Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In recent days, the issue of an infinite temporal past as a step by step causal succession has come up at UD. For, it seems the evolutionary materialist faces the unwelcome choice of a cosmos from a true nothing — non-being or else an actually completed infinite past succession of finite causal steps.

Durston:

>>To  avoid  the  theological  and  philosophical  implications  of  a  beginning  for the  universe,  some  naturalists  such  as  Sean  Carroll  suggest  that  all  we  need  to  do  is  build  a  successful  mathematical  model  of  the  universe  where  time  t runs  from  minus  infinity  to  positive  infinity. Although  there  is  no  problem  in  having  t run  from  minus  infinity  to  plus  infinity with  a  mathematical  model,  the real past  history  of  the  universe  cannot  be  a  completed  infinity  of  seconds  that  elapsed,  one  second  at  a  time. There  are at  least  two  problems.  First,  an  infinite  real  past  requires  a  completed  infinity, which  is  a  single  object and  does  not  describe  how  history  actually  unfolds.  Second,  it  is  impossible  to  count  down  from  negative  infinity  without  encountering the  problem  of  a  potential infinity  that  never  actually  reaches  infinity. For  the  real  world,  therefore,  there  must  be  a  first  event  that  occurred  a  finite  amount  of  time  ago  in  the  past . . . [More] >>

Craig:

>Strictly speaking, I wouldn’t say, as you put it, that a “beginningless causal chain would be (or form) an actually infinite set.” Sets, if they exist, are abstract objects and so should not be identified with the series of events in time. Using what I would regard as the useful fiction of a set, I suppose we could say that the set of past events is an infinite set if the series of past events is beginningless. But I prefer simply to say that if the temporal series of events is beginningless, then the number of past events is infinite or that there has occurred an infinite number of past events . . . .

It might be said that at least there have been past events, and so they can be numbered. But by the same token there will be future events, so why can they not be numbered? Accordingly, one might be tempted to say that in an endless future there will be an actually infinite number of events, just as in a beginningless past there have been an actually infinite number of events. But in a sense that assertion is false; for there never will be an actually infinite number of events, since it is impossible to count to infinity. The only sense in which there will be an infinite number of events is that the series of events will go toward infinity as a limit.

But that is the concept of a potential infinite, not an actual infinite. Here the objectivity of temporal becoming makes itself felt. For as a result of the arrow of time, the series of events later than any arbitrarily selected past event is properly to be regarded as potentially infinite, that is to say, finite but indefinitely increasing toward infinity as a limit. The situation, significantly, is not symmetrical: as we have seen, the series of events earlier than any arbitrarily selected future event cannot properly be regarded as potentially infinite. So when we say that the number of past events is infinite, we mean that prior to today ℵ0 events have elapsed. But when we say that the number of future events is infinite, we do not mean that ℵ0 events will elapse, for that is false. [More]>>

Food for further thought. END

PS: As issues on numbers etc have become a major focus for discussion, HT DS here is a presentation of the overview:

unity

Where also, this continuum result is useful:

unified_continuum

PPS: As a blue vs pink punched paper tape example is used below, cf the real world machines

Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)
Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)

and the abstraction for mathematical operations:

punchtapes_1-1

Note as well a Turing Machine physical model:

Turing_Machine_Model_Davey_2012

and its abstracted operational form for Mathematical analysis:

turing_machine

F/N: HT BA77, let us try to embed a video: XXXX nope, fails XXXX so instead let us instead link the vid page.

