Russell's Paradox and the Excluded-Middle reasoning

[Chronos]

Mathematically, the term 'all' only has meaning in set theory.

 

[Chronos]

Lama, one thing I am curious about. I am a bit naive when it comes to logical operators and you seem quite comfortable with them. To me, the mathematical equivalent of the 'Liar Paradox' [this sentence is false], is 'x is not equal to x'. The math that follows completely breaks down in my mind. 1 multiplied by 'x' and 2 multipied by 'x' can easily be reduced to the expression '1 = 2'.

 

[Lama]

Matt,

that is not an accurate or succinct interpretation of what Goedel's incompleteness theorem actually states

Ok, let us put it this way:

By inconsistent system we can "prove" what ever we want with no limitations
but then our "proofs" are inconsistent.

A consistent system is based on a finite quantity of well-defined axioms, but then we can find in it statements which are well-defined by the consistent system but they cannot be proved by the current axioms of this system, and we need to add more axioms in order to prove these statements.

So any consistent system is limited by definition and any inconsistent system is not limited by definition.

Now, a complete system that suppose to prove everything is inconsistent by definition, therefore no consistent system (and therefore incomplete) can prove anything, and because of this we can find within any consistent system statements that are well-defined within the framework of the consistent system, but they cannot be proved within this framework, unless we add more axioms to the system, and so on, and so on.

So if by using the word 'complete' we mean 'inconsistent', then no 'complete' system is consistent.

Let us return to the universal quantification 'all'.

As I see it, when we use 'all' it means that everything is inside our domain and if our domain is infinitely many elements ,even if they are limited by some common property, the whole idea of "well-defined" domain of infinitely many elements, is an inconsistent idea.

For example:

Someone can say that [0,1] is an example of a well-defined domain, which is also a collection of infinitely many elements, but any examined transition from the internal collection of the infinitely many elements to 0 or 1, cannot be anything but a phase transition that terminates the state of infinitely many smeller states of the collection of the infinitely many elements, and we have in our hand a finite collection of different scales and 0 or 1.

In short, the well-defined ‘[0’ or ‘1]’ values and a collection of infinitely many elements that existing between them, has a XOR-like relations that prevents from us to keep the property of the internal collection as a collection of infinitely many elements, in an excluded-middle reasoning.

Again, it is clearly shown in: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf

Form this point of view a universal quantification can be related only to a collection of finitely many elements.

An example: LIM X---> 0, X*[1/X] = 1

In that case we have to distinguish between the word 'any' which is not equivalent here to the word 'all'.

'any' is an inductive point of view on a collection of infinitely many elements, that does not try to capture everything by forcing a deductive 'all' point of view on a collection of infinitely many X values that cannot reach 0.

 

[Lama]

Hi Chronos

1 multiplied by 'x' and 2 multipied by 'x' can easily be reduced to the expression '1 = 2'.

Sorry, please explain this.

 

[PFanalog57]

Sorry, please explain this.

A = B

A^2 = A*B

A^2 - B^2 = A*B - B^2

A^2 - B^2 = B*[A - B]

[A + B]*[A - B] = B*[A - B]

A + B = B

and

A = B

2*B = B

2 = 1

If one forgets that A - B = 0, because we cannot divide by 0. Unless you have an amazing discovery ...Lama?


A/0 is undefined.

0/0 is indeterminate.

2*X cannot equal 1*X

The interval from zero to one has an infinite number of fractions and it is a finite unit.

A = not-A ?


LIM X---> 0, X*[1/X] = 1

Some may argue with the epsilon-delta formalism of Carl Wierstrass but there is also Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis, which puts infinitesimals on a rigorous footing.

 

[matt grime]

Your second description of godel's theorem is even less succinct and still inaccurate. Perhaps you'd like to see what i can recall of it?

If S is any (set) theory in which there is a model of the natural numbers (you've never managed to include that), then there exist a proposition, P, such that both P and not P are consistent with S.

