Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 02:04:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
Newsgroups: sci.math
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vghuoc$2j3sg$1@dont-email.me>
 <d79e791d-d670-4a5a-bd26-fdf72bcde6bc@att.net> <vgj4lk$2ova9$3@dont-email.me>
 <f154138e-4482-4267-9332-151e2fd9f1ba@att.net> <vgkoi7$b5pp$1@solani.org>
 <6d9f3b10-47ad-459c-9536-098ce91f514b@att.net> <vgni02$3osmc$1@dont-email.me>
 <16028da0-456b-47ad-8baa-7982a7cbdf10@att.net> <vgpupb$abrr$2@dont-email.me>
 <fc4df00f-96d1-402f-89d2-739cb8ddd863@att.net> <vgsg04$t7fk$1@dont-email.me>
 <1fca3a53-1cb4-4fd2-85b6-85e9b69ca23b@att.net> <vgtpmo$153hf$6@dont-email.me>
 <d17f7542-986e-4897-89b4-dccaf11d5311@att.net> <vh00jj$1m6co$1@dont-email.me>
 <97304048-24f5-4625-82a7-d17427f2f6e3@att.net> <vh0hta$1pmql$1@dont-email.me>
 <65febd06-662b-4fa4-9aa8-f7353a79a110@att.net> <vh2k9p$29cql$1@dont-email.me>
 <157a949d-6c19-4693-8cee-9e067268ae45@att.net> <vh35nd$2d81g$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb0c9917-09a9-45f0-8fe9-cd059fa82dde@att.net> <vh3eso$2f2gh$1@dont-email.me>
 <790e797d-e670-4562-86b9-eb3ef492a4ea@att.net>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:04:18 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <790e797d-e670-4562-86b9-eb3ef492a4ea@att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4oCcnVwngM47x6j6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 127
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ibGnJYbSgrkKqR/uCd5lThStuiuJgAkXU3jC6iucxX+Q4WOQT7IiKZD2NhPiVqC/KzfnyAdv1TKGgLZ!JKvy1E5Fy5aAYbGFd+UNlmfnRX4IMorNoeXXgVwQxifKm8COakAjjH3F8agx149+UCJFxS+gSUxG
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5751

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.