Comments
KF,
DS, we patently cannot traverse an endless span of steps of warrant in either direction step by step, pivoting on our finitude and fallibility given that a chunk of time, effort, energy will be taken up by each successive step in building a worldviws case. Pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness and imposing a conclusion is a finitely remote final step, even in Mathematics. And this ‘ent Maths, it is warranting worldviews. Why the persistent sidetrack on a tangential matter when you have already in effect acknowledged tangentiality? KF
Well, when you state "the infinite regress is absurd, we cannot even get to A step by step from infinity”, you are are certainly making a mathematical statement. This "warranted worldviews" argument makes a much weaker claim than the above, however. You are not showing that infinite regresses are absurd, or even that they raise any logical problems. Rather you are arguing that finite humans cannot comprehend them. The upshot is that we cannot dismiss the possibility that infinite regresses exist, which then leaves a gap in your argument. daveS
KF, Interesting proof published earlier this year: Mathematicians Bridge Finite-Infinite Divide
With a surprising new proof, two young mathematicians have found a bridge across the finite-infinite divide, helping at the same time to map this strange boundary. The boundary does not pass between some huge finite number and the next, infinitely large one. Rather, it separates two kinds of mathematical statements: “finitistic” ones, which can be proved without invoking the concept of infinity, and “infinitistic” ones, which rest on the assumption — not evident in nature — that infinite objects exist. Mapping and understanding this division is “at the heart of mathematical logic,” said Theodore Slaman, a professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. This endeavor leads directly to questions of mathematical objectivity, the meaning of infinity and the relationship between mathematics and physical reality.
The actual paper. daveS
KF,
The claim is, one is coming from the transfinitely remote, thus across a zone of endlessness.
Well, no, the ladder has infinitely many rungs, each finitely many steps from the ground. I've made no claims about coming from the "transfinitely remote".
Now, if our man was descending without beginning but at no time was he ever endlessly remote in stages, he was always only finitely removed.
Yes, that's true. I think we're making progress.
That is, his past becomes a problem: finite remove and finite stages will not span endlessness.
The fact that he was always finitely many steps from the ground is completely consistent with the fact that he has descended every one of the infinite number of steps on the ladder. n seconds ago he was on rung number n, for all natural numbers n. No rungs were missed.
What I think you are saying is in effect we have had a potentially infinite past. But that is just what we cannot have had. The real past, whatever it was, HAS to have been actualised. It is how we got here.
I am saying the past comprises an actual infinity (in this thought experiment).
The future is different, we may successively and open-endedly add, pointing onward.
Yes, just as ω and ω* are different.
We can specify a set with endlessness in it and may conceptually deliver it in an all at once grand step (which typically points across an ellipsis of endlessness) but what we never do is actually traverse the span in successive, cumulative finite stage steps.
What was actually traversed in successive finite stages was accumulatively finite. Must be. Finite past is implied.
Let's review:
1. The ladder has infinitely many rungs (in 1-1 correspondence with the natural numbers). 2. The man was on rung n, n seconds ago, for every natural number n. 3. The man has just reached rung 0.
What we have is a man descending an infinite ladder throughout an infinite past, just now completing his traversal of every rung. daveS
DS, You will see that I pointed to the case of a start-point then the case of beginningless descent on stipulation of an endlessly remote zone. (This points to the tree of surreal numbers, cf Ehrlich in OP as augmented.) The claim is, one is coming from the transfinitely remote, thus across a zone of endlessness. In particular, it is claimed or implied that our cosmos -- in relevant causally successive stages -- has come from an endlessly remote past to the present. Descending a ladder that is endlessly high to reach its foot is a drawing out of the essence of that. Now, if our man was descending without beginning but at no time was he ever endlessly remote in stages, he was always only finitely removed. That is, his past becomes a problem: finite remove and finite stages will not span endlessness. What I think you are saying is in effect we have had a potentially infinite past. But that is just what we cannot have had. The real past, whatever it was, HAS to have been actualised. It is how we got here. The future is different, we may successively and open-endedly add, pointing onward. In both cases, what we never actually traverse in finite stage steps is an endless span, such as is represented by an ellipsis of endlessness. The pink.blue tape example shows us why. It is in the endlessness that the transfinite property lies. We can specify a set with endlessness in it and may conceptually deliver it in an all at once grand step (which typically points across an ellipsis of endlessness) but what we never do is actually traverse the span in successive, cumulative finite stage steps. That seems firmly shown. And that is why the requirement of actual traversal in causally successive stages of the real past . . . whatever it was . . . to achieve the present (comparable to the successive accumulation of stepping up or down a ladder) implies finitude. What was actually traversed in successive finite stages was accumulatively finite. Must be. Finite past is implied. There was a distinct beginning to our causally successive world. This is also a clue to root of our world. There is now necessitated an a-causal, non successive finite stage accumulated root for our world. As I have said, non-being has no causal powers, and were there ever utter nothing, there thus would have been no succession -- nothingness would forever obtain. A real cosmos from true nothing is impossible. A cosmos now is and is of successive causal stage character, pointing to a beginning. The root of that beginning is necessary being that is of diverse character, no temporally successive causally dependent accumulation . . . or else we are just regressing the problem. We are looking into the strange conceptual world of eternal, necessary being as root of any temporal, causally successive world. The image that comes to mind is of lines of longitude converging at a north pole that is simultaneously due north of them all. And if this is beginning to sound like a scrunching of the spacetime domain into a point at infinity in effect that swallows them all, or as pointing to a higher order hyper space world or even like "in him we live and move and have our being" that is what it looks like we are peering into. The world of eternal forms is taking its revenge. Eternally contemplated in eternal mind. Mind with power to spin out a causally successive world: fiat lux . . . ! KF kairosfocus
KF,
In various ways, this has been discussed many times.
That's definitely an understatement! :-)
By the nature of this situation if one has been descending and reaches down to 0, his start point was finitely not endlessly remote.
Of course in the ladder example, it is assumed there was no start point.
And if he never started but was always descending in finite stage finite time steps, so long as he was actually endlessly remote he cannot traverse the endless span to reach a finite near neighbourhood of the 0 point.
He never started, but he also was never "endlessly remote" from the bottom rung. Do we have that squared away now?
1) There is/was no starting point. 2) At no time was he infinitely far from the bottom rung.
daveS
DS, the issue is the nature of endlessness. Once there is an endless span, as the pink vs blue tape example shows, on reaching any large but finite k, the k, k+1, k+2 etc can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1, 2 etc. This is a part of defining the counting numbers as infinite and two sets in 1:1 match will be of the same cardinality. That is, endlessness dominates and both are infinitely large, cardinality aleph null. So, going up stepwise to the far zone one cannot complete traversal of the endless. Coming down, the same endless span confronts the one who would come down from the endlessly remote to the point where the ladder stands on the ground, its level 0. By the nature of this situation if one has been descending and reaches down to 0, his start point was finitely not endlessly remote. And if he never started but was always descending in finite stage finite time steps, so long as he was actually endlessly remote he cannot traverse the endless span to reach a finite near neighbourhood of the 0 point. In various ways, this has been discussed many times. The pivotal issue is traversal of the endless span. KF kairosfocus
KF,
And it should be clear that if endlessness cannot be spanned going up, it cannot be spanned in steps down too.
That's exactly the question; and no, it isn't clear to me and to a number of authors who have published on this subject. What exactly is the justification? I would think that if this is true, you should be able to demonstrate it with no mention whatsoever of climbing up the ladder. daveS
DS Yes we are quite relieved at relative good news. The logic is direct, once distinct identity applies all three do. A sandbox where LEM may not, is a case where distinct identity is needed to get there. The problem with counting up to/down from the span of the endless ladder lies in the endlessness. Once that is there ahead, at any finite k, k, k+1 etc can go in 1:1 match endlessly with 0,1,2 etc. So you never get beyond a finite span in steps, endlessness remains before you. And it should be clear that if endlessness cannot be spanned going up, it cannot be spanned in steps down too. KF kairosfocus
KF,
(And a diagnosis on a close person has been dialled back, thank God.)
I'm glad to hear that. If you do run across a published argument showing that LEM and LNC are corollaries of LOI, then I would appreciate you posting it. Now regarding the ladder scenario:
Ponder such a ladder and imagine one of those inking counters. Have someone stamp a bottom plate 0, then rungs 1,2, 3 . . . but, you cannot complete stamping going up. Now imagine said ladder is being stamped by someone else counting down. He steps off rung 1, bends over on his knees (which pop alarmingly) then brushes away a very long beard and stamps 0 on the plate, gets up and says, finished. This cannot be done counting down, no more than it can be done going up. For the same reason of attempted completing of endlessness in steps.
Under the assumptions I am making about time, I agree that the person climbing up the ladder cannot complete the job in time. That's because I am assuming that every moment in the future is finitely many seconds from the present (or from the time he began climbing). But why is it impossible for the person climbing down to finish inking all the rungs? I don't see anything other than an assertion here. daveS
PS: While I am now here, the past week or so has seen an all quiet for the moment including a cluster of bad dogs that suddenly stopped barking after a major public meeting fizzled, with a sitting following being distinctly tame. (And a diagnosis on a close person has been dialled back, thank God.) I think my mind can give enough focus here for the moment, to comment a little bit on infinite successions in steps. My suggestion is that the relevant order type in a ladder of endless succession of rungs is w, omega. Ponder such a ladder and imagine one of those inking counters. Have someone stamp a bottom plate 0, then rungs 1,2, 3 . . . but, you cannot complete stamping going up. Now imagine said ladder is being stamped by someone else counting down. He steps off rung 1, bends over on his knees (which pop alarmingly) then brushes away a very long beard and stamps 0 on the plate, gets up and says, finished. This cannot be done counting down, no more than it can be done going up. For the same reason of attempted completing of endlessness in steps. kairosfocus
DS, My concern is not logics but the world in which such logics can be conceived. The sandbox logic should be understood to be just that -- a sandbox in a world. This is similar to the presence of Observer in Quantum work. Yes, we can set up a sandbox algebra as you describe but to do so we have to use distinct symbols or concepts which means we are relying on the triple laws. KF kairosfocus
KF,
DS, to get to fuzzy logic, you have to use things that have distinct identity starting with alphanumeric characters. The same obtains for quantum theory. Refining a partial set member concept requires thought using distinct identity and its immediately present co-laws. Try to conceptualise and communicate or reason without marking distinctions — impossible. So, the way we think about fuzzy logic has to reckon with that or fall into incoherence. KF
But I'm not saying anything contrary to distinct identity. In fact, I _believe_ there are fuzzy logics with two-valued identity relations but many-valued predicates. Therefore LOI is true but LEM (could be) false in such logics. daveS
KF,
I remain however quite busy here with developments so I cannot give much attention.
That's fine, no rush. With some bolding added:
I do note that if a stepwise finite stage traversal of the endless is impossible then it follows that this cannot be accomplished — completed, thus ending the endless (language here is trying to warn us) — in stages from the past to the present as much as from the present to the future.
Again, this hasn't been shown. That we cannot traverse a set of order type ω in time does not imply that we cannot traverse a set of order type ω* in time. You have not addressed the asymmetry between the two order types. If you believe that traversing sets of order type ω* in time is impossible, then you should be able to prove such without ever referring to any sets of order type ω. daveS
F/N: Putting background for the renewal of this long lived thread: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/pastafarians-not-giving-up-their-claim-to-be-a-religion/#comment-603347 >>37 daveSApril 19, 2016 at 6:22 am KF, Infinite regress being unattainable as endlessness cannot be traversed in finite stage steps, *Proof pending? 39 kairosfocusApril 19, 2016 at 6:34 am DS, proof given over and over, as the case of the thought exercise of pink and blue punched tapes shows. start both at 0, advance blue to arbitrarily large but finite k, then k+1 etc. Put blue from k in complete, endless 1:1 match with pink from 0. This shows pink is infinite and blue from k on is the same. Moreover as endlessness onward is always there from any finite k, no process of repeated finite stage steps can traverse that endlessness. I suggest this side issue goes back to its proper thread. KF 40 daveSApril 19, 2016 at 6:36 am KF, Thanks, I’ll respond in the other thread.>> I remain however quite busy here with developments so I cannot give much attention. I do note that if a stepwise finite stage traversal of the endless is impossible then it follows that this cannot be accomplished -- completed, thus ending the endless (language here is trying to warn us) -- in stages from the past to the present as much as from the present to the future. Infinite sets are delivered all at once, often by giving a general case and pointing to endlessness and across it. From potential to actual. But at no point is there ever an actual completion of endlessness in steps. with the tapes, for any k in our k-register, there will be always endlessness onwards from k+1 etc an infinite set is always there in front, untraversed from any finite k. KF kairosfocus
KF,
DS, proof given over and over, as the case of the thought exercise of pink and blue punched tapes shows. start both at 0, advance blue to arbitrarily large but finite k, then k+1 etc. Put blue from k in complete, endless 1:1 match with pink from 0. This shows pink is infinite and blue from k on is the same. Moreover as endlessness onward is always there from any finite k, no process of repeated finite stage steps can traverse that endlessness. I suggest this side issue goes back to its proper thread. KF
Modulo some issues with vocabulary, I don't disagree with this. Here's what I was referring to, with emphasis added:
Infinite regress being unattainable as endlessness cannot be traversed in finite stage steps,
I take this to mean that (paraphrasing) "because we cannot construct N starting with 0 and the successor operation, an infinite regress (for example, an infinite past) is impossible" . That is what I'm objecting to. The tapes example simply shows that two sets are infinite. It doesn't show that an infinite past (or an infinite regress) is impossible. daveS
KF,
I pointed to Godel’s theorems regarding complex systems in Maths.
Well, the real numbers are reasonably complex. Furthermore, I think much of our discussion could be conducted in the theory of Presburger arithmetic, which is also known to be complete and consistent. I'm concerned that we don't use Gödel's theorems to cast doubt on all forms of axiomatic reasoning, even when they don't apply.
Potential vs actually completed infinity is a relevant concept.
Maybe, but I'm not aware of it appearing in mathematics.
I suggest pondering HeKS’ ladder (recall Russell’s village barber illustration) to see the challenge of completed infinite descent. KF
I haven't seen any straightforward contradiction derived from the ladder illustration, as there is with the barber paradox. I still stand by my claim that none of the arguments presented so far against an infinite past succeed. daveS
DS, again, my focus has to be local. I pointed to Godel's theorems regarding complex systems in Maths. Potential vs actually completed infinity is a relevant concept. I suggest pondering HeKS' ladder (recall Russell's village barber illustration) to see the challenge of completed infinite descent. KF kairosfocus
KF,
Including that post Godel, axiomatic systems are incomplete or incoherent, and there is no constructive process that guarantees coherence of axiom systems.
To the contrary, there are many axiomatic systems that are known to be complete and consistent. For example, the theory of real numbers is both complete and consistent.
This means succession to traverse the set from 0 cannot be completed and that ordinary mathematical induction addresses the potential not the completed infinite.
I think we are all in agreement that constructing N starting from 0 in "+ 1" steps as you say, is not possible. I'm not clear why you are repeating this once more. Furthermore, I'm not aware of the distinction between "potential" and "complete" infinities being made in the mathematical systems we have been discussing. Sets are either infinite or not. If you want to explore further, I suggest considering the traversal of sets of order type ω* in order as a model of an infinite past. That's what I've been talking about all along, but I believe you have primarily focused on sets of order type ω, which are different. daveS
PS: Alternative frames for set theory: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/settheory-alternative/ also a note on the number tree: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/mathematics/fyi-ftr-on-ehrlichs-unified-overview-of-numbers-great-and-small-ht-ds/ as well as, the surreals (HT DS): http://www.ohio.edu/people/ehrlich/Unification.pdf kairosfocus
Folks, I think that -- absent some good fresh Mathematics and/or phil of Math put on the table, this thread will make little further progress. Where also, local events are necessarily drawing my focus in a way that means I cannot do justice to discussions here for a while at least. In that light, I am thinking the best I can do just now is suggest that endlessness is a key to understanding infinity and the surreals seem to have a lot of promise on that. I am led to conclude that the oxymoronic phrase, trying to end the endless by traversing it in finite stage steps, is not only a matter of a form of words. It speaks to core realitues and constraints involving coherence, logic and the logical analysis of structure and quantity, aka mathematics. This includes causally connected stages comparable to descending an infinite ladder to reaching just now arriving on the ground. Such can be extended to cosmological unfolding and makes claims of an infinite past quasi-physical causal stage succession cosmos dubious. BTW, that is where I think Mathematics gains its relevance and causal influence, the coherence of distinct identity and the need that all things present in our world be sufficiently mutually compatible that they can exist together in a common actualised domain or possible world. Mathematics is not magic off by itself. However, that means it becomes foundational to understanding reality, and that we must bear in mind its strengths and limitations. Including that post Godel, axiomatic systems are incomplete or incoherent, and there is no constructive process that guarantees coherence of axiom systems. Mathematics is not a stand-in for absolute unquestionable truth established by circles of adepts. This too becomes an open ended, hopefully progressive research programme. I remain of the view that the ellipsis of endlessness is key to understanding the successive counting numbers. Any given k has k+1 etc in succession that can be 1:1 matched to the full set from 0,1,2 on. That is the original set and the set that is bijective with it are both infinite. This is an illustration of how endlessness and infinity are connected. This means succession to traverse the set from 0 cannot be completed and that ordinary mathematical induction addresses the potential not the completed infinite. Transfinite induction goes beyond that but requires a more stringent process, outlined fairly recently above. Also, this leads me to the view that all counting sets we can reach to specifically in +1 steps, or represent as numerals based on such (place value, sci notation etc) or symbolise specifically will be finite but we must reckon with onward endlessness lest we draw conclusions that can get us into trouble. I for now hold to the view that the conclusion on ordinary math induction that all counting numbers constitute an infinite sequence of only finite values is a step too far, failing to adequately reckon with onward endlessness. I would rather say, what we can reach is finite but the endlessness onward implies we cannot fully define its members. Instead we recognise endlessness as a new quantitative phenomenon and assign the numeral omega, w for convenience above. On to the surreals for exploring the jungle of numbers great and small. Yes, a minority view, but I cannot honestly go beyond what I see in the logic at any time; even if I have to say simply, I do not follow this could you show me the steps I may have missed. I of course remain open to further understanding. As a closing word, thanks for a civil, generally serious discussion. KF kairosfocus
KF,
Ds, passing by. I say the opposite, we CANNOT complete an actual infinity in finite stage steps.
I'm agreeing with that above, at least in a mathematical context. ω cannot be "completed" in finite stage steps, that is, by starting with {} and applying the successor operation repeatedly.
And the infinite past issue has to do with exactly that succession of finite stages. KF
Well, the connection is unclear to me. First of all, an infinite past is not a deduction or construction in first-order logic. Second, an infinite past would have no beginning, whereas a deduction or construction in first-order logic would. daveS
at 1392, ellazimm quotes Wikipedia as saying
The set of finite ordinals is infinite, the smallest infinite ordinal is omega (spelled out because WordPress didn’t take the Greek letter)..
This seems correct to me. Then kf says,
Wiki should take a pause but likely won’t. The value w is not as a succession to definite finite steps say k –> k+1 –> w, but instead it is a recognition of their endlessness as a distinct quantitative phenomenon worth recognising with a symbol.
This second part seems correct to me: "w is a recognition of their endlessness it is a recognition of their endlessness as a distinct quantitative phenomenon worth recognising with a symbol.with a symbol" but I don't think that the Wikepedia quote said that "the value w is a succession to definite finite steps". The Wikipedia quote recognizes that the set of finite ordinals is infinite, and the kf says what I have said a few times: that a new number and symbol were created by Cantor as a name for this "distinct quantitative phenomenon." Aleta
Ds, passing by. I say the opposite, we CANNOT complete an actual infinity in finite stage steps. Cf what happens onward when one reaches ant k. And the infinite past issue has to do with exactly that succession of finite stages. KF PS: EZ, Wiki should take a pause but likely won't. The value w is not as a succession to definite finite steps say k --> k+1 --> w, but instead it is a recognition of their endlessness as a distinct quantitative phenomenon worth recognising with a symbol. kairosfocus
KF,
KF:
Namely, we are dealing with the capital case divergent sequence, it is HOW we count up without limit. And by definition as we go it expands in value endlessly. So, on the copy the set so far principle to get to the next value, if endlessness WERE completed, it would entail endless members of the set of counting sets. That is, the claim, an infinite succession of finite incrementing values is not valid as were it completed not all values would be finite.
Me:
Can you prove this? I have interpreted this as saying that ω has elements (sets) of infinite cardinality. If that’s what you mean, then this statement is false. You are of course invited to prove this statement if you disagree.
PS to this exchange: Another interpretation of your statement is that you are speaking of starting with {} and applying the successor operation infinitely many times. But as I have stated, this construction is simply undefined in first-order logic so it doesn't tell us anything about ω, the set of counting sets. daveS
KF #1390 From the Wikipedia page on ordinal numbers:
The set of finite ordinals is infinite, the smallest infinite ordinal is omega (spelled out because WordPress didn't take the Greek letter)..
Apparently Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with an infinite set of finite values either. ellazimm
KF,
This brings back a main point I have made all along, we cannot complete endlessness in finite stage steps such as +1 counting steps. (And yes that goes to the thread’s main point on claimed infinite past causal stage succession to get to our now world.)
I would express your first sentence as: you cannot construct N starting with {} and the successor operation in first-order logic. That certainly doesn't prove that an infinite past is impossible.
Namely, we are dealing with the capital case divergent sequence, it is HOW we count up without limit. And by definition as we go it expands in value endlessly. So, on the copy the set so far principle to get to the next value, if endlessness WERE completed, it would entail endless members of the set of counting sets. That is, the claim, an infinite succession of finite incrementing values is not valid as were it completed not all values would be finite.
Can you prove this? I have interpreted this as saying that ω has elements (sets) of infinite cardinality. If that's what you mean, then this statement is false. You are of course invited to prove this statement if you disagree.
We may proceed to recognise a new quantity, w, for order type of the endless succession.
That's where the Axiom of Infinity comes in. We (most of us, anyway) postulate that we have a set ω that has {} as an element and which is closed under the successor operation. So again, ω is not "completed" through a series of + 1 steps.
That is very different from ending the endless in finite stage steps.
Yes, exactly. We do not "end the endless" through finite stage steps, since we can't do that in first-order logic. The existence of the completed set ω is assumed.
Also, ordinary mathematical induction on ase 0 then case k => case k+1 implies a chained succession, whether we want to look at the chain as a whole or at its linking successive property or generalise on that. The very k, k+1 chaining points to the same onward endlessness issue. So, in a case like this, due caution is needed when endlessness has material force.
Hmm. If you're not saying that these inductive proofs have infinitely many steps, I have no argument here. If you are saying this, I would again point out such proofs are impossible.
Yes, we can set up axioms etc, but we must not forget their potential for error or incoherence, as Godel highlighted. Nor should we forget that when an imposed premise p is directly responsible for the force of a conclusion C, the locus shifts to, why that P?
Well, there's always the possibility of error or inconsistency. How else can we do mathematics other than by setting up axioms and logical systems? If we don't have a "rule book", so to speak, then how do we determine what is allowed? daveS
EZ, I pass by briefly. I am using w for OMEGA (an ordinal) not aleph-null, which is in effect the cardinality of the first range of transfinite ordinals w, w+1 etc. The cardinality of the reals is an irrelevance to that. I have no problem with diagonalisation. And I suggest that you may find it helpful to look at the clips on surreals added to the OP long since [HT DS], which show a tree of numbers great and small. This seems to give a good framework for addressing the overall structure of quantity, complete with many ellipses of endlessness. KF kairosfocus
KF #1388 Since I don't think you've said anything new here and I don't have anything new to say either it seems pointless to pick my way through your statement. I did read it all. You are using a small omega to stand for what is normally called aleph-null, the smallest infinite cardinal number, the cardinality of the integers (and the rational numbers). Any set with that cardinality is said to be countably infinite. Cantor proved that the cardinality of the real numbers is greater than that of the rationals. Do you agree with his proof? Are there more real numbers than rational numbers? Just curious. You seem to just want to lump all infinite sets into 'endlessness'. ellazimm
Folks, As noted, local issues are peaking. That said, a couple of quick notes. First, mathematics is far more than axiomatised systems, though those are important in pulling together fields of thought. Next, it is clear the successive counting sets from 0 are just that as von Neumann's construction shows. This requires that a coherent view brings that to bear and answers to it. In that context, patently once we have arbitrarily large but finite value/set of counting sets so far k, k+1 etc beckon onwards. Indeed that is how we know k is finite, it is bounded on the upper side. But as k, k+1 etc can be matched endlessly with 0,1,2 etc, this means BOTH are infinite [0,1,2 etc by way of matching with a proper subset, k on as it matches with a set just shown infinite . . . a bit of a subtle difference from mere circularity], though to a certain extent that is repeating, endlessness is the essence of being infinite. This brings back a main point I have made all along, we cannot complete endlessness in finite stage steps such as +1 counting steps. (And yes that goes to the thread's main point on claimed infinite past causal stage succession to get to our now world.) It is also the pivot of a point that does not depend for its force on whether there is abundant or even sparse discussion of it in the literature. Though, the finitists of today have a few pungent observations to make. Namely, we are dealing with the capital case divergent sequence, it is HOW we count up without limit. And by definition as we go it expands in value endlessly. So, on the copy the set so far principle to get to the next value, if endlessness WERE completed, it would entail endless members of the set of counting sets. That is, the claim, an infinite succession of finite incrementing values is not valid as were it completed not all values would be finite. But as was reminded of, endlessness cannot be completed in such +1 steps or the like. That is we have a potential infinity on this line, and it is relevant to highlight the ellipsis of endlessness onward. We may proceed to recognise a new quantity, w, for order type of the endless succession. That is very different from ending the endless in finite stage steps. A safer conclusion, then, seems to be that every particular value we can succeed to or represent, k, will be finite but endlessness continues onward and cannot be captured by using specific values. Hence the ellipsis of endlessness. Also, ordinary mathematical induction on ase 0 then case k => case k+1 implies a chained succession, whether we want to look at the chain as a whole or at its linking successive property or generalise on that. The very k, k+1 chaining points to the same onward endlessness issue. So, in a case like this, due caution is needed when endlessness has material force. In such cases we may be well advised to look at transfinite induction (including, I just point to, how it handles limit ordinals such as w). Yes, we can set up axioms etc, but we must not forget their potential for error or incoherence, as Godel highlighted. Nor should we forget that when an imposed premise p is directly responsible for the force of a conclusion C, the locus shifts to, why that P? We could go on, but that is enough for now on balance. Again, sorry, local pressures. KF kairosfocus
Pardon, local issues are peaking again. kairosfocus
Kf has found other battles to fight based on the comment list so don't expect him to come back here anytime soon. I rather suspect we're at an end anyway. He's insistent that Cantor's mathematics is troubling and we don't agree. What else is there to say really? ellazimm
KF, replying to Aleta:
More broadly, we should always be very cautious about imposed axiomatic criteria that pretty directly force results, as that may run close to begging questions.
But mathematicians have no choice other than to impose axiomatic criteria that force results. That's how mathematics works. For example, the abc conjecture which I mentioned above. If Mochizuki has proved it, then that's because ZFC + first-order logic force this conjecture to be true (I assume that's the system Mochizuki works in). daveS
Thanks, kf. I appreciate the specific comments to some of my questions. 1. We seem to be in agreement that "logically internally consistent systems" should be "anchored to reality." However, I am still puzzled that you are not more specific about what is worse than paradox when you write,
paradox by definition skirts incoherence ... or goes across its border. The latter ends in shipwreck, so it is important to resolve.
Given that "across the border" and "shipwreck" are not exactly mathematical terms, do you mean "contradiction"? 2. When I asked,
Can God comprehend the infinite in its entirety, or can he also, as we do, just see endless step-by-step traversal of, for instance, the natural numbers?
you answered
God knows fully, we know in part. What we know is, endlessness as ellipsis can itself be a finite stand in for completion. Where something is logically incoherent, ending the endless in finite stage steps, no being can know or actualise the logically impossible in thought or physically. God cannot create a square circle, this is an impossible being.
Interesting and good, clear answer. I'll think about this. 2. When I asked,
Can/has God created time as an independent dimension which passes in some sense even if no physical events are happening, or does time pass only if causally connected events are occuring? That is, is time independent from or dependent on a succession of material events?
you answered,
Time is temporary and rooted in the visible, material realm. The very succession of moments is causally connected and successive. This includes say molecular agitation and intra atomic or intra nuclear forces which are inherently dynamic so a material world in which time passes but nothing happens is not feasible.
This also is a good clear answer. "Before" God created the universe, then, there was no time: time manifests itself in the succession of causally connected moments. I agree with that. Question: As a thought exercise, could God then create another universe, different than ours, with its own timeline? If so, would it be impossible to say which universe came "first", as there would be no set of material events to establish the timeline by which the existence of the two universe could be compared? 3. You also write,
Perhaps you mean can we have a snapshot, frozen moment contemplated by Deity? That seems possible but it has nothing to do with whether time proceeds once a material world is actual.
I wasn't thinking of that, but the idea of a "moment of time" brings up an interesting point. The whole idea of the continuity of the reals brings up a different set of issues concerning infinity other than the ones we've been discussing, and "a moment in time" was at the heart of Zeno's paradox about the arrow that can't move. So if God could see a moment in time would he not be, in a sense, "ending the endlessness" in respect to the infinitely small, as opposed to the endlessly large? Is that also a paradox? I'm going to think about this also. 4. You also write,
And I have no problem with accepting abstractions as real in their own way. Existence and physical existence are not the same. I think it was Augustine who pointed to eternal contemplation in the mind of God (a necessary, root being undergirding reality) as a sufficient realisation of abstractions.
For the sake of this discussion, I am assuming what you say is true: that all mathematics exists as pure abstractions in the mind of God, as Plato originally assumed when he spoke of the perfect circle. However, I've been pondering this. Human beings have devised some pretty strange mathematics. For instance, dave or ellazimm pointed me to Cantor's function (or cantor's ladder - google it if you're not familiar with it), and it seems like a pretty bizarre thing for Cantor to have even thought of. Question: So, did Cantor's ladder already exists as an abstraction in the mind of God, or did it only become an abstraction in the mind of God when Cantor invented it? Either way seems to be puzzling. For instance, I could make up a function like Cantor's ladder, but use base 17 and some other set of rules. Does this function also already exist as an abstraction in the mind of God. Or how about every possible fractal Julia set? Does every possible logical construction we could ever think of already exist in the mind of God? Or do they become part of the mind of God after we invent them? Aleta
KF #1380 Nice articles. I notice that no one seems to think any of the examples discussed are paradoxical or concerning. ellazimm
KF #1380
pardon, but I must ask: why did you keep bringing up convergent series with terms heading for the infinitesimal, in a context where the relevant issue is divergent sequences that count up towards the infinite?
It's come up several times in the thread (you're always talking about y = 1/x, etc, et. I won't bring it up again.
I find it strange that you seem to find it hard to see that an endless succession — thus (potentially?) INFINITE — of values that increment at +1 and yet are all deemed FINITE is at minimum paradoxical.
I can live with the fact that you find it paradoxical but I don't. And since we've been running over the same old ground, finding your same old fear it's probably time to stop talking about it. Aleta and daveS and I are not going to change our minds and you aren't either. Let it go.
There is an onward issue opened up by how non standard analysis uses 1/x to catapult from near 0 in [0,1] to the transfinite hyper-reals. That opens up possibilities for contemplating how multiplicative inverses are mutually connected in the reals and it raises issues on the continuity of reals in [0,1] as infinitesimals are sometimes said to be non real near neighbours of 0.
See, you brought it up again. No, the infinitesimals are not non-real. All the numbers on the number line are 'real' numbers. And, as I pointed out, there is nothing special about zero if that kind of thing bothers you. There are 'infinitesimals' everywhere. Like I said, between any two numbers on the number line there are infinitely many rational (and even more real) numbers between them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . . and 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 . . . (or 1 + 1/2, 1 + 1/3, 1 + 1/4, 1 + 1/5, 1 + 1/6 . . . ) are all finitely valued infinite sequences. None are paradoxical. It's the way mathematics works. Two sequences converge (to zero and one respectively), one sequence diverges. ellazimm
Some thoughts: https://aeon.co/opinions/how-thinking-about-infinity-changes-kids-brains-on-math with: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/teaching-the-mathematics-of-infinity/?_r=1 kairosfocus
Pardon a string of notes: Aleta: Yes, logically internally consistent systems may in some cases fail to correspond to facets of reality. That is part of why we need to anchor key parts of mathematics to reality by bringing to bear key cases, thought exercises and problems anchored to reality. That brings to bear a wider coherence that controls for factual adequacy. In the case of varied geometries, we see different aspects of reality being tied to various possible geometries. More broadly, we should always be very cautious about imposed axiomatic criteria that pretty directly force results, as that may run close to begging questions. I also emphasise that mathematics is not an isolated force on its own. It is the study of the logic of structure and quantity. Where one bridge between logic and reality is that in a cosmos, entities have to have mutually consistent core characteristics to be feasible (no square circles) and that the things populating the world must then also be mutually coherent, forming an ordered unified whole. Just, mathematics slices off that facet where quantitative and structural aspects are involved. I am actually surprised that this seems to be viewed as controversial. I add, paradox by definition skirts incoherence -- where it gets its spiciness from -- or goes across its border. The latter ends in shipwreck, so it is important to resolve. On some Q's raised: >>1. Can God comprehend the infinite in its entirety, or can he also, as we do, just see endless step-by-step traversal of, for instance, the natural numbers?>> God knows fully, we know in part. What we know is, endlessness as ellipsis can itself be a finite stand in for completion. Where something is logically incoherent, ending the endless in finite stage steps, no being can know or actualise the logically impossible in thought or physically. God cannot create a square circle, this is an impossible being. >>2. Can/has God created time as an independent dimension which passes in some sense even if no physical events are happening, or does time pass only if causally connected events are occuring? That is, is time independent from or dependent on a succession of material events?>> Time is temporary and rooted in the visible, material realm. The very succession of moments is causally connected and successive. This includes say molecular agitation and intra atomic or intra nuclear forces which are inherently dynamic so a material world in which time passes but nothing happens is not feasible. Perhaps you man can we have a snapshot, frozen moment contemplated by Deity? That seems possible but it has nothing to do with whether time proceeds once a material world is actual. EZ, pardon, but I must ask: why did you keep bringing up convergent series with terms heading for the infinitesimal, in a context where the relevant issue is divergent sequences that count up towards the infinite? I find it strange that you seem to find it hard to see that an endless succession -- thus (potentially?) INFINITE -- of values that increment at +1 and yet are all deemed FINITE is at minimum paradoxical. In reply, I have pointed out how
a: such finite stage divergent succession is inherently built into the system of counting numbers [that is what they do], b: that at any k we reach or represent there is onward endlessness k+1 etc (that can be 1:1 matched with 0,1,2 etc . . . implying BOTH sets are endless thus infinite) and c: that the k = copy of set from 0 to k-1 copy of set so far principle means that were the succession to ACTUALLY go to endlessness, some members would be just that . . . endless. But in fact, d: point b shows we cannot actually complete, we have potential but not actual infinite succession, we are pointing across an ellipsis of onward endlessness. Thus, e: while any value k we can get to in succession or represent k will be finite, endlessness is an inextricable part of the concept and we can not actually attain to such endlessness or infinity in finite stage steps. That is, f: it -- the infinite -- is a concept not a number, and g: we recognise that by defining a transfinite order type to the incomplete succession that goes on endlessly, omega [w for convenience]. h: We then proceed with onward mathematics that for the moment seems to be pulled together in the tree framework provided by the surreals, cf OP
Going on, infinitesimal stages are not relevant to finite stage divergence. There is an onward issue opened up by how non standard analysis uses 1/x to catapult from near 0 in [0,1] to the transfinite hyper-reals. That opens up possibilities for contemplating how multiplicative inverses are mutually connected in the reals and it raises issues on the continuity of reals in [0,1] as infinitesimals are sometimes said to be non real near neighbours of 0. MT: Infinity and space are distinct categories. Abstract, non space based things can go to endlessness, and in principle, abstract space can do the same, cf the arrows of continuation on axes of graphs. And I have no problem with accepting abstractions as real in their own way. Existence and physical existence are not the same. I think it was Augustine who pointed to eternal contemplation in the mind of God (a necessary, root being undergirding reality) as a sufficient realisation of abstractions. Perhaps, your question is whether observed physical space such as what we live in is infinite in actuality. This goes beyond geometry of space-time, which seems near flat. It is beyond observation, so is phil not sci. The answer lies in the issue of actualising infinite extension physically, which as Hilbert's Hotel shows, is highly dubious. The infinite tapes are a thought exercise in extension of physical phenomena, much like Turing's machine. Gotta go again, KF kairosfocus
KF, Does infinity transcend spacial dimensions ? IOW, every dimension is limited but as dimensions are infinite,may be the infinite tape goes on and on from one dimension to next. Me_Think
At 1366 kf writes,
I have said something that is almost a commonplace, that reality is coherent, which is a logical constraint tied to distinct and mutually compatible identities of particular things in a world that despite such diversity shows harmony. Cosmos, not chaos.
I responded to this in 1377. I agree that we expect reality to be amenable to logical descriptions, but as you yourself mention in respect to the parallel postulate, we can have logical systems that do accurately describe the world and we can have logical systems that don't. We can't just assume that a logical system is accurate until we test it against the evidence. That is why I think it is misleading to say "logic and mathematics constrain reality", because that phrase ambiguously conflates logic and math causing reality to be a certain way (which is false) with logic and math describing the reality that we find before us. Aleta
Thanks for the thoughts at 1364, HeKS. Perhaps contradiction is what kf sees as worse than a paradox, but that would be a pretty simple thing to say directly rather than hint at, so I still wonder if he has something else in mind. Your second point brings up one of the key issues, I think. You write,
Regarding the notion that math constrains reality, I tend to think that KF would be more likely to say logic constrains reality, but this might be better phrased as simply saying that reality really is consistent with logic, so if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are warranted in concluding that the proposition is false.
This is what kf said the second time, but this is significantly different than his first statements that logic constrains reality. Here's why. Logic and math by themselves say nothing about the real world until a mathematical model is proposed that maps particular aspects of the math to the world, and is then tested to see if it is consistent with reality. A proposition like "that is a square circle" can be rejected immediately because it is contradictory within math itself, but a statement like "a particle can take two different simultaneous paths from point A to B" may seem like a contradiction but is actually supported by evidence. In this case the problem is not the math itself but the model that needs to be adjusted. So the statement that "reality really is consistent with logic", while true in theory, is only true in practice if we assess our models with reality itself, rejecting some and accepting others. The classical example of this, which I wrote a lot about many months ago in a discussion on this topic, is that of the three different plane geometries which arise from different parallel postulates. All three geometries (for flat, positively curved, and negatively curved surfaces) are mathematically consistent, but obviously only one can apply to a particular surface. So the issue is not whether reality can be described logically and mathematically, but which mathematical model best describes reality. So if kf really thinks reality is constrained by logic, then he may very well think that somehow our discussions about the logic of infinity actually tell us something about the reality of time. However, my position is that we can use our understanding of infinity to propose models about time (and those models must be logically consistent), but that we can only check to see if our model is correct by testing it. If our tests show problems with our model, we don't conclude the universe is illogical or unmathematical. We conclude that we need to change our model to include new features: new definitions, new mathematical formulations, etc. P.S. Thanks for your note to kf, where you said,
Just to be clear, do you realize that neither [ellazimm or me] has argued that an infinite past-time is possible? It seems that the only thing they’ve been arguing is that infinity is well defined as an abstract mathematical concept and so can be used without issue within that specific abstract realm of pure mathematics. But neither has said that this in any way lends support to the coherence of an infinite past-time. Do you acknowledge this?
And I see that kf answered this question, so I'm glad that is clear. Aleta
KF #1373
we are simply not seeing the same thing. No, what I speak of is an issue of the logic involved, an endless succession of +1 stage increments that is thus a divergent and infinite trending sequence . . . it is what we count with . . . that is infinitely extended but always finite is at minimum paradoxical.
Not if you consider Cantor's work. You clearly think it is a problem but I don't and neither do thousands upon thousands of mathematicians. And there is now work built upon the very thing you find troubling. And it hasn't come tumbling down in over a century. What about sqrt(-1)? Is that not paradoxical? And yet it's part of an equation I now you find compelling. Why don't you find that paradoxical?