Your definition of 'all' is garbage.

 

[Lama]

Your definition of 'all' is garbage.

I told it to ahrkron and also I tell you, my work is like a mirror at the first stage.

If you understand it you can see beyond your own reflection, but in your case you see nothing but your face in it.

If S is any (set) theory in which there is a model of the natural numbers (you've never managed to include that), then there exist a proposition, P, such that both P and not P are consistent with S.

Since you cannot go beyond the standard formal definitions, you cannot understand that I am talking about x_AND_not_x which are members of set S of 'any undefined element of some (set) theory'
where S is well defined in this (set) theory.

What we get in this case is a well-defined set S as a 'Trojan horse' which includes in it elements that cannot be defined in the framework of the examined theory.

So as you see i do not stay in the original formal definition of Godel's theorem, but I use the deep principle of it to develop another point of view, which is much more interesting (in my opinion) then Godel's theorem.

In short, Godel's theorem is often used to show the limitations of a system, but my point of view is to show that any limited system actually lead us to search beyond its domain, which is a positive approach of the same idea.

Since you do not aware to the power of the philosophical thinking as a profound tool for deep mathematical fundamental ideas, you cannot see but the reflection of your formal face in my philosophical mirror.

Matt, if you think that a good mathematician is a walking encyclopedia of formal mathematical knowledge, which is used to produce results within a particular brunch of the standard framework, and he never think beyond his own domain, then your way is not my way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your definition of 'all' is garbage.

Theorem: Matt's response is a garbage.


Proof:

By inconsistent system we can "prove" what ever we want with no limitations, but then our "proofs" are inconsistent.

A consistent system is based on a finite quantity of well-defined axioms, but then we can find in it statements which are well-defined by the consistent system but they cannot be proved by the current axioms of this system, and we need to add more axioms in order to prove these statements.

So any consistent system is limited by definition and any inconsistent system is not limited by definition.

Let us re-examine the universal quantification 'all'.

As I see it, when we use 'all' it means that everything is inside our domain and if our domain is infinitely many elements ,even if they are limited by some common property, the whole idea of "well-defined" domain of infinitely many elements, is an inconsistent idea.

For example:

Someone can say that [0,1] is an example of a well-defined domain, which is also a collection of infinitely many elements, but any examined transition from the internal collection of the infinitely many elements to 0 or 1, cannot be anything but a phase transition that terminates the state of infinitely many smeller states of the collection of the infinitely many elements, and we have in our hand a finite collection of different scales and 0 or 1.

In short, the well-defined ‘[0’ or ‘1]’ values and a collection of infinitely many elements that existing between them, has a XOR-like relations that prevents from us to keep the property of the internal collection as a collection of infinitely many elements, in an excluded-middle reasoning.

Again, it is clearly shown in: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf

Form this point of view a universal quantification can be related only to a collection of finitely many elements.

An example: LIM X---> 0, X*[1/X] = 1

In that case we have to distinguish between the word 'any' which is not equivalent here to the word 'all'.

'any' is an inductive point of view on a collection of infinitely many elements, that does not try to capture everything by forcing a deductive 'all' point of view on a collection of infinitely many X values that cannot reach 0.

If my definition of 'all' is garbage, then 0*(1/0)=1

Since 0*(1/0) not= 1, Matt's response is a garbage. QED.

 

[Chronos]

hi lama.

i think i understand your point. but, i don't think you can logically prove mathematics anymore than you can mathematically prove logic. i prefer math to explain science and logic to explain philosophy. The essence of Godel was to say that all systems are self-referential [they necessarily include 'a priori' assumptions] and assumptions cannot be proven or disproven within any such system. Relativity, in this sense, may be the most profound statement about reality we are capable of grasping.

 

[PFanalog57]

Back to the "Fallacy of Composition" for the educational benefit of Hurkyl and co.

