are truly clueless.

You are so totally clueless that you would have to study very hard just to
become an idiot. Do yourself a favor. Go back to school. Study very hard.
When your IQ reaches 50, SELL. You will make a profit.

[bearnol]

Originally Posted by philmoore

Of course it does! Any kind of "truth" depends upon someone holding it to be true. Where mathematics differs from, say religion or philosophy, is that the nature of mathematical discourse enables people to agree on terms and assumptions in such a way that they can then construct convincing arguments, what we call proofs, and end up in (near-)universal agreement about what statements follow logically from any particular set of assumptions. Your concept of integer is out of the mainstream, and because of that, your mathematical "system", should you develop it as such, will not be equivalent to the one in which most mathematicians work. So there is no reason to expect that a truth in your system will be a truth in another system.

Thanks for your response, Phil.
I take mathematics to be the "hardest" type of science, truths in math are the closest we have to absolute. Hence if I produce some extra, new, true information in one particular "system" it will have a counterpart in any true mathematical system. [for the record I feel I'm using my terms in a standard way, and just revealing new info that is _not_ logically inconsistent with what is already known, in general - or if it is, then it's the current accepted view that needs to adjust] So I'm kindof agreeing with you - however my question to Paul was genuine in that I'd be interested to see an exposition suggesting that math was in some way _not_ universal, such exposition I've yet to encounter...
J

[bearnol]

Originally Posted by xilman

Tell me: which of these statements do you believe to be the absolute Truth:

• there is precisely one line through a point which is parallel to given line which does not pass through that point;
• there are no lines through a point which are parallel to a given line which does not pass through that point;
• there is an infinite number of lines passing through a point which are all parallel to a given line which does not pass through that point?

Each of those three contradicts the other two so, by your thesis, only one can be True. Which is it?

Paul

I would go for the first option (or at least a revised version of the first - you could say there were two lines, one in each opposite direction, depending on your definition of line...)
What is your point re this?
thanks,
J

[jinydu]

The example mentioned is a classic...

Haven't you heard of "non-Euclidean" geometry? In any case, this has digressed somewhat from the original point.

bearnol, hopefully you are starting to understand this important point, which is a critical flaw to all your "proofs":

Every integer is finite

[xilman]

Originally Posted by bearnol

I would go for the first option (or at least a revised version of the first - you could say there were two lines, one in each opposite direction, depending on your definition of line...)
What is your point re this?
thanks,
J

My point? Simple: to help you think and to investigate what other people have thought about this question of mathematics.

It sounds like you may need some help to get yourself started. Type "non-euclidean geometry" into a search engine and read what turns up, and the targets of links therein.

After a suitable time spent searching and reading, a day or so perhaps, please summarize your findings here. I for one, and probably others, will be genuinely interested in what you have to say about this particular subject.


Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by bearnol

I would go for the first option (or at least a revised version of the first - you could say there were two lines, one in each opposite direction, depending on your definition of line...)
J

Good! Indeed, excellent!

You have already realised that the answer depends on the definition of the concept "line". I was assuming that a line does not have direction but you pointed out that a reasonable definition may include directionality. The absolute Truth in this case, as you have pointed out for yourself, has two answers: 1 or 2.

I'm hoping that you will start to see an analogy building with respect to various definitions of the word "infinity"; that different definitions can lead to different results which are mutually incompatible.

Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

You are worse than a mere crank.

You are truly clueless.

You are so totally clueless that you would have to study very hard just to
become an idiot. Do yourself a favor. Go back to school. Study very hard.
When your IQ reaches 50, SELL. You will make a profit.

Now, now, Bob. That seems a little harsh and, in my view at least, drawing unwarranted conclusions from woefully incomplete data. Please try to live up to the standards of intellectual discourse you would wish to see from others. :surprised

Ill-educated and opinionated, I think I can support with reasonably sound reasoning. Having an IQ < 50 is an extremely severe handicap and the evidence presented so far almost certainly rules it out. Such people can rarely read and write, let alone contribute to fora such as this.

Poor education can be remedied. Encouragement is almost always more effective than invective, regardless of any frustration felt.


Pauyl

[Orgasmic Troll]

at this point, whenever I read what bearnol has written, it just parses as "bsdlkhjdasfbvahdfblkjsdfblkjsdfvbhsafksjvasflkjvhkheriugahefiguvasfkjdbfmgvnbsdkjhg"

This guy is trying to solve a rubik's cube by baking an apple pie

[Orgasmic Troll]

Originally Posted by xilman

Now, now, Bob. That seems a little harsh and, in my view at least, drawing unwarranted conclusions from woefully incomplete data. Please try to live up to the standards of intellectual discourse you would wish to see from others. :surprised

Ill-educated and opinionated, I think I can support with reasonably sound reasoning. Having an IQ < 50 is an extremely severe handicap and the evidence presented so far almost certainly rules it out. Such people can rarely read and write, let alone contribute to fora such as this.

Poor education can be remedied. Encouragement is almost always more effective than invective, regardless of any frustration felt.


Pauyl

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.

This guy isn't out to learn, he's already completely confident that what he knows is right, in his mind *WE* don't understand. He has to WANT to learn before he will learn, but why would he want to learn from us when he OBVIOUSLY has mastered the wild kingdom of infinity?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by TravisT

This guy isn't out to learn, he's already completely confident that what he knows is right, in his mind *WE* don't understand. He has to WANT to learn before he will learn, but why would he want to learn from us when he OBVIOUSLY has mastered the wild kingdom of infinity?

Perhaps so, perhaps not.

I, however, want to learn. In particular, I want to learn what he makes of non-Euclidean geometry.

I've already learned something from him that should have been obvious to me: the necessity of specifying whether "line" has directionality. There are fields where this distinction is absolutely crucial: think of the "world-line" in relativity theory for example. Causality, as far as we can tell, is uni-directional.

Paul