We are talking divergence, coarse grained finite steps that are not heading to infinitesimal size and more. Please do not conflate the cases.
Well, you keep mentioning infinitesimals so I thought I'd throw those in as well. If you didn't want to talk about them, why did you bring them up? Anyway, you are troubled but I don't know of anyone else who is. So I guess it's just a concern you'll have to bear. But it doesn't give you cause to call the mathematics into question. Again, I'm not saying anything about an infinite past or future. Nor am I addressing any particular point of physics or philosophy. Just the math. And since your concern is not one shared by the mathematics community or research then I guess there's an end to it. ellazimm
Hi kf.
that is infinitely extended but always finite is at minimum paradoxical
I've asked you a number of times to tell us specifically what you see that might be more than paradoxical, and you haven't answered. HeKs says he thinks you might mean contradictory. So do you mean this: "... that is infinitely extended but always finite is at minimum paradoxical but might be worse - might be a contradiction?" Is contradiction what you are seeing as worse than paradoxical? Aleta
KF,
DS, appeals to authority do not go beyond the force of fact and logic.
Well, I'm actually appealing not to authority but to standard definitions that you can find in any book on first-order logic. Just as if we were playing a game of Go, we might have to consult the/a rule book to decide whether a particular move is legal.
The issue is ending the endless in finite stage steps.
I suggest we stick to the specific issue of whether ω has any infinite elements.
As discussed again k k+1 on shows why that fails. Sorry, more later, real world calls as the sun rises. KF
Let me respond more fully to this and the following quote from a previous post:
g –> on the contrary, you have not met the required criterion of endlessness and have actually admitted the point that the set cannot be completed in succession.
I have never said that ω can be "completed" by starting with {} and applying the successor operation. That's why I brought up the Axiom of Infinity many hundreds of posts ago (perhaps in one of the earlier threads). The set ω is "completed" by the Axiom of Infinity in a single step. daveS
EZ, we are simply not seeing the same thing. No, what I speak of is an issue of the logic involved, an endless succession of +1 stage increments that is thus a divergent and infinite trending sequence . . . it is what we count with . . . that is infinitely extended but always finite is at minimum paradoxical. It is not a ho hum done over with. And a convergent sequence or series [as in via partial sums as a sequence and neighbourhoods etc] is not even relevant to the matter. We are talking divergence, coarse grained finite steps that are not heading to infinitesimal size and more. Please do not conflate the cases. KF kairosfocus
KF #1371
Think about an infinite succession of numbers that increases by 1 each step and is always for every case finite at the far endless zone, bearing in mind that infinite means continued endlessly and finite just the opposite, having an end.
So? Cantor figured out how to handle that 100+ years ago. And his method works.
I note, ordinary induction speaks to a first value and a chaining of successive specific values, hence the inherent finitude and potential infinity as opposed to completed.
Again, if I can prove a statement is true for 1, 2, 3 AND I can show that if the statement is true for any n > 1 and is therefore true for n+1 there is no problem. I'm always dealing with finite values.
Next, do you notice that I am constantly pointing out the place of finite scale stages at each step? (As in, do not put into my place a strawman target.) Sequences that reduce to infinitesimal values can converge and can do so in finite time, as in the Zeno paradoxes. Not relevant.
Take 1, 1/2, 13, 1/4, 1/5 . . . . it converges to zero but it never gets to zero. It will beat any value you pick in (0, 1] in a finite period of time (part of the definition of a limit but leaving out the deltas and epsilons) but it will never, ever get to zero.
Continuity of reals in [0,1] is particularly relevant to the issue of speaking of numbers not real near 0. As has appeared above.
What numbers are you talking about? Infinitesimals are 'real' even if you can't measure them. 'Real' has a particular mathematical meaning. Check this out if you really want to give your head a twist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal AND between any two given real numbers there is always another. In fact, between any two give real numbers there are an infinite number of real numbers. Not only is the cardinality of all the real numbers in [0, 1] greater than the cardinality of the positive integers but that is also true for any interval [a, b]. The real number line is ever where infinite. And this is not controversial or a paradox. This is the bedrock upon which limits and therefore calculus rests. Note: there is nothing special about 0. Consider . . . 2, 1 + 1/2, 1 + 1/3, 1 + 1/4, 1 + 1/5 . . . . That sequence converges on 1 although it never gets there. I can construct an infinite sequence of numbers that converges to any finite value you specify. From above or below. ellazimm
EZ, Think about an infinite succession of numbers that increases by 1 each step and is always for every case finite at the far endless zone, bearing in mind that infinite means continued endlessly and finite just the opposite, having an end. Which is the specific case in question, so your name one challenge is needless. I note, ordinary induction speaks to a first value and a chaining of successive specific values, hence the inherent finitude and potential infinity as opposed to completed. Next, do you notice that I am constantly pointing out the place of finite scale stages at each step? (As in, do not put into my place a strawman target.) Sequences that reduce to infinitesimal values can converge and can do so in finite time, as in the Zeno paradoxes. Not relevant. Continuity of reals in [0,1] is particularly relevant to the issue of speaking of numbers not real near 0. As has appeared above. And more, again, gotta go. KF kairosfocus
KF #1366
Namely, the assertion and claimed proof on ordinary mathematical induction that there are INFINITELY many +1 step from 0 successive and FINITE whole counting numbers or counting sets. At minimum this is a strange paradox, or it may be much worse than mere paradox.
It's not a paradox though. Why can't there be an infinite number of finite numbers? How can you get something infinite by counting up by 1 from anything finite?
After the weeks of back forth and rethinking on concepts as recently as during the night, I find myself at the point where I think the core matter is that when we succeed to or write down or symbolise any specific counting sequence number, k, there is an unlimited, end-less onward succession that consistently escapes attempts to capture it beyond an ellipsis of endlessness.
An infinite sequence of finite values. Correct.
Every counting value k we can reach, represent, write down or symbolise, k, is finite, but beyond the end-less-ness lurks, as an integral part of defining the set of counting numbers {0,1,2 . . . }. Beyond k will always lie k+1, k+2 etc without upper limit in a far zone of endlessness. We can represent or actualise the potential infinite but we cannot exhaust or traverse endlessness in finite stage steps or things based on such, e.g. Place value or sci notation.
I don't know what 'potential infinite' means but you seem mostly on track here.
This also constrains what ordinary mathematical induction — and recall, such preceded axiomatisations [and yes, there is a plural there] — shows. This too only reaches the potentially infinite.
If I want to prove a statement is true for all positive integers and I show it's true for the first few and I can also show that if it's true for n it's also true for n+1 I'm just working with finite values!
We may then put in a “forcing” axiom [generic sense here] as a further premise, but we must beware of cases where endlessness affects the result.
Name one. Any result for whole numbers is not meant for infinite cardinal numbers. That's why Cantor had to come up with something new.
I have other points of discomfort such as the continuousness of the closed interval [0,1] which is connected through y = 1/x to the domain of transfinites beyond the ellipsis of endlessness in the number tree in the OP.
What is the problem here? Clearly you can show many examples of, again, endless series of finite values all of which lie in the interval [0, 1] 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6 . . . . That one is monotonically decreasing with a greatest lower bound of 0. 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, 5/6, 6/7 . . . That one is monotonically increasing with a least upper bound of 1. If you consider the interval [-1, 1] you can get things like 1/2, -1/3, 1/4, -1/5, 1/6, -1/7 . . . which converges on 0. This is all important because some very useful tools in physics depend on infinite series converging to finite values. Fourier analysis is one example. Taylor series is another. If you have a problem with these things then you clearly never progressed past third semester Calculus. Which I took as a sophomore in college. There's a lot of math after that. Taylor discussed his series in 1715. That makes the topic 300 years old at least. I don't know about you but I don't really want to go back to the math (and therefore the physics) of 300 years ago. ellazimm
KF @ 1367
The point is not that light and balls calculate but that they reflect constraints that are expressible in terms of least action etc.
That's of course true, yet is it logically understood that light follows the fastest path or that ball follows a path that minimizes the Action? It is understood if you know the physics, not by logic or intuition.
Likewise, popular notions that quantum physics undermines the logic of distinct identity fail.
The most popular QM experiment is the double slit experiment. Is the result logical? Me_Think
DS, appeals to authority do not go beyond the force of fact and logic. The issue is ending the endless in finite stage steps. As discussed again k k+1 on shows why that fails. Sorry, more later, real world calls as the sun rises. KF kairosfocus
MT, The point is not that light and balls calculate but that they reflect constraints that are expressible in terms of least action etc. Likewise, popular notions that quantum physics undermines the logic of distinct identity fail. Starting with, to do quantum mechanics one must rely on distinct identity. Superposition does not destroy identity. Likewise, your statement:
if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are not always correct in concluding that the proposition is false
. . . necessarily relies on the principles of distinct identity it tries to set aside. Start with I vs not I and F vs not F, then proceed. Inherently self falsifying by self referential incoherence. KF kairosfocus
HeKS (Attn Aleta & EZ): I have said something that is almost a commonplace, that reality is coherent, which is a logical -- prime sense prior to axiomatisations, which are in this context secondary -- constraint tied to distinct and mutually compatible identities of particular things in a world that despite such diversity shows harmony. Cosmos, not chaos. There cannot be a square circle or the like in any possible world, as core characteristics of squarishness and roundness stand in contradiction. And the like. In that context, I have repeatedly pointed to an understanding of Mathematics: the logic of structure and quantity which we of course may study. So, it is in that context appropriate to indicate that such coherence has causal impact. Put three pennies, a three-pence coin and a sixpence in a drawer and necessarily one has a shilling's worth absent interference. As C S Lewis pointed out. So, there is no contradiction between logic and mathematics constraining reality, both express the prior point, coherence of reality. Just, when well done, mathematics works it out in exacting and often surprising details. I am aware A & EZ have not suggested an infinite past causal succession completed in the present. DS, in some moods has come close to trying to justify that, usually by reworking in terms of unlimited past regress of finite stages and finite values. As the OP shows, there are significant people out there who have tried to argue for an infinite past quasi-physical succession of stages arriving at our now world. This is highly questionable, not least on logic of structure and quantity grounds. Now, during the course of the thread an incidental issue and linked cluster of concerns popped up. Namely, the assertion and claimed proof on ordinary mathematical induction that there are INFINITELY many +1 step from 0 successive and FINITE whole counting numbers or counting sets. At minimum this is a strange paradox, or it may be much worse than mere paradox. After the weeks of back forth and rethinking on concepts as recently as during the night, I find myself at the point where I think the core matter is that when we succeed to or write down or symbolise any specific counting sequence number, k, there is an unlimited, end-less onward succession that consistently escapes attempts to capture it beyond an ellipsis of endlessness. Which is what the pink vs blue tape example illustrates. Every counting value k we can reach, represent, write down or symbolise, k, is finite, but beyond the end-less-ness lurks, as an integral part of defining the set of counting numbers {0,1,2 . . . }. Beyond k will always lie k+1, k+2 etc without upper limit in a far zone of endlessness. We can represent or actualise the potential infinite but we cannot exhaust or traverse endlessness in finite stage steps or things based on such, e.g. Place value or sci notation. This also constrains what ordinary mathematical induction -- and recall, such preceded axiomatisations [and yes, there is a plural there] -- shows. This too only reaches the potentially infinite.We may then put in a "forcing" axiom [generic sense here] as a further premise, but we must beware of cases where endlessness affects the result. And the conclusion traced to the forcing, not the inherent pattern of the logic. Much as happens with Euclid's 5th postulate on parallel lines etc and how we discovered after 2000 years that there were other possible and consistent geometries that obeyed other patterns. Some of which turned out to be physically relevant. I have other points of discomfort such as the continuousness of the closed interval [0,1] which is connected through y = 1/x to the domain of transfinites beyond the ellipsis of endlessness in the number tree in the OP. But that can go to another day. What is clear for the main purpose of the thread is that a suggested infinite past causal succession attaining by finite stages to the present is quite questionable. I do not doubt the reality of the transfinite, and have freely used omega etc [w is a stand-in]. The issue at focus for me was as described, and I have suggested that ending or traversing the endless in finite stage steps is incoherent and dubious to the point of fallacy. I did take the non standard approach as an example and suggested broader use of 1/x as a catapult between infinitesimals near 0 and transfinites. I further suggested that as there are onward ellipses of endlessness, we can distinguish hard infinitesimals that catapult us into such far-far zone transfinites yielding hyper-integers and linked hyper reals without defined first values. A suggested mild infinitesimal m would catapult to the first band, beyond w so that 1/m --> A, A = w +g, g a finite value. Those are suggestions. The surreals seem to have promise to bring things out. And DS has repeatedly brought to the table useful new things. Discussion can go on without limit but I have to pause for now. KF kairosfocus
HeKS @ 1364
so if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are warranted in concluding that the proposition is false.
That is not true in many cases. Quantum mechanics comes to mind immediately, but the way you describe ordinary processes too determines whether something is logical or not. For E.g., Light bends when going from less dense to denser medium. However, if you describe the process as light finds the fastest path to traverse (Fermet's principle) it will be illogical because it makes no sense that light can calculate the path that takes least time and traverse the path, yet it is true. Similarly, when you throw a ball, the trajectory of the ball is a hyperbola, but the path which the balls follows is the path which minimises the difference between Kinetic and Potential energy (Principle of Least action). It makes no sense logically, yet the ball does exactly that. Of course there are more 'illogical' phenomenon - Ball lightening, Hessdalen light, crop circles etc, so if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are not always correct in concluding that the proposition is false. Me_Think
To Aleta: I just want to offer a couple brief thoughts on KF's position. Regarding his comments about being 'a paradox, and maybe far worse', I believe the 'far worse' bit refers to an actual contradiction and therefore actually unresolvable, unlike a paradox, which may only seem like a contradiction. Regarding the notion that math constrains reality, I tend to think that KF would be more likely to say logic constrains reality, but this might be better phrased as simply saying that reality really is consistent with logic, so if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are warranted in concluding that the proposition is false. If it merely presents a paradox, then there is room at least for further investigation or consideration, but if it entails a bona fide contradiction or logical impossibility then it is false. To KF: I'm a little unclear here as to what your disagreement is with Aleta and ellazimm at this point. Just to be clear, do you realize that neither has argued that an infinite past-time is possible? It seems that the only thing they've been arguing is that infinity is well defined as an abstract mathematical concept and so can be used without issue within that specific abstract realm of pure mathematics. But neither has said that this in any way lends support to the coherence of an infinite past-time. Do you acknowledge this? If so, what is it that you disagree with them about (if the answer is the math itself, you might as well just say "it's the math", cause any further commentary about that math will likely go over my head) HeKS
Hi kf. Some questions for you to comment on, if you wish. Pick one or more. re 1329 1. Can God comprehend the infinite in its entirety, or can he also, as we do, just see endless step-by-step traversal of, for instance, the natural numbers? 2. Can/has God created time as an independent dimension which passes in some sense even if no physical events are happening, or does time pass only if causally connected events are occuring? That is, is time independent from or dependent on a succession of material events? Another way of asking this: Does our universe exist within a dimension of time, or does time only exist within our universe? 3. You often talk about the consequences of our ideas about infinity being a paradox, or "far worse". In 1356, I asked,
Could you explain more specifically what could be “far worse” than paradoxical. I don’t think we have any idea what you’re talking about, and you won’t tell us.
It may be obvious to you what these dire consequences are, but not me. Could you give a specific example? 4, In 1357 I point out that you have been inconsistent as to whether you think that math constrains reality, or is more a tool that describes a world that is amenable to mathematical description. Could you comment on what your position is on this? Thanks Aleta
Another example, from notes entitled "Deduction in First-Order Logic:
Deductions: A deduction in FOL_C from a set Γ of sentences is a finite sequence D of formulas such that whenever a formula A occurs in the sequence D then at least one of the following holds. (1) A ∈ Γ (2) A is an axiom. (3) A follows by modus ponens from two formulas occurring earlier in the sequence D or follows by the Quantifier Rule from a formula occurring earlier in D.
Regarding the construction of terms in first-order logic, from wikipedia:
The set of terms is inductively defined by the following rules: 1. Variables. Any variable is a term. 2. Functions. Any expression f(t1, ... ,tn) of n arguments (where each argument ti is a term and f is a function symbol of valence n) is a term. In particular, symbols denoting individual constants are 0-ary function symbols, and are thus terms. Only expressions which can be obtained by finitely many applications of rules 1 and 2 are terms. For example, no expression involving a predicate symbol is a term.
The bolded part explains why we can only apply the successor operation finitely many times in FOL. daveS
PS to 1360: To elaborate on:
KF: e –> Where n will be an endlessly large value, i.e., one without a finite successor. Me: Well, no, there aren’t any of those. As I stated, n is a natural number, so n + 1 exists and is finite.
Every natural number n ∈ ω can be reached through a finite number of applications of the successor operation to 0. We cannot apply the successor operation infinitely many times ("endlessly", I think you would say). That is forbidden. These proofs and constructions have only finitely many steps. That's why if {0, 1, 2, ..., n} ∈ ω, then n is finite. daveS
KF,
DS, has your union continued to endlessness? (Where, for any k in the succession, k, k+1 etc can be endlessly put in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 . . . ) If so, kindly show us, and show us how such a union will be also not endless.
I am going to use standard mathematical vocabulary here. The union I spoke of is of a countably infinite sequence of sets, and that union is by definition ω. It is not in any process of "continuing", it just exists by the Axiom of Union. The correspondence you are requesting is : {} -> {0, 1, 2, ..., k - 1} {0} -> {0, 1, 2, ..., k} {0, 1} -> {0, 1, 2, ..., k + 1} and so on, for any k. More compactly, n -> n + k, for all n ∈ N.
a –> Actually I spoke of a were the succession to endlessness completed. Where, there is a copy of the set so far pattern that can be shown and was shown. b –> But also I showed where for any k the onward succession k, k+1 etc continues tot he same endlessness as 0,1,2 etc. So, directly, the completion cannot occur.
Well, again it appears you are still talking about applying the successor operation infinitely many times. We (neither you nor I) are not allowed to do this, so ω cannot be formed in this manner.
c –> Where the imposition of “for all n in the succession” does little more than loop the matter, and ignores the chaining inherent in posing a claim case k => case k+1, hung on a first case.
No infinite loops allowed, as I stated above. ω is the union of all finite ordinals; it's not constructed by "endlessly" applying the successor operation.
Me: Let’s call this set α . But by definition of the union of sets, this means that α ∈ {1, 2, 3, …, n} for some natural number n. KF: e –> Where n will be an endlessly large value, i.e., one without a finite successor.
Well, no, there aren't any of those. As I stated, n is a natural number, so n + 1 exists and is finite.
f –> tantamount to saying that you cannot actually continue to endlessness, so the whole argument collapses via imposition of the conclusion you want in the course of the argument.
No, it is tantamount to saying that proofs consist of finitely many steps. That is, unless you want to work in some exotic infinitary logic, which I doubt.
g –> on the contrary, you have not met the required criterion of endlessness and have actually admitted the point that the set cannot be completed in succession.
As I said, this sort of "endlessness" doesn't occur in proofs except in some exotic forms of logic. The following quotation explains why
The main idea of mathematical induction is that if a statement can be proved true for the number 1, and if we can also show that by assuming it true for 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n, we can prove it true for n + 1, then our statement will therefore true for all natural numbers n ≥ 1. The power of this method is that a statement can be proved true for all natural numbers in finitely many steps, rather than having to prove it true for each n ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, ..} individually.
If you google "proofs have finitely many steps", you will find other examples. daveS
KF
the issue is not mathematics constraining reality so much as that reality is coherent, a logical criterion. Bring to bear structural and quantitative aspects and then we see that such coherence can have mathematical forms.
Where is the mathematical problem? Where is the fault in a proof or a theorem? You keep objecting but you can't point to a specific fault except that you think there's some issue with reality vs math but you can't say exactly what is it.
As for mind changing, the issue I have has been openly stated from early on, the concept of infinitely many finite counting sets incrementing from {} –> 0 by the copy set so far principle, becomes at minimum paradoxical, and may well be far worse.
What can be worse? You've been asked over and over and over again and you won't say. SPELL IT OUT.
has your union continued to endlessness? (Where, for any k in the succession, k, k+1 etc can be endlessly put in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 . . . ) If so, kindly show us, and show us how such a union will be also not endless.
What? We've been saying over and over and over again that there is no controversy or problem or issue with the mathematics. All these questions have been dealt with a long time ago. But, for some reason, you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again when you can't even explain your problem in standard mathematical parlance.
If not, has it then captured all the elements of the set of successive counting numbers, which is to continue without upper limit?
Yes, it has. You are just talking on and on without really addressing all the work that has been done already. Seriously, you seemingly completely ignore all the posts we've written in good faith trying to explain and elucidate our views and the well established mathematics. You continue to talk in vague and non-mathematical terms which we have repeated asked you to clarify. And you have singularly failed to get specific about what exactly you are having a problem with mathematically. Again, 'endlessness' is NOT a mathematical problem. It's a problem with you. What is your problem? PLEASE be specific so we are not all just wasting our time. I'm beginning to think you are just trying to provoke us into behaving badly because you ignore our questions and queries and just keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. If you want to have a dialogue then you need to respond and not just repeat. ellazimm
DS, has your union continued to endlessness? (Where, for any k in the succession, k, k+1 etc can be endlessly put in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 . . . ) If so, kindly show us, and show us how such a union will be also not endless. If not, has it then captured all the elements of the set of successive counting numbers, which is to continue without upper limit? KF PS: Let me clip you at 1344: >>if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the union of the countably infinite sequence of sets 0, {0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, … must include an element (itself a set) of infinite cardinality. >> a --> Actually I spoke of a were the succession to endlessness completed. Where, there is a copy of the set so far pattern that can be shown and was shown. b --> But also I showed where for any k the onward succession k, k+1 etc continues tot he same endlessness as 0,1,2 etc. So, directly, the completion cannot occur. c --> Where the imposition of "for all n in the succession" does little more than loop the matter, and ignores the chaining inherent in posing a claim case k => case k+1, hung on a first case. d --> Making the chaining implicit does not make it go away. >>Let’s call this set ?. But by definition of the union of sets, this means that ? ? {1, 2, 3, …, n} for some natural number n. >> e --> Where n will be an endlessly large value, i.e., one without a finite successor. >>But again, the sets {0, 1, 2, …, n} that occur in that union all have finite endpoints n (since I am not allowed to repeat the successor operation more than finitely many times).>> f --> tantamount to saying that you cannot actually continue to endlessness, so the whole argument collapses via imposition of the conclusion you want in the course of the argument. >> So we have a contradiction: our infinite subset ? is an element of a finite set (of finite sets) {0, 1, 2, …, n}.>> g --> on the contrary, you have not met the required criterion of endlessness and have actually admitted the point that the set cannot be completed in succession. kairosfocus
kf, here are three places where you has have said that math and logic constrain reality: Back in 1009, for instance, you wrote,
PS: That we are relying on proof by contradiction to carry enormous weights is a deep and pervasive commitment to coherence of truth and the constraining power on reality posed by logic ...
and at 1080,
Logical-mathematical realities can and do causally constrain the real world. ... And this seems there as a limit to observable reality imposed by logic, never mind that we cannot observe the remote past, or even the much nearer past.
and the most telling quote,
the logic of structure and quantity — a matter of pure abstract logic — constrains physical reality ... Logic of abstract entities has causal constraining force in the physical world
But now you say differently:
the issue is not mathematics constraining reality so much as that reality is coherent, a logical criterion. Bring to bear structural and quantitative aspects and then we see that such coherence can have mathematical forms.
Can you clarify your beliefs on this topic. You've said inconsistent things. Aleta
may well be far worse.
Could you explain more specifically what could be "far worse" than paradoxical. I don't think we have any idea what you're talking about, and you won't tell us. Aleta
KF,
the concept of infinitely many finite counting sets incrementing from {} –> 0 by the copy set so far principle, becomes at minimum paradoxical, and may well be far worse. KF
Have you found any published sources indicating there is an actual logical problem here? I would think such a problem would have been identified long ago. daveS
Aleta, the issue is not mathematics constraining reality so much as that reality is coherent, a logical criterion. Bring to bear structural and quantitative aspects and then we see that such coherence can have mathematical forms. As for mind changing, the issue I have has been openly stated from early on, the concept of infinitely many finite counting sets incrementing from {} --> 0 by the copy set so far principle, becomes at minimum paradoxical, and may well be far worse. KF kairosfocus
KF, I am not going to bring up God again because we just go down the rabbit hole. Me_Think
I don't think changing kf's mind about anything is a reasonable goal. My goals are 1. to learn to really understand the positions of others, in part by pushing them to articulate and further their views, 2. to improve my understanding and ability to articulate my own views, 3. to learn more, both from others and by researching topics that are brought up (I've re-learned lots of stuff I've haven't thought about in years and learned a bunch of new stuff in this discussion) 4. to have some intellectual recreation Aleta
Aleta #1250
Exactly what ellazimm said – very good post!
Thanks! I don't think it will change much but it was fun trying to remember examples. What did I miss . . . ellazimm
Exactly what ellazimm said - very good post! Aleta
KF #1345
was it Wheeler who wrote on the unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the physical sciences?] The divorcing of the two is ill advised. That has been one of my points of concern all along.
Why is it ill-advised? When imaginary numbers were first proposed they had zero applications in the real world. When Euler came up with his famous equation he used i = sqrt(-1) without worrying about whether or not he was 'divorced' from the real world. I know you admire that equation but what does it model? What about the Goldbach conjecture (every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes)? Does the truth or falseness of that say anything about the physical world? Or Fermat's Last Theorem which occupied mathematicians for 300 years! What about the Four Color Theorem? It's easy enough to verify it for any 'real' map but that doesn't make it true in mathematics. What about Zeno's paradox? Do we actually see Achilles NOT catching up with the tortoise? What about the Axiom of Choice? Is it true? How would its truth or falseness change anything we can experience? Differential equations are terribly useful in many fields of science. Have you looked at the theorems determining when a differential equation has a continuous, differential solution? Do we, in the real world, have anything that is actually an everywhere continuous function? If I measure the coastline of England using a yard stick and you measure it with a 12-inch ruler we will get different results (after a conversion). Mandelbrot considered that kind of problem and came up with fractals (he was working on other things as well) which stay 'jagged' no matter how far you zoom in. I took a class where we studied fractional dimensions and integrals. I still can't quite get my head around that stuff. But the math works. We use values like sqrt(2) or Pi without being able to write them down or measure them beyond a rather small level of accuracy. But in mathematics they are exact values. Reality and mathematics are frequently separate. A lot of mathematics has turned out to be useful in modelling real world phenomena . . . to a level of accuracy. But if you take a real world circle and find the ratio between the measured circumference and the diameter you will not get the mathematically exact value of Pi. It's true that some mathematics was motivated by a real-life problem. But there's quite a lot that was 'discovered' just because some (mostly) guys were just trying to out-do each other. For some reason you have taken a particular topic of pure mathematics and decided you can't go there because of some perceived real world implications. You've not been able to tell us why that is so important to you on this particular point and you keep using non-standard and undefined terms to discuss the issue. Unless you can clearly and concisely explain what it is that is causing you cognitive conflicts (because the mathematics is very clear and has been for over a century) then I think it's time to agree to disagree and leave it. And PLEASE try hard to not just repeat all the things you've already said over and over again. If they didn't make sense to us the first and second and third time you said them they're not going to make sense now. Just get to the real 'problem' you see because I don't get it. 'Endlessness' is NOT a mathematical issue or problem. Why is it a problem for you? ellazimm
in 1345, I believe kf is affirming what I said at 1342: he believes that math constrains reality rather than that math is a tool for describing reality. Aleta
KF,
DS, The von Neumann sequencing shows how stage by stage the next ordinal is a copy of the set so far. That copy is by way of union of the successive counting sets to that stage, giving the +1 succession as illustrated.
Yes, certainly.
This continues without end, end-less-ly.
If you mean we can take the successor of any ordinal, true. We cannot carry out an infinite sequence of these steps, however. That's illegal in standard logic/mathematics.
Were there an infinity of such successive sets, at the far region, zone or whatever there would be members that are endless, per that infinity or endlessness.
No, this remains to be shown. I claim the set ω includes only finite elements, and showed how assuming otherwise leads to a contradiction, so I don't believe you can show this.
All the values we can reach are finite but we cannot exhaust the set.
We cannot "exhaust the set" meaning construct ω starting with {} and the successor operation? Yes, we cannot do that in a mathematical proof.
PS: Do you see why I take a serious pause in the face of a claim like there are INFINITELY many successive FINITE natural numbers starting from 0,1,2 etc?
Yes, in that any suggestion of a contradiction should be taken seriously. I take it seriously, but it's not difficult to show that there actually is no contradiction. To sum up, I believe that I have shown that the union of the sets {}, {0}, {0, 1}, ... contains no infinite elements. My challenge to you is to prove otherwise, in standard mathematical language. daveS
DS, The von Neumann sequencing shows how stage by stage the next ordinal is a copy of the set so far. That copy is by way of union of the successive counting sets to that stage, giving the +1 succession as illustrated. This continues without end, end-less-ly. Were there an infinity of such successive sets, at the far region, zone or whatever there would be members that are endless, per that infinity or endlessness. The point is, we cannot attain that zone that way as at any k, endlessness lies still ahead; hence the pink vs blue tapes example. We point across the potential infinite and the ellipsis of endlessness and say the successor to the lot is w. But we cannot define a predecessor to w as a specific, finite value or member. My point is we CANNOT complete the succession and that is part of the nature of the set of successive counting sets. All the values we can reach are finite but we cannot exhaust the set. So, w has no specific finite predecessor, it is a limit ordinal. So also, we can only speak to the finitude of what we can reach to or represent, we have to accept that we cannot traverse to completion in +1 steps or things based on that. This includes ordinary mathematical induction. KF PS: Do you see why I take a serious pause in the face of a claim like there are INFINITELY many successive FINITE natural numbers starting from 0,1,2 etc? kairosfocus
EZ (& Aleta), forgive an early morning type-up. I adjust: >>the difference would be to
[a] first, analysis of the logic of structure and quantity [aka mathematics],
then also, necessarily, to
[b] domains in which structures (abstract or physical) and quantities are relevant.
[ --> was it Wheeler who wrote on the unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the physical sciences?] The divorcing of the two is ill advised. That has been one of my points of concern all along.>> Both and, in short. But with a first and foremost. KF kairosfocus
KF,
DS (attn VS), the tree structure in the OP shows that in the W-zone, w – 1 to w/2 is a branch from w and would be beyond the marked ellipsis of endlessness. The far zone from the zero neighbourhood would include such. And far zone is observationally descriptive, treating quantities as a phenomenon.
Thanks, I see now. The primary issue I have at this point is your contention regarding this countably infinite sequence:
0 = {} 1 = {0} 2 = {0, 1} 3 = {0, 1, 2} etc.
namely, that if we *repeat this successor operation a countably infinite number of times*, then the resulting set will necessarily include an element of infinite cardinality. I believe at some point above you replaced the phrase enclosed with asterisks with something like "take the union of all 0, {0}, {0, 1}, ...", which I think is more correct. For example, ω is the union of all finite ordinals. ("Applying the successor operation infinitely many times" is not allowed in standard mathematical proofs, but forming the union of an arbitrary family of sets is). So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the union of the countably infinite sequence of sets 0, {0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, ... must include an element (itself a set) of infinite cardinality. Let's call this set α. But by definition of the union of sets, this means that α ∈ {1, 2, 3, ..., n} for some natural number n. But again, the sets {0, 1, 2, ..., n} that occur in that union all have finite endpoints n (since I am not allowed to repeat the successor operation more than finitely many times). So we have a contradiction: our infinite subset α is an element of a finite set (of finite sets) {0, 1, 2, ..., n}. daveS
MT, the first question is whence the cosmos, a cosmos in which we find ourselves as responsibly free and rational beings. To which the best answer is a necessary and inherently good being who is also the is grounding ought. The God of ethical theism as worldview, which is not an issue of various religious traditions but of philosophy at foundational level. Such an inherently good Creator and God is worthy of our reasonable, responsible loyalty and service in light of our evident nature and equality of nature as people. This is a serious, responsible view in and of itself and not one to be brushed aside with dismissive talking points such as oh, men made up the notion of god out of whole cloth. As to the oh then why are there different views and traditions about God, look no further than that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed. That 876,985 + 234,761 = 1,111,746 is not answered by but different people who did the sum came up with different answers. Of course, that is what we expect in a world where error is a commonplace. The issue is, what is right, on what grounds and how can we move towards what is right. I suggest that here on, do not skip the vid, may well be of help. But, this is an aside from the main focus of this thread -- I took it up because in some ways it is even more important than the main point as the weight of one soul outweighs the wealth of a planet. KF kairosfocus
to Dave re:1340. I also find it hard to follow kf's meaning, and am not sure why a straightforward answer wouldn't suffice, but I think was kf is saying is that you can't separate math and reality. In some earlier posts, several times kf said that the math "constrains reality." I really think he believes that what we determine about math also tells us something certain about reality. That is the opposite of my belief, which is that we have to model reality using math, and then test the model to see if it fits. I think this difference is perhaps fundamentally driving his resistance to accepting orthodox interpretations of infinity. He thinks that in talking about infinity mathematically we are also truly discussing how time and the past have to be. Aleta
to me_think and kf, re: 1329. I assumed for the sake of discussion that a "root of reality" outside of time exists, but that that being was not the Christian God, and not a God with a particular interest in human beings. Part of my purpose was to separate the big philosophical ideas about time and events from the further beliefs about God of any particular human religion. Aleta
KF #1338
Aleta, the difference would be to first analysis of the logic of structure and quantity [aka mathematics], then also necessarily to domains in which structures (abstract or physical) and quantities are relevant. The divorcing of the two is ill advised. That has been one of my points of concern all along. KF
I find it hard to parse this sentence but it does seem that you are not necessarily objecting to the mathematical work done by Cantor and others which established methods and structures for handling infinite cardinal numbers. If that is true then Aleta, daveS and I have no argument with you. As I've said before, how you or anyone else chooses to see the mathematics reflected in the real world has nothing to do with the mathematics. I think it would be helpful if you'd clear up whether your 'concerns' have to do with the actual mathematics or its use. ellazimm
KF @ 1337
F/N: for those who imagine it a clever dismissive clip to suggest man invented God, I suggest a ponder here on with a look to the question of necessary being root of reality i/l/o modal considerations on being/non being. KF
Sorry KF, that link does not explain why different religion have different God with their own stories. If you have read Robert Spitzer's book (Chapter III), you know that the 'unconditional reality (God) has to be the simplest possible reality and should be unique Me_Think
Aleta, the difference would be to first analysis of the logic of structure and quantity [aka mathematics], then also necessarily to domains in which structures (abstract or physical) and quantities are relevant. The divorcing of the two is ill advised. That has been one of my points of concern all along. KF PS: It is in that context of logic in primary sense as a prior and defining aspect of mathematics that I have seen it as at minimum paradoxical and perhaps far worse, to suggest an INFINITE sequence of FINITE, successive +1 step counting steps from 0 on through 1,2,3 etc. Especially where a --> at each succession the counting set that leads to the next value is a copy of the set so far. As I pointed out yesterday. b --> Were such to go to endlessness as infinite suggests, there would be individual, endless members. c --> Which would not be finite. d --> That is why I suggest instead the view that while the sequencing -- and no it cannot be brushed aside, e.g. in von Neumann's construction it is there for all to see -- can go on endless-LY in principle, it also cannot be completed in finite stage steps. e --> It is potential, not exhausted or ended. f --> So there is ever an onward endlessness at any stage k we reach, k+1 etc on. This, the pink/blue tapes and do forever algorithm of 217 underscore. g --> The ellipsis of endlessness is a material part of the definition of the natural counting numbers. h --> It is then in recognition of an emergent type of quantity that we define w etc. And yes, i --> I am seeing this as putting a caution on how we understand what an ordinary mathematical induction . . . which preceded the axiomatisation since C19 . . . proves, that j --> a result depending on an initial case and a chaining implication case k => case k+1 will show a result that goes on endless-LY but that's not the same as giving an ending of the process that actually traverses a transfinite span that in effect reaches to the zone of w. So, k --> all PARTICULAR counting sets we can specifically reach, instantiate and/or denote by succession or representations on notations depending on such (place value, scientific etc) will be finite but such cannot exhaust endlessness. l --> We are not warranted to infer that all counting sets in the onward endless succession are finite (or even that some are infinite), which breaks the possibility of outright contradiction.* m --> We may point across an ellipsis of endlessness to draw a general conclusion, but we must circumscribe such with due limits.* ________________ * F/N: Thus, the question of materiality of endlessness. ______________ n --> Transfinite induction allows us to address ALL ordinals, but that is because it takes some very powerful and potentially constraining steps. kairosfocus
F/N: for those who imagine it a clever dismissive clip to suggest man invented God, I suggest a ponder here on with a look to the question of necessary being root of reality i/l/o modal considerations on being/non being. KF kairosfocus
Ez, BTW, w is a stand in for omega, the first transfinite ordinal i/l/o say the von Neumann type construction from {} --> 0 on, which has cardinality aleph null. Kindly refer to the tree of numbers in the OP as a context for usages and remarks. KF kairosfocus
DS (attn VS), the tree structure in the OP shows that in the W-zone, w - 1 to w/2 is a branch from w and would be beyond the marked ellipsis of endlessness. The far zone from the zero neighbourhood would include such. And far zone is observationally descriptive, treating quantities as a phenomenon. On eternity and infinite past time suggestions, Enyart or whoever may freely make up what he wants to, that is different from such being serious historic views. Above, I gave a model that would help some, of time-space's north pole point as God's throne room view. Thus, echoing Paul's citation of poets at Mars Hill in AD 50, in him we live and move and have our being. As a sampler, Augustine:
What times existed which were not brought into being by you? Or how could they pass if they never had existence? Since, therefore, you are the cause of all times, if any time existed before you made heaven and earth, how can anyone say that you abstained from working? (Augustine, Confessions, XI. xiii (15)). It is not in time that you precede times. Otherwise you would not precede all times. In the sublimity of an eternity which is always in the present, you are before all things past and transcend all things future, because they are still to come. (Augustine Confessions XI. xiii (16)). In you it is not one thing to be and another to live: the supreme degree of being and the supreme degree of life are one and the same thing. You are being in a supreme degree and are immutable. In you the present day has no ending, and yet in you it has its end: ‘all these things have their being in you’ (Rom.11.36). They would have no way of passing away unless you set a limit to them. Because ‘your years do not fail’ (Ps.101.28), your years are one Today. (Augustine Confessions, I. vi (10))
Time and eternity, actuality of a world. possible vs impossible beings, and of possible contingent vs necessary are all bound up in this. I simply note that true nothing, non being has no causal power. Were there utter nothing, such would forever obtain. If a world now is, a root of reality always was, a necessary being foundational to a world existing. Such points beyond the space time zone we inhabit to a zone of eternity that undergirds it. Something qualitatively different from time. Hence the north pole of space time model as a suggestion to help us ponder i/l/o how all lines of longitude converge at a single point. Just, to spark thought. The point is, we must beware our conceptual limitations and perhaps want of relevant background when we traipse into such matters. KF kairosfocus
#1333 error correction: In the first sentence, the word 'chance' should read 'change' instead. Sorry for this misspelling, which shows I wasn't as careful as I should. Dionisio
Whatever y'all argue in this discussion, it aint't gonna chance a bit of the ultimate reality, which is written:
In the beginning was Logos
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. [John 1:1-2 (ESV)]
The creation of the world
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [Genesis 1:1 (ESV)]
All things were made through Logos
All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. [John 1:3 (ESV)]
Alright, you may continue with your arguments... or whatever, until the end of this age of grace. Paká! :) Dionisio
My thoughts: Humans created God. Every religion has their own God and their own story. If God was one infinite being, this wouldn't be the case. Me_Think
As far as I can tell, this thread isn't going away very soon, so no hurry! :-) And I also have had this line of thought in the back of my mind for a long time, but in the interest of a focused discussion (such as it has been), I didn't want to mix these metaphysical speculations with the pure math concerning infinity. Aleta
Aleta, You've opened the door to a very interesting discussion here. I have some thoughts to offer on these points, and had actually been thinking of addressing some of them earlier today, though I didn't get around to it. I don't really have the time to write anything right now, but hopefully I'll have a chance tomorrow, because there are some really interesting issues here. Take care, HeKS HeKS