The properties of the whole distribute over the individual parts OF the ...whole

[WHOLE]--->[PARTS]

If W then P

W

therefore P



Properties of the parts don't necessarily become properties of the whole.

If W then P

P

therefore W

is false logic, also known as the fallacy of composition via modus ponens error.

QED

 

[matt grime]

"So as you see i do not stay in the original formal definition of Godel's theorem, but I use the deep principle of it to develop another point of view, which is much more interesting (in my opinion) then Godel's theorem."

but have you proved it is true?



in any case you are demonstrating explicitly again that you are using a different definition and usage from the rest of the world in your use of "all" amongst other things, so don't correct us or tell us mathematics is wrong when an "all" is used (ie your problems with Cantor's Theorem) when you are refusing to use the words correctly, as they were intended.

tell you what: 2 > x for all x in (0,1), wow, i used the word all for a collection of infinitely many things...


you're also scoring high on the crackpot index again with your combined insistence that what you have is amazing and so much better than crappy mathematics as practised by religious dogmatic fanatic and admitting that your theory is allowed not to be very good because it's new and you aren't a raligiously fanatical adherent of limited mathematics.

 

[Lama]

in any case you are demonstrating explicitly again that you are using a different definition and usage from the rest of the world in your use of "all" amongst other things

So, do you support the idea that Mathematics is no more then a rigorous agreement between people?

"Math, in my opinion, is first of all a rigorous agreement that based on language.

Symmetry is maybe the best tool that can be used to measure simplicity, where simplicity
is the best platform for stable agreement.

Any agreement must be aware to the fact that no model of simplicity is simplicity itself.

This awareness to the difference between x-model and x-itself is the first condition for
any stable agreement, because it gives it the ability to be changed."

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html

but have you proved it is true?

It is trivially understood that in any consistent (set) theoretical system, there is at least one well-defined set that includes any of the undefined elements of this consistent (set) theoretical system.

Actually it is an axiom, which may be called "The axiom of the paradigm-shift".

crackpot

"crackpot" is a reflexive response of a 'limited system' when it is forced to look beyond its limited domain.

In that case I am proud to be called a "crackpot".

 

[matt grime]

So it's an axiom in your system?

Do you recall that you once claimed that you'd successfully answered the Collatz conjecture because you'd "proven" that it was equivalent to the axiom of infinity, and was thus not provable? Have you changed you mind about axioms being true then?

 

[Lama]

Do you recall that you once claimed that you'd successfully answered the Collatz conjecture because you'd "proven" that it was equivalent to the axiom of infinity, and was thus not provable? Have you changed you mind about axioms being true then?

No Axiom can be proven within its own framework, because it is an arbitrary true, that is based on our intuitions, therefore a statement which is equivalent to an axiom, cannot be proven within its own framework, as I show in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/3n1proof.pdf

Only statements that are not equivalent to an axiom can be proven within their framework.

In short, only statements that are based on axiom(s) but do not equivalent to anyone of them, can be proven within their framework.

For example:

The Natural numbers are axiom's products and not the axioms themselves, so we can prove things which are based on N members' properties only if we do not need to go to the level of the axioms themselves.


We can use here an analogy, which is based on chemistry:

In order to prove something in the level of the muscles tissue, we do not need quarks level.

 

[Chronos]

So it's an axiom in your system?

Even a domesticated bunny with pink eyes could see that trap... hilarious matt. But forgive lama for being logically inconsistent, he means well.

 

[Lama]

But forgive lama for being logically inconsistent

It depends on the interpretation of "what is a proof?"

My interpretation excludes the axioms of some given consistent system, because they are arbitrary true within the framework of their own system.

Their 'true' validity can be examined and proven only within some Meta framework, where they cannot be considered as axioms anymore.