Since we (at least I) have pretty much exhausted the discussion about mathematical infinity, I think I'll take off my mathematician hat and venture into speculative metaphysics. Specifically, I'm going to take the perspective of a theist of the following sort: I'll assume an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent immaterial being capable of creating a universe or universes. However, I'm not assuming the Christian God, and specifically not a special focus on our little planet nor any of the special theological beliefs that are attached beyond the properties I listed above, I'll also agree with Origenes and kf that God is eternal and thus outside of both time and space. A disclaimer: I am going to talk of God creating multiple universes in my speculations below. In doing so, I am not referring to the multiple universe hypotheses ralted to quantum possibilities being discussed elsewhere - those don't interest me. Rather, I am assuming the a God capable of creating this universe is capable of creating other similar universes, and given his eternal nature, might not create many universes. So here are some thoughts and questions. Comments welcome. 1. Assuming God has omniscient knowledge of all possible mathematics, does God experience the infinite, be it the integers or the real number line or the digits of pi, in their entirety, as a completed whole? We are limited to just pointing to the lack of a limit, but my opinion is that God does not have that limitation. Even though we can't begin to grasp what it means to comprehend the whole of the infinite, I assume God can do so. 2. Since time doesn't apply to God, what is going on in God before he has created a universe? I assume he doesn't think linearly like we do, but rather has complete and instantaneous comprehension of all concepts. So during his eternal existence, does it make any sense to talk about what he is/does when there is no material universe? You can't ask what is he even doing "before" he created the universe, because he doesn't exist in time: no number line runs concurrently with God, so to speak. 3. So where does time come in? What does it mean to say that God created time. I see two possibilities, which I'll offer as a question: Does God create time as an independent creation and then create a universe in time, or is there no time until a universe is created? I ask this question to try to possibly separate the two issues of the possible infinitude of time from the question of the creation of a first causal event in time. 4. On the one hand, it may be that time cannot exist without events happening: that is, time is a by-product of events happening in causal sequence, so if nothing exists to happen, time does not exist. On the other hand, God might create time as a dimension which exists irrespective of whether any physical universe exists in which events happen in causal sequence. It is perhaps interesting to consider these two possibilities. 5. If God did create time independently of a universe, and then created a universe at a moment in time, could God have created time so it was infinite, so that an infinite number line truly represented this metaphysical time within which universes and physical time might exist, even though no causal events and no physical time, existed until the moment of creation. In this case, God could create multiple universes at different times (and even concurrently), and he could create/have created an infinite number of universes stretching back infinitely into the past and infinitely far in the future. 6. On the hand, if it really makes no sense, even to God, to consider time as being able to exist independently of events, then consider this situation: God creates universe A. It runs for 30 billion years or so, comes to a complete dead end, and then God utterly destroys it. Some time "later", which really doesn't make sense if God is outside time, God makes universe B and time starts up fresh in that universe. In this case we have two periods of time, one for each universe, with nothing "in between" except the God himself, and since he is eternal and atemporal, we couldn't say there is any time between the two universes. But surely, it seems to me, God would know the temporal sequence of the two universe, which might imply that God has an internal time line as one of his omniscient conceptions, not a timeline that pre-existed him, but an infinite internal timeline by which he knows of time even when there is nothing happening. Or perhaps God knows time when it is happening in a universe, but is so all-of-a-piece, such a Oneness, that his knowledge of different instances of time in different universe are themselves not temporally related. Thoughts? Questions? Aleta
KF: The beginningless past would refer to eternity which is different from time. How can you have a past without time? velikovskys
Bump 1314 kairosfocus April 4, 2016 at 8:08 am Material in context means what makes a difference to decisions or analysis etc. 1315 Aleta April 4, 2016 at 8:15 am Do you mean " makes a difference to decisions or analysis" in the world of abstract mathematics, or do you mean " makes a difference to decisions or analysis" in respect to the material, physical, actual world? Your response in 1314 doesn’t make clear which you mean. Aleta
DaveS #1322
(...) many Scriptural teachings at kgov.com/time showing that God exists in time, therefore we teach that God has not existed atemporally outside of time and then entered time, but rather, that His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting, from ancient times, (...)
God eternally existing in time would mean that time is more fundamental than God, which is incoherent. It would pose the question: "where did time (and space) come from?" and God would not be candidate as a cause. God cannot be the foundation of all reality and (eternally) be enclosed by time.
Because of the impossibility of time itself being created (...)
Big bang? Origenes
KF,
DS, please look at the numbers tree in the OP. 0 and neighbourhood is the near zone, you then face endlessness and successors starting at w on. KF
If we're working in the surreal numbers, are ω - 1, ω - 2, and so on also in the far zone?
The beginningless past would refer to eternity which is different from time.
Hmm. I don't know that Enyart would agree; he apparently believes God exists in time and has existed for an actual infinity of time. To be honest, I didn't find the Morriston paper that persuasive, however. This does at least show there is some diversity of opinion even among Christians regarding an infinite past. daveS
The beginningless past would refer to eternity which is different from time. kairosfocus
DS, please look at the numbers tree in the OP. 0 and neighbourhood is the near zone, you then face endlessness and successors starting at w on. KF KF kairosfocus
Interestingly, Bob Enyart, who posts here occasionally, has done a show on this topic. The title of the webpage: "God crossed an actual infinity of time through the beginningless past".
Age Old Philosophical Question Answered: Bob Enyart answers the age old philosophical objection to countless Bible passages that present God as having existed throughout eternity past. Because of the impossibility of time itself being created, and by the many, many Scriptural teachings at kgov.com/time showing that God exists in time, therefore we teach that God has not existed atemporally outside of time and then entered time, but rather, that His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting, from ancient times, the everlasting God who continues forever, from before the ages of the ages, He who is and who was and who is to come, who remains forever, the everlasting Father, whose years never end, from everlasting to everlasting, and of His kingdom there will be no end.
Further down the page:
God has existed through the "beginningless past" (Morriston, 2010, Faith and Philosophy, pp. 439-450). Christian theologians who object to this typically do so by being inconsistent, and thus, their objection is easily neutralized, and then answered.
Here's a paper by Morriston on the subject (I haven't read it yet) entitled "Beginningless Past, Endless Future, Actual Finite". The abstract:
One of the principal lines of argument deployed by the friends of the kalam cosmological argument against the possibility of a beginningless series of events is a quite general argument against the possibility of an actual infinite. The principal thesis of the present paper is that if this argument worked as advertised, parallel considerations would force us to conclude, not merely that a series of discrete, successive events must have a first member, but also that such a series must have a final member. Anyone who thinks that an endless series of events is possible must therefore reject this popular line of argument against the possibility of an actual infinite.
daveS
KF, Is it accurate to say your "far zone" consists of all ordinals ω and larger? daveS
Aleta, there is an ellipsis of endlessness that commonly crops up, I add e.g. {0,1,2 . . . }. There is such a thing as beyond that ellipsis starting with w as can be seen in the tree of surreals appended to the OP. The far zone from counting numbers near zero is what happens in and beyond that ellipsis of endlessness. Which the surreals do highlight in a reasonable framework. The onward points then are, the spanning or traversal of such endlessness, which it is evident cannot be executed in finite stage steps as would be required for an infinite past of causally connected stages but mainly as a consequence of the involved logic of structure and quantity. In that wider context, there was a proposal that implies that there are infinitely many +1 step successive finite natural numbers ranging up from 0, which I find to be at best paradoxical, for cause. There is more but there is no need to go on repeating much the same as has already been said. KF kairosfocus
I don’t think that is true. The concern about an infinite past is always in the back of his mind, I’m sure, but a great deal of what he has said has been about some unorthodox notions about the pure mathematics of the natural numbers, such as that “beyond the ellipsis” there is a “far zone”, etc. I don’t believe that he thinks “infinity works just fine as a purely mathematical construct.”
Ok, well I'll leave KF to address whether or not that is the case. Some of the math stuff that has been discussed lies clearly outside my knowledge and understanding and I find it best to be up-front when that is the case. But from what I've understood of what he's written, the concern about an infinite past has been closer to the front of his mind than the back, and the math related stuff he has been discussing has seemed to be offered in the larger context of how impossible it would be to have an infinity in the real world, which is what an infinite past would be.
In respect to the point about starting from infinity, you write, “I disagree with you that I’m confused.” My apologies for misunderstanding you. We are in agreement that “starting from infinity” is meaningless.
Not a problem. It was an understandable misunderstanding. It would obviously become burdensome on my part if I had to specify every time I make a statement of a certain sort that it is made for the purpose of drawing out the absurdity of some situation, or that some scenario would need to be described with the words I'm using even though the words amount to a nonsensical statement, so I've just used a shorthand hoping that my ultimate meaning is clear from prior posts, but clearly that's not always the case. HeKS
Thanks, HeKS.
as far as I can tell, KF has all along been discussing this issue of infinity as it relates to the coherence of a real-world instantiation in the form of an infinite past-time. He wrote the OP and that’s pretty clearly the issue he has been trying to discuss, so I’m not sure what the argument is about for you and ellazimm if your point is merely that infinity works just fine as a purely mathematical construct, as I don’t think KF has argued otherwise.
I don't think that is true. The concern about an infinite past is always in the back of his mind, I'm sure, but a great deal of what he has said has been about some unorthodox notions about the pure mathematics of the natural numbers, such as that "beyond the ellipsis" there is a "far zone", etc. I don't believe that he thinks "infinity works just fine as a purely mathematical construct." In respect to the point about starting from infinity, you write, "I disagree with you that I’m confused." My apologies for misunderstanding you. We are in agreement that "starting from infinity" is meaningless. Aleta
Aleta, Thanks for your response. You said:
So the language you propose is a bit more accurate because it fleshes out a bit more what the definition of infinite is. (An aside, though: even the phrase you use “towards infinity as a limit” is informal and not truly accurate, as infinity is not really a place that can be a limit. It would be more accurate to just say “without limit.”)
I agree. I wasn't actually intending to suggest that it was infinity itself that was the limit, but that the limit of our counted set can continually increase towards infinity. Having said that, I realize upon rereading that my wording suggested it was infinity that was the actual limit, so I should have been even more careful about the way I worded that. You said:
In any discussion, different people may have different ideas about what the thread is about.
Fair enough. However, I was speaking with reference to the OP. Of course, you are free to add to the discussion on any aspect of the relevant issue you choose, but what I was ultimately trying to get at is that, as far as I can tell, KF has all along been discussing this issue of infinity as it relates to the coherence of a real-world instantiation in the form of an infinite past-time. He wrote the OP and that's pretty clearly the issue he has been trying to discuss, so I'm not sure what the argument is about for you and ellazimm if your point is merely that infinity works just fine as a purely mathematical construct, as I don't think KF has argued otherwise.
The relevant question here is not whether every specific integer is a finite number, but whether every integer is reachable through a succession of finite steps. … It would take a finite number of steps to reach a particular finite integer from zero or from any other specific finite integer, but it would take an infinite number of steps to reach any finite integer from infinity. And that is the point at issue in this thread. Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics.
I’m afraid this quote contains one of the key confusions in the discussion. The phrase “from infinity” makes no sense. Infinity is not a place you can start from. You are falling prey here to the same thing you cautioned me against above when you suggested we be more precise about what infinite means on the number line, confusing an informal way of talking with the more accurate mathematical idea.
I disagree with you that I'm confused. I completely agree with you that "[t]he phrase 'from infinity' makes no sense. Infinity is not a place you can start from." Please don't take my use of that phrase or the statement that "it would take an infinite number of steps to reach any finite integer from infinity" to suggest this was a coherent concept or a thing that could happen. My point all along in this thread has specifically been that such a notion makes absolutely no sense and ultimately amounts to word salad. In fact, I specifically said this in my comment to you:
The man’s statement [about descending from infinity], and the entire scenario it relates to, is utterly nonsensical. It is absurd.
My reason for using the phrases is to draw out that claims of having arrived at the present from the infinite reaches of a beginningless past amount to making statements of the sort that you are saying (with my full agreement) make no sense. Statements about the feasibility of doing it are basically meaningless, because the entire notion is nonsensical. You said:
You write, “Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics.” No, “Getting from infinity to some finite number” is, as they say, not even wrong. The statement makes no mathematical sense.
Thanks for the info. As I said, at least as the issue relates to the real world I have been saying all along that the idea doesn't make any sense at all, but I was uncertain as to whether there might be some mathematical formality that could in some way represent such a thing, however absurd it is in reality. HeKS
Hi HeKS. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. In respect to the question, "1. True or False: there are an infinite number of integers," you write,
but as it is worded I find it has the potential to confuse the real issues, which are decidedly not purely mathematical. The illustrations, like that of the ladder, were intended to serve a few different purposes, but the ultimate purpose I had in mind in my comments was to stress the importance of maintaining mental distinctions between abstract concepts and concrete realities.
I'm sorry the question seems confusing, but I think I made it clear that this question is about pure math when I wrote "Note: this is a purely mathematical question. It is not about time, or ladders, or tapes – just math." I know you are unlikely to have followed all my posts on this, but I am a strong advocate for doing exactly as you say, "maintaining mental distinctions between abstract concepts and concrete realities." You write,
After all, there is not an actually existing infinite set of integers just sitting around out there somewhere, and so we must question what is meant by the word “are” in your claim, since it would normally be a reference to existence. I think a more accurate way of stating matters would be to say that there is no arbitrarily large integer that would be the largest possible integer, and so the integers can continuously increase from the zero point towards infinity as a limit in both the positive and negative directions.
The question of in what sense mathematical concepts exist is of interest, but not the topic of this thread. Mathematicians of all philosophical and religious perspectives work with perfect circles and pi and infinite sets as they are defined within the symbolic world of math: they all agree that those concepts exist as part of those mathematically systems and as part of our ability to apprehend those concepts. That is what I mean by "exist" and "are". I'm making no claims about their metaphysical nature nor about any physical representation. Also, I agree with you that there are more accurate ways to state what we mean by "infinite", but, as with many concepts, we informally use a word or phrase that we all know has a more precise meaning. For instance, in calculus we start by stressing the idea of limit: for instance, in discussing the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ..., we stress that the limit of this series as n goes to infinity is 1, but that any partial sum (where we stop at some finite n) is not 1: informally, we say we "get infinitely close to 1". However, later in the year we may say that the sum of that series is 1, because, since we understand the more precise meaning, we can shortcut the language. So the language you propose is a bit more accurate because it fleshes out a bit more what the definition of infinite is. (An aside, though: even the phrase you use "towards infinity as a limit" is informal and not truly accurate, as infinity is not really a place that can be a limit. It would be more accurate to just say "without limit.") However, there is more than that. Cantor formalized the notion of infinity, and set in motion a whole branch of mathematics that goes beyond just trying to accurately describe numbers on a number line. He created a new kind of number, the transfinites, and named the particular order of infinite possessed by the integers as aleph null, and then discovered that there are other infinite numbers: some infinite numbers are bigger than others. So the integers are infinite with cardinality aleph null would be a more accurate statement for those familiar withe mathematics of infinite sets. You write,
The abstract concept of infinity can be used without problem by mathematicians, but that doesn’t mean that an infinity can be translated into a concrete and coherent reality in the world. And that is what this thread is about.
In any discussion, different people may have different ideas about what the thread is about. For kf, the connection of the topic to arguments about an infinite past are paramount. However, that topic has not been my interest. I've written a few posts about why I feel that way, but the vast majority of my interest is about the pure math. So when I say that the integers are infinite I am in no way discussing any possible connection of that statement with anything physically real. Translating "an infinity ... into a concrete and coherent reality in the world" is not what my involvement in the discussion is about. You write,
The relevant question here is not whether every specific integer is a finite number, but whether every integer is reachable through a succession of finite steps. ... It would take a finite number of steps to reach a particular finite integer from zero or from any other specific finite integer, but it would take an infinite number of steps to reach any finite integer from infinity. And that is the point at issue in this thread. Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics.
I'm afraid this quote contains one of the key confusions in the discussion. The phrase "from infinity" makes no sense. Infinity is not a place you can start from. You are falling prey here to the same thing you cautioned me against above when you suggested we be more precise about what infinite means on the number line, confusing an informal way of talking with the more accurate mathematical idea. You write, "Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics." No, "Getting from infinity to some finite number" is, as they say, not even wrong. The statement makes no mathematical sense. Returning to the topic of what is the discussion about, you write,
Aleta and ellazimm, you seem to keep saying that your interest is purely in the mathematical issues here and not in the issues that arise when translating the abstract concept of infinity into a real world case like an infinite past-time, and you seem to expect that people are engaging you on those terms. But looking to the OP, this thread is and always has been about the latter, not the former, so it kinda seems like we’re all sort of talking past each other here.
Your first sentence is accurate. My disagreement with the second sentence is that I think in a discussion people often limit their interest, and in fact it often useful to narrow the focus. I think it's reasonable to expect people who respond to me to accept that it is only the math I'm interested in. However, it should be clear that if one intends to apply math to the real world, one better have the math right, so discussing the pure math can be a necessary first step. For instance, as above, it one realizes that mathematically "getting from infinity to some finite number" is nonsensical, then one won't mistakenly try to apply that sentence to an application of the concept to a discussion about reality of whatever kind. Aleta
Do you just mean significant in the world of abstract mathematics, or do you mean have consequences for the material, physical, actual world? Your response in 1314 doesn't make clear which you mean. Aleta
Material in context means what makes a difference to decisions or analysis etc. kairosfocus
kf, when you write,
"In that context, I again state, I find it at minimum paradoxical, and I fear it much worse than that, ...
what exactly do you fear? What would be "worse than paradoxical"? And, as asked before, when you write,
Hence, my suggestion that it may be wiser, sounder to highlight onward endlessness and circumscribe our conclusions by such, where that is material.
, what do you mean by material? Do you just mean significant, or do you mean have consequences for the material, physical, actual world? Aleta
KF,
DS, I have answered with a context that makes the reason for my answer plain.
But you have not stated whether the steps I referred to in #1310 are a necessary part of the proof. Kindly tell us whether they are or are not. daveS
DS, I have answered with a context that makes the reason for my answer plain. Chaining is implied in any induction process that uses case k to imply case k+1 and hangs the chain of implications on an initial case as a peg. k and k+1 are not just abstractions that operate above the realities of the initial case peg and that which depends on it. Where also -- per weakest link -- in a chain, the support is effectively instantly, necessarily present all along the line or the chain breaks. But there is a clear priority of dependence. KF kairosfocus
KF, Please answer this specific question: Do you believe the steps P(1) → P(2), P(2) → P(3), and so forth are a necessary part of the proof I gave in #1303? daveS
DS 1303, the chaining is generalised but hangs on the peg of the initial case. I do not know about domino metaphors but I can see a succession, chaining rule and an initial value, with a running index integer number generalised as k or n or whatever. A chain incorporates both succession and simultaneity, as the weakest link principle shows. KF kairosfocus
F/N: I find it useful to cite Merriam Webster's summary, as well as AmHD and Collins, to draw out the sense of the term finite:
MW finite 1 a : having definite or definable limits a finite number of possibilities> b : having a limited nature or existence finite beings> 2 : completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought the finite velocity of light> 3 a : less than an arbitrary [--> but specific] positive integer [= counting set or natural number] and greater than the negative of that integer b : having a finite number of elements a finite set> Am HD: fi·nite (f??n?t?) adj. 1. a. Having bounds; limited [--> as in within or progressing to an end point that gives bounds] : a finite list of choices; our finite fossil fuel reserves. b. Existing, persisting, or enduring for a limited time only; impermanent. 2. Mathematics a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal. b. Having a positive or negative numerical value; not zero. c. Possible to reach or exceed by counting. Used of a number. d. Having a limited number of elements. Used of a set. Collins: finite (?fa?na?t) adj 1. (Mathematics) bounded in magnitude or spatial or temporal extent: a finite difference. 2. (Mathematics) maths logic having a number of elements that is a natural number; able to be counted using the natural numbers less than some natural number. Compare denumerable, infinite4 3. a. limited or restricted in nature: human existence is finite. b. (as noun): the finite.
High quality dictionaries of course set out to summarise relevant usage. The issue here is that the finite will be within bounds set by some given specific natural, counting set based number. I add, the finite will be limited or bounded, often in a quantitative way such that a bounding number or structure, an end, can be given. One is 5 ft, 9 inches tall, or the radius of the observable cosmos is 45 bn Ly or something like that. Even vectors gave magnitudes comparable to a bounding sphere with a radius. Such values may then be assigned a next biggest whole counting number that bounds. Which makes it crucial to observe that this set of counting numbers itself continues endlessly so it has a far zone that is open-ended, unbounded, ever able to go on. But particular values k -- however large -- will always be exceeded by k+1 etc. Which brings to bear the issue of onward end-less-ness, as k, k+1 etc can be put in 1:1 match with 0,1,2 etc. The defined "first" transfinite ordinal w reflects that emergent quantitative phenomenon, first degree endlessness. It has no definable specific finite immediate predecessor z such that z + 1 = w. Instead any particular z will be exceeded by z+1 z+2 etc, i.e. the pattern continues. It is in this context that I have spoken, above, to the material significance of endlessness in understanding the set of natural counting numbers, and the distinction to be made between any particular value in the set k and the set as a whole. Where, in building the set, it is readily seen that per von Neumann et al, a counting set k +1 collects the counting sets 0 to k, and so shows the copy of the list so far principle. For simple illustration: {0,1,2,3,4} --> 5 Where {} --> 0 {0}--> 1 {0,1} --> 2 {0,1,2} --> 3 {0,1,2,3} --> 4 and so forth, without limit to stepwise +1 stage progression of these ordinals; usually shown by the ellipsis of endlessness, . . . This takes significance in speaking to an imagined completion -- note, imagined as opposed to actualised -- to endless extent, as on this, we would have to copy that endlessness into some element. But in fact, once we arrive at any given k, the onward endlessness prevails and we cannot successively actually complete the set, we may only point to the pattern and point on across the ellipsis of endlessness. All specific values, k, we can reach or state in notations giving explicit values (or -- as just shown -- even symbolically represent, e.g. k) will be finite and bounded by k+1 etc. But that then implies onward endlessness. (Which points to the first degree endlessness of the set and its cardinality aleph null.) As a result any chaining . . . cf here https://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/notes/transfinite/transfinite-a4.pdf . . . successive stepwise process that proceeds in finite stages whether +1 increments or something else, will never exhaust endlessness. We attain thus to a potential but not actualised infinite through such processes. To assert the infinite, we abstract from such and define the overall set by in effect pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness. This is evident in the way w is stated as order type of the set: {0,1,2 . . . } --> w However, this then affects how we handle ordinary mathematical induction when the induced conclusion is materially affected by endlessness. Let me highlight by setting off in a block:
Induction INHERENTLY chains using the chaining principle -- and chaining is acknowledged in the literature -- that case k implies case k+1, thus to k+2 etc. The chaining is right there in that succession, however we may generalise from 0,1,2 etc to for all cases n; but also as it proceeds in +1 steps, we see the same issue that at any stage k we can go onwards endlessly in match with 0,1,2 etc. That is why I find discomfort with assertions such as that per an induction, all natural counting set numbers are finite, and there is an infinity of such finite values. I would find that an infinite set of successive +1 separated values or sets from 0 will proceed to endlessness and by the copy list so far principle would then enfold at least one endless member. Instead, I suggest we cannot complete to endlessness and the conclusion is restricted by the reach-ability issue. That is, any particular natural counting number k that we may attain by k applications of a +1 successive increment starting from 0 [notice the number of edits distance metric implied] will be such that onward from k there are k+1, k+2 etc that allow us to put such in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 etc without limit. That is, end-less-ness cannot be traversed in steps like that. Or, in things that build on such.
We can use stepwise chaining to say things about what we can reach, e.g. all such k's will be finite, but then that leaves the endlessness onward. To address it, we may impose a generalisation that points across the endlessness, but then when endlessness itself affects the relevant property it may be unsafe to infer from finite to endless and so infinite. I suggest, stating results of ordinary mathematical induction modestly as in terms of what we may reach in succession from 0 by finite stage steps, may be advisable. This points to transfinite induction and its proof strategy, e.g. as Wiki outlines for convenience:
Transfinite induction is an extension of [--> ordinary] mathematical induction to well-ordered sets, for example to sets of ordinal numbers or cardinal numbers. Let P(a) be a property defined for all ordinals a [--> a is any ordinal of any class]. Suppose that whenever P(b) is true for all b lt a [--> all predecessors to a], then P(a) is also true. [--> notice the much stronger successor claim] Then transfinite induction tells us that P is true for all ordinals. Usually the proof is broken down into three cases: Zero case: Prove that P(0) is true. Successor case: Prove that for any successor ordinal a+1, P(a+1) follows from P(a) (and, if necessary, P(b) for all b lt a). Limit case: Prove that for any limit ordinal l, P(l) follows from [P(b) for all b lt l]. All three cases are identical except for the type of ordinal considered. They do not formally need to be considered separately, but in practice the proofs are typically so different as to require separate presentations. Zero is sometimes considered a limit ordinal and then may sometimes be treated in proofs in the same case as limit ordinals.
Let me add, as that is easiest, that the bridge to the real world is pivotal and comes through the presence of quantity and structure in concrete reality constrained by distinct identity of a given entity A that allows a world partition W = {A |~A} such that A has core characteristics that must be mutually coherent and mark it as distinct from what is not A. For simplicity say A is a bright red ball sitting on a table. Consequently A is never something like a square circle as in all possible, i.e. coherent worlds, properties for squarishness and circularity cannot be met at one and the same time under same circumstances in a given entity. Where, Mathematicsis not a magical poofed- into- being abstract entity that may make up its rules arbitrarily. For instance just to use symbols it must respect distinct identity, and of course proof of C by showing contradiction on asserting ~C is a classic technique in the core of mathematics. No, Mathematics is the logical study of structure and quantity, starting with the pre-theoretic concept that logic is about good reasoning connected to reality by the premise of coherence and clarity. Thus, we start from distinct identity and recognise that from such world partition the LOI, LNC and LEM follow instantly and self evidently. Denial of distinct identity being absurd. In this context, mathematical concepts are accountable to recognisable realities on pain of descent into absurdities. And ending in confusion. That is why test cases that are [quasi-]physical are very relevant. And the messages of the pink/blue tapes or the endlessly high ladder with its foot on the ground at 0, etc are relevant. In particular, we cannot traverse endlessness in finite stage steps. Where, whether or no we are inclined to acknowledge them, chained finite stage steps appear in many contexts, the successive natural counting numbers from 0 and anything building on such succession in particular. Including, ordinary mathematical induction. In that context, I again state, I find it at minimum paradoxical, and I fear it much worse than that, to see the presentation of the argument that there are infinitely many finite, +1 successive natural counting numbers starting from 0. Especially i/l/o the copy of the chained set so far issue and the problem of onward endlessness. Where imposing generalisations by pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness does not provide any relief. Hence, my suggestion that it may be wiser, sounder to highlight onward endlessness and circumscribe our conclusions by such, where that is material. With this case as a key exemplar. KF kairosfocus
Cabal @ 1306
To me, that is a demonstration that infinity is just a concept with no correspondence with reality. But, as a concept it may be very useful if you are into such things – I am not.
While there is no actual infinity, without the concept of something 'tending' towards mathematical infinity, many processes in science can't be calculated, so concept of infinity is crucial in modelling the real world. Me_Think
To the subject of infinity I'll only say it seems to me that infinity is a concept, not a reality. I don't see any reason why we can't have an infinte loop of infinity + 1. We may add any number of numbers to infiniy and we'd never reach the end. That's what infinity means, the quest is over. To me, that is a demonstration that infinity is just a concept with no correspondence with reality. But, as a concept it may be very useful if you are into such things - I am not. If we imagine an all-compassing, complete, catholic and total void, we have to assume that such a non-object is incompatible with a subject like infinity. Cabal
I thought I'd offer my thoughts on Aleta's questions in 1188
Consider the integers on a standard number line, with the positive counting numbers 1, 2, 3, … to the right of zero and their negatives to the left. 1. True or False: there are an infinite number of integers 2. True or False: Every integer is a finite number. What are your answers to questions 1 and 2. Note: this is a purely mathematical question. It is not about time, or ladders, or tapes – just math.
As I've said previously, I have no advanced math skills (something I'd like to remedy at some point when I have the time), so any answer I give that's based purely on math is likely to be of less than no value to anyone reading this thread. As such I'll take a different approach to the questions, as I share KF's view that the philosophy and logical analysis comes first. Question 1 - True or False: There are an infinite number of integers Aleta, I tend to think that you have a particular meaning in mind when you ask this question that would make a "true" answer reasonable, but as it is worded I find it has the potential to confuse the real issues, which are decidedly not purely mathematical. The illustrations, like that of the ladder, were intended to serve a few different purposes, but the ultimate purpose I had in mind in my comments was to stress the importance of maintaining mental distinctions between abstract concepts and concrete realities. Coming specifically to your question, as you know, numbers are abstract objects and they have no physical existence (though we can create physical representations of them). When we envision a number line with integers racing off from the zero point in both directions we're using our imaginations to give visual representation to abstract concepts. Obviously, there is no actual number line and there are no actual numbers. As such, I think it is misleading to simply say that "there are an infinite number of integers". After all, there is not an actually existing infinite set of integers just sitting around out there somewhere, and so we must question what is meant by the word "are" in your claim, since it would normally be a reference to existence. I think a more accurate way of stating matters would be to say that there is no arbitrarily large integer that would be the largest possible integer, and so the integers can continuously increase from the zero point towards infinity as a limit in both the positive and negative directions. The abstract concept of infinity can be used without problem by mathematicians, but that doesn't mean that an infinity can be translated into a concrete and coherent reality in the world. And that is what this thread is about. Question 2 - True or False: Every integer is a finite number. As the statement is written, I would answer that it's true. However, I once again think that the way it is written simply avoids the actual point at issue. The relevant question here is not whether every specific integer is a finite number, but whether every integer is reachable through a succession of finite steps. Now, it seems like several people here would be inclined to answer yes, however, from a logical perspective, that's simply not true. It would take a finite number of steps to reach a particular finite integer from zero or from any other specific finite integer, but it would take an infinite number of steps to reach any finite integer from infinity. And that is the point at issue in this thread. Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics. I'm not going to pretend to have any clue at all what mathematical functions or formalities might be in place to effect such a transfinite maneuver. My concern in this thread is with the real world, and in the real world, any notion of traversing an actually infinite sequence, such as moving from an actually infinite beginningless past to a finite present moment, presents an utterly intractable problem, which I have attempted to illustrate with the example of a man engaged in an infinitely long descent down an infinitely high ladder who eventually climbs off the bottom rung (0) and says, "Done! I have finally finished an infinitely long descent." This is the kind of thing we're talking about when we try to translate infinity into the real world and hence my reason for saying that I think it's important for us to maintain a mental distinction between abstract concepts and concrete realities. The man's statement, and the entire scenario it relates to, is utterly nonsensical. It is absurd. And if anyone disagrees that such a thing results in absurdity, they must at least admit that it is not at all obvious that it doesn't result in absurdity. Getting on the same page Now, as far as I can tell, KF and Silver Asiatic seem to be saying essentially the same thing I am. That is, the concerns they are expressing about infinity are about the attempts to translate it from a mathematical concept to an actually existing reality in the world. It doesn't seem to me that either of them is saying that their concerns/issues relate to the simple notion of infinity as it is used in a purely mathematical context. On the other hand, Aleta and ellazimm, you seem to keep saying that your interest is purely in the mathematical issues here and not in the issues that arise when translating the abstract concept of infinity into a real world case like an infinite past-time, and you seem to expect that people are engaging you on those terms. But looking to the OP, this thread is and always has been about the latter, not the former, so it kinda seems like we're all sort of talking past each other here. Only daveS seems like he's trying to make some kind of connection between the math and the possibility of the real world case under discussion, though I don't find he's addressed any of the issues that actually arise with the real world case. Personally, I appreciate that we've all been able to have a civil discussion here over an extended time without resorting to insults and name-calling. I wish every discussion could stay at this level of civility, because it makes the discussion much more interesting and thought-provoking in my opinion. Nonetheless, it seems to me like the discussion would benefit from us getting on the same page as to what we're actually arguing about here. And, in fact, it might benefit even more from us getting on the same page about what we're not arguing about. Anyway, just some thoughts I had on the issue. Take care, HeKS HeKS
KF, 1. There is no infinite past. I have explained why in comment # 1141 2. Infinity exist only as a mathematical concept- there is no actual infinity 3. There is no point called 'endlessness' beyond infinity because there is no such concept in mathematics! I don't know what concept you are using to argue about 'endlessness'. Me_Think
KF,
As for primes, we can show they are without upper limit and are part of the endless nature of counting numbers. But we cannot attain to a prime that is endless — infinite — no more than we can succeed to endlessness in actually carried out +1 steps. Every prime we can reach is finite but we cannot reach all primes.
So, does that mean the following? 1) The set of primes is infinite, in the sense it can be put in 1-1 correspondence with a proper subset of itself. 2) You take no position on whether all primes are finite.
And on the chaining of ordinary mathematical induction, notice how the line of proof propagates, set up an initial case then also the chaining principle case k implies case k+1, thus to k+2 etc. The chaining is right there, but as it proceeds in +1 steps, we see the same issue that at any stage k we can go onwards endlessly in match with 0,1,2 etc. We may indeed point across the ellipsis of endlessness and impose a conclusion, but we can get into trouble if endless succession makes a material difference. KF
No, that's really not how it works, despite the usual domino illustration. That's because:
at any stage k we can go onwards endlessly in match with 0,1,2 etc.
is not allowed in proofs in the systems we are discussing. Consider a simple example, one that everyone sees when learning mathematical induction. Let n be any natural number 1 or greater. Let P be the predicate defined by P(n) = "the sum 1 + 2 + ... + n equals n(n + 1)/2". It's a well-known fact that P(n) = True for all natural numbers greater than 0. To prove this by induction, we carry out these steps:
1) 1 = 1(2)/2, so P(1) = True. 2) Now assume P(k) = True for some natural number k ≥ 1, so: 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + k = k(k + 1)/2. Then: 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + k + (k + 1) = [algebra elided] = (k + 1)((k + 1) + 1)/2 so we have shown P(k) → P(k + 1) for all k ≥ 1.
Here's what we don't do at this point:
P(1) → P(2), so 1 + 2 = 2(3)/2 P(2) → P(3), so 1 + 2 + 3 = 3(4)/2 P(3) → P(4), so 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 4(5)/2 * * * (ellipses of endlessness)
We're already done after step 2, where we have shown P(k) → P(k + 1) for k ≥ 1. The Axiom of Induction "forces" this theorem to be true already, with no do-forever loop or infinite chain of implications. daveS
How does "endless succession makes a material difference"? Do you mean material in the sense of physical or material in the sense of significant in respect to pure mathematics? I'd very much like to know what you mean by the quoted phrase. Thanks. Aleta
DS, the issue is simple, we cannot actually go to a transfinite extent with anything that is based on or constrained by sequenced counting sets aka counting numbers. We can show endlessness, but we cannot actually go there; we point to it. As for primes, we can show they are without upper limit and are part of the endless nature of counting numbers. But we cannot attain to a prime that is endless -- infinite -- no more than we can succeed to endlessness in actually carried out +1 steps. Every prime we can reach is finite but we cannot reach all primes. Onward endlessness blocks that. Something like the pink/blue tapes example shows the endlessness, in case someone is disinclined to accept it. And on the chaining of ordinary mathematical induction, notice how the line of proof propagates, set up an initial case then also the chaining principle case k implies case k+1, thus to k+2 etc. The chaining is right there, but as it proceeds in +1 steps, we see the same issue that at any stage k we can go onwards endlessly in match with 0,1,2 etc. We may indeed point across the ellipsis of endlessness and impose a conclusion, but we can get into trouble if endless succession makes a material difference. KF kairosfocus
KF, I suppose it's not worth repeating the "do forever loops" discussion again. I really am confused about your position on the primes, however. I gather you believe the set of primes is infinite, just as N is. I could be wrong on that, however. Regarding whether any primes are infinite, do you agree with any of these statements?
1) All primes are finite. 2) Some primes are infinite. 3) Neither of the statements "all primes are finite" nor "some primes are infinite" is true. 4) We can't currently answer this question, but exactly one of 1) and 2) is true. 5) We can't currently answer this question, but exactly one of 1), 2), and 3) is true.
daveS
Aleta #1296
What in the world could kf be concerned about here? All this continual talk of consequences but not able to say what they are.
I suspect he thinks it's all part of his perceived war against Biblical truth and such. He tends to cast every disagreement in that light at some point. Don't even start with homosexuality or gay marriage. He just doesn't seem to get that we are just talking about the mathematics here. Nothing to do with philosophy or values or cultural standards. If you're against him, in anything, then you're the enemy. ellazimm
KF Over and over again some of us have been trying to answer your queries. We seem to have failed in a very fundamental sense. What I'd like to know is: at what point, when you have been told over and over again by more than one person who knows the subject that you are wrong do you finally accept an outside (of yourself) conclusion? Or don't you ever? Just curious. ellazimm
KF,
DS, the chaining is right there in the k to k+1 succession. KF
You prove P(k) -> P(k + 1), for all k ∈ N, in finitely many steps. daveS
fear far worse than mere paradox
What in the world could kf be concerned about here? All this continual talk of consequences but not able to say what they are. And yes, often kf's sentences are a mish-mash of idiosyncratic language and syntax that they only make sense, in a way, because he's been over the points so often. What, or what, pray tell, are the consequences, dire as they may be, of there being an infinite number of finite natural numbers? Does the whole edifice of math come crumbling down? Aleta
KF #1294
DS, the chaining is right there in the k to k+1 succession.
Why is 'chaining' a mathematical problem? How has this NOT been addressed by the work or Cantor or what has been presented to you on this thread over the last 1200+ responses? You keep objecting about a problem that does not exist. All the mathematical issues have been considered and dealt with. ellazimm
DS, the chaining is right there in the k to k+1 succession. KF kairosfocus
KF #1289
EZ, I would suggest that k = 0 +1 +1 . . . +1 k times over shows how we get to k in successive +1 steps, which may be converted into successive collections of counting sets or a looping process. I have not spoken gibberish. In that context I suggest that ordinary mathematical induction starts with a case 0 or sometimes the like base case then extends on a do forever chain case k => case k+1, which depends crucially on chaining. this has import for what we may legitimately conclude from such, given that no such successive chain can actually complete to completed endlessness.
You have spoken gibberish.
or sometimes the like base case then extends on a do forever chain case k => case k+1, which depends crucially on chaining.
That is gibberish. Why can't you talk in normal mathematical language?
this has import for what we may legitimately conclude from such, given that no such successive chain can actually complete to completed endlessness
That makes no sense at all. It isn't even a sentence. Just give it up. ellazimm
KF,
In that context I suggest that ordinary mathematical induction starts with a case 0 or sometimes the like base case then extends on a do forever chain case k => case k+1, which depends crucially on chaining.
This is the misunderstanding of induction that I referred to in my post #1240. The Axiom of Induction does not include any "do forever chains". daveS
KF #1289
please pause and ponder why I would see a paradox at minimum and fear far worse than mere paradox in asserting that one has proved that there is an INFINITE — so, endless — number of FINITE successive counting numbers at +1 steps from 0.
I can't think of a good reason why you should object to that.
Notice, where I have gone to to see why there is no foundational flaw, namely our inability to exhaust endlessness in finite stage steps and the implication of ordinary mathematical induction depending on a case 0 and a chaining implication case k => case k+1.
That doesn't even make sense let alone stand as a sound mathematical argument. In fact, I'm not sure it is even a sentence. You've got some issue that is clouding your judgment. You best work on clearing that. ellazimm
Aleta and daveS What do you think? Time to stop beating our heads against the wall? KF clearly has some issue which prevents him from accepting tried and accepted mathematics. I think now that there is nothing we can do to change his inclination. So . . . time to quit? ellazimm
Aleta & EZ, please pause and ponder why I would see a paradox at minimum and fear far worse than mere paradox in asserting that one has proved that there is an INFINITE -- so, endless -- number of FINITE successive counting numbers at +1 steps from 0. Notice, where I have gone to to see why there is no foundational flaw, namely our inability to exhaust endlessness in finite stage steps and the implication of ordinary mathematical induction depending on a case 0 and a chaining implication case k => case k+1. KF PS: EZ, I would suggest that k = 0 +1 +1 . . . +1 k times over shows how we get to k in successive +1 steps, which may be converted into successive collections of counting sets or a looping process. I have not spoken gibberish. In that context I suggest that ordinary mathematical induction starts with a case 0 or sometimes the like base case then extends on a do forever chain case k => case k+1, which depends crucially on chaining. This has import for what we may legitimately conclude from such, given that no such successive chain can actually complete to completed endlessness. At some point we point across an implicit ellipsis of endlessness, but this may become a material issue. kairosfocus
KF #1285
I am suggesting that we cannot attain to spanning the endlessness of succession of counting sets and that this can have a material impact on conclusions we may legitimately draw from e.g. ordinary mathematical induction.
You really don't get the basic maths.
As I have said for weeks, we cannot exhaust endlessness in finite stage steps. In particular, an assertion that has been repeatedly put as though it is a no brainer at minimum has in it a deep paradox and may be much worse than mere paradox: that there are infinitely many FINITE counting numbers at +1 stage succession from 0. Which runs into issues of the successor at k+1 being a copy of the list of counting sets to kth stage from 0.
What does your last sentence mean? 'At +1 stage succession from 0. Which runs into issues of the successor at k+1.' There are no issues. This has all been dealt with. Over 100 years ago. What is your real issue here? The existence of an infinite past? We're not your adversaries in that. We're just talking about the maths.
So if this were to proceed to endlessness, there would be endless, non finite members. Howbeit, it cannot actually proceed to endlessness, we can only attain to finite values and point on to further endless succession from any specific k (which immediately calls forth k+1 etc endlessly IN PRINCIPLE).
Seriously, you are repeating yourself to the point of madness AND you are still wrong.
This entails that we cannot specify an infinite prime — obviously — but also that we cannot exhaust the list of primes, the endlessness is material. Likewise, there can be no finite prime removed from 0 by infinitely many +1 actually completed steps
Again, that is pretty much gibberish. Just give it up. ellazimm
KF,
In particular, an assertion that has been repeatedly put as though it is a no brainer at minimum has in it a deep paradox and may be much worse than mere paradox: that there are infinitely many FINITE counting numbers at +1 stage succession from 0. Which runs into issues of the successor at k+1 being a copy of the list of counting sets to kth stage from 0. So if this were to proceed to endlessness, there would be endless, non finite members.
As I've said from day 1, practically, the notion that N is infinite yet has only finite members is not paradoxical to me (nor to William Lane Craig, it would seem). But what exactly are you saying about primes? Clearly the set of primes can be put into 1-1 correspondence with itself, right? So if N is infinite, shouldn't P also be infinite? Edit: Just read this:
This entails that we cannot specify an infinite prime — obviously — but also that we cannot exhaust the list of primes, the endlessness is material. Likewise, there can be no finite prime removed from 0 by infinitely many +1 actually completed steps.
Hmm. Are you leaving the door open to the existence of primes which are infinite? I honestly can't tell. daveS
Aleta #1282
Yes, EZ. There is no arguing with someone who rejects foundational aspects of math without being able to say why other than because of vague concerns and unstated consequences.
KF has some agenda driven issue that has nothing to do with math. We are not agreeing or disagreeing with him about that other issue. We are just discussing the mathematics. But it seems to be a 'with me or against me' issue with him. ellazimm
DS, I am suggesting that we cannot attain to spanning the endlessness of succession of counting sets and that this can have a material impact on conclusions we may legitimately draw from e.g. ordinary mathematical induction. As I have said for weeks, we cannot exhaust endlessness in finite stage steps. In particular, an assertion that has been repeatedly put as though it is a no brainer at minimum has in it a deep paradox and may be much worse than mere paradox: that there are infinitely many FINITE counting numbers at +1 stage succession from 0. Which runs into issues of the successor at k+1 being a copy of the list of counting sets to kth stage from 0. So if this were to proceed to endlessness, there would be endless, non finite members. Howbeit, it cannot actually proceed to endlessness, we can only attain to finite values and point on to further endless succession from any specific k (which immediately calls forth k+1 etc endlessly IN PRINCIPLE). This entails that we cannot specify an infinite prime -- obviously -- but also that we cannot exhaust the list of primes, the endlessness is material. Likewise, there can be no finite prime removed from 0 by infinitely many +1 actually completed steps. KF kairosfocus
KF #1279
I trust the above shows just why I asked for something that is impossible, to draw attention to something that keeps on being missed in the discussion and confident assertion that there is an infinite set of finite successive counting sets in +1 steps from 0. Something that at minimum is deeply paradoxical, and may well be much worse than mere paradox
You think your point keeps on being missed but I say that is not true. I think you keep ignoring the explanations that have been offered to you and the vast amount of mathematics that has been done in the last 100+ years which addresses your 'concerns'. Seriously, I don't thing you're keeping up with the research. And you seem to have an agenda. ellazimm
Kf #1277
You cannot write down a prime that is finite and infinitely many +1 steps removed from 0, which illustrates a key point from the above, one that shows what happens when endlessness of succession in +1 or similar steps from 0 is material to a conclusion.
You are just making stuff up now, you do realise that. And you keep arguing against a stance that no one is taking. 'Is material to a conclusion'?
Yes we can show there is no specific largest prime leading to endlessness of this progressively sparser subset of the counting numbers but that is not the whole story. There is a difference between numbers we can actually reach by direct +1 succession from 0 or specifically represent in notations based on such and spanning or traversing the endless set of successive counting sets in finite stage steps.
I tell you what, I'll just stick with normal established and proven mathematics.
Any arbitrarily large specific number k we can write down will be finite and there will be an onward succession k, k+1 etc that can be put in 1:1 match with 0,1,2 . . . where this can then be repeated for a value we reach beyond k, and so on, showing that endless continuation cannot be exhausted as from any finite k, there is yet endless continuation onward
Great, so you can't count up to infinity. I think I said that.
The set of numbers reached by +1 increments IN PRINCIPLE from 0 is endless but we can only stop at a finite stage and point onward. This has specific implications for the conclusions we may properly infer from an ordinary mathematical induction, which depends on exactly such chaining, especially where endless succession may affect the force of the conclusion drawn. Of course, one may resort to axiomatic imposition of conclusions that point across the endlessness, but then the axiom becomes a forcing act.
That just doesn't make any sense at all. And doesn't address the issues we have been discussing. KF you are clearly outside of your comfort zone. Why not just admit it and get on with other things. Take the honourable way out. ellazimm
This has specific implications for the conclusions.
And what are those conclusions, kf?
Of course, one may resort to axiomatic imposition of conclusions that point across the endlessness, but then the axiom becomes a forcing act. KF
Yes, axioms have a way of doing that. It is axioms that lead to the creation of aleph null and w: do you object to those because they were forced upon you by axioms. Arrrgggghhhh. Yes, EZ. There is no arguing with someone who rejects foundational aspects of math without being able to say why other than because of vague concerns and unstated consequences. Aleta
KF, I think I'm a bit lost regarding your position.
you cannot write down a prime that is finite and infinitely many +1 steps removed from 0, which illustrates a key point from the above, one that shows what happens when endlessness of succession in +1 or similar steps from 0 is material to a conclusion. Yes we can show there is no specific largest prime leading to endlessness of this progressively sparser subset of the counting numbers but that is not the whole story.
Are you suggesting that there are primes somewhere in the "far zone" that are not finite? Or perhaps this: while you don't claim that infinite prime numbers exist, we cannot legitimately say "all primes are finite"? daveS
Aleta, it looks like I need to include you in what I just said. KF kairosfocus
EZ, I trust the above shows just why I asked for something that is impossible, to draw attention to something that keeps on being missed in the discussion and confident assertion that there is an infinite set of finite successive counting sets in +1 steps from 0. Something that at minimum is deeply paradoxical, and may well be much worse than mere paradox. KF kairosfocus
I agree. I got reinvolved in part because I'm interested in the nature of mathematics, but that subject never took off. Then I thought maybe the prime proof would make a difference. kf's remark at 1273 is really off the mark. Maybe we can find some new mathematical topic to discuss! :-) Aleta
Aleta (and attn EZ): you cannot write down a prime that is finite and infinitely many +1 steps removed from 0, which illustrates a key point from the above, one that shows what happens when endlessness of succession in +1 or similar steps from 0 is material to a conclusion. Yes we can show there is no specific largest prime leading to endlessness of this progressively sparser subset of the counting numbers but that is not the whole story. There is a difference between numbers we can actually reach by direct +1 succession from 0 or specifically represent in notations based on such and spanning or traversing the endless set of successive counting sets in finite stage steps. Any arbitrarily large specific number k we can write down will be finite and there will be an onward succession k, k+1 etc -- where k+1 already bounds k and shows it definitively finite -- that can be put in 1:1 match with 0,1,2 . . . where this can then be repeated for a value we reach beyond k, and so on, showing that endless continuation cannot be exhausted as from any finite k, there is yet endless continuation onward. The set of numbers reached by +1 increments IN PRINCIPLE from 0 is endless but we can only stop at a finite stage and point onward. This has specific implications for the conclusions we may properly infer from an ordinary mathematical induction, which depends on exactly such chaining, especially where endless succession may affect the force of the conclusion drawn. Of course, one may resort to axiomatic imposition of conclusions that point across the endlessness, but then the axiom becomes a forcing act. KF kairosfocus
Aleta I think it's time to stop arguing with KF and just acknowledge that he doesn't get it. No shame in that. But it's just the truth. ellazimm
KF
Aleta, the set cannot be spanned in succession of +1 steps or the like.
So? That is known and dealt with.
There is therefore a distinction between what we can reach and what is implied by traversing endlessness
What is endlessness in a mathematical sense? If it's infinity then that has been dealt with.
Which clearly means unlimited succession within the set that collects counting numbers that cannot be actually completed.
So?
The far zone being the zone of that endlessness beyond any relevant arbitrarily large finite.
Please, please, please learn to use standard mathematical terms and definitions. If you want to make a mathematical argument.
And were there a counting set that succeeds to endlessness, it would not be finite.
Already answered many times.
The solution is, we may succeed from 0 to an arbitrarily large but finite value, but in so doing any such value k faces onward endlessness that cannot be completed.
What does that mean mathematically? You've been asked over and over again to deal with this and you haven't done so.
We can only point across the endlessness and draw conclusions in that light.
You haven't brought up anything that hasn't already been dealt with. I cannot fathom what you are still objecting about.
leta, please write down for us a prime that is finite and an infinite number of +1 steps removed from 0.
OMG, you really have not grasped the basic concepts at all. After all these posts and you still haven't got the basic idea or the arguments we have been offering. I'm sorry KF but it's pretty clear now that you are just not up to the situation. There's is no shame in that but you shouldn't hold yourself up as someone who 'knows' when you clearly don't. Just let it go. ellazimm
That misses the point, kf. All natural numbers are some number of +1 steps from zero: All natural numbers are finite. The proof I showed does does not claim that some prime is infinitely far from 0 (infinitely far from 0 is a meaningless phrase) - it shows that there are an infinite number of primes. Those are two different things. Furthermore, the proof doesn't depend on knowing what the exact primes are. It just proves there are an infinite number of them. Surely you understand that. It seems like the statements that you made in 1273 are either irrelevant to the proof (knowing what the primes are) or incorrect about what the proof shows, for it shows that there are an infinite number of primes. I find it telling that you use the phrase "infinite number of +1 steps removed from 0". No number is an infinite number of steps from zero. The only infinite number relevant to this discussion is w, and it doesn't make sense at all to say the distance between a natural number N and zero is w. w doesn't measure a distance. Aleta
Aleta, please write down for us a prime that is finite and an infinite number of +1 steps removed from 0. KF kairosfocus
You keep saying that, kf, but you don't say what conclusions can be drawn. What about the prime number proof? It does not span anything in +1 steps. How do you account for that? It demonstrates that there is an infinite subset of the natural numbers (the primes) that are all finite numbers - no traversing needed. How do you explain that? Aleta
Aleta, the set cannot be spanned in succession of +1 steps or the like. There is therefore a distinction between what we can reach and what is implied by traversing endlessness. Which clearly means unlimited succession within the set that collects counting numbers that cannot be actually completed. The far zone being the zone of that endlessness beyond any relevant arbitrarily large finite. And were there a counting set that succeeds to endlessness, it would not be finite. The solution is, we may succeed from 0 to an arbitrarily large but finite value, but in so doing any such value k faces onward endlessness that cannot be completed. We can only point across the endlessness and draw conclusions in that light. KF kairosfocus
ellazimm,
I guess we’re just a bit odd eh? :-) Forget about concerns, jump in and play!!
Yes, maybe so. For me, mathematics is almost entirely a recreational activity. I'm not going to use it to solve any significant real-world problems, so I probably have a different perspective than many others. daveS
daveS #1268
One of my favorite examples of this type is Cantor’s Staircase.
More loveliness!! I remember when I took a measure theory class, absolutely stunning stuff. I know how it's always said that math is just applied logic but it always seemed to me that logic classes were pretty dull and boring compared to my math classes. I never found that logic went as far and got as weird and wonderful as math did. I used to have so much fun with stoned or drunk friends telling them about Achilles and the tortoise and watching them trying to wrap their heads around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes (I bet Mapou would love the arrow paradox.) I miss that fun of seeing that stuff for the first time. It's hard for me to understand why everyone doesn't just fall in love with the wonderland of this kind of mathematics. Why parts seem hard to swallow. I guess we're just a bit odd eh? :-) Forget about concerns, jump in and play!! ellazimm
Aleta and ellazimm (and everyone else interested), One of my favorite examples of this type is Cantor's Staircase. Here's the animation from that page showing the construction of its graph. It's constructed much like the Cantor set. Instead of deleting the "middle thirds" of intervals, you lift them up a certain amount. You start by raising the interval [1/3, 2/3] from the x-axis to the level y = 1/2. Then continue. (Edit: In contrast with the Cantor set, we work with closed rather than open intervals). The function thus defined is continuous and differentiable except on a set of measure 0, which is a little strange, but not too hard to accept. Here's what I find surprising: The graph consists of pieces of the interval [0, 1] (which has length 1, obviously) "pushed upward" various distances. However, the arclength of the graph turns out to be exactly 2. daveS
That's exactly the thought I've been having: the limit as n -> infinity is absolutely central to modern mathematics. Aleta
Aleta! #1265
And how about the Sierpinski triangle, with an area of zero and an infinite perimeter.
Fabulous! I used that as an example in the sequences and series section once. The cube version is fun too!!. The whole idea of taking the limit to infinity runs so much through 100-level calculus I find it completely mundane! It's hard sometimes to see what could be misunderstood. Without that we'd have to throw out calculus and go back to mid-17th century mathematics. ellazimm
And how about the Sierpinski triangle, with an area of zero and an infinite perimeter. Aleta
Here is the Wikipedia page on Gabriel's Horn, a mathematical object which has a finite volume but an infinite surface area.. It was first studied in the 17th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn Like I said, lovely stuff. I first saw this as a freshman or sophomore at University. It's a very standard example in 100 level calculus courses. It was stuff like that which really got me thinking I'd like to study mathematics; I'd planned on being an engineer or doctor before that. Notice too how part way through the article it is proved that it's impossible for a 3D object to have a finite surface area and an infinite volume. Notice too how this was part of a dispute involving people such as Thomas Hobbes, John Wallis and Galileo. Like I said, all part of standard, non-controversial, even basic level mathematics. And we're a few centuries past that point now. ellazimm
SA and KF Here's one of my favourite examples to use while teaching solids of rotation. Take the function 1/x from x = 1 on (out to infinity) and rotate it around the x-axis. You get an infinitely long horn-shaped thing. By using calculus you can show that its volume is finite but its surface area is infinite. Lovely stuff. Hard to deal with in Philosophy or logic though eh? Math has great explanatory power, especially dealing with mathematical infinities. It's beautiful stuff. And, again, this is non-controversial, standard undergraduate level mathematics. ellazimm
KF #1260
That would imply ending the endless. It would also include a transfinite member of the set of counting sets. Which of course would not be a finite value.
No, that is not the case. You cannot count to the smallest infinite cardinal number but this is not a problem.
This instantly shows that there can be no infinite set of successively larger finites.
Also, incorrect. If you were correct then there would be a largest finite number which there clearly is not. You don't 'traverse' or 'span the endlessness'. Counting up from any finite integer never gets you to the end and it never gets you to the transfinite numbers.
We then extend our number concept to include w as representing succession to endlessness.
Sigh. Why not use standard mathematical vocabulary. I take it you're thinking that w is the cardinality of the positive integers, generally known as aleph-0 or aleph-nought or aleph-null. That's the smallest infinite cardinal number. Which is followed by aleph-1, aleph-2, etc. All of the cardinal numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3 . . . and aleph-0, aleph-1, etc) form a well-ordered set which means if you give me any two of them I can tell you which one is larger. But it doesn't mean you can 'traverse' them all by counting. That is not correct. Yet you keep addressing that issue over and over and over again. Your 'concern' is not a concern. It's been addressed over 100 years ago. And the mathematics dealing with that is now mainstream and non-controversial. And it has nothing to do with the existence (or not) of an infinite past or future. That's a physics question (in my opinion). ellazimm
kf, yes you have used symbols to express your concern, but you have not explained mathematically what the concern is. You've never defined what the "far zone" is, nor what its "members" are. Without a mathematical formulation of the concern, your concerns are just informal and vague difficulties with accepting the mathematical concept of infinity, There is nothing in the definition of natural numbers that says that the stepwise process of adding 1 to the previous number ever "ends the endless". However, nevertheless, modern set theory postulates that the infinite set, as a whole, exists. And, as you point out, the extension of the number system to include w formalizes the existence of the infinite set - not as something which must be endlessly reaching towards completion but as something which is complete. I know this creates a sense of mystery in our minds, because we can't intuitively grasp the infinite, but that mystery doesn't override the fact that the math is solid. That is one of the beauties of math - that it can lead us to solid conclusions that are surprising and even puzzling. So let me repeat this: when you wrote,
Where w as limit ordinal has no specific, definable finite predecessor. All such definable finite counting numbers are behind a wall of endlessness so w is a limit ordinal. That seems to me to resolve concerns.
What concerns does accepting w resolve for you? It seems to me that you might be agreeing here with what I just wrote: that you realize the intuitive, subjective nature of your concerns, but that you also accept that mathematically they are resolved by the system of transfinite numbers and modern set theory. Is this what is resolved? Aleta
EZ, You exemplify my concern by attempted reversal of the order. Aleta: I have sufficiently shown -- including in symbols -- the basis of my concern, which can be boiled down to the at minimum paradox of an infinite succession of finite values from 0 in +1 increments where each successor is in effect the collection of counting sets so far. Were this to proceed to actual infinite extent [a collection of successive counting sets of infinite scope], this would include 0 +1 +1 +1 . . . to infinite extent, which cannot be finite, or would be a set that collects {0,1,2 . . . } endlessly. That would imply ending the endless. It would also include a transfinite member of the set of counting sets. Which of course would not be a finite value. Further, as the two tapes case shows, at any finite value k we are in effect only at the beginning of endlessness, we cannot successively by finite stage steps traverse the endless. This instantly shows that there can be no infinite set of successively larger finites. For, every successive finite is a fresh beginning to the whole process, it cannot span the endlessness. That is, k --> k+1, return this to the k register, repeat the assignment of a successor, do forever as was explicitly shown in 217 above. Finite, and forever facing the onward succession k, k+1, k+2 . . . that may be matched 1:1 with 0,1,2 . . . Instead, we may only represent -- notations such as scientific notation etc depend on finites and so face the same limits -- or reach by succession from 0 as specific counting numbers, finite values, and by ellipsis may see the process continues end-less-ly in principle. We then extend our number concept to include w as representing succession to endlessness. kairosfocus
SA #1253
The question is, can an infinite past actually exist? It can exist in poetry or math (which are about the same in this case). But could it exist in reality, in the universe?
I have no opinion on that matter. I don't see why not but I have no argument yeah or nay. I'm only interested in the mathematics. And I think that is independent of the universe as we experience it. ellazimm
kairosfocus: First, let me thank you for engaging in a civil discussion that has now gone on longer than anyone anticipated. hear hear Mung
ellazimm
Where does freedom exist? Where does justice exist? Where do you exist?
Some attempt to answer these through a materialist understanding. But the concepts of rational choice, being, virtues and moral value are not-reducible to matter and also non-reducible to mathematics. They're metaphysical questions the come prior to mathematics and which also transcend physical matter. From metaphysics, it's easy to recognize scales of value, being, perfections -- and those are the basic proofs for the existence of God, thus theology. Mathematics and logical systems support and contribute to our understanding but they're not the foundation. For example, math assumes that truth is better than falsehood. Or even beyond that, math assumes that truth is different in significant ways that falsehood. But it's actually philosophy that determines that. Humans are oriented towards truth - we assign a positive value to truth. Logic is based on that - it's dependent on that philosophical principle. It didn't create or invent it. We choose truth as a value over false. Math couldn't exist without that. Although it's certainly possible in principle to create a system where truth and falsehood have equal value (Politics, communism, advertising, manipulation ... even some branches of religious belief assert that falsehood has higher value than truth in some situations). That's one of the beauties of math. It segments results into true or false. There is a lot less ambiguity and less tolerance for deceptive answers. It offers real proofs in many cases. But in the case of infinite entities, mathematics lacks explanatory power and can give illogical conclusions (like an infinite past being actually possible). Silver Asiatic
Aleta: I really don’t know how seriously to take this question, because I can’t tell how serious Mung is in general, but I’ll give it a try. Thank you. :) I'm serious with a/an [un]healthy dose of levity tossed in to continually remind us to not get too serious. We're human, after all. Mung
KF,
PS: And it is quite clear that people like DS and Russell etc are talking about physically instantiated material and temporal infinities, arguing that such are not illogical and must be taken as serious possibilities.
Yes, I have talked about actual temporal infinities in the physical universe. My main point is that I don't believe you can show they are impossible using mathematics/logic/philosophy only.
That is the context in which issues of causal succession, stepwise finite stage traversal of the transfinite or endless and whether an actual infinity can be actualised quantitatively not just as a symbolic representation, abstract entity or useful fiction arise. The logic is telling us that endlessness has properties that make such claims highly dubious.
Well, I think WLC and others in this thread make a stronger claim, namely that an infinite past is logically impossible.
It seems we may readily see [quasi-]physical entities that are very large but not actually transfinite. For reasons connected to why we cannot build a square circle.
I don't think the problems with infinite ladders etc. are as severe as those with a square circle. The idea of a square circle is clearly contradictory, so such absolutely cannot exist. How would we know for certain that the universe does not contain an infinitely long ladder somewhere? At some point we have to rely on the empirical science to draw that conclusion, but of course all conclusions of empirical science are provisional. daveS
kf, you repeat a key "concern":
It may also toss out unexpected consequences, and one of these from what I have seen is that it may not be safe to extrapolate from a first case and a stepwise successor implication to properties of far zone members that would be influenced by endlessness. What ordinary mathematical induction establishes is that the members we can reach or represent are inherently finite cases and will hold the demonstrated properties. However this does not warrant us in drawing conclusions on things that pivot on endlessness. It is in this context that I have been concerned by conclusions drawn about an infinite actual number of FINITE natural numbers, succeeding one another in +1 increments from 0. In the far zone, there lies endlessness which cannot be plumbed or exhausted in stepwise succession.
But as I pointed out in my post about insights, you are completely unable to formalize your insights in a mathematical way that would allow others to evaluate them. What "unexpected consequences"? What is "not safe" about extrapolating "from a first case and a stepwise successor implication to properties of far zone members that would be influenced by endlessness." What is the world is the "far zone" and what "members" does it contain? You've never given any mathematical explanation of what any of these things might mean. However, you also say,
Where w as limit ordinal has no specific, definable finite predecessor. All such definable finite counting numbers are behind a wall of endlessness so w is a limit ordinal. That seems to me to resolve concerns.
Does it resolve your concerns that you mention in the first paragraph I quoted? Does the existence of w, which accepts and formalizes the infinite size of the set of natural numbers, resolve the problem you see with step-by-step accessibility by accepting the existence of the set as a whole. That is, are you saying that at this point, despite the strangeness and concerns you have, the issues are resolved mathematically by the acceptance of the set as a whole, as represented by it being defined to have a transfinite size? Aleta
ellazimm
You don’t have to write a number down to use it or show it exists.
A number is different than a formula that generates a hypothetical number. For something to exist is different than for something "to be hypothesized to exist". Mathematics can be correct but give false explanations about reality. Mathematics says that 10 hippos on my roof plus one is correctly 11 hippos on the roof. Math has no problem with that. Physics does though. Ten hippos cannot be on the roof. Nor can ten unicorns, although math has no problem with them either. Math is just the symbols of a logical language - it is independent of the physics of what actually can happen in reality.
I may be the first person to write down the number 3,456,777,112,890,543,023,111,467,902,222.45678901111111 but that doesn’t mean it didn’t ‘exist’ in principle before that.
Notice - you say "exist in principle". That is different than actually existing. The question is, can an infinite past actually exist? It can exist in poetry or math (which are about the same in this case). But could it exist in reality, in the universe? The concepts of "today" and "yesterday" are measures of reality. We can assign mathematics to them, but today exists outside of mathematics. That is, mathematics did not create or invent "today" or the reality we experience. Mathematics does not speed or slow the passage of time, even though it can measure it in different ways. Mathematics will not make your life one day or one minute longer or shorter than whatever it will be when you die. It's the same with the reality of the universe. An infinite past would require infinite time to reach today, and any string of time that has been extending infinitely cannot have a 'new future'. Any possible future had already been reached. So, an infinite past could not have existed, for reasons given. Even in principle, how do you add another day to the beginning of an infinite past? Over an infinite amount of time, anything that was possible already necessarily occured (in the definition of possible). If it was possible for the universe not to exist, then it would have already happened, because there already has been an infinite number of opportunities to realize that possibility. A new potential event cannot happen "all of a sudden" after an infinite amount of time. If it could have ever happened, in any possible way, at any possible time - it would have necessarily already happened. If it was one in a million chances - already an infinite million chances have occurred. It necessarily would have happened. That's how we calculate probabilities. If something would not have happened after an infinite number of chances, that's the definition of "not possible". After an infinite number of chances, tomorrow did not occur. Therefore, by definition, tomorrow is not possible. If tomorrow occurs, then there was not an infinite past - in reality, not in the imaginary world of mathematics. Silver Asiatic
KF #1250
I am always concerned when there is a divorcing of a province of learning from the parent discipline, philosophy. In the case of Mathematics, it in the end is the logical study of structure and quantity. Where, before we get to systems, logic is the study of good reasoning and is a main branch of philosophy.
I'm inclined to think it's the other way around: I'm more likely to assign mathematics as the parent topic with formal logic and philosophy growing out of it. But that is just my own personal, uninformed take on it. Which I can't support so I won't. I don't find the discussion all that interesting. I'm just interested in the mathematics. And whether or not there are an infinite number of primes. And a lot of other questions. Like the Goldbach conjecture. By the way, how do your rectify your philosophy with Euler's formula (e^(i x pi) = -1) which uses an imaginary number, i = sqrt(-1)? I know you find Euler's formula intriguing but how is it reflected in philosophy or logic? ellazimm
SA #1249
As I said, the universe may not be big enough for that number. The bigger the number the more resources it requires to write it down (not to mention energy, time and mental capacity resources).
You don't have to write a number down to use it or show it exists. I may be the first person to write down the number 3,456,777,112,890,543,023,111,467,902,222.45678901111111 but that doesn't mean it didn't 'exist' in principle before that. There is no largest number. There just isn't. If you think you can conceive of one then I'll just add one to it. Or add it to itself. Or square it.
If the universe is finite — then it cannot express an infinite size of numbers. So, the number set would be finite by necessity. It would stop at a certain size number and nothing further could be expressed.
Do you think there are an infinite number of prime numbers? There's a famous proof showing that there are, if you think that is wrong then where is the mistake in the proof? Do you think that sqrt(2) has a finite decimal expansion? The Greeks proved that there is no way to represent the sqrt(2) as the ratio of two integers (which you could do if it had a finite decimal expansion). Where is the mistake in their proof?
Since the expression and comprehension of a number is not constrained to the physical attributes of the brain, an immaterial soul can express an infinitely large size of numbers (to itself, at least). This is good evidence against materialism.
I don't think that follows. Just because you can (or cannot) conceive of something says nothing about the physical world.
However, if you want to think that the expression (or comprehension) of numbers is tied to the activity of neurons in the brain — then we don’t know what the largest number that can be comprehended by a human being is.
Good thing there isn't one then eh?
In any case, where do numbers exist if they don’t take any space in the universe?
Where does freedom exist? Where does justice exist? Where do you exist? Where does 1 mile exist? 1, 2, pi, sqrt(2), 3+4i are not 'things'. (Note, if you actually tried to measure 1 mile on the ground you'd get a different result depending on what length of measuring stick you used. Think about that.) Digits were invented to make it easier to compare the size of sets. It was easier than always putting the sets into 1-to-1 correspondence to see which was bigger. A kind of shorthand. The rest is mucking about or trying to solve some practical problems using the representations of numbers/quantities as a short-hand. Remember we say 2x2 is 2 squared because the Greeks thought of 2x2 as an area of a square 2 units on a side. Later we decided that 2x2 was also just another number. The really amazing thing turned out to be that some very weird and abstract areas of mathematics turned out to have practical applications after they were developed. Like topology. Or number theory. Or non-Euclidean geometry. Or, my favourite example, imaginary numbers. That is just the weirdest thing and I didn't believe it until I took a complex analysis course. It was a real eye opener. As was the class where we studied fractional dimensions using stuff like the Mandelbrot set. Deeply strange and hard to get your head around. Anyway, math uses concepts like infinity all the time. Even sound engineering procedures like Fourier Analysis have it buried deep inside. It is true that some people have tried to construct a whole system of mathematics with a smallest number but it doesn't have the beauty or grandeur of the 'real' thing. (Disclaimer: there used to be anyway a big discussion amongst mathematicians about where the numbers come from. I clearly am taking a particular side in that debate. If you disagree or you want to explore the other arguments be my guest. It's not a pretty sight.) ellazimm
EZ & Aleta: First, let me thank you for engaging in a civil discussion that has now gone on longer than anyone anticipated. I do, however, have some concerns. I am always concerned when there is a divorcing of a province of learning from the parent discipline, philosophy. In the case of Mathematics, it in the end is the logical study of structure and quantity. Where, before we get to systems, logic is the study of good reasoning and is a main branch of philosophy. Not theology, not physics, not personal feelings and idiosyncrasies. Especially in a time where there are indoctrinations and polarisations at work that warp ability to think straight when just even words such as just listed are introduced. Now, it seems that endlessness is being regarded as suspect, imprecise, undefined. End-less, without end or bound, going beyond the limits. Something that appears when one draws up an axis on a graph and puts an arrow head, and maybe plots a parabola increasing without bound or a hyperbola approaching the axis more and more but never reaching it at any finite level. Then, we see much the same in sequences, series and integration ranges. Pop over into complex frequency domain analysis and we see poles. So, going on without limit beyond any arbitrarily large but bounded value is inextricably entangled in a lot of mathematics and especially where it intersects with real world cases. Which are subject to the logic of structure and quantity. Which, is not quite the same as a "consensus" of the currently dominant schools of thought. Especially in a post Godel world in which no axiomatic system for a rich enough domain is complete and coherent and there is no constructive process for synthesising a known coherent axiomatic framework. In short, mathematics is an open ended, first plausibles -- axioms or whatever -- driven endeavour in which one provisionally but confidently trusts tested and reliable findings. (And yes, the often despised f-word, faith, is relevant.) Which brings the significance of test cases of various kinds to the fore. Which, let us not forget, is the immediate context of the current remarks. In this context, the pink vs blue punched tapes example draws out some significant aspects of endlessness, in particular highlighting why no finite stage stepwise cumulative process can traverse -- thus, end -- an endless succession or set. The three dot ellipsis of endlessness is highly significant. {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . or, {0,1,2 . . . } shows how this is embedded in our concept of natural, counting numbers, and is foundational. Succession in +1 steps continues without limit and any successor is a valid member. At the same time, as k, k+1, k+2 etc can be put in 1:1 correspondence endlessly with 0,1,2 . . . this highlights that no finite stage process can actually traverse the full range. This leads to establishing the potentially infinite and pointing across the ellipsis. We use this to define infinite sets, and so endlessness is embedded in the definition as a key property leading to the ability to match a proper subset with the full set. So, the property of end-less-ness is important and to be respected. It may also toss out unexpected consequences, and one of these from what I have seen is that it may not be safe to extrapolate from a first case and a stepwise successor implication to properties of far zone members that would be influenced by endlessness. What ordinary mathematical induction establishes is that the members we can reach or represent are inherently finite cases and will hold the demonstrated properties. However this does not warrant us in drawing conclusions on things that pivot on endlessness. It is in this context that I have been concerned by conclusions drawn about an infinite actual number of FINITE natural numbers, succeeding one another in +1 increments from 0. In the far zone, there lies endlessness which cannot be plumbed or exhausted in stepwise succession. I fully agree that we cannot traverse the ellipsis and so are warranted in recognising a new domain of quantities starting with w. But w embeds that endlessness, it is not invented out of whole cloth when we say: {0,1,2 . . . } --> w Where w as limit ordinal has no specific, definable finite predecessor. All such definable finite counting numbers are behind a wall of endlessness so w is a limit ordinal. That seems to me to resolve concerns. And of course, there are onward issues on understanding the continuum [0,1] as a closed interval without gaps and the link from infinitesimals to transfinites and transfinite hyperreals. The surreals seem to offer the best coherent picture of the jungle. Where of course the study of quantity and its structures is pivotal to anything that uses quantities. KF PS: And it is quite clear that people like DS and Russell etc are talking about physically instantiated material and temporal infinities, arguing that such are not illogical and must be taken as serious possibilities. That is the context in which issues of causal succession, stepwise finite stage traversal of the transfinite or endless and whether an actual infinity can be actualised quantitatively not just as a symbolic representation, abstract entity or useful fiction arise. The logic is telling us that endlessness has properties that make such claims highly dubious. Hilbert's hotel, the issue of ending an endless succession and the problem of building and labelling an infinite ladder then climbing down to the ground on it all speak to that. It seems we may readily see [quasi-]physical entities that are very large but not actually transfinite. For reasons connected to why we cannot build a square circle. kairosfocus
Aleta
Mathematical infinity is actual infinity.
No, it's not. Mathematics is a symbolic language. The point at question is an "infinite past". Either that exists or doesn't - mathematics does not create it.
Infinity is a mathematical concept. All of us here have agreed, I think, that there is no physical instantiation of infinity in our universe.
No, daveS has been arguing that there could be an infinite past, in reality - not just in mathematical conjectures.
ellazimm: If there are a finite number of positive integers and if you wrote them all down you could always take the largest one and add 1 to it and get one that was not on your list.
That would be one way to experimentally test your theory that there is an infinite number of positive integers. Write down the largest positive integer. Then add one. Then display that number. Not the formula (where x is the biggest number ...), the actual number. As I said, the universe may not be big enough for that number. The bigger the number the more resources it requires to write it down (not to mention energy, time and mental capacity resources). If the universe is finite -- then it cannot express an infinite size of numbers. So, the number set would be finite by necessity. It would stop at a certain size number and nothing further could be expressed.
Aleta Numbers don’t take up space in the universe.
I might agree with you, since I believe in immaterial entities like the human soul. Since the expression and comprehension of a number is not constrained to the physical attributes of the brain, an immaterial soul can express an infinitely large size of numbers (to itself, at least). This is good evidence against materialism. However, if you want to think that the expression (or comprehension) of numbers is tied to the activity of neurons in the brain -- then we don't know what the largest number that can be comprehended by a human being is. In any case, where do numbers exist if they don't take any space in the universe? Silver Asiatic
Mung
I’m not sure that the statement that there is an infinite number of ‘x’ is even coherent. Shouldn’t we say that ‘x’ is without number, that ‘x’ cannot be numbered?
That's right. A number is distinct from "a formula that generates a hypothetical number". Even calling an infinite entity a "set" reduces an infinte to a finite construct. ellazimm
Endlessness may be a problem for theology or physics or you personally but it’s not a problem for mathematics.
That's why mathematics cannot accurately model reality. Infinite entities are not a problem for people who have active imaginations - and there is imaginary mathematics as well. To generate a number it has to be expressed somehow. That's not the formula for the number using variables but the number itself. Silver Asiatic
KF I would like to reiterate that 'endlessness' is not a well defined mathematical concept. If by endlessness you just mean an aspect of infinity then remember that, mathematically, infinity is not a controversial or problematic issue. For more than 100 years mathematicians have had solid, coherent ways of working with infinities and the concept was introduced well before Cantor. You can read about some of the history of it all in Dr Belinski's book A Tour of the Calculus or any history of math text. (By the way, Dr Berlinski considers Cantor's insight to be an example of 'mathematical genius'.) Endlessness may be a problem for theology or physics or you personally but it's not a problem for mathematics. And no mathematician is trying to say a thing about theology or anything else except the mathematics. Non-controversial, established, well understood mathematics. How anyone chooses to attempt to apply it is their business and I won't offer any opinions on that. I have no agenda whatsoever except to help explain the math. In that light you should easily be able to answer Aleta's two questions from a strictly mathematical point of view with a simple true or false. ellazimm
Mung writes,
How do you get from “therefore there is no largest integer” to “therefore there are an infinite number of integers.” I’m not sure that the statement that there is an infinite number of ‘x’ is even coherent. Shouldn’t we say that ‘x’ is without number, that ‘x’ cannot be numbered?"
I really don't know how seriously to take this question, because I can't tell how serious Mung is in general, but I'll give it a try. If Mung thinks that "an infinite number" is perhaps not coherent (his second sentence), I don't think there is any way I could answer his first question. "An infinite number" is a well defined mathematical concept, and kf has posted a definition a number of times.
Mathematics a. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value. b. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length. c. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.
The integers are an infinite set in sense a. above, and the proof I offered is essentially a definition of infinite. More formally any set that can be counted (put in a 1:1 correspondence) with a terminated subset of the natural numbers is finite. Any set that can, however, be put in a 1:1 correspondence with a proper subset of itself is infinite. (Definition c above) Cantor formalized this definition, and developed a great deal of further mathematics that starts with that definition. He also created a new kind of number, the transfinites, and named the first transfinite, aleph null, to represent the number of natural numbers. So, the phrase "an infinite number of somethings (where the somethings are discrete, like ladder rungs or steps or prime numbers)" is somewhat informal. It really means that the set of all the somethings is infinite to the same degree that the natural numbers are infinite. So if we know there is no largest number, then the numbers must be beyond any arbitrarily large value, and thus are infinite per a. above. Aleta
I agree with Ellazimm at 1243, but want to add my 2 cents. You write,
Theorems are proved from start points and already proved theorems, but the point of the process is what is in the axioms may well be surprising and hard to discover. Key cases, models, test examples etc are all also legitimate devices of insight.