In that sense, any consistent system has two sides:

a) The internal side is the consistent and therefore limited system, which is based on its own arbitrary true (self evidenced) axioms.

b) The external side which is not limited but then not necessarily consistent with this system.

c) In that sense, no axiom can be proven within its own framework, and on the same time, this axiom must be proven within some Meta-framework.

So, as we can see, an axiom is an element that always exists between internal and external frameworks.

 

[kaiser soze]

Occam's Razor:

"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

 

[Lama]

Hi kaiser soze,

So can we ignore the butterfly wings when we construct the model of a hurricane? (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ButterflyEffect.html)

 

[arildno]

Hi kaiser soze,

So can we ignore the butterfly wings when we construct the model of a hurricane? (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ButterflyEffect.html)

Certainly, because that effect would be included in the initial conditions, not the system of differential equations which is THE MODEL

 

[Lama]

Certainly, because that effect would be included in the initial conditions, not the system of differential equations which is THE MODEL

Differential equations are nothing but a tool here.

The Model in this case cannot be less then a combination of initial conditions AND the system of differential equations, otherwise our nonlinear phenomena cannot be understood.

In short, we can never be 100% sure what is necessary and what can be omitted, when we deal with nonlinear complexity, for example.

 

[arildno]

Blather Again, Lama!

 

[kaiser soze]

Lama,

You missed the point. A common interpretation for Occam's Razor is: In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.

Occam's Razor is a rule of the thumb for selecting theories to explain phenomena.

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

Blather Again, Lama!

This is a very poor response, I think that you can do better than that.

 

[Lama]

You missed the point. A common interpretation for Occam's Razor is: In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.

Occam's Razor is a rule of the thumb for selecting theories to explain phenomena.

Do you really think that a non-trivial problem or phenomena are some clear objects that are waiting for us to explain them?

When we cut out things we change our initial conditions, and if our explored system is sensitive to initial conditions then your "simplest" theory misses the point.

In short, the quality of a theory is much more important than the quantity of its components, when we deal with non-trivial systems.

Any way, you did not explain in details, why do I have to use Occams' Razor on my arguments, so please do that, thank you.

 

[PFanalog57]

Q1:

If the barber shaves those, and only those men who do not shave themselves, then does the barber shave himself?


Q2:

If an assertion A, is true and its negation, ~A is also true, it becomes a form of the "liars paradox".

Suppose a person called X, stands up and says, "This assertion is false."

Let S denote the statement uttered; let p be the proposition the person makes by uttering S. Then the utterance of the phrase "This assertion" refers to the claim p. It follows that, in uttering the words "This assertion is false," X is making the claim "p is false". Thus , p and "p is false" are one and the same:

p = [p is false]

By making the claim, X is implicitly referring to the context in which the claim is stated. Let c symbolically represent the context for which the sentence refers.

X's uttering of the words "This assertion" refers to the context, c, which entails p.

[c entails p]


That is to say, p must be the same as [c entails p] due to the fact that X is referring to both p and [c entails p] via the utterance of the phrase "This assertion."

If X's assertion is true then [c entails p] is true

p = [p is false]

[c entails p is false] is true


This creates a contradiction, ergo X's claim that [p is false] is false.

[c entails p is false] is false


This appears to be the same contradictory state of affairs as in the previous cases of the Liars Paradox.

Conclusion?:

c cannot be the appropriate context.

Consequently, the paradox becomes a theorem/demonstration.
When X utters the Liar sentence, X is uttering a falsehood, and the context in which the claim of falsehood is made cannot be the same as the context in which the Liar sentence S, was uttered...



Thus context c, becomes a subjective/qualia operator.

 

[kaiser soze]

Lama,

Tell me what phenomenom you are trying to explain using your theory(ies) and I will explain how Occam's razor rule of the thumb should be applied.

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

a) Godel's incompleteness theorem.

b) The limit concept

c) the universal quantification concept.

d) The inifinty concept.

 

[kaiser soze]

Ok, these are not phenomena, and in any case they can be expressed or defined using simpler terms than your explanations; thus by Occam's razor these simpler terms and definitions should be prefered.