Yes, studying examples and concrete cases can lead to insights. But insights can be wrong, so unless one can then formalize those insights back into mathematical language, they remain unverified and possibly wrong. A case in point: as related above someplace, I examined the expected value of choosing an upset out of four games in the NCAA tournament when q = probability of an upset was 30%. My insight, based on the result as well as experience with other types of situations, was that there would be a "tipping point" for a larger q for which it would be better to pick an upset. Then I worked out all the probabilities algebraically for the expected value as a function of q. And guess what! My insight was wrong. So kf, despite your concerns, insights, sense of strangeness, or whatever, you have never even attempted to formalize your concern in mathematical language. The tape example may give you reason to believe there is something at issue here, but it also may be misleading you. Unless you can formalize your ideas mathematically, all you have are unproven ideas: you really haven't supported, much less validated, your concerns. Aleta
Aleta:
Therefore there is no largest integer Therefore there are an infinite number of integers.
How do you get from "therefore there is no largest integer" to "therefore there are an infinite number of integers." I'm not sure that the statement that there is an infinite number of 'x' is even coherent. Shouldn't we say that 'x' is without number, that 'x' cannot be numbered? Mung
KF #1239
my point is the implicit often surprises us and typically requires considerable effort to draw it out. Theorems are proved from start points and already proved theorems, but the point of the process is what is in the axioms may well be surprising and hard to discover. Key cases, models, test examples etc are all also legitimate devices of insight
Sometimes yes, but the mathematics is the key. Real world examples can be helpful but they are subsidiary. And you really need to answer Aleta's question from post #1218. The questions are very straight forward, they don't require any fancy speechifying to answer. ellazimm
Since Aleta's questions about the prime numbers are still on the table, (post #1218), I thought I'd post a couple of interesting things I found on stackexchange today. Apparently Euclid gives a constructive proof of the infinitude of the set of primes, rather than a proof by contradiction, which is how I've always seen it presented. Of course the specifics of the proof look quite similar. Here's a very slick proof cited on this page:
N(N + 1) has a larger set of prime factors than does N.
Just a single declarative sentence, which is quite amazing. daveS
Hello all, Just popping to say that I haven't abandoned this discussion. I've been busy and away for the past few days and will be out all day again today but I'll try to offer a few thoughts later tonight or at some point tomorrow. Have a good one HeKS HeKS
KF, Yes, of course. But inexact "models" can be confusing as well. Now I think the Turing machine tape model is helpful in thinking about an infinite past, but it's very misleading to someone trying to understand mathematical induction or the construction of N. I'm quite certain that it is still misleading you, in fact. The fact that you refer to mathematical induction as involving "do forever" loops where the law of detachment is applied over and over again illustrates this. Likewise with the construction of N. We (your persistent interlocutors), and virtually all working mathematicians, do not think of N as being constructed through "finite stage steps", so your post #1234 is really beside the point to us. daveS
DS & Aleta, my point is the implicit often surprises us and typically requires considerable effort to draw it out. Theorems are proved from start points and already proved theorems, but the point of the process is what is in the axioms may well be surprising and hard to discover. Key cases, models, test examples etc are all also legitimate devices of insight. KF kairosfocus
Mung #1229
Would you like to try again?
You're just being nit-picky. See Aleta's post #1230. ellazimm
I find kf's position here about axioms and the failings of abstract symbolism strange, given the strong insistence he's placed on the "rules of right reason" and the fundamental laws of logic in other threads on this site. Aleta
KF and Aleta, If I may respond to KF's post:
Aleta, strictly there is nothing in a province of mathematics provable from its axioms that is not included in those axioms. Likewise, if a set of axioms are contradictory, there is nothing “more” that is provided by a reductio proof. So, why is so much effort exerted in proving theorems etc?
???? This kind of floors me. Would you be content if mathematics consisted simply of the ZFC axioms together with rules and symbols for first order logic, and where no one was interested in investigating what theorems follow? To me, the whole point of mathematics is to see what follows from various axiom systems and logics. Without the great effort that has been exerted in proving theorems, we would have no Fermat's last theorem, no Poincaré Conjecture (theorem now), no prime number theorem, no e^(iπ) = -1, and so on. It's extremely non-obvious what does follow from these axioms, and proving such theorems can be very difficult (taking centuries of cumulative effort). See the abc conjecture for a potential example of such a hard theorem being proved in real time. daveS
Aleta, for cause I do not trust abstract symbols by themselves and I do not trust test cases by themselves. I am only happy when the two come together in mutually reinforcing light. And it is clear to me above that the punched tapes example brings out explicitly many of the concerns at the heart of this thread. Starting with the often repeated but what is endlessness. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, please keep on going. Start, {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 Define +1 as an operation that extends and thus a growing, endless set of counting sets: {0, 1, 2 . . . k} --> Sk+1 --> k+1 Now, where . . . denotes endless succession and Sk+1 collects the set of sets Sk, the copy counting sets so far principle. Can you actually instantiate to endlessness, no, at any k we are finite and bounded by k+1, thus we see the onward endlessness that can be successively put in match with the set {0,1,2 etc}. This shows, first, we cannot traverse stepwise to the zone of endlessness, so we impose by pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness. Second, were we to attain to a zone of actually infinite successive members, there would be members with endlessness in them, infinite integers. It is crucial that we cannot succeed to such a zone in +1 or similarly finite stage steps. And, the case warns us that there may be a fallacy of composition in extending to endlessness what is true of strictly finite subsets or ranges. KF kairosfocus
Aleta,
But the tape doesn’t reveal anything that the abstract symbolism doesn’t cover: we all know that you can’t traverse the entire infinite set by stepping through the numbers one by one, and we all know that, because the set is infinite, it can be put into a 1:1 correspondence with a proper subset.
Yes, this is becoming more and more clear to me. I think in terms of physical analogies quite a bit, but in the case of the infinite, those analogies tend to break down at some point, whether they are "infinite" Turing machine tapes, ladders, clocks, whatever. Since we have not been able to resolve our differences using these analogies, I think it's time to set aside the tapes, ladders, and clocks, and use actual mathematical arguments (when discussing mathematics). daveS
kf, I very much appreciate applied math, and always made a point of showing my students physical applications and representations of the math they were learning. But I also very much wanted to impress upon them the nature and power of pure mathematics, and to convince them that ultimately things fall back to the pure math for their foundational validity. So I agree with you that models are useful, both because that is the only way to actually apply math to the real world and because it helps us understand the math better. But in this case we are experienced enough people to work with the pure math. Your tape example may help some understand better what the pure math is about (such as with the 1:1 correspondences). However, I think it fundamentally misrepresents the nature of an infinite set by implying that you have to step through the set in order to fully create it, which is false. Aleta
Aleta, strictly there is nothing in a province of mathematics provable from its axioms that is not included in those axioms. Likewise, if a set of axioms are contradictory, there is nothing "more" that is provided by a reductio proof. So, why is so much effort exerted in proving theorems etc? Or, on studying special cases of interest? Likewise, what is the benefit of setting up the case of a tank or bucket being filled with a liquid to study and clarify the meaningfulness and relevance of the core concepts of the calculus? Then its extension to a tank with both inflow and outflow? (And BTW, that actually helped me make much more sense of what lurked behind the usual symbols.) The answers to these will show why something like the case of an abstract pair of punched tapes that are endless can be instructive and can reveal things we would not have spotted from the abstract symbols alone. Of course, one also wishes to express the case in an accurate algebraic model and explore its properties . . . which was done in outline. This is a case of both and not either or. KF kairosfocus
Prove: there is a largest positive integer Proof by contradiction: assume there is a largest integer L Let N = L + 1 N is also an integer, and N > L This contradicts the assumption that L is the largest integer Therefore the assumption that there is a largest integer is false Therefore there is no largest integer Therefore there are an infinite number of integers. Q.E.D How's that - pure math, and no writing any numbers down.involved. Aleta
ellazim: Mathematics is a beautiful system of abstract thinking wherein you can handle things you can’t do exhaustively, ‘by hand’. If that is so, then why did you issue the following demonstration for the claim that there is an infinite number of positive integers? If there are a finite number of positive integers and if you wrote them all down you could always take the largest one and add 1 to it and get one that was not on your list. Would you like to try again? Mung
at 1222, methink asks,
Mathematical infinity or actual infinity
Mathematical infinity is actual infinity. Infinity is a mathematical concept. All of us here have agreed, I think, that there is no physical instantiation of infinity in our universe. Aleta
But the tape doesn't reveal anything that the abstract symbolism doesn't cover: we all know that you can't traverse the entire infinite set by stepping through the numbers one by one, and we all know that, because the set is infinite, it can be put into a 1:1 correspondence with a proper subset. What does the tape reveal that the abstract symbolism conceals? Everything you say in 1226, for instance, is not made any clearer by the tape example. Furthermore, the tape example conceals things the abstract symbolism reveals. Cantor's definition of orders of infinity, which start with naming aleph null as representing the first level of infinity - the size of the integers, is much more "revealed" with the abstract symbolism than it is with the tape. Furthermore, additional mathematics to which you often refer (higher orders of infinity, hyperreals, etc.) are not revealed by the tape example at all.) So I don't see the tape example as adding anything to the discussion. Aleta
MT: the essence of infinity is endlessness beyond any arbitrarily large finite (and bounded) case. This obtains for the natural numbers, and the scale of the continuum. Where, as mathematics is the logical study of structure and quantity, insofar as these features are manifested in abstract or concrete entities, that logic constrains possibilities and can even have causative effect; e.g. as core properties for circularity and squarishness stand in contradiction for one and the same entity and circumstances, the attempt to create a square circle must fail. As, was discussed above. One consequence of such, is that a stepwise finite stage incremental process, abstract or physical/concrete, cannot traverse a transfinite span. That is, one that is endless. How omega -- I have used w for convenience -- is the order type of {0,1,2 . . . } is inherently different from how 5 is order type of {0,1,2,3,4} because of that endlessness. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, I say again, that abstract symbolism often conceals more than it reveals, hence the place for the instructive case study. KF kairosfocus
kf, I can see perfectly well both the endlessness and the 1:1 correspondences between an infinite set and one of its infinite subsets by thinking and writing numbers in set notation. I don't need to visualize a tape or a ladder or a hotel. Physical analogies such as the tape are misleading because they make it seem like the step-by-step process is essential for accessing the infinite set, and mathematically it's not. Aleta
Aleta, a thought exercise often imposes an experimentum crucis that brings out the issue in ways that symbolism may conceal. Thus the power of Turing's machine as an example; which may then be algebraically symbolised. In this case, the issue is endless continuation, and the pulling of the blue tape by some arbitrary, large but finite k steps then placing rows k, k+1, k+2 etc in 1:1 match with the undisturbed print tape from 0,1,2 etc shows how endlessness entails that no finite stepwise advance from 0 can exhaust endlessness, or even scratch its surface. Thus, we see plainly and undeniably that the onward endlessness is a critical aspect of our understanding of natural numbers understood to be successive, cumulative counting sets. As a consequence of which, we see that ordinary mathematical induction with its k, k+1 chaining from case 0, is only capable of the potentially infinite and that onward endlessness materially affects consequences. That which then becomes indeterminate is the finitude of all integers. For, we can only ever attain to finite specific values by stepwise count, or representation in notations based on such, with onward undefined endlessness ever before us. So, the proper conclusion is that every integer we can determine or state or specify will be finite but there is an endlessness beyond all such. Thence, we define an order type of such endlessness, w. This is a new type of quantity recognised and represented. Then, we may proceed to operate on such, and it seems the surreals and hyper reals give us promising results. In my case, I find the catapult operation of multiplicative inverse and the hyperbola y = 1/x applied to the interval [0,1] especially very near to 0, [0,1] regarded as a continuum then lets me see interesting onward vistas. KF kairosfocus
KF @ 1216
We cannot exhaust the system (as the two tapes example illustrates), but every number we can write down specifically will be finite. Endlessness strikes again and gives a strange answer.
When you say ' Endlessness', what are you referring to - Mathematical infinity or actual infinity? Me_Think
Mung #1215
Your premise is that if there is a finite number of positive integers I could write them all down. I disagree. I think your premise is false.
How about have them written down? Or what's wrong with something like: 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . . L-2, L-1, L (where L is the 'largest' number)
If the positive integers are infinite I would not be able to write them all down. I cannot write them all down. Therefore, the positive integers are infinite.
Because that's like an argument from ignorance: I can't do something so it's impossible. Also, A -> B doesn't always mean B -> A. I cannot write down all the digits of sqrt(2) but the value of sqrt(2) is finite. Mathematics is a beautiful system of abstract thinking wherein you can handle things you can't do exhaustively, 'by hand'. ellazimm
KF #1216
Mung, EZ and Aleta, it seems the answer is indeterminate in a positive sense. We cannot exhaust the system (as the two tapes example illustrates), but every number we can write down specifically will be finite. Endlessness strikes again and gives a strange answer.
Well, I'm not sure what is indeterminate. I trust you're not just giving up. The beauty of Canto's work is that he found a way to deal with infinite sets and even determined that some infinite sets are 'bigger' than others. ellazimm
KF,
Mung, EZ and Aleta, it seems the answer is indeterminate in a positive sense. We cannot exhaust the system (as the two tapes example illustrates), but every number we can write down specifically will be finite. Endlessness strikes again and gives a strange answer. KF
Aren't you therefore forced to reject the law of the excluded middle? If we let A be the sentence "the set of integers is infinite", then A∨¬A is false? daveS
And I'll remind you that the proof I offered that there are an infinite number of primes does not depend on induction, or any traversal, or even knowing what all the primes are up to a certain number. What would be your answer to these two questions: 1. There are an infinite number of primes: True or False 2. All primes are finite:: True or False Aleta
The answer to what is indeterminate? My two questions in 1188? Your tape analogy just confuses the situation by conflating pure math with the physical world. Dave explained it well in 1203, and I've said the same thing:
To address your post, I think you and I are simply playing by a different mathematical rule book. I accept the Axiom of Infinity, which means I don’t need to think of N as being constructed step by step. The entire set just “exists”, and we proceed from there.
The infinite set of integers exist in a mathematical sense irrespective of whether we can write them down, or traverse them, or punch them out on a tape. Yes, "every number we can write down specifically will be finite" and every number we don't write down will also be finite. They're all finite whether we write them down or not. Infinity is strange. The fact that the answers to both my questions are "true" is part of that strangeness, but lots of strange things are true. Aleta
Mung, EZ and Aleta, it seems the answer is indeterminate in a positive sense. We cannot exhaust the system (as the two tapes example illustrates), but every number we can write down specifically will be finite. Endlessness strikes again and gives a strange answer. KF kairosfocus
ellazimm: If there are a finite number of positive integers and if you wrote them all down you could always take the largest one and add 1 to it and get one that was not on your list. Your premise is that if there is a finite number of positive integers I could write them all down. I disagree. I think your premise is false. You could try this: If the positive integers are infinite I would not be able to write them all down. I cannot write them all down. Therefore, the positive integers are infinite. :) Mung
Follow-on from #1213 If the sqrt(2) is not irrational then there must be a mistake in all the proofs (starting with some Greek guy about 2500 years ago) that sqrt(2) is irrational. If you think that sqrt(2) does not have an infinite, non-repeating decimal expansion then: can you find a mistake in one of the proofs? Additionally: if there are no infinite, decimal expansions then 1/3 does not have the decimal expansion 0.33333 . . . . . 1/3 would have the decimal expansion of 0.333 . . . . 3 with an, as yet, undetermined number of 3s. But then 3 x 1/3 would not be 1, it would be 0.999999999 . . . . . 9. Ooops. ellazimm
Silver Asiatic #1210
This assumes that the universe could contain one more than the largest. We can’t know that.
IF this is not an April Fool's Day response . . . If the Universe could only hold so many numbers then . . . Could it hold more 1s than 1000s? How about 1000000s? How about -2s? Or sqrt(2)s? (Sqrt(2) has an infinite, non-repeating decimal expansion.) How about 3+4i? Is 3+4i 'bigger' than 5 say? Their magnitudes are the same but do they take up the same amount of space in the universe? Which brings up another question . . . If there really is nothing that is infinite then sqrt(2) has a finite decimal expansion which means it's not an irrational number. Which means there are no irrational numbers. Which means (I think) that the real numbers are all rational numbers. Which means that the reals are countably infinite, i.e. have the same cardinality as the positive integers. Today's homework: what famous proof would this be a contradiction of? (That would put the continuum hypothesis to rest though.) ellazimm
Silver Asiatic,
“How many days?” = you’re setting that up for an answer that is a finite number. To say “Infinitely many” is to make that appear as a finite quantity.
I certainly wasn't expecting a finite number answer. If I say in an infinite past, the cardinality of the set of past days is infinite, would you agree to that?
The number of days elapsed from an infinite past is non-calculable. It’s the same as asking “how may days ago was the very first day in an infinite past”.
Non-calculable? I don't know. I'm thinking in terms of cardinalities here. I think everyone who has published on this topic takes an "infinite past" to mean the set of days elapsed to the present has cardinality aleph_0, so that's what I am assuming.
You’re basically saying that the answer is: “an infinite time ago”. But there’s no first day and it is impossible to say how many days have elapsed in total. An infinite string of days is all the days. You can’t add a day to it.
I don't agree. In an infinite past, all the days previous to today comprise an infinite string of days, but this leaves out today---so today could be added to the set. There's nothing problematic about adding an element to an already infinite set. daveS
This assumes that the universe could contain one more than the largest
??? Numbers don't take up space in the universe. So, SA, even though you are going offline, are you saying that mathematically we could reach a number that we couldn't add one more to because there would be no room for it on the number line? Aleta
If there are a finite number of positive integers and if you wrote them all down you could always take the largest one and add 1 to it and get one that was not on your list.
This assumes that the universe could contain one more than the largest. We can't know that. I will be off-line for 3 days - so silence does not equal consent, except with everyone I agree with. :-) Silver Asiatic
daveS
I meant something like this: How many days have elapsed to this point, assuming and infinite past? Infinitely many days. I guess I don’t understand your objection.
I explained this in detail. You cannot circumscribe an infinite. Your term "available" translated infinite amount into a finite quantity. You do the same above. "How many days?" = you're setting that up for an answer that is a finite number. To say "Infinitely many" is to make that appear as a finite quantity. But it's an amorphous amount. The answer to "How many days?" is that it is, by definition, "unknowable". To merely say "an infinite number" and then make that seem like a finite quantity is false. The number of days elapsed from an infinite past is non-calculable. It's the same as asking "how may days ago was the very first day in an infinite past". You're basically saying that the answer is: "an infinite time ago". But there's no first day and it is impossible to say how many days have elapsed in total. An infinite string of days is all the days. You can't add a day to it. To know something is to capture it - to comprehend it. Infinity is unknowable - by either science or math. Silver Asiatic
Mung #1207
I am going to go with false. If they cannot be numbered, there is not an infinite number of them. Plus, infinity is not a number, so there cannot be an infinite number of anything.
If there are a finite number of positive integers then how many are there? If there are a finite number of positive integers and if you wrote them all down you could always take the largest one and add 1 to it and get one that was not on your list. ellazimm
Aleta: 1. True or False: there are an infinite number of integers I am going to go with false. If they cannot be numbered, there is not an infinite number of them. Plus, infinity is not a number, so there cannot be an infinite number of anything. Mung
How do we get the man up on the rung of the ladder without him having to climb up the ladder? A ladder truck! Obviously. Mung
Silver Asiatic,
That doesn’t follow. The term “available” cannot be used with regards to an infinite amount. Available means something like “accessible” or “can be captured”. But by its nature, you can’t have “availability” to infinitude. If you did, it would be finite. The distance to travel is infinite. By its nature, nothing can “capture” or “have access” to that which cannot be circumscribed. An infinite amount of anything is never available. It always reaches beyond any terminus.
I'm not quite following this. Maybe the word "available" was a poor choice on my part. I meant something like this: How many days have elapsed to this point, assuming and infinite past? Infinitely many days. I guess I don't understand your objection.
Infinity is a oneness that cannot be realized in temporal terms – by definition.
Can you provide more context or a source? I have never heard this before.
You cannot say, “today I finally completed traveling for infinite amount of time”. If you started the journey, then it has a finite past. If you never started, then you have no measurement. If today ends an infinite journey, then yesterday was infinity minus one, which is impossible.
Well, yesterday would also have been the end of an infinite journey. There's no mathematical problem with that. If the set of days previous to today has cardinality aleph_0, then the set of days previous to yesterday has cardinality aleph_0 - 1 = aleph_0 as well.
You’re restating the problem but not solving it. For some reason, you want to apply the term “0” to today. But that’s arbitrary. Tomorrow would then be 1. The next day would be 2, etc. But we arrive at the next day, and you’re calling that 0 again. But you already called today 0. What you’ve done is selected an arbitrary point on the line and assigned a value. You could call a day a million years ago “0” (and ultimately, any day you call “0” drifts to the past).
Yes, the choice of the label "0" for today is completely arbitrary, but that often/usually is the case when you set up a coordinate system. But once I fix an origin at 0, then I can't call tomorrow day 0 again in that same system. It would have to be day 1, unless I reset my coordinates, in which everything would have to shift.
It would not be possible to pick the earliest point on the line and assign any value to it, positive or negative.
True. There is no "earliest" point in time, assuming an infinite past. daveS
daveS
There is an infinite time available with an infinite past, for one thing.
That doesn't follow. The term "available" cannot be used with regards to an infinite amount. Available means something like "accessible" or "can be captured". But by its nature, you can't have "availability" to infinitude. If you did, it would be finite. The distance to travel is infinite. By its nature, nothing can "capture" or "have access" to that which cannot be circumscribed. An infinite amount of anything is never available. It always reaches beyond any terminus.
But again, there is an infinite amount of time available, so you can both travel an infinite amount of time and arrive.
Infinity is a oneness that cannot be realized in temporal terms - by definition. You cannot say, "today I finally completed traveling for infinite amount of time". If you started the journey, then it has a finite past. If you never started, then you have no measurement. If today ends an infinite journey, then yesterday was infinity minus one, which is impossible. The idea that is possible to "have available" an infinite amount is made to appear as if "an infinite amount" is a finite thing that can be made available. But the universe does not have an infinite "available" since this quantity considered a completed infinite continues to expand. The universe does not have access to next year. So, it does not have next year "available". It cannot have available or accessible an infinite past because that quantity cannot be captured to be made available to anything. Nothing can "apply" an infinite amount to anything - again, because that amount cannot be circumscribed, captured, made available or made real in temporal terms.
…}, in order, wouldn’t work. The days could be labeled using {…, -3, -2, -1, 0}, however, which does have a maximum but no minimum.
You're restating the problem but not solving it. For some reason, you want to apply the term "0" to today. But that's arbitrary. Tomorrow would then be 1. The next day would be 2, etc. But we arrive at the next day, and you're calling that 0 again. But you already called today 0. What you've done is selected an arbitrary point on the line and assigned a value. You could call a day a million years ago "0" (and ultimately, any day you call "0" drifts to the past). The measurement is exactly the same, using positive or negative integers. You're driving to a destination an infinite distance away. Calling yesterday -1 doesn't make it possible to reach the destination. It would not be possible to pick the earliest point on the line and assign any value to it, positive or negative. Silver Asiatic
KF, Well, I'm sure I'm repeating myself, but I will say a couple of things. First, I will answer Aleta's True/False questions directly: True to both. This is a philosophical position, I understand, and not everyone will agree with me, especially on #1. But I have given answers in the proper format. To address your post, I think you and I are simply playing by a different mathematical rule book. I accept the Axiom of Infinity, which means I don't need to think of N as being constructed step by step. The entire set just "exists", and we proceed from there. From what I gather, the only legitimate mathematical constructions for you are those that could be carried out (in principle) on a digital computer, starting with {}, with finite but arbitrarily large storage, in a finite amount of time. Therefore you don't accept the Axiom of Infinity or mathematical induction the same way I do. I don't see any reason to assume the universe "respects" either of our philosophical positions. Now if you could derive a logical contradiction P∧¬P from the assumption of an infinite past, I would agree that would be a major problem for me. So far, I haven't seen one demonstrated. I don't believe the tapes example provides one, and yes, I fully comprehend the concept of endlessness as you have defined it. daveS
Aleta, people are dressing up these speculations in lab coats, and are using them in worldview construction. Those worldviews are then imposed in the name of science. More importantly, there are significant coherence issues to be resolved, so this is one case where Math and life issues intersect. Never mind that it is also desirable to more deeply understand mathematics in its own right. KF kairosfocus
DS: Could you let us know your response on the merits to:
. . . the ellipsis cannot be exhausted. All numbers we can reach will be finite but endlessness remains onwards; as the pink vs blue punch tape examples highlight [ --> these being a thought exercise in essence similar to the thought exercise of Turing's machine and used to show what endlessness implies]. And yes this points to limitations on what ordinary mathematical induction can reach by chaining, again only to the potentially infinite. And this is echoed in the problem of a claimed infinite succession of finite values at +1 increments from 0. The succession cannot be completed by any successive process and were it there is an incoherence involved as in effect the successor set to the last achieved is a copy of the sequence so far. [--> e.g. {0,1,2,3,4} --> 5] If completed to actual endlessness, there would be endless and non finite members. The answer is, the endless cannot be traversed in successive +1 steps from 0.
KF kairosfocus
Does anyone else want to answer Aleta's questions in #1188? If you look at her questions and KF's response in #1189, you will indeed see why this thread has 1200 posts as of now. daveS
Silver Asiatic,
You cannot project forward in time without an origin point. For example, in an infinite past, it took an infinite amount of time to arrive at yesterday.
I would agree that an infinite number of days had elapsed prior to yesterday.
So the universe had to wait an infinite amount of time to add another day (today). If the amount of time needed in order to add one more day to the string of time is infinite, then a new day would never be added.
I don't see how this follows. There is an infinite time available with an infinite past, for one thing. The universe is "adding" new days eternally, every 24 hours.
To wait an infinite amount of time means to wait an infinitely long time — it means to always be waiting. You wait infinitely to arrive at the present – or at any present moment. If it takes waiting an infinite amount of time before you arrive at today, then you can never arrive. If it takes an infinite amount of time, for example, for you to travel from one place to another, you can never reach your destination because you’ll be traveling for an infinite amount of time which means it’s not possible to ever arrive.
But again, there is an infinite amount of time available, so you can both travel an infinite amount of time and arrive.
With an infinite past, today would be the maximum number of an infinite string. Tomorrow would be that maximum (impossible) number plus one. Obviously that doesn’t work.
Are you referring to a problem with labeling each day with a number? If so, I agree that using {1, 2, 3, ...}, in order, wouldn't work. The days could be labeled using {..., -3, -2, -1, 0}, however, which does have a maximum but no minimum. daveS
I realize that those ideas are out there, but I think I've made it clear that my position is that metaphysical speculations about what is beyond our universe are just that - speculations, and if there is no experience we could have that would bear on their truth (and there isn't), then we should just live with the limits of our possible knowledge, and accept not knowing. That is why I've said several times that thinking about time as being modeled by a number line that extends back past the start of our universe is unwarranted. Whatever metaphysical background to our universe there is, assuming that there is one, may not exhibit either time or cause-and-effect continuity that is the same as, or even similar to, what we experience in our universe. Aleta
Aleta, multiverse speculations try to get around such a terminus, cf OP and folks such as Krauss and Dawkins etc. (who in effect try to present the primordial quasi-physical space as "nothing" . . . https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/fine-tuning-of-the-universe/#comment-541398 and this OP from 3 years back: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/on-pulling-a-cosmos-out-of-a-non-existent-hat/ ) This is a context of this discussion. Previously, there were oscillating models. The logic of an infinite quasi-physical regress of causally linked states/ entities culminating in our world is something that needs to be resolved. That infinite regress achieving the present points to issues of coherence is something to be looked at. Traversing and ending the endless in finite stage steps in succession looks like running into coherence issues, those need to be resolved -- including, is this like a square circle? KF kairosfocus
FWIW, this debate took place about the time that the Big Bang theory was not yet established. Nowadays, and in this thread, I think everyone accepts that our universe is finite in time and space. Aleta
debate link: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/rjohns/cop_rus.pdf kairosfocus
This problem reminds me of the Copleston vs. Russell debate, during which Russell surprisingly didn’t have a problem with an infinite past of the universe, which conveniently provided him with a ground to deny the existence of the Uncaused Cause. Excerpt:
Copleston: Well, my point is that what we call the world is intrinsically unintelligible, apart from the existence of God. You see, I don't believe that the infinity of the series of events -- I mean a horizontal series, so to speak – (…) If you add up chocolates to infinity, you presumably get an infinite number of chocolates. So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a Necessary Being. An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being. Russell: I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever. (…) I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all.
Origenes
HeKS @1169
No person, piece of equipment, or other sort of aid could help the man get onto the ladder from the other direction at an infinite point and begin a descent from infinity to the ground. If the man gets onto a rung, he does so at some arbitrary finite point, however large it may be, and begins a finite descent to the ground. When he finally does get to the ground, he can say that he’s been climbing down the ladder for a very long time, but he won’t be able to say that he has been climbing down the ladder forever, or from the infinite past.
I have no problem agreeing with that. I was responding to Mung's question @ 1162 about how the man got on to the rung. He can obviously start only from a finite point on the ladder. For the record, I don't believe in infinite past nor infinite space. (see comment #1141) Me_Think
With an infinite past, today would be the maximum number of an infinite string. Tomorrow would be that maximum (impossible) number plus one. Obviously that doesn't work. Silver Asiatic
daveS
Why not? The assumption is of a universe which is eternal, which always has existed. I don’t see how you can conclude such universe could not have reached a present moment.
You cannot project forward in time without an origin point. For example, in an infinite past, it took an infinite amount of time to arrive at yesterday. So the universe had to wait an infinite amount of time to add another day (today). If the amount of time needed in order to add one more day to the string of time is infinite, then a new day would never be added. To wait an infinite amount of time means to wait an infinitely long time -- it means to always be waiting. You wait infinitely to arrive at the present - or at any present moment. If it takes waiting an infinite amount of time before you arrive at today, then you can never arrive. If it takes an infinite amount of time, for example, for you to travel from one place to another, you can never reach your destination because you'll be traveling for an infinite amount of time which means it's not possible to ever arrive. Silver Asiatic
I know all that, kf. See 1170. Aleta
Aleta, you and I are both aware the ellipsis cannot be exhausted. All numbers we can reach will be finite but endlessness remains onwards; as the pink vs blue punch tape examples highlight. And yes this points to limitations on what ordinary mathematical induction can reach by chaining, again only to the potentially infinite. And this is echoed in the problem of a claimed infinite succession of finite values at +1 increments from 0. The succession cannot be completed by any successive process and were it there is an incoherence involved as in effect the successor set to the last achieved is a copy of the sequence so far. If completed to actual endlessness, there would be endless and non finite members. The answer is, the endless cannot be traversed in successive +1 steps from 0. KF kairosfocus
To Dionisio, Origenes, HeKS, Silver Asiatic, and anyone else coming late to this party: to help explain what has kept this thread going so long, let me ask each of the following two questions: Consider the integers on a standard number line, with the positive counting numbers 1, 2, 3, ... to the right of zero and their negatives to the left. 1. True or False: there are an infinite number of integers 2. True or False: Every integer is a finite number. What are your answers to questions 1 and 2. Note: this is a purely mathematical question. It is not about time, or ladders, or tapes - just math. Aleta
The universe has to start at the beginning in order to reach the present moment. However, given an infinite past, there is no beginning to start from. And if there is no beginning then nothing can reach the beginning. Origenes
Silver Asiatic,
Wherever you start would be (or have been) a present moment. But that present moment would have required an infinite amount of time to “become present”. Infinite past, necessarily, has no beginning – by definition. That which has no beginning has no starting point. An infinite past can never have gotten started.
I agree with that. An infinite past would not have a beginning.
That which has no beginning (an infinite past by definition) could never have had a present moment.
Why not? The assumption is of a universe which is eternal, which always has existed. I don't see how you can conclude such universe could not have reached a present moment. daveS
Silver Asiatic @1182 & @1183 If time is a dimension that got created along with the known 3 spatial dimensions at the beginning of this universe, then those concepts are rendered meaningless outside this universe. This is incomprehensible for our limited minds. Dionisio
HeKS @1180 Yes. Exactly. BTW, a while ago in another thread I think someone suggested that those 'persistent' interlocutors could be just agents working for this site in order to keep the discussions on, thus potentially increasing the website traffic. But I never took that story seriously. It sounded like a joke. :) However, this time I wonder... why not? :) All they have to do is repeat the same 'yerunda' (bzdura) over and over again until they are told to stop it. This time they've done a remarkable job! They've lifted this thread up to the top of the ranking! They should get a bonus! :) Check this out:
Popular Posts (Last 30 Days) Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . . (2,390) A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no… (2,239) Quantum Darwinism = Darwinism as woo-woo? (2,197) Homologies, differences and information jumps (1,386) An encounter with a critic of biological semiosis (1,323)
Wow! Dionisio
That which has no beginning (an infinite past by definition) could never have had a present moment. So, you can't 'pick a point and start there'. No points on the continuum could be realized unless there was a beginning that created/started the continuum. If there was a start or beginning to the continuum, that is, if it ever came into temporal existence then it would have a finite past, not infinite. If it can never come into temporal existence then it could never exist. Silver Asiatic
daveS
Regarding the bolded part, starting from where?
Wherever you start would be (or have been) a present moment. But that present moment would have required an infinite amount of time to "become present". Infinite past, necessarily, has no beginning - by definition. That which has no beginning has no starting point. An infinite past can never have gotten started. Silver Asiatic
This thread has turned funny indeed. Pure entertainment. It's like the 'deep breaths of relief' in professor Alon's Systems Biology classes at the Weizmann Institute for Science. Except that here one doesn't have to stay focused on the explanation for biological oscillators, FFL, and all those circuits. Apparently some of the most active interlocutors here forgot the title of this OP?
Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . .
Or maybe they skipped the first paragraph of the OP?
[...] it seems the evolutionary materialist faces the unwelcome choice of a cosmos from a true nothing — non-being or else an actually completed infinite past succession of finite causal steps.
:) Dionisio
Dionisio
The impression one gets when reading a few comments here is that some of the most active interlocutors aren’t sure what exactly the discussion is about, hence they seem to talk past each other. That may explain why this thread has lasted so much.
And I'll say Amen to that. Based on ellazimm's latest comments I'm getting the impression that he/she may be one of those people who aren't sure exactly what the discussion is about ... or what arguments people have been making. I'm certainly unclear about who ellazimm thinks is 'bending the math to suit an agenda'. HeKS
Aleta #1178
Amen! :-)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha Okay, I'm off to my local pub for quiz night. ellazimm
This isn’t about faith or beliefs or the origin of the universe. It’s just about mathematics. Accept the math and then see how it might apply to a given situation. Don’t bend the math to suit an agenda.
Amen! :-) Aleta
Aleta #1173
There are no points infinitely far from zero!!! All points are a finite distance from zero. “Infinitely far” is not a well-defined mathematical concept. See my comments at 1170 for the mathematical meaningless of this idea.
Amazing, after almost 1200 posts. You have the patience of a saint. I'd love to buy you a drink. Next time you're in the UK let me know. Look folks: infinity, which ever one you want, plus or minus, is not something you can count to, or is a step, or on a ladder, or a hole on a tape. All of those are finite, albeit sometimes very large, numbers. And there is always an infinite number of steps or rungs or holes after any one you pick. And those will be finite as well. 'Endlessnes' is not a problem. There a system for dealing with it. For different kinds of 'endlessness' in fact. If you can come up with a better system then great, lets see it. And you'll have to show why the methods developed by Cantor are lacking as well. This isn't about faith or beliefs or the origin of the universe. It's just about mathematics. Accept the math and then see how it might apply to a given situation. Don't bend the math to suit an agenda. ellazimm
Silver Asiatic,
daveS Likewise, not every “infinite past” scenario needs to have points in time infinitely far in seconds from the present.
I think, by definition, it does. With an infinite past, it takes an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present.
Regarding the bolded part, starting from where? Any particular point in time is only finitely many seconds "ago". WLC (and maybe KF) agree with me on this. daveS
That's what I said at 1170.
Negative infinity isn’t a place, and thus you can’t start there. This is a category error: you can’t start from a place that isn’t a place. No matter where you start, you are starting at a finite negative number.
The same would be true about starting at a finite positive number and moving "down" to zero. Aleta
HeKS @1169
Nobody said there was a problem with stepping onto the ladder from the ground or climbing up the ladder. The end on the ground is the boundaried end and there’s no problem with simply stepping onto it and starting to climb. You will simply never reach the other “end”. Stepping onto and climbing the ladder in this direction represents moving forward into a potentially infinite future but where no matter how far into the future we go, any day we get to will still be only a finite number of days from the Big Bang. The problem arises when we come to the idea of trying to get on the ladder from the other end – the unboundaried end, the infinite “end”, “location”, “zone”, or perhaps more appropriately, state – and start climbing down towards the ground, which represents traversing an actually (not just potentially) infinite past to arrive at the present. No person, piece of equipment, or other sort of aid could help the man get onto the ladder from the other direction at an infinite point and begin a descent from infinity to the ground. If the man gets onto a rung, he does so at some arbitrary finite point, however large it may be, and begins a finite descent to the ground. When he finally does get to the ground, he can say that he’s been climbing down the ladder for a very long time, but he won’t be able to say that he has been climbing down the ladder forever, or from the infinite past.
Does anyone in this thread disagree with the above quote? Dionisio
There are no points infinitely far from zero!!! All points are a finite distance from zero. "Infinitely far" is not a well-defined mathematical concept. See my comments at 1170 for the mathematical meaningless of this idea. Aleta
daveS
Likewise, not every “infinite past” scenario needs to have points in time infinitely far in seconds from the present.
I think, by definition, it does. With an infinite past, it takes an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present. Silver Asiatic
Mung @1161
This thread provides actual proof that one can begin at the top and descend down across an infinite number of posts.
Exactly! It reminds me of the old TV commercial with the Energizer bunny that kept going playing a drum. A never-ending story. On the bright side this thread has been the most popular this year! That means more anonymous visitors have read KF's interesting posts. KF's persistent interlocutors deserve some credits for keeping this discussion going. :) HeKS wrote something interesting @1145:
We may well be approaching that point, but it’s more satisfying to do that once you’re reasonably sure that the parties to the conversation have at least properly understood each other’s arguments. Then, if no agreement can be reached, so be it. At least you’ve hopefully had an interesting discussion.
The impression one gets when reading a few comments here is that some of the most active interlocutors aren't sure what exactly the discussion is about, hence they seem to talk past each other. That may explain why this thread has lasted so much. KF's OP and comments have been clear enough even for me to understand them. :) Dionisio
FWIW, my position from the beginning is that it doesn't make sense to think about starting at "negative infinity" and moving towards 0. Negative infinity isn't a place, and thus you can't start there. This is a category error: you can't start from a place that isn't a place. No matter where you start, you are starting at a finite negative number. Also, FWIW and IMHO and YMMV :-), a great deal of the confusion here is because we are confusing pure mathematics with metaphorical physical models, whether they be time, hotels, tapes, or ladders. From a mathematical point of view, the entire infinite set of integers exists as a whole without there being any "stepping" through them. We don't look at a number line and say "Zero can't really exist because you couldn't have got there from negative infinity," nor do we say "the number line must have a starting point somewhere to the left because otherwise we couldn't have got to 0." Those would be silly things to say about the number line. And yet when we try to apply the number line to a physical model we think there is a problem - but the problem is trying to force a mathematical model past its limits. The problems are not with the nature of infinity, but with our confusion between pure and applied mathematics. Aleta
Me_Think @1165
Well, the ladder is supposed to be on the ground. The distance between any two rungs has to be finite (other wise it is not a ladder!). There is nothing stopping someone from lifting and placing the person – by some equipment- on one of the rung of the ladder, or the person can climb the ladder and then descend down. The point is, if you assume the ladder can’t be climbed up or down, what is the point of the ladder metaphor ? KF’s tape metaphor will do.
You seem to have misunderstood the issue. Nobody said there was a problem with stepping onto the ladder from the ground or climbing up the ladder. The end on the ground is the boundaried end and there's no problem with simply stepping onto it and starting to climb. You will simply never reach the other "end". Stepping onto and climbing the ladder in this direction represents moving forward into a potentially infinite future but where no matter how far into the future we go, any day we get to will still be only a finite number of days from the Big Bang. The problem arises when we come to the idea of trying to get on the ladder from the other end - the unboundaried end, the infinite "end", "location", "zone", or perhaps more appropriately, state - and start climbing down towards the ground, which represents traversing an actually (not just potentially) infinite past to arrive at the present. No person, piece of equipment, or other sort of aid could help the man get onto the ladder from the other direction at an infinite point and begin a descent from infinity to the ground. If the man gets onto a rung, he does so at some arbitrary finite point, however large it may be, and begins a finite descent to the ground. When he finally does get to the ground, he can say that he's been climbing down the ladder for a very long time, but he won't be able to say that he has been climbing down the ladder forever, or from the infinite past. HeKS
KF,
PS: I find that there is still a serious problem of taking the endlessness in definition of positive integers or natural, counting numbers seriously. Every natural number we can reach will be finite, but there is an endlessness that has to be taken at its full weight. We cannot exhaust that endlessness through any finite stage stepwise process, going up or down.
Who says that we (or a deity of some sort) can't count down through all natural numbers given an infinite past? I still haven't seen a proof. The tapes example, while useful as an illustration of an infinite set, does not prove this. Edit: Recall the scheme I provided---the deity counts "n", n seconds ago for each natural number n. daveS
KF,
DS, let us just consider for a moment, is [0,1] a continuum?
Yes, I believe so.
If so then it enfolds every possible number in the interval, no exceptions, no gaps . . . something you glided over a little too easily for my comfort above.
Every possible real number, that is, assuming your notation [0, 1] means all real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive.
If there are hard infinitesimals that 1/h –> hyper reals, then it follows as at least reasonable for exploration that there will be milder cases that go to 1/m –> A, where A = w + g, g a finite.
This is an example of what I was talking about. "Hard" and "mild" infinitesimals? Is your m a real number? If so, then we can stop right here, because no such m exist. Likewise, if your ω on the right is the first infinite ordinal, then again we can stop. Such an equation cannot hold. Edited: It can hold if we are working in the surreal numbers, but then I'm not clear how this relates to [0, 1]. If m is not real, and ω is not N, what exactly are they? I can't quite follow the rest. Are you concerned that there are gaps in [0, 1]? And that the infinitesimals are required to fill in those gaps? daveS
A number line will do. No metaphor is needed. The physical metaphorical representations have added nothing, really, and have perhaps confused some issues. Aleta
Mung @ 1162
I thought it was wonderful. How did the man get on to the rung above the rung you are talking about? Or did you just not think about that?
Well, the ladder is supposed to be on the ground. The distance between any two rungs has to be finite (other wise it is not a ladder!). There is nothing stopping someone from lifting and placing the person - by some equipment- on one of the rung of the ladder, or the person can climb the ladder and then descend down. The point is, if you assume the ladder can't be climbed up or down, what is the point of the ladder metaphor ? KF's tape metaphor will do. Me_Think
DS, let us just consider for a moment, is [0,1] a continuum? If so then it enfolds every possible number in the interval, no exceptions, no gaps . . . something you glided over a little too easily for my comfort above. If there are hard infinitesimals that 1/h --> hyper reals, then it follows as at least reasonable for exploration that there will be milder cases that go to 1/m --> A, where A = w + g, g a finite. And what is more, it is reasonable to see that we can identify n so that 1/n --> w + (g +1) and fill in the interval (n, m) such that the continuum there could in principle be taken to 1/p_k in (n,m) to map between the two, ultimately filling in a continuum from w on up. And yes, I have stated that I have a serious problem with the argument that near 0 there is a gap in the real line, as that would imply a break of continuity. So, for every hard infinitesimal, there should be a mild one once [0,1] is really a continuum. KF PS: I find that there is still a serious problem of taking the endlessness in definition of positive integers or natural, counting numbers seriously. Every natural number we can reach will be finite, but there is an endlessness that has to be taken at its full weight. We cannot exhaust that endlessness through any finite stage stepwise process, going up or down. Just now, I resorted to the surreals to make the point, and I point out that the last number in a chain of attained finites so far is finite but the naturals go on beyond what we can reach in the sort of stepwise +1 processes we have looked at and extensions to that. As the pink and blue tapes example shows, endlessness continues on beyond any finite k however arbitrarily large it is, and going up in steps can only span a potentially infinite but actually finite process, likewise going down. Claiming there is an infinite causal chain in the past in a quasi-physical world leading to us today runs into serious coherence problems, as just again outlined. kairosfocus
KF,
DS, I have no problem with a ladder rung labelled w say by way of a sticker on a roll with a label printer.
Really? Ok. But my point is not every infinite ladder needs to have these strange ω rungs. Likewise, not every "infinite past" scenario needs to have points in time infinitely far in seconds from the present. In case of an infinite ladder with rungs indexed by Z^-, no matter which rung you are on, you can descend to the ground in finitely many steps.
PS: The logic of structure and quantity is obviously highly relevant to making good sense of a world full of structure and quantity. Hence the inextricable entanglement of mathematics with physics. (Do you recall, the Lucasian chair held by Barrow then Newton was a Mathematics chair?)
Of course mathematics is useful in understanding the physical world. I don't mean this as an insult, but some of your arguments here have been, shall we say, not completely rigorous (m such that 1/m –> A, A = w + g just made another appearance, for example!). I think Aleta, ellazimm, I, and some other participants are mainly interested in purging these arguments of mathematical errors, and perhaps investigating whatever holds up. I actually would like to see a rigorous argument for a finite past, based only on mathematics, logic, etc., that I can't knock over. daveS
Me_Think:
I think ladder is a poor metaphor for the topic under discussion. If there is a rung below, the man can move. There is nothing that stops the man from descending – unless the distance between 2 rungs is infinite.
I thought it was wonderful. How did the man get on to the rung above the rung you are talking about? Or did you just not think about that? Mung
This thread provides actual proof that one can begin at the top and descend down across an infinite number of posts. :) Mung
DS, I have no problem with a ladder rung labelled w say by way of a sticker on a roll with a label printer. Using the surreals tree, keep on going down the ladder tagging successive rungs as you go, taking away just 1 at a time. Can you reach to a zone finitely remote from 0 at ground level? Futility of attempted traversing of the endless, again. And it matters not that you have any number of onward rungs w+1 etc. above w. KF PS: The logic of structure and quantity is obviously highly relevant to making good sense of a world full of structure and quantity. Hence the inextricable entanglement of mathematics with physics. (Do you recall, the Lucasian chair held by Barrow then Newton was a Mathematics chair?) kairosfocus
F/N: observe the number-tree diagram to see how for surreals w - 1 etc is reasonable. Obviously for finite steps (no matter how arbitrarily large) these are still of general order of magnitude w. This provides no escape from the zone of endlessness. KF kairosfocus
KF #1154 I've never considered these mathematical issues to be very helpful in dealing with the real world except in a limited 'modelling' sense. But I can't argue against that interpretation. daveS #1157
I like mathematics as much as the next person, but it doesn’t have a much to do with my “worldview” or my religious beliefs.
My view as well. I don't see how this mathematical discussion sheds any light on faith or beliefs at all. Not saying it's worthless though. ellazimm
Aleta,
to Dionisio re 1151: Actually the vast, vast majority of the discussion has been about the purely mathematical topic of infinity, and not about “two opposite irreconcilable worldview positions regarding the ultimate reality.”
I think this needs to be emphasized. I have also been focused mainly on pure mathematics in this thread, although I have ventured occasionally into issues of mathematical philosophy (to the extent that I am capable of, anyway). And ironically, when asked to give the roughest sketch of how an infinite past could have occurred, I have to rely on a theistic premise! I like mathematics as much as the next person, but it doesn't have a much to do with my "worldview" or my religious beliefs. daveS
Me_Think,
An infinite past would mean time existed before Singularity. It would also mean that time existed as part of ’empty space’. That is not our current understanding of how universe started – the Quantum fluctuation created Space-time, thus it is erroneous to assume infinite past.
Yes, from what little I know about physics, I would agree. daveS
HeKS,
By “that” I mean that the man happens to be at any particular rung on the ladder at all. The problem of infinity is not how it could be possible to get from some particular point on the spectrum to the boundaried end. Rather, it’s how you manage to get onto any particular point in the spectrum at all.
Thanks, that does help me understand your position more clearly. Obviously no human would be capable of this. I have given several similar examples which I think are less implausible, anyway. Suppose there exists a god outside of time, who created our universe. This god can perceive every instant in our universe simultaneously. Could this god count down through all the natural numbers (ending in 0), in a beginningless process? I don't see how we can rule that out. Could this god simply note the passing of each second (as a clock)? This would leave out the counting part, but still could take place in a universe with an infinite past. Or maybe this god created our universe to be eternal (beginningless and endless), with infinitely many Big Bang/Big Crunch cycles. In any case, my primary concern is identifying fallacious arguments against an infinite past, rather than demonstrating the plausibility of an infinite past. daveS
Aleta, infinity and the driving force of endlessness beyond any particular finite value are foundational issues all through the thread. As is the premise that mathematics is best understood as the logic -- and linked logical study -- of structure and quantity, where structure is of course abstract and concrete and where quantities are a whole domain of reality. This thread is one of the most foundational discussions I have had at UD and such issues are inextricably entangled and intertwined with both reality and our views on reality. It seems that there is a sense that logical, structural, quantity-linked coherence is pivotal to a sound understanding of reality. In that context clarifying infinity, numbers, infinitesimals and even ordinary mathematical induction as well as stepwise finite stage progressions and linked algorithms including do forever loop structures has been a major issue. That seems to be why this thread persists at coming on 1200 comments and two full months in. The Somme ran what, five months, and Verdun (the mincer), ten. Come to think about it, precisely 100 years ago this year. Contrast the one day clash at Jutland, also 100 years ago this year. KF kairosfocus
to Dionisio re 1151: Actually the vast, vast majority of the discussion has been about the purely mathematical topic of infinity, and not about "two opposite irreconcilable worldview positions regarding the ultimate reality." Aleta
KF Visited 5,361 times, 268 visits today 1,152 comments posted Over 4,200 visits that did not post comments? How many of them anonymous? That seems like a lot of lurkers out there. Dionisio
HeKS @1142
The problem of infinity is not how it could be possible to get from some particular point on the spectrum to the boundaried end. Rather, it’s how you manage to get onto any particular point in the spectrum at all.
That seems like "il cuore" of the "Zankapfel" in this whole thread that was so skillfully started by KF's OP. It seems like your comment helped to confirm -and maybe further clarify- what KF and others had reiterated a number of occasions in this apparently endless discussion. KF's OP started this discussion referring to an earlier discussion on the same topic. The title of KF's informative OP pointed to the persons involved in that early argument. Perhaps the multiverses and other 'convoluted' ideas being promoted these days in some academic circles are intended to provide a different solution to the problem you explained -i.e. how to get the man on a given rung within a hypothetical ladder that never had a starting rung (borrowing the analogy that has been used here for illustration purpose, assuming I've understood it well). Again, it seems like the whole discussion boils down to the conflict between two opposite irreconcilable worldview positions regarding the ultimate reality. On one end, those who believe that ultimate reality is based on matter and energy, which can't be created nor destroyed, but only transformed from one into another (i.e. WYSIWYG), the idea of an eternal past is required, hence demanded and not open for any kind of compromise. On the other side, those of us who strongly believe that the Ultimate Reality is summarized in the very first verse of the canonical OT and divinely described through the apostle John by the end of the first century of this age of grace:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made.
In between those two extremely opposite irreconcilable worldview positions there appear to be gazillion viewpoints, some of them friendly or even supportive of the ID proposition, while others lean more toward materialistic concepts. This international website seems like an "eintopf" made of a wide variety of opinions. Dionisio
KF You started this thread last January 31. Exactly two months later we see this: Popular Posts (Last 30 Days) Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . . (2,309) A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no… (2,209) Quantum Darwinism = Darwinism as woo-woo? (2,194) Homologies, differences and information jumps (1,384) An encounter with a critic of biological semiosis (1,322) Wow! Congratulations! Apparently your OP really touched the right nerve. :) Dionisio
MT, the issue is endlessness, and descending a ladder stretching endlessly into the sky, or inspecting the rooms in Hilbert's hotel from the far end [oops, sleepy -- ZONE], or having an endless punched tape or using algebraic style representations all come down to the same challenge of getting from the endlessly remote w-order zone to a zone finitely remote from a zero point. All of these and the case of the intervening endlessly large Sahara to be traversed in finite scale steps, join together to show the underlying incoherence of the attempt to traverse the endless span in any arbitrarily large but finite number of finite stage actually completed steps. Note, at 217 above, I actually laid out an algorithm that draws attention to the problem. In this context, I am fully justified to assert there is a fallacy of ending the endless, to focus the key incoherence. If you want an endless set, you have to specify an action powerful enough to give all at one go. That typically entails setting up a potential infinite then pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness, but the above shows how this has limits, even with ordinary mathematical induction. KF PS: Note, this has been an exploratory thread, and positions were arrived at through discussion. My conclusion is that the ellipsis of endlessness is a pivotal part of defining the successive counting sets and that beyond any particular such set we can represent with typical forms there will always be an onward endless succession. Trying to cross that span going up or down will be futile, if one resorts to finite stage successive steps. That is also why I adapted the 1/x catapult to show how we can use a mathematical wormhole to leap across the endlessness. In response to onward debates on the different symbolisations that use omega, I suggested a model of taking 1/x on mild infinitesimals that gets you to a w + g type value and hard ones that get you to something like w + w + k where being inside a pair of transfinite zone ellipses of endlessness gives the property, no first value as well as no last value. Such also brings to bear the importance of the interval [0,1] and how this can be used as a dual to the transfinite zone. In that context the surreals make sense of the jungle of numbers great and small. kairosfocus
HeKS @ 1142
Any given rung, however high the number from the ground, is still a finite number of rungs from the ground, but that very same rung is also infinintely many rungs away from infinity, which is where the man finds himself. When I said that the man would always be infinitely far from any rung you might choose, no matter how high the number, I didn’t mean he would be in the process of moving from one rung to another where those rungs would be infinitely far from the rung you had chosen
I think ladder is a poor metaphor for the topic under discussion. If there is a rung below, the man can move. There is nothing that stops the man from descending - unless the distance between 2 rungs is infinite. Me_Think
Dionisio
Yes, that’s an interesting point. Thank you. Please, note that at the end of the text you quoted @1145 there was a :) which did not get copied. :) Have a good day.
You too. HeKS
HeKS Yes, that's an interesting point. Thank you. Please, note that at the end of the text you quoted @1145 there was a :) which did not get copied. :) Have a good day. Dionisio
Dionisio
(*) at least the interlocutors could agree on disagreeing
We may well be approaching that point, but it's more satisfying to do that once you're reasonably sure that the parties to the conversation have at least properly understood each other's arguments. Then, if no agreement can be reached, so be it. At least you've hopefully had an interesting discussion. HeKS
#1143 addendum Here are some stats: KF started this thread two months ago: January 31, 2016. Since then it has been visited 5,329 times (268 visits today). How much longer will it go? No one knows. :) Can this discussion reach a settlement* (agreement)? It could, but I doubt it. (*) at least the interlocutors could agree on disagreeing. :) More stats: Popular Posts (Last 30 Days) A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no… (2,439) Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . . (2,335) Quantum Darwinism = Darwinism as woo-woo? (2,319) Homologies, differences and information jumps (1,470) An encounter with a critic of biological semiosis (1,322) Dionisio
HeKS This seemingly endless discussion had a beginning at KF's OP. However, one could argue that this topic has been discussed earlier too. KF's OP marks the start of the current discussion thread, but not the beginning of this topic discussion. :) Dionisio
daveS, I think I'm starting to better understand your position, but I think you're still missing a central point in my argument and it has us talking past each other.
If the rungs are in 1-1 correspondence with the natural numbers, and they are all separated by the same finite distance, say 1 foot, then no, the man can never be infinitely far from the ground, regardless of which rung he is on, regardless of whether he is going up or down, regardless of how he got there. If you disagree, I will be happy to defend that point.
I don't disagree. I agree with you and Aleta that if the man is on a rung of the ladder, however high the number of that rung from the ground, it will always be a finite number from the ground. I've never argued against that. But this completely misses my point. Consider this comment I made earlier:
The big problem here is that you are simply imagining that this man could actually be in movement from one rung to another on an actually infinite, beginningless ladder, with no explanation for how that could be happening at all.
By "that" I mean that the man happens to be at any particular rung on the ladder at all. The problem of infinity is not how it could be possible to get from some particular point on the spectrum to the boundaried end. Rather, it's how you manage to get onto any particular point in the spectrum at all. Any given rung, however high the number from the ground, is still a finite number of rungs from the ground, but that very same rung is also infinintely many rungs away from infinity, which is where the man finds himself. When I said that the man would always be infinitely far from any rung you might choose, no matter how high the number, I didn't mean he would be in the process of moving from one rung to another where those rungs would be infinitely far from the rung you had chosen. I meant he wouldn't be able to get onto any particular rung at all and still be able to say that he had descended from infinity. Instead, the man would be in the same position you would be in if I asked you to count down from infinity to zero. Just like you would be stuck at infinity with no next number you could legitimately select in the project of counting down from infinity to zero, he would likewise be stuck at the state of being in infinity and without the ability to identify any rung that he could climb onto in order to begin his descent where he would still be able to say at the end that he had actually climbed down an infinite number of rungs. In both cases, the entirety of the problem of traversing infinity lies in the first step, in transitioning from an infinite state to a particular finite position on the spectrum headed towards the boundaried end, because what cannot be traversed is the change of state from infinite to finite. And so by envisioning a scenario where a man is in the process of an infinitely long descent down a ladder with an infinite number of rungs running in the upwards direction, you have already skipped right over the problem with the scenario and pushed the incoherent aspect back out of view. [For the record, I know I'm the one who used the illustration, having been inspired by KF, but I was using it to illustrate a scenario that I was arguing was incoherent and impossible] HeKS
daveS @ 1135
For example, Whitrow asserts that if there were an infinite past, then there must necessarily have existed a point in time infinitely many seconds before the present, and then argues based on this premise. I believe I (and several others) have shown this premise to be false, therefore Whitrow’s argument fails. Obviously there exist erroneous arguments that purport to show the past must be finite; I believe Whitrow’s is one of them.
An infinite past would mean time existed before Singularity. It would also mean that time existed as part of 'empty space'. That is not our current understanding of how universe started - the Quantum fluctuation created Space-time, thus it is erroneous to assume infinite past. Me_Think
I should proofread!
Well that solves all our problems. But if you are at w, I hope you don’t slip, cause it's a looonnnnggggg way to the next rung.
Aleta
Well that solves all our problems. But if you at w, I hope you don't slip, cause its a looonnnnggggg way to the next rung. Aleta
Aleta, Yes, an extremely unusual ladder! With the rungs arranged like these ordinals: 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., ω So you attach an ω rung at the end of the "far zone". :-) I don't know if this issue is what HeKS has in mind, but I thought I'd throw it out there. daveS
I thought we had agreed that w is a number about the infinite number of natural numbers, not a number in the set of natural numbers. But maybe that's what you mean by an "especially unusual infinite" ladder. :-) And yes, no matter what rung of the ladder you are on, you are a finite number of rungs from 0. Aleta
HeKS, To address this part of your post:
If you are saying that the man would never be infinitely far from any rung you might choose, then what you are doing is simply changing an actual infinite into a potential, and this is why I said earlier that, for all intents and purposes, you are confusing the past for the future. The statement that the man would never be infinitely far from any given rung would be perfectly coherent if he were starting at the ground and climbing up the ladder towards the infinite, in the same way we can say that even if the universe continues to exist forever, we will never arrive at a day that is infinitely far from the Big Bang. But this simply doesn’t work if we want to say that the man has climbed down the ladder from an infinitely high and unboundaried “position”, or that we have arrived at the present after an infinite past-time, because both of those scenarios involve a traversal of an actual infinite, not a potential infinite. Whether intentionally or not, your responses continue to effectively convert the former into the latter. If you want to say that we have not shown an actually infinite succession and its traversal to be incoherent, you can’t do it by pointing to the coherence of the existence and traversal of only a potentially infinite succession. But this is what you are doing every time. I’m not sure what other way I can say it.
First, let me make a correction: I should have said that the fact that this ladder is infinitely long is not sufficient to guarantee that some rungs of the ladder will be infinitely far from the ground. If the rungs are in 1-1 correspondence with the natural numbers, and they are all separated by the same finite distance, say 1 foot, then no, the man can never be infinitely far from the ground, regardless of which rung he is on, regardless of whether he is going up or down, regardless of how he got there. If you disagree, I will be happy to defend that point. If we are talking about an especially unusual infinite ladder, for example one where there is a distinguished rung "numbered" ω, which is further away from the ground than any other naturally-numbered rung, then yes, if the man were standing on that one, then he would be infinitely far from the ground. That's a very strange situation though, since the man would be unable to step down to the next lower rung. A hypothetical infinite ladder need not have such an ω rung of course. Do you have any objections to this? daveS
HeKS,
You are basically saying: “Here’s a proposition on the table. A man is descending an infinite ladder. There was no beginning or initiation to his descent, but he nonetheless manages to traverse all the infinite rungs of the ladder from infinite beginninglessness to reach the last rung closest to the ground and then step off onto the ground. Is this possible?”
I think you still misunderstand my position. More precisely, I'm asking "do the specific arguments presented by WLC, Durston, Whitrow, etc. show that it is impossible"? I claim they do not. If I point out some fallacy in their arguments, then I have demonstrated this. For example, Whitrow asserts that if there were an infinite past, then there must necessarily have existed a point in time infinitely many seconds before the present, and then argues based on this premise. I believe I (and several others) have shown this premise to be false, therefore Whitrow's argument fails. Obviously there exist erroneous arguments that purport to show the past must be finite; I believe Whitrow's is one of them. It's not my job to explain how an infinite past is possible or coherent; I'm simply attempting to weed out bad arguments which claim to show the past must be finite. daveS
daveS, Let me frame the conversation this way. You are basically saying: "Here's a proposition on the table. A man is descending an infinite ladder. There was no beginning or initiation to his descent, but he nonetheless manages to traverse all the infinite rungs of the ladder from infinite beginninglessness to reach the last rung closest to the ground and then step off onto the ground. Is this possible?" KF and I have said it is not possible and we have offered various reasons for why it would not be possible, with these reasons standing as at least potential defeaters of the coherency of the proposition that has been put on the table. If you want to maintain that our defeaters fail to establish the incoherency of the proposition, then you need to offer some kind of reasoning that addresses our defeaters. Defeaters of our defeaters, if you will. Simply offering explanations that ignore the infinity aspect of the problem and replace it with a more coherent finite problem does not count as addressing our defeaters. Throughout our discussion you have essentially been saying, "I'm not convinced that scenario X is incoherent because this other scenario Y seems perfectly coherent", where X and Y are not equivalent, and scenario Y is coherent specifically because it approaches the issue backwards and avoids the problem in question entirely. In other words, it's not that our arguments have not stood up to scrutiny. Rather, it's that what has been scrutinized is not actually our arguments in the first place. We are addressing the intractable end of the problem. You have skipped over addressing the intractable end of the problem by approaching from the tractable end and simply assuming the real problem has already somehow been resolved behind the curtain by the time you meet up with the man who is in the process of traversing the infinite, offering no explanation for how he could ever have gotten to a place where you could have met up with him.
[HeKS:]The man would always be infinitely far from any particular rung you might choose.
My response was that the man would never be infinitely far from any particular rung you might choose. And we can see that by setting up a coordinate system. Are we agreed on that point now?
No, we are definitely not agreed on that point now (unless you're simply asking me if I agree that you are making that claim). The big problem here is that you are simply imagining that this man could actually be in movement from one rung to another on an actually infinite, beginningless ladder, with no explanation for how that could be happening at all. If you are saying that the man would never be infinitely far from any rung you might choose, then what you are doing is simply changing an actual infinite into a potential, and this is why I said earlier that, for all intents and purposes, you are confusing the past for the future. The statement that the man would never be infinitely far from any given rung would be perfectly coherent if he were starting at the ground and climbing up the ladder towards the infinite, in the same way we can say that even if the universe continues to exist forever, we will never arrive at a day that is infinitely far from the Big Bang. But this simply doesn't work if we want to say that the man has climbed down the ladder from an infinitely high and unboundaried "position", or that we have arrived at the present after an infinite past-time, because both of those scenarios involve a traversal of an actual infinite, not a potential infinite. Whether intentionally or not, your responses continue to effectively convert the former into the latter. If you want to say that we have not shown an actually infinite succession and its traversal to be incoherent, you can't do it by pointing to the coherence of the existence and traversal of only a potentially infinite succession. But this is what you are doing every time. I'm not sure what other way I can say it. HeKS HeKS
HeKS,
I’m not saying that you’re thinking of the man as climbing in reverse time order, per se.
Yes, of course, I understood the point you were making.
I’m saying that you’re counting successive steps from an origin point at the ground heading towards a man that is in transit, allegedly descending down an infinite ladder that had no boundary in the measurement of direction from which he is travelling.
Yes, but that is simply how coordinates work, right? I don't know any other way to track the movement of the man as he descends. Let me bring back some context. In your first post, you stated:
The man would always be infinitely far from any particular rung you might choose.
My response was that the man would never be infinitely far from any particular rung you might choose. And we can see that by setting up a coordinate system. Are we agreed on that point now?
At some arbitrarily large number of rungs you imagine that you have found a man climbing down, rung after rung, and think he has proceeded from some infinite, undefined, unboundaried location.
I'm assuming that he has been climbing down for eternity from an infinite ladder, and testing whether there are obvious logical problems with that (I haven't found any).
In doing this, you are accounting for your own traversal of the ladder from an absolute beginning on the ground towards an endless, infinite, unboundaried location, but you are not accounting for the man’s traversal of the ladder from a beginningless, infinite, unboundaried location with the no true origin point.
By setting an arbitrary origin point somewhere along the ladder between the ground and the infinite beginninglessness you are again skipping right over the main the problem, which is that in order for the man to have reached that arbitrary origin – say 10^150 rungs from the ground (or seconds ago) – he would first have had to have traversed an infinite number of rungs to reach the one that is 10^150 rungs away from the ground.
Then why don’t you offer some explanation for how that might coherently take place without starting your count from the end point and imagining that you have caught up with the fellow on the ladder mid-climb at some arbitrarily large number of rungs from the ground.
Well, this seems to be part of the problem. We have offered reasons why this seems to be completely incoherent, and have at the very least made a case that it is not obviously coherent. You don’t seem to have offered a response to these points that doesn’t simply reframe the problem in a way that ultimately sweeps it under the rug. Your responses have reasonably established the coherence of something that was not in question (i.e. the ability to traverse a very large sequence), but they have not even begun to defend the coherence of the thing which is in serious question (i.e. the ability to traverse an infinite sequence).
I think these all fall into the same category, so I'll address them at once. I'm not trying to account for this traversal or explain how he did it, or even prove that the idea is coherent. I'm asking if we can show that it is incoherent or impossible through simple logic or mathematics, as WLC, KF, and others say. So the burden is not on me to prove that an infinite past is possible; my question is whether the arguments/proofs presented by WLC, et al, stand up to scrutiny. Several authors (whose papers I cited above) have stated that these arguments fail, and so far, I agree. I think my position is probably much less ambitious than you might have believed. daveS
daveS,
[HeKS:]But any time you point out that a given event or a given rung in a ladder is a finite distance from the direction of measurement that has a boundary, you are attempting (intentionally or not) to transfer the coherence of an ascent from an absolute origin point to a descent from no origin point whatsoever.
I don’t think so. If we’re going to use the integers (or real numbers) as our time axis, then we have to place the origin at some point in time, whether it is at the moment the man reaches the ground or at some other point in the past (or future, really). The placement of this origin is actually completely arbitrary. It is true that this will always result in there being a finite time interval between the man 1) stepping on a particular rung and 2) stepping on the ground, but it doesn’t mean I am thinking of the man climbing the ladder in reverse time order.
I'm not saying that you're thinking of the man as climbing in reverse time order, per se. I'm saying that you're counting successive steps from an origin point at the ground heading towards a man that is in transit, allegedly descending down an infinite ladder that had no boundary in the measurement of direction from which he is travelling. At some arbitrarily large number of rungs you imagine that you have found a man climbing down, rung after rung, and think he has proceeded from some infinite, undefined, unboundaried location. In doing this, you are accounting for your own traversal of the ladder from an absolute beginning on the ground towards an endless, infinite, unboundaried location, but you are not accounting for the man's traversal of the ladder from a beginningless, infinite, unboundaried location with no true origin point.
[HeKS:]If the man is descending from infinity, which is a lack of any boundary point at all, how can the rungs be finitely-numbered?
Well, we have an infinite supply of integers (positive and negative). If we set the origin of our coordinate system at the present, when the man reaches the ground, then the rungs could have numbers in the set {…, -3, -2, -1}. If we set the origin to be 10^150 seconds ago, then the rungs could have numbers {…, 10^150 – 3, 10^150 – 2, 10^150 – 1}. In either case, they all have finite-number labels.
This is why I said:
The only non-arbitrary way that it would be possible for the rungs to be finitely numbered is if you’re numbering from the boundaried end, which means counting in ascending order from the ground up
By setting an arbitrary origin point somewhere along the ladder between the ground and the infinite beginninglessness you are again skipping right over the main problem, which is that in order for the man to have reached that arbitrary origin - say 10^150 rungs from the ground (or seconds ago) - he would first have had to have traversed an infinite number of rungs to reach the one that is 10^150 rungs away from the ground. And you could increase that arbitrary origin of -10^150 and make it -10^500, -10^5,000,000, and no matter how far back you move the arbitrary origin from the ending point (e.g. the ground, the present, whatever), the man would have had to have first traversed an infinite number of rungs to reach that arbitrarily selected rung as well. However many rungs you assign finite-number labels to moving from the ground towards infinity, there is an infinite number of rungs that must be traversed before reaching any rung that has a finite-number label assigned to it. No matter how high you count starting from the ground, you never even begin to address the real problem.
Yes, I don’t see any reason why an actual infinite succession in the real world is incoherent, especially a temporal succession. KF and I earlie discussed models in cosmology (some still in active development) which posit an infinite past, and perhaps infinitely many Big Bang/Big Crunch cycles. The Steady State model also was taken seriously for quite some time. It would seem odd to me that all those cosmologists missed this elementary proof of the impossibility of such models.
Really? It shouldn't seem odd to you at all. The steady state model was championed by Hoyle specifically because he didn't like the theistic (and even Biblical) implications of the Big Bang model. In fact, a strong dislike for the implications of the Big Bang was a driving force in the development and defense of subsequent infinite past-time models, right down to the present. Arthur Eddington, an astronomer, said this: "Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of things started off with a bang ... the expanding Universe is preposterous ... it leaves me cold." The general state of affairs was summed up pretty well by an Astrophysicist named C.J. Isham. Here's what he said: "Perhaps the best argument in favour of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory." Really, the ongoing attempts of physicists and cosmologists to construct infinite past-time models should not be at all surprising for at least two reasons. First, Cosmologists (especially of the modern variety) have no special genius for philosophy. Second, they have a pressing motive for trying to "find a genuine loophole" in the need for an absolute beginning.
I don’t see why a beginningless traversal couldn’t make progress, and actually reach “completion”.
Then why don't you offer some explanation for how that might coherently take place without starting your count from the end point and imagining that you have caught up with the fellow on the ladder mid-climb at some arbitrarily large number of rungs from the ground. Any explanation that involves these elements will explain only how one might traverse an extremely large succession in a stepwise fashion - which is a possibility that is not in question here - but it will do nothing to explain how one might traverse the infinite number of rungs that must be traversed before ever reaching whatever incredibly large rung count you might specify. You said:
But I’m not trying to prove that the infinitely-long descent is possible, I’m asking KF or you to prove to me that it’s incoherent.
Well, this seems to be part of the problem. We have offered reasons why this seems to be completely incoherent, and have at the very least made a case that it is not obviously coherent. You don't seem to have offered a response to these points that doesn't simply reframe the problem in a way that ultimately sweeps it under the rug. Your responses have reasonably established the coherence of something that was not in question (i.e. the ability to traverse a very large sequence), but they have not even begun to defend the coherence of the thing which is in serious question (i.e. the ability to traverse an infinite sequence). HeKS
HeKS,
The ability to coherently ascend from one direction does absolutely nothing to increase the coherence of descending from the other direction.
Agreed.
But any time you point out that a given event or a given rung in a ladder is a finite distance from the direction of measurement that has a boundary, you are attempting (intentionally or not) to transfer the coherence of an ascent from an absolute origin point to a descent from no origin point whatsoever.
I don't think so. If we're going to use the integers (or real numbers) as our time axis, then we have to place the origin at some point in time, whether it is at the moment the man reaches the ground or at some other point in the past (or future, really). The placement of this origin is actually completely arbitrary. It is true that this will always result in there being a finite time interval between the man 1) stepping on a particular rung and 2) stepping on the ground, but it doesn't mean I am thinking of the man climbing the ladder in reverse time order.
So, I repeat, the problem seems to be that you are picturing a man descending an infinite ladder in mid-climb. This is like picturing a person counting down from infinity as saying, “1,000,000,000,000,003; 1,000,000,000,000,002; 1,000,000,000,000,001; …” Your ability to visualize a particular in-progress stage does nothing to argue for the coherence of the scenario as a whole, or for the possibility for the person to ever reach the particular stage you have visualized.
As a human, I really only have the ability to picture the man in mid-descent. An omnipotent deity who exists outside of time and who can perceive all timepoints in our universe simultaneously would have a different perspective. But I'm not trying to prove that the infinitely-long descent is possible, I'm asking KF or you to prove to me that it's incoherent.
If the man is descending from infinity, which is a lack of any boundary point at all, how can the rungs be finitely-numbered?
Well, we have an infinite supply of integers (positive and negative). If we set the origin of our coordinate system at the present, when the man reaches the ground, then the rungs could have numbers in the set {..., -3, -2, -1}. If we set the origin to be 10^150 seconds ago, then the rungs could have numbers {..., 10^150 - 3, 10^150 - 2, 10^150 - 1}. In either case, they all have finite-number labels.
The question is how he could ever have gotten to any particular rung at all if he was supposed to be coming from a direction without any boundary. You seem to simply be assuming that an actualized infinite succession in the real world is itself a coherent concept, and then picturing a person in-transit traversing it.
Yes, I don't see any reason why an actual infinite succession in the real world is incoherent, especially a temporal succession. KF and I earlie discussed models in cosmology (some still in active development) which posit an infinite past, and perhaps infinitely many Big Bang/Big Crunch cycles. The Steady State model also was taken seriously for quite some time. It would seem odd to me that all those cosmologists missed this elementary proof of the impossibility of such models.
If a succession of rungs is infinite and has no beginning then it is impossible for any traversal of the succession to ever begin or make any progress, in the same way it is impossible for a person to begin counting down from infinity or to ever make any progress in counting down from infinity.
I don't see why a beginningless traversal couldn't make progress, and actually reach "completion". And again, there is no "counting down from infinity" here. My scenario involves finite integers only.
The latter is impossible because an infinite set of numbers could never be actualized from the abstract to the concrete (even just within the mind) for the task to be begun or for any progress to be made.
I guess I just don't see why such an actualization couldn't take place. daveS
daveS, In my last post I was trying to illustrate for you the problem with trying to establish the possibility of an infinite series of past events that have finally arrived at the present by arguing that any given event would only be a finite number of seconds or events into the past. That fact no more helps to establish the possibility of traversing from an infinite past to the present than counting upwards towards infinity from 1 would help a person who is trying to count down from infinity. The ability to coherently ascend from one direction does absolutely nothing to increase the coherence of descending from the other direction. But any time you point out that a given event or a given rung in a ladder is a finite distance from the direction of measurement that has a boundary, you are attempting (intentionally or not) to transfer the coherence of an ascent from an absolute origin point to a descent from no origin point whatsoever. So, I repeat, the problem seems to be that you are picturing a man descending an infinite ladder in mid-climb. This is like picturing a person counting down from infinity as saying, "1,000,000,000,000,003; 1,000,000,000,000,002; 1,000,000,000,000,001; ..." Your ability to visualize a particular in-progress stage does nothing to argue for the coherence of the scenario as a whole, or for the possibility for the person to ever reach the particular stage you have visualized. You asked me:
Can you point out the incoherence with that without referring to the future, or to any “ascent stage”?
But look at your own description of what you're envisioning:
In the scenario I envision, the man is descending through finite-numbered rungs all the way.
If the man is descending from infinity, which is a lack of any boundary point at all, how can the rungs be finitely-numbered? The only non-arbitrary way that it would be possible for the rungs to be finitely numbered is if you're numbering from the boundaried end, which means counting in ascending order from the ground up, which returns us to the problem of entirely missing the incoherence of the whole scenario by visualizing it already in progress and from the wrong direction. The question is not how the man could get to the ground once he is at a particular rung that is a finite number of rungs from the ground. The question is how he could ever have gotten to any particular rung at all if he was supposed to be coming from a direction without any boundary. You seem to simply be assuming that an actualized infinite succession in the real world is itself a coherent concept, and then picturing a person in-transit traversing it. But the ultimate problem here is that the entire scenario is incoherent. If a succession of rungs is infinite and has no beginning then it is impossible for any traversal of the succession to ever begin or make any progress, in the same way it is impossible for a person to begin counting down from infinity or to ever make any progress in counting down from infinity. The latter is impossible because an infinite set of numbers could never be actualized from the abstract to the concrete (even just within the mind) for the task to be begun or for any progress to be made. The former is impossible for the same reason. HeKS
HeKS,
t seems that you picture winding the tape back from the point you find the man on a certain rung, and as you do you see the man climbing up the ladder and no matter how far back you go he’s in the process of climbing to another rung, but it’s a rung that is a finite distance from the ground. In essence you seem to be assessing the possible coherence of this scenario by envisioning yourself (or some imaginary camera) zooming up the ladder from the ground until you eventually run into this man, mid-climb, on a rung of the ladder an extremely large distance from the ground. But as I indicated in my last comment, to do so would be to visualize it from the wrong direction – a direction which has a specific beginning point (i.e. the ground) – and thereby avoid the conceptual problem altogether.
I actually agree that looking at the situation this way--from the wrong direction---is generally not useful. I think it's important to focus only on the descent of the ladder.
The problem we’re discussing here is the notion of traversing an actually infinite succession. An infinite succession is not just a really super big number but one that lacks any defining boundary point in at least one direction of measurement. If I were to tell you to start at the number 1 and count up to infinity, you could start counting, “1, 2, 3, 4 …”, but no matter how long you lived, even if you were immortal and never died, you would never finish counting. You would only ever be a finite number away from 1. But the key point here is that you could at least start the task of counting and measurably progress in that task because you know that if you start at 1, your next whole number is 2, then 3, etc.
Yes, agreed.
But now suppose I told you to count down from infinity to zero for me. After saying, “infinity”, what would be the very next number that you would say? I start tapping my fingers waiting for you to say the first next number less than infinity. I raise my eyebrows in expectation, but you just sit there with a furrowed brow. Feeling bad for you, I offer to help. “How about this? How about if I start counting upwards to infinity from 1 and when I reach the right number for you to start your count down from infinity, you let me know, then we can count it down together. Ready? 1, 2, 3, …” So here’s the question: At what point will I reach a number counting upwards to infinity that you can say, “There, that’s it, that’s my next number. Let’s count down”?