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

and in any case they can be expressed or defined using simpler terms than your explanations;

Please demostrate your arguments by showing side by side my definitions and the standard definitions, that by your argument have the same interpretations of mine (to post #176 concepts) but in simpler ways.

If you cannot do that, then you demostrate that you do not know what are you talking about.

 

[kaiser soze]

If you do not already know the "standard" definitions and interpretations of the issues you have stated then you are the one who does not know what he is talking about...

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

I cannot give a new interpretation to a fundamental standard interpretation if I do not know it.

Since I give new interpretations to post #176 concepts, all of them are based on deep understanding of the standard interpretations of these concepts.

If you do not agree with me (which is perfectly ok), you have to demonstrate why in details.

 

[kaiser soze]

Lama,

Tell you what, convince me that you understand fundamental mathematical definitions and I will gladly enter into discussion with you about them. Please provide a mathematical definition for issue (b) in post #176.

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

Definition is not the point in this philosophical level, understanding is the point in this philosophical level.

Please read all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf
where you can find my new intetpretation to b,c,d subjects of #176.

If you do not like my answer then please define 'definition' and I'll try to give my answer by your definition to 'definition'.

a,b,c,d of #176 can be found in http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1716483&postcount=76

 

[kaiser soze]

Lama,

I need to be sure you understand fundamental mathematical definitions as they are understood by mathematicians. You have stated many times before, that one should keep an open mind and develop criticism based on understanding. I am not sure you understand fundamental mathematical concepts, yet you criticize them on a daily basis.

Please provide a mathematical definition to issue (b) of post #176. At this stage your interpretations are irrelevant, I am talking about mathematical defitinions that would be accepted by any mathematician.

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

Dear kaiser soze,


Since I am not a professional mathematician, my best definition at this stage is:

A Limit is any arbitrary well-defined element, where no collection of well-defined infinitely many elements can reach it.

It means that if A is the collection of infinitely many elements and B is the limit, then we can reach B only if we leap from A to B and vise versa.

By using the word "leap" we mean that we have a phase transition from state A to state B.

There is no intermediate state that smoothly links between A,B states therefore we cannot define but a A_XOR_B relations between A, B states.

A collection A is incomplete if infinitely many elements of it cannot reach some given limit, or if no limit is given.

From the above definition we can understand that no collection of infinitely many elements is a complete collection, and therefore no universal quantification can be related to it.

If you disagree with me, then please define a smooth link (without “leaps”) between A,B states.

Please look again on My Riemann's Ball example, in page 3 http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf



Thank you.

Lama

 

[kaiser soze]

Lama,

By any standard this is not a mathematical definition of a limit. This is what I mean when I say that you lack the knowledge of fundamental mathematical definitions. A definition of a limit can be found in any calculus textbook - usually this is the subject of the first lecture in undergarduate school.

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

I think that we do not understand each other.

I gave you MY definiton of the limit concept.

Now, please give the standard definition for this concept.

After you give the standard definition, then we shall compare between
the two approaches.

Any way do you agree with http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Limit.html definition?

 

[kaiser soze]

off course I agree with this definition. I meant for you to provide the defintion for the limit of S(n), no need delta epsilon at this point. A limit can be defined using epsilon and S(n). At any case, I am not interested in your definitions at the moment. I need to be convinced that you understand and know how to use the fundamental "conventional" mathematical defintions before we can move on to your definitions.

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

Ok, the main persons in modern Math that are related to the so called rigorous definition of the limit concept are Cauchy and Weierstrass.

Cauchy said:" When some sequence of values that are related one after the other to the same variable, are approaching to some constant, in such a way that they will be distinguished from this constant in any arbitrary smaller sizes that are chosen by us, then we can say that this constant is the limit of these infinitely many values that approaching to it."

Weierstrass took this informal definition and gave this rigorous arithmetical definition:

The sequence S1,S2,S3, … ,Sn, ... is approaching to (limit) S if for any given positive and arbitrary small number (e > 0) we can find a matched place (N) in the sequence, in such a way that the absolute value S-Sn (|S-Sn|) become smaller then any given epsilon, starting from this particular place in the sequence
(|S-Sn| < e for any N < n).

 

[kaiser soze]

Lama,

Very good! now based on the definition you provided, which is a correct mathematical definition please find out the limit of the following sequence:

0.9,0.99,0.999,0.9999,0.99999,...


Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

Dear kaiser soze,

Now please listen to what I have to say.

First please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/9999.pdf
(which is also related to your question) before we continue.

Thank you.

Lama

 

[Lama]

I disagree with the intuitions of Weierstrass, Cauchy, Dedekind, Cantor and other great mathematicians that developed the current mathematical methods, which are dealing with the Limit and the Infinity concepts.

And my reason is this:

No collection of infinitely many elements that can be found in infinitely many different scales, can have any link with some given constant, in such a way that it will be considered as a limit of the discussed collection.

In short, Nothing is approaching from the collection to the given constant, as can be clearly seen in my sports car analogy at page 2 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf

Take each separate position of the car, then compare it to zero state and you can clearly see that nothing is approaching to zero state.

Therefore no such constant can be considered as a limit of the above collection.

It means that if the described collection is A and the limit is B, then the connection between A,B cannot be anything but A_XOR_B.

So here is again post #184:

Since I am not a professional mathematician, my best definition at this stage is:

A Limit is any arbitrary well-defined element, where no collection of well-defined infinitely many elements can reach it.

It means that if A is the collection of infinitely many elements and B is the limit, then we can reach B only if we leap from A to B and vise versa.

By using the word "leap" we mean that we have a phase transition from state A to state B.

There is no intermediate state that smoothly links between A,B states therefore we cannot define but a A_XOR_B relations between A, B states.

A collection A is incomplete if infinitely many elements of it cannot reach some given limit, or if no limit is given.

From the above definition we can understand that no collection of infinitely many elements is a complete collection, and therefore no universal quantification can be related to it.

If you disagree with me, then please define a smooth link (without “leaps”) between A,B states.


Thank you.

Lama

 

[Lama]

'Any x’ is not ‘All x’​

By inconsistent system we can "prove" what ever we want with no limitations
but then our "proofs" are inconsistent.

A consistent system is based on a finite quantity of well-defined axioms, but then we can find in it statements which are well-defined by the consistent system but they cannot be proven by the current axioms of this system, and we need to add more axioms in order to prove these statements.

So any consistent system is limited by definition and any inconsistent system is not limited by definition.


Let us examine the universal quantification 'all'.

As I see it, when we use 'all' it means that everything is inside our domain and if our domain is infinitely many elements, even if they are limited by some common property, the whole idea of "well-defined" domain of infinitely many elements is an inconsistent idea.

For example:

Someone can say that [0,1] is an example of a well-defined domain, which is also a collection of infinitely many elements, but any examined transition from the internal collection of the infinitely many elements to 0 or 1, cannot be anything but a phase transition that terminates the state of infinitely many smeller states of the collection of the infinitely many elements, and we have in our hand a finite collection of different scales and 0 or 1.

In short, the well-defined ‘[0’ or ‘1]’ values and a collection of infinitely many elements that existing between them, has a XOR-like relations that prevents from us to keep the property of the internal collection as a collection of infinitely many elements, in an excluded-middle reasoning.

Again, it is clearly shown in: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf

Form this point of view a universal quantification can be related only to a collection of finitely many elements.

An example: LIM X---> 0, X*[1/X] = 1

In that case we have to distinguish between the word 'any' which is not equivalent here to the word 'all'.

'any' is an inductive point of view on a collection of infinitely many elements, that does not try to capture everything by forcing a deductive 'all' point of view on a collection of infinitely many X values that cannot reach 0.

 

[kaiser soze]

If you do not see that the limit of the sequence I provided is 1, then you do not understand what a limit is, and therefore can not agree or disagree with its definition.

In loose terms we can say that a sequence has a limit if it is approaching (but never reaching) some conststant. A sequence does not have a limit, if it is not approaching some constant, for example the sequence 1,2,3,4,... does not have a limit, it disperses to infinity.

Kaiser.

 

[moshek]

Since the context here is new mathematics I aloud myself to share with you this problem:Few month ago i found in one of the popular books about Wittgenstein a quote that Wittgenstein describe a possibility to create new mathematics with the geometry of Klein bottle, I am searching now for the exact reference if anyone can help me with that I will thank him


Moshek​

:surprise:

 

[Lama]

If you do not see that the limit of the sequence I provided is 1, then you do not understand what a limit is, and therefore can not agree or disagree with its definition.

1 as the limit of the sequence 0.9,0.99,0.999,0.9999,0.99999,... is based on an ill intuition about a collection of infinitely many elements that can be found in infinitely many different scales, as can be clearly understood by posts #190,#191,#192.

You can show that 1 is really the limit of sequence 0.9,0.99,0.999,0.9999,0.99999,... , only if you can prove that there is a smooth link (without "leaps") between this sequence and 1, which is not based on {0.9,0.99,0.999,0.9999,0.99999,... }_XOR_{1} connection.

Maybe this example can help:

r is circle’s radius.

s' is a dummy variable (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DummyVariable.html)

a) If r=0 then s'=|{}|=0 --> (no circle can be found) = A

b) If r>0 then s'=|{r}|=1 --> (a circle can be found) = B

The connection between A,B states cannot be but A_XOR_B

Also s' = 0 in case (a) and s' = 1 in case (b), can be described as s'=0_XOR_s'=1.

You can prove that A is the limit of B only if you can show that s'=0_AND_s'=1 --> 1

A collaction of elements, which can be found on many different scales, really approaching to some given constant, only if it has finitely many elements.

 

[terrabyte]

what kaiser is saying is that 1 is the limit, but 1 is not included in the set of .9+.09+.009...

i THINK what Lama is saying is:
intuitively the number this "approaches" is 1, getting infinitely close to but never reaching it. but actually the number it really "approaches" is .999...

in other words you're both saying the same thing

 

[Lama]

...getting infinitely close...

"getting close" is reasonable.

"getting infinitely close" is not reasonable, because nothing can be closer to something when something is some constant and the "closer" element is one of infinitely many elements that can be found in infinitely many different scales.

 

[Moscowjade]

I think you are confused about how something can be quantized by NOT, when x = x is a statement of IS. The paradox lies in the perception of non-existence, which by its own definition, cannot exist.

The paradox comes from trying to divide 1 by zero, because zero goes into one zero times. All numbers can be divided by one, so it is irrelevant to suggest that all other numbers can't be divided by zero either. However, we use zero in order to quantize one because without it, you can't quantize infinity. One always equals one. So, zero or NOT is just a tool of perception we use to quantize one, or IS. IS always equals IS just as x always equals x. X does not replicate from x, but when quantized with the perception of _x, x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x ,ad infinitum. The paradox is just a perception of x not being x.

In my mind, zero can't change one, but it can bend your perception of one where
1/0 = C, where C is zero rippling the perception of one into 10101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010.

 

[Lama]

The paradox lies in the perception of non-existence, which by its own definition, cannot exist.

There is no 'own definition' in the first place; therefore there is no paradox.

If your reply is based on my first post of this thread then ignore it and instead
please read: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Russell1.pdf

Thank you,

Lama

 

[arildno]

Just a question, Lama:

You haven't by any chance read Hegel's "Wissenshaft der Logik"?
Several of your ideas seem to be in tune with Hegel's ideas..