Well, counting down from "infinity" (in order) is impossible. But on the other hand, there is no rung labeled infinity on the ladder, just as "minus infinity" is not an integer. In the scenario I envision, the man is descending through finite-numbered rungs all the way.
And so it is with the man on the ladder. If the man is supposed to be descending an infinite ladder towards the ground from the direction of measurement that has no boundary, then it doesn’t matter how many rungs you ascend the ladder from the ground towards the direction of measurement that has no boundary, because you will never reach a rung that is the next rung in the man’s downward climb. Whatever rung you climb up to, it will be a finite distance from the ground but an infinite distance from the next rung in the man’s descent, because it would be impossible for the man to make any progress from the direction of measurement that has no boundary. And never the twain shall meet.
I think this illustrates the issues with "running the tape backwards" so that the man appears to be ascending the ladder. I would recommend not even bringing that up. The scenario involves the man descending throughout an infinite past, until he reaches the ground at the present, say. The bottom line is, I'm not assuming the man first climbed up the ladder, then reversed direction. Edit: And notice if you assume the man first ascends then descends, that implies the descent has a beginning, which I am assuming is not the case.
In principle, I agree. The reason I’m addressing events going into the future is because if you conceptualize “ending a beginningless sequence” by moving backwards from the ending towards the direction of the beginningless, then you are changing the concept of “ending the beginningless” into the concept of “beginning the endless”, but the two concepts are not in any way comparable.
Yes, I agree that it is usually unproductive thinking of "ending the beginningless" in reverse order. I'm sure I have done it a few times here, mainly to draw out the contrast between ω and ω*. I will suggest we try abstaining from thinking and writing about these sequences in reverse time order. So the man is descending the infinite ladder, period. Can you point out the incoherence with that without referring to the future, or to any "ascent stage"? daveS
KF,
DS, I think the issue is that endlessness is not being taken at full required force. Please see the pink vs blue punched tape examples.
I can assure you that I fully understand the tapes example. Regarding your usage of "endless", if all you mean is that for any positive integer k, cells number k or greater in one tape can be put into 1-1 correspondence with all the cells of the other, yes, I think we all get it. We are all very familiar with that concept. We are all taking it at full required force.
If one is to claim to traverse and exhaust or end the endless through a stepwise finite stage process — regardless of speed and/or duration of said process — that is to go to an incoherence. You can try to point across the ellipsis and impose something on all members of the set, but even that has its limits. KF
Well, I asked something of the form P∧¬P, rather than a nonspecific claim of incoherence. Can you make the contradiction explicit? Once more, "ending the endless" does not do, for reasons I've stated multiple times. daveS
daveS #1121
[HeKS:]As such, the absence of any beginning point for the man to have started a descent means that no matter what particular rung you might choose, however far from the ground it might be, the man could never have gotten even to that rung, much less to the ground. The man would always be infinitely far from any particular rung you might choose.
I don’t see how the last sentence follows from anything earlier in your post or any mathematical theorem. There is a clear correspondence between the natural numbers and the rungs of the ladder. Any two natural numbers are separated by a finite distance. Hence at any particular time in the past, the man would be finitely many rungs off the ground.
In my opinion, the problem you're having is that your ability to visualize a man mid-climb, on a particular rung up from the ground at a particular time, with a series of other rungs running off to a vanishing point above him, is tricking you into thinking that the overall scenario is coherent. It isn't. It seems that you picture winding the tape back from the point you find the man on a certain rung, and as you do you see the man climbing up the ladder and no matter how far back you go he's in the process of climbing to another rung, but it's a rung that is a finite distance from the ground. In essence you seem to be assessing the possible coherence of this scenario by envisioning yourself (or some imaginary camera) zooming up the ladder from the ground until you eventually run into this man, mid-climb, on a rung of the ladder an extremely large distance from the ground. But as I indicated in my last comment, to do so would be to visualize it from the wrong direction - a direction which has a specific beginning point (i.e. the ground) - and thereby avoid the conceptual problem altogether. The problem we're discussing here is the notion of traversing an actually infinite succession. An infinite succession is not just a really super big number but one that lacks any defining boundary point in at least one direction of measurement. If I were to tell you to start at the number 1 and count up to infinity, you could start counting, "1, 2, 3, 4 ...", but no matter how long you lived, even if you were immortal and never died, you would never finish counting. You would only ever be a finite number away from 1. But the key point here is that you could at least start the task of counting and measurably progress in that task because you know that if you start at 1, your next whole number is 2, then 3, etc. But now suppose I told you to count down from infinity to zero for me. After saying, "infinity", what would be the very next number that you would say? I start tapping my fingers waiting for you to say the first next number less than infinity. I raise my eyebrows in expectation, but you just sit there with a furrowed brow. Feeling bad for you, I offer to help. "How about this? How about if I start counting upwards to infinity from 1 and when I reach the right number for you to start your count down from infinity, you let me know, then we can count it down together. Ready? 1, 2, 3, ..." So here's the question: At what point will I reach a number counting upwards to infinity that you can say, "There, that's it, that's my next number. Let's count down"? The answer is quite obviously never. No matter how high I count, I will never reach a number high enough for you to join me in starting to count down to zero. My count will always be a finite distance from 1 and will always be infinitely too low for you join me in counting back down. There will never come a time where you can make any progress whatsoever in your count from infinity to zero. And so it is with the man on the ladder. If the man is supposed to be descending an infinite ladder towards the ground from the direction of measurement that has no boundary, then it doesn't matter how many rungs you ascend the ladder from the ground towards the direction of measurement that has no boundary, because you will never reach a rung that is the next rung in the man's downward climb. Whatever rung you climb up to, it will be a finite distance from the ground but an infinite distance from the next rung in the man's descent, because it would be impossible for the man to make any progress from the direction of measurement that has no boundary. And never the twain shall meet. Even if we allow for the possibility that such an infinite ladder could exist, if you start climbing it from the ground and towards its direction of measurement that lacks a boundary and you eventually run into a man climbing down it towards the ground, you can conclude with certainty that the man climbed onto the ladder at some particular, finitely numbered rung and started his climb down from that specific place and time.
On the other hand, if the past is beginningless then we immediately find ourselves with an actual infinite number of past days, minutes, seconds or events that have been traversed, one at a time, to arrive at the present. In other words, we have walked into a field and found a man stepping off the last rung of an infinite ladder, finishing an infinite climb that he never started.
Yes. Very strange, and obviously not possible for a mortal human who exists in time.
It's not just very strange. It's logically incoherent.
I think I agree with the part of your first sentence which says that considering infinite sequences of events going into the future does not help us with the past. I’m not clear on what you’re concluding, however. I will say that, as we are discussing potential “beginningless” sequences (or sets of order type ?*), then ideally we shouldn’t even have to bring up sequences of events going into the future. The two situations are not symmetrical, and having both types of sequences in the same discussion (and labeling both “endless”, certainly!) just adds to the confusion.
In principle, I agree. The reason I'm addressing events going into the future is because if you conceptualize "ending a beginningless sequence" by moving backwards from the ending towards the direction of the beginningless, then you are changing the concept of "ending the beginningless" into the concept of "beginning the endless", but the two concepts are not in any way comparable. For us in the present, the existence of an infinite past would be a case of "ending the beginningless". Conceptualizing this a starting from the present and moving backwards in time along a negative timeline would be to reconceptualize it as "beginning the endless", and thereby to reconceptualize an actually infinite past as being comparable to a potentially infinite future. Take care, HeKS HeKS
DS, I think the issue is that endlessness is not being taken at full required force. Please see the pink vs blue punched tape examples. If one is to claim to traverse and exhaust or end the endless through a stepwise finite stage process -- regardless of speed and/or duration of said process -- that is to go to an incoherence. You can try to point across the ellipsis and impose something on all members of the set, but even that has its limits. KF PS: I am specifically interested in causal chains of events from the remote past to now, e.g. singularity, expansion, galaxy formation, sol system and planet formation, OOL, OO Biodiversity, OO humanity, generations of ancestry down to us. Beyond the singularity, whatever triggered it, and so forth. Thus, we see a chain of causal succession. This chain is capable of being tagged ordinally. kairosfocus
Yeah, my wife was disappointed too. Her bracket was in ruins by that point anyway though. daveS
It's really too bad that E_0 isn't going to pan out! :-) Aleta
KF, One more significant correction to the end of #1120:
If there were, you should be able to display something of the form P∧¬P that follows from my posts.
daveS
KF,
DS, physical reality is causally connected in stages similar to stepping down rungs of a ladder and that is what allows applying a successive cumulative sequence to the process. Those who object to causality in physics need to ponder a fire and what is going on with heat, fuel, oxidiser and chain reaction. Note, necessary enabling factors and sufficient clusters of factors for something to begin or to continue in being, here a fire. Then, extend this case through family resemblance to many others. KF
Again, I'm not objecting to causality in general. I'm just saying I'm not assuming any causal relationships between the E_k. For example, say E_0 is the event of me choosing Kansas to win the NCAA tournament and E_(-1) is the event of some supernova exploding in the Andromeda galaxy (which could have happened, as far as we know). Maybe E_(-2) was AlphaGo winning game 5, where times are measured relative to some inertial reference frame. Clearly it is impossible for there to be any causal relationship between E_(-1) and E_0 or E(-1) and E_(-2); likewise, I doubt AlphaGo had any influence on my choosing Kansas, or vice-versa. Edit: Correction to #1120:
I [not "A"] reluctantly accept it if you insist on using “endless” as a synonym for “infinite”, but as I stated above, this invites confusion between sets of order type ω and ω*.
daveS
HeKs, Thanks, thought experiments are always welcome. Here's the key disagreement I have with your post:
As such, the absence of any beginning point for the man to have started a descent means that no matter what particular rung you might choose, however far from the ground it might be, the man could never have gotten even to that rung, much less to the ground. The man would always be infinitely far from any particular rung you might choose.
I don't see how the last sentence follows from anything earlier in your post or any mathematical theorem. There is a clear correspondence between the natural numbers and the rungs of the ladder. Any two natural numbers are separated by a finite distance. Hence at any particular time in the past, the man would be finitely many rungs off the ground.
Your notion that one might “end the beginningless” seems to come from an idea that there is some kind of symmetry between the future and the past with regard to infinities, but there isn’t. If we assume that the universe will simply go on existing forever, then the future would constitute a potential infinite, but as we move into the future, no matter how far we go, there would only ever be a finite number of days that had passed since the Big Bang and we would never reach a point where the universe was infinitely old and an infinite succession of days, minutes, seconds or events had been traversed.
I agree completely with the fact that the concepts of future and past infinities are not symmetrical (which is why I have been citing the distinction between ω and ω* repeatedly). I believe this has been a stumbling block in this entire discussion. This is what I believe: 1) If the past is finite, then at any point in time, only finitely many days have elapsed since the Big Bang. 2) If the past is infinite, then at any point in time, even 10^150 years ago, the universe already had an infinite past.
On the other hand, if the past is beginningless then we immediately find ourselves with an actual infinite number of past days, minutes, seconds or events that have been traversed, one at a time, to arrive at the present. In other words, we have walked into a field and found a man stepping off the last rung of an infinite ladder, finishing an infinite climb that he never started.
Yes. Very strange, and obviously not possible for a mortal human who exists in time.
The logic that allows us to recognize the future as a potential infinite that is never actualized because every particular point, day or event is only a finite distance from the Big Bang simply does not help us with the past. It doesn’t matter that every negative point going into an infinite past would be a finite distance from whatever zero-point we choose (e.g. the Big Bang) because the issue isn’t going into an infinite past … it’s having come from an infinite past. If you try to weigh the logical coherence of an infinite past by picturing a sequence that starts at a selected zero-time and proceeds infinitely into the past along a negative timeline then you’re going to come to false conclusions because you’re starting in the wrong place and, for all intents and purposes, confusing the past for the future.
I think I agree with the part of your first sentence which says that considering infinite sequences of events going into the future does not help us with the past. I'm not clear on what you're concluding, however. I will say that, as we are discussing potential "beginningless" sequences (or sets of order type ω*), then ideally we shouldn't even have to bring up sequences of events going into the future. The two situations are not symmetrical, and having both types of sequences in the same discussion (and labeling both "endless", certainly!) just adds to the confusion. daveS
KF,
DS, pardon but this begins to look like futile circles of semantics. Beginningless entails an endless past, one that recedes further into the past forever, beyond any arbitrarily large but finite value.
I would agree with the second sentence if we replaced the word "endless" with infinite. A reluctantly accept it if you insist on using "endless" as a synonym for "infinite", but as I stated above, this invites confusion between sets of order type ω and ω*.
That has been my point and you know that I find for cause a serious defect in claims about infinitely many finite and discrete, finite stage incremented values constituting a set of infinite cardinality — whether positive or negative direction. Such a set by definition if fully expressed MUST entail what we cannot get to in such discrete steps, a transfinite value that involves in itself a completed endlessness.
A question that just occurred to me: What, if any, sets of infinite cardinality do you accept without issue, if we remove the constraint about them being constructed in discrete steps and so forth?
In other words I am finding here assertions that can be put in words but which on inspection involve mutually contradictory required characteristics, similar to a square circle or a triangle with five vertices etc. KF
I can understand philosophical objections to "completed" infinite sets, but I don't think there are any obvious contradictions in the statements I have made. If there, you should be able to display something of the form P∨¬P that follows from my posts. daveS
DS, physical reality is causally connected in stages similar to stepping down rungs of a ladder and that is what allows applying a successive cumulative sequence to the process. Those who object to causality in physics need to ponder a fire and what is going on with heat, fuel, oxidiser and chain reaction. Note, necessary enabling factors and sufficient clusters of factors for something to begin or to continue in being, here a fire. Then, extend this case through family resemblance to many others. KF kairosfocus
HeKS, thanks, a very good thought exercise. With your permission, I would like to use it. MT, nope. My point is that endlessness quasi-physically actualised would entail a transfinite span that cannot be traversed in steps, even were it to go on with further endlessness beyond that point. The endlessness lies first in the succession of counting sets, let us open set and close it:
{
{}--> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . [Ellipsis of endlessness] . . .
}
So we now can go:
0, 1, 2 . . . EoE . . . w [--> omega], w+1, w+2 . . . w + g [= A], . . . EoE . . . w + w, w + w + 1, . . . w + w + f, . . . EoE . . . -->
thus fitting into the surreals tree on the RHS branch, cf. OP above. Where, it is reasonable to suggest that the hyper-reals catapult from "hard" infinitesimals h to one of the onward zones such that they are between EoE's beyond w, for example suppose 1/h --> w + w + f. This would mean that . . . per a model discussion . . . there is no first hyper-real, that they are catapulted to from hard infinitesimals near 0. And, that through taking continuity in [0,1] and by filling gaps between say . . . reverting to mild infinitesimals for the moment . . . 1/m --> w+g and 1/n --> w + (g+1) etc, we can fill in between successive transfinites, say w + (g-1), w +g and w+g+1 creating for exploratory purposes a continuum in the transfinite span. Between any two neighbouring values an intermediate acceptable value may be specified and we can do a cut at a point and identify vice-grip intervals of values on either side that squeeze it to a unique point. Indeed, that is what surreals notation does. So, first, it is less than helpful to suggest that I have been unclear about what I have meant by endlessness and by ellipses of endlessness [EoE]. Any number of times, I have pointed out just what such an ellipsis is, and have highlighted the standard definition of the infinite that it involves endlessness beyond any arbitrarily large finite value, k. Where the pink and blue punched tape examples have been put forward. And that is before we get to the common representations of number lines and axes of graphs with arrows pointing on to endless continuation. For example: 0 --|---|--> I used A a point beyond the EoE of the natural counting sets in succession and began by adapting the catapulting to the transfinite from the infinitesimal using the hyperbolic function y = 1/x as a means of mathematically getting there. Notice, I spoke in terms of mild infinitesimals: m such that 1/m --> A, A = w + g On all sorts of mathematical debates arising, that has led to the identifying A = w + g as just indicated, where w is order type of naturals, and to the eventual grand picture of the structure of quantities, numbers, given through the surreals. So no I have never contended that "there is a point beyond which infinity ends and ‘endlessness’ starts." No, I have looked at endlessness as is embedded in mathematical praxis, and the presence of onward transfinites. With DS' help, I have clipped the tree of numbers and added to the OP to make clear that there is a whole taxonomy of numbers great and small with an organised pattern. One that makes copious use of ellipses of endlessness. In that context it makes sense to speak of numbers endlessly removed from the common range 0, 1, 2 etc, and thus we have a framework in which we can reasonably discuss traversal of a transfinite span in finite steps. Can there be an Ath rung of a ladder in a quasi-physical realm used for thought exercises connected to the empirical world? If there is an endless ladder being climbed down, something like that would be needed. If such were possible then it would confront us with climbing down and traversing an endless span to reach ground. Let us say an Ath rung is beyond reasonable possibility. That leaves us with the implication of the pink and blue tapes, an endlessly extended ladder is such that one never begins a climb down and is only ever at a finitely removed rung with endless further rungs one would have had to climb down. The problem with such is that any stepwise process that traverses some span k, will never span endlessness. This is because, let us observe steps down we label 0, 1 , 2 . . . k. Once there is an endless onward span, we can in effect set k as the new 0 and keep on going, k, k+1, k+2 etc and we will never exhaust the endless span remaining. Traversing and completing endlessness in finite stage successive steps leads to incoherence and shows the fallacy of ending the endless. We are only warranted to conclude that a span that can be traversed in successive -- thus causally linked -- steps is finite. A physical world with successive finite causally linked stages is most reasonably understood as finite in the past, thus having a distinct beginning. Onwards, it may continue endless-LY, a potential infinity that simply continues in succession for ages of ages, but strictly never completes a stepwise finite stage succession to a transfinite number of steps. The arrow of time is credibly asymmetric, with a zero-point: 0 | ---|----| . . . ---|---|---> now ***|***|**** > (We can then postulate a use of an analogy to lines of longitude shown by the hash marks that converge to a north pole of time, in effect an eternity-point that is a portal to/from any time any place. Hyperspace, if you will. In the words of the Psalms, put in a fresh context, the throne-room of God on the sides of the North. Just, to give a picture.) KF PS: Let me add a f/n from 271 above, on Feb 15:
all of this points to the issue of claimed or implied actual completion of the endless, which is where we started. Viewing the cosmos as causal succession: . . . C_k –> C_k+1 –> . . . C_n, now we see that a causal succession embeds a succession of states. Is the LHS ellipsis a completed EoE so that we are in the zone w + g i.e. the past was transfinite? Nope, as EoE cannot be bridged or traversed in finite steps. Language alone is already trying to warn us. A finitely remote initial point is indicated, as was discussed already. This is just a contextual reminder. Nor does it work to say at any p in the past we are only finitely remote onwards from k and we can repeat endlessly: . . . C_p –> C_p+1 –> . . . C_k –> C_k+1 –> . . . C_n, now No, the ellipsis on the LHS is still there and would still be endless. Yet worse is the case where one implies an endless causal succession in the past to the present, which if it means anything means that for some p’: . . . EoE . . . C_p’ –> C_p’+1 –> . . . EoE . . . C_k –> C_k+1 –> . . . C_n, now Ending the endless is a fallacy. If you doubt this, kindly show such an actual step by step completion or algorithm that can bridge the implied transfinite span in steps. We need to live with a world that manifests an inherently finite past succession to date. A world that strongly points to a beginning, where — let’s augment — a Root R gives rise to the beginning B, from which temporal-spatial causal succession proceeds: R:B –-> . . . C_k –> C_k+1 –> . . . C_n, now Where, further augmenting, R is a necessary being root.
kairosfocus
HeKS @ 1116
If you try to weigh the logical coherence of an infinite past by picturing a sequence that starts at a selected zero-time and proceeds infinitely into the past along a negative timeline then you’re going to come to false conclusions because you’re starting in the wrong place and, for all intents and purposes, confusing the past for the future.
As far as I understand the thread, it was KF's contention that there is a point beyond which infinity ends and 'endlessness' starts - not daveS's. daveS -and many of us - are trying to understand KF's stance of 'endlessness' for the past hundreds of comments. Me_Think
I'd like to offer a few thoughts here, but I'm jumping in very late so please correct me if I've gotten anyone's position wrong. Also, I have no expertise when it comes to math, so I'm going to leave that aspect alone and simply deal with the logic. daveS, you said:
If you replaced the word “endless” with “beginningless” [i.e. "ending a beginingless succession" rather than "ending and endless succession"], or “order type ?*”, this would make more sense to me.
And
If I start counting through the natural numbers in order, starting at 0, then I’m “beginning the endless” in your language. There’s nothing contradictory about that right? Likewise, there’s nothing contradictory about “ending the beginningless”. It obviously is a very strange concept from our perspective, but I don’t see any straightforward logical problem with it.
It seems there is a fairly straightforward logical problem, whether we speak of "ending the endless" or "ending the beginningless". KF's example illustration of descending a ladder is quite apt. Imagine walking into a field and seeing a ladder running straight up into the sky as far as you can see. Near the bottom is a man climbing down the ladder towards the ground. As you get closer you hear him say, "3, 2, 1, done. Wow, I have literally been climbing down that ladder forever." Is his statement even coherent? Taken literally, this man is claiming to have ended a climb down a beginningless succession of rungs and to thereby have traversed an infinite sequence one step at a time. But if the ladder truly has an infinite number of rungs, such that there is no first, highest rung to the ladder, then the man could not have traversed all the rungs of the ladder to reach the ground, as there was no opportunity for him to begin his descent. That any particular rung is only a finite distance from the ground is irrelevant, because the man is climbing down the ladder towards the ground, not up the ladder and away from the ground. As such, the absence of any beginning point for the man to have started a descent means that no matter what particular rung you might choose, however far from the ground it might be, the man could never have gotten even to that rung, much less to the ground. The man would always be infinitely far from any particular rung you might choose. So, if we accept that the ladder truly has an infinite number of rungs and yet the man has reached the ground, the only logical conclusion is that the man began his descent down the ladder at some specific time and at some specific rung that was a finite distance from the ground and that that rung where he began his descent was preceded by an infinite number of other rungs. In other words, even if we were to allow the possible existence of actual infinities in the real world (which I don't), we would still be left with the impossibility of traversing those infinities through any stepwise chain, whether we're talking about seconds, causal events, or anything else. As such, even if some sort of time dimension could exist eternally in some sense, any physical type of space in which events, change, motion, or anything of the sort is capable of taking place would need to have an absolute beginning point. Your notion that one might "end the beginningless" seems to come from an idea that there is some kind of symmetry between the future and the past with regard to infinities, but there isn't. If we assume that the universe will simply go on existing forever, then the future would constitute a potential infinite, but as we move into the future, no matter how far we go, there would only ever be a finite number of days that had passed since the Big Bang and we would never reach a point where the universe was infinitely old and an infinite succession of days, minutes, seconds or events had been traversed. On the other hand, if the past is beginningless then we immediately find ourselves with an actual infinite number of past days, minutes, seconds or events that have been traversed, one at a time, to arrive at the present. In other words, we have walked into a field and found a man stepping off the last rung of an infinite ladder, finishing an infinite climb that he never started. The logic that allows us to recognize the future as a potential infinite that is never actualized because every particular point, day or event is only a finite distance from the Big Bang simply does not help us with the past. It doesn't matter that every negative point going into an infinite past would be a finite distance from whatever zero-point we choose (e.g. the Big Bang) because the issue isn't going into an infinite past ... it's having come from an infinite past. If you try to weigh the logical coherence of an infinite past by picturing a sequence that starts at a selected zero-time and proceeds infinitely into the past along a negative timeline then you're going to come to false conclusions because you're starting in the wrong place and, for all intents and purposes, confusing the past for the future. So, in short: Beginning the Endless = coherent Ending the Endless = incoherent Ending the Beginningless = incoherent Take care, HeKS HeKS
DS, pardon but this begins to look like futile circles of semantics. Beginningless entails an endless past, one that recedes further into the past forever, beyond any arbitrarily large but finite value. By contrast, stating a PARTICULAR value defines a distinct point in some notation system thus instantiating a finite and definite number in some system of units. Endlessness proceeds beyond any such value and resists trying to list it out and exhaust it, we resort to ellipses of endlessness. That has been my point and you know that I find for cause a serious defect in claims about infinitely many finite and discrete, finite stage incremented values constituting a set of infinite cardinality -- whether positive or negative direction. Such a set by definition if fully expressed MUST entail what we cannot get to in such discrete steps, a transfinite value that involves in itself a completed endlessness. In other words I am finding here assertions that can be put in words but which on inspection involve mutually contradictory required characteristics, similar to a square circle or a triangle with five vertices etc. KF kairosfocus
KF,
The problem with beginningless quasi-spatial causal succession is rather like saying one has endlessly since infinity past been descending a ladder.
Beginninglessly, rather than endlessly.
It entails that one once was at a rung that is endlessly remote — I do not claim it was the first — and has in steps descended to the present, traversing endlessness.
But this doesn't square with #1107, where you stated that "no particular actual past time point was infinitely remote in seconds". If the ladder is being descended at one rung per second, how many seconds ago were we at this endlessly remote rung? ∞, which contradicts #1107. No, just as there was no particular instant infinitely many seconds prior to the present, there is no particular rung "endlessly remote" from the bottom of the ladder.
As for objecting to causal succession, that is an objection to physical reality, why I have spoken here of rungs of a ladder.
No, I'm not objecting to causal succession, or to physical reality. Mainly I don't want to open another can of worms. We have been discussing sequences of events in the past, for example, points in spacetime. Suppose events E_k and E_(k + 1) are separated by a spacelike interval. Then E_(k + 1) could not have been caused by E_k. I have been making no assumptions about causal relationships between the events E_k all along. daveS
DS, we can set up ad start do forever loops, we can keep going at them, what we cannot do is thereby successively traverse an endless span. The problem with beginningless quasi-spatial causal succession is rather like saying one has endlessly since infinity past been descending a ladder. It entails that one once was at a rung that is endlessly remote -- I do not claim it was the first -- and has in steps descended to the present, traversing endlessness. And, ending it. As for objecting to causal succession, that is an objection to physical reality, why I have spoken here of rungs of a ladder. We know from the tapes example and the problem of going on from k, that the proposed span to be traversed cannot credibly be spanned in successive steps, as endlessness forever recedes before the kth value in succession. Thus also, the issue pivots on what it means to have a claimed infinite past. KF kairosfocus
KF, PS to this in my #1110:
If you replaced the word “endless” with “beginningless”, or “order type ?*”, this would make more sense to me. Infinite sequences of order type ?*, with a greatest element, do exist.
If I start counting through the natural numbers in order, starting at 0, then I'm "beginning the endless" in your language. There's nothing contradictory about that right? Likewise, there's nothing contradictory about "ending the beginningless". It obviously is a very strange concept from our perspective, but I don't see any straightforward logical problem with it. daveS
kf writes,
I am not mapping my beliefs, I am mapping what seem to be the ideas or implications of claims of multiverse-ish believers who hold to an infinite actual [quasi-?] physical past.
OK, that is clear. I'm not interested in these "multiverse-ish believers who hold to an infinite actual [quasi-?] physical past", so I'll quit expressing my metaphysical concerns. Aleta
KF,
DS, given causal succession of finite stages, I would agree that — absent a compelling reason to see otherwise — no particular actual past time point was infinitely remote in seconds, stages etc,
:O I think we agree on that point.
I take it, we agree there was an actual past that has causally descended to now . . . just as successive seconds are causally connected and accumulating. The issue is whether it is open and endless in the past like a negative going left axis without limit, with a zero point at say Big Bang then forward to now. KF
I do agree with most of this; I would prefer to say as little about causality as possible, but I think your description of the issue in the last sentence is right. Edit---From your reply to Aleta:
I further challenge the claim that there has been infinite quasi-physical past as implying an infinite past regress of causal stages, leading to implied traversal of and ending an endless succession of finite cumulative stages.
If you replaced the word "endless" with "beginningless", or "order type ω*", this would make more sense to me. Infinite sequences of order type ω*, with a greatest element, do exist. daveS
A, I am not mapping my beliefs, I am mapping what seem to be the ideas or implications of claims of multiverse-ish believers who hold to an infinite actual [quasi-?] physical past. Wherein, there is an onward past chain of antecedents beyond the singularity to endlessness in prior proposed time. My argument is we can IMAGINE such but once it proposes causally successive cumulative stages to the present, it is implicitly proposing a traversal of a proposed endless past in finite stages, running into serious concerns. Think of is it Linde's model of ever budding and expanding sub-cosmi as one example. I suggest a different mode of existence, eternity in common parlance, would be a relevant consideration. Also, that on pondering possible vs impossible being the latter has core characteristics in mutual contradiction and cannot be actualised in any world. Of possible, contingents are dependent on external enabling factors that if one or more are "off" the being cannot exist -- think fire and heat oxidiser fuel chain rxn. Necessary beings are so connected to the framework of a world that for any world to exist, they must be. Compounding, non-being has no causal influence and if there were ever utter non being such would forever obtain. The issue as there is an actual world, is which serious candidate necessary beings are possible. If possible, in any world and in our actual one, perforce. I further challenge the claim that there has been infinite quasi-physical past as implying an infinite past regress of causal stages, leading to implied traversal of and ending an endless succession of finite cumulative stages. Sorry, this stuff is complex and weird, but important to foundations of thought. It seems this is now dubbed the battle of infinity. Let us hope not a Verdun or a Somme. KF kairosfocus
kf, If we take zero to be the Big Bang, so that causally connected events appear sequentially in time up to the present moment, how do you know that a similar causally connected set of temporally ordered events preceded the Big Bang? What evidence do you have that the metaphysical world, in whatever form it may be, out of which our universe came, has the same properties of time and cause-and-effect as our universe does? Aleta
DS, given causal succession of finite stages, I would agree that -- absent a compelling reason to see otherwise -- no particular actual past time point was infinitely remote in seconds, stages etc, per the challenge of traversing the endless in successive finite stage steps. I take it, we agree there was an actual past that has causally descended to now . . . just as successive seconds are causally connected and accumulating. The issue is whether it is open and endless in the past like a negative going left axis without limit, with a zero point at say Big Bang then forward to now. KF kairosfocus
KF,
DS I already said just that re WLC, for any particular specified point or stage of cause-effect in the past.
Ok, I understand this to mean yes, you do agree with WLC on that point. You would not agree to the statement "no particular instant in the past occurred infinitely many seconds from the present", I take it? daveS
DS I already said just that re WLC, for any particular specified point or stage of cause-effect in the past. Beyond would lie onward endlessness. Insofar as mathematics is a logical study it should eschew contradictions in terms/core characteristics showing something like a square circle; here, traversing and ending the endless through stepwise finite cumulative stages. That logical factors constrain what is possible through needed coherence of core characteristics is a significant issue and a gateway to mathematics as a powerful analytical tool and even causal force. KF PS: B to weak B+ today, would have wished for a cost effectiveness case in point and exploitation of 800th of Magna Carta to point the way to reform rooted in ancient, rich principle. I am again sobered by how much impact manner esp confident seeming assertive manner has . . . not to mention dismissive negatives and put-downs; life is rhetoric more than logic. Such is life. kairosfocus
KF,
DS, pardon but the force of C S Lewis’ pennies in a drawer example is in key part that the logic of structure and quantity — a matter of pure abstract logic — constrains physical reality (providing an intervening unobserved operation is not being overlooked).
Yes, but I don't believe you have given any mathematical arguments which show that an infinite past is impossible, and the vast majority of mathematicians would say the same. Back to the WLC quote, then: do you agree with him than any particular instant in the past would be within a finite number of seconds of the present? daveS
Aleta, did you notice WLC's point, any PARTICULAR number -- one that you pick, i.e. state or represent as a specific value say k [here, actually - k]? There is a difference there that brings in the force of endlessness beyond any particular stated or picked numeral or value in place value or sci notation form or even algebraic form where the value say - k is constrained to be finite and definite to a particular case. In short, we cannot write down in that sort of form or pronounce in words a value that is achievable in finite stage steps from 0 that is transfinite, but we know from the tapes example that -- reverting to positives WLOG -- beyond any arbitrarily large but finite k, endlessness proceeds such that k, k+1 etc can be readily matched with 0, 1 etc. We cannot even scratch the surface of endlessness, and resort to the ellipsis then limit ordinal w BEYOND the span, and so on, on, on to the surreals and the tree of numbers most fruitfully large and small: which is not the least important point put on the table for general discussion through this thread. It seems the radical even shocking force of this has still to soak in fully. Before I definitely go back to budgie cheaping, I need to say take A = w + g and define a less one process so that A ~1 = [ w + (g - 1)], g of course finite and w is omega. Repeat ~1 until we exhaust g and are at w. That is the finite incremental part of A is wiped out in g steps of ~1. Now, continue k "further" times "beyond" w. Or, try. It fails, in effect, w ~ k --> w, precisely because w is a qualitative difference from finite values, there is no finite defined value v that is such that v +1 --> w. That is, w is a limit, the order type of first degree endlessness, and we have again seen the force of, you cannot traverse the endless in finite scale +1or ~1 steps. Which BTW is part of why VC's set subtraction exercises fail to work with transfinites. 0,1,2 etc, 0, 2, 4, etc and 1, 3, 5 etc are all ways to represent the same first degree endlessness and because of endlessness can be transformed the one sequence into the other. More radical, shocking properties. Oh, well, the budgie calls. Cheap, cheap, cheap. KF kairosfocus
DS, pardon but the force of C S Lewis' pennies in a drawer example is in key part that the logic of structure and quantity -- a matter of pure abstract logic -- constrains physical reality (providing an intervening unobserved operation is not being overlooked). Logic of abstract entities has causal constraining force in the physical world. Hence the famous remark by was it Wheeler on the astonishing power of mathematics in the physical sciences. My fav example was the objection to Young et al (and in particular Fresnel), that if a wave interference/ diffraction, Huygens wavelet type theory was right there should be a little dot of light in the centre of the shadow of a small ball under relevant circumstances. It was thought, so there, obviously no one has seen such. Then, someone did the experiment. The dot is there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot . It seems, it is now also observed for beams of particles, i.e. the wavicle nature of matter at molecular scale is confirmed similarly. And, on the suggestion of a transfinite actual physical past, there are logic of structure and quantity [plus linked relations and operations etc] -- mathematical -- issues to be answered to. KF kairosfocus
MT (attn IE), kindly consult the pink and blue punched tape thought exercise which has been repeatedly discussed [and put up in the OP] and which draws out the significance of something being endlessly beyond any arbitrarily large finite value, especially putting k, k+1 etc in perfect correspondence with the un-shifted naturals. This can be repeated k times to the same effect, shifting by k^2 --> k'. Then do that k' times to get k", and so forth. At no stage of increasingly large finite steps have we even scratched the surface of endlessness. That is how radical the concept is, and the only way for it to soak in is by such a paradigmatic example, a fresh one as Hilbert's Hotel has become too familiar and ho hum. Beyond a certain point, too, enough has been said so to act as though it has not is to become fallacious. For, a definition by instructive example has been given. Yes, it is horribly shocking, but in that shock it tells us what the significance of w is. Including why trying to subtract a finite from w will be fruitless, you cannot span or traverse the endless in finite stage steps. You cannot even scratch the surface. Endlessness -- so often represented by a seemingly insignificant three dot ellipsis -- is pivotal. And, the struggle of this thread is to understand endlessness, given that mathematics is the logical study of structure and quantity. This thread is foundational and foundationally significant. Back to budgie cheaping away -- and yes that is a very low grade pun. But I have to find some way to laugh as I deal with grim things, that are so key I can only give snatches of attention here for the moment. Hopefully in a day or two. KF kairosfocus
KF @ 1097
DS, notice also, any PARTICULAR negative number will be finitely remote from 0. That is endlessness beyond any particular number is a relevant factor. Oddly, I had intent to pick up that exact point when the budgies stop cheaping . . . pardon the awful puns, but we have to be able to laugh at something.
You will pick a number beyond which 'endlessness' starts? What is your definition of endlessness? How is it different from infinity? Me_Think
KF,
DS, notice also, any PARTICULAR negative number will be finitely remote from 0. That is endlessness beyond any particular number is a relevant factor. Oddly, I had intent to pick up that exact point when the budgies stop cheaping . . . pardon the awful puns, but we have to be able to laugh at something. KF
Yes, he did say "any", so perhaps in the sense of Russell. I would be interested to know if he objects to the statement "all negative integers are finitely remote from 0". I suspect not, but who knows. Now, do you therefore agree than any particular instant in the past would be within a finite number of seconds of the present? daveS
WLC is quoted as saying,
For from any point in the infinite past at which God chose to create there is only a finite distance to the present, just as any negative number you pick is only finitely distant from 0, even though there are an infinite number of negative numbers.
That is, he says, 1a. Any negative number is finite 1b. Therefore all negative numbers are finite 2. There are an infinite number of negative numbers. kf, do you agree with WLC? Aleta
DS, notice also, any PARTICULAR negative number will be finitely remote from 0. That is endlessness beyond any particular number is a relevant factor. Oddly, I had intent to pick up that exact point when the budgies stop cheaping . . . pardon the awful puns, but we have to be able to laugh at something. KF kairosfocus
KF,
DS, endlessness beyond any finite value is the substance of infinity, the latter is just a label until endlessness is brought to bear, and indeed that is part of the underlying dynamic of the match with proper subset approach, it is because of the endlessness property that it works, even with say primes, as in the list of primes is endless in succession though obviously on average sparser and sparser as we go up in scale. KF
I'm not totally clear on the meaning of this, but is it consistent with the bolded sentence from the WLC quote? daveS
Re 1091: Electrons are cheap. There have actually been quite a few interesting points developed in this thread, for those interested in the topic. Aleta
DS, endlessness beyond any finite value is the substance of infinity, the latter is just a label until endlessness is brought to bear, and indeed that is part of the underlying dynamic of the match with proper subset approach, it is because of the endlessness property that it works, even with say primes, as in the list of primes is endless in succession though obviously on average sparser and sparser as we go up in scale. KF kairosfocus
Indiana Effigy, Is someone putting a gun to your head? mike1962
KF, Some additional food for thought, from WLC's website. Dr Craig is responding to a Muslim who is arguing for the possibility of an infinite past:
(Actually, as I think about it, it occurs to me that your argument is fallacious even if there was an infinite series of temporal points prior to creation! For from any point in the infinite past at which God chose to create there is only a finite distance to the present, just as any negative number you pick is only finitely distant from 0, even though there are an infinite number of negative numbers. From the fact that at any point in an infinite past God is able to create a world, it does not follow that God was able to create a world with an infinite past.)
(Some bolding added) daveS
I hate to be the bearer of the patently obvious, but this entire thread ranks right up there with the arguments over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. What is mind boggling insane is that it has lasted over 1000 comments. Give it up. Everyone. It is just a waste of electrons. Indiana Effigy
KF, I'm not attempting any sort of "move". The definition you are giving of "endless" seems to coincide with the definition of "infinite" you quoted from the dictionary, so I'm wondering why you need two terms when just one will do. It would also make your statement above:
DS, my point is, that if there were an infinitely remote point in time as part of the past it would have to be endlessly remote.
tautological, which leads me to question why it needs to be stated. Is there any difference between infinite and endless sets? If so, what is the difference? Can you give examples of sets which are endless but not infinite (or vice-versa)? daveS
DS, endless means just that as per the pink and blue tape example as has been pointed out any number of times above. That is, for something that comes in distinct lumps or steps of finite scale, for any kth member of arbitrarily large but finite scale, k, k+1 and so forth can be put in 1 to 1 correspondence with 0,1,2 etc without limit. And by extension that can be repeated any number of times. I trust by now there is willingness to move beyond the let's demand the [already repeatedly given or adequately explained or exemplified] definition yet again move. Beginninglessness would be the much the same; save time is a key context of the lumps or stages, in the cases in view causal succession from past to present. As has also been repeatedly given including by use of symbolisations. KF kairosfocus
KF, Of course #4(b) is the relevant definition for us. #1(a) as well; an infinite past is unbounded. How does "endless" differ (in your usage---I've already stated how I think "endless" and "beginningless" should be defined). daveS
infinite (??nf?n?t) adj 1. a. having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude b. (as noun; preceded by the): the infinite. 2. extremely or immeasurably great or numerous: infinite wealth. 3. all-embracing, absolute, or total: God's infinite wisdom. 4. (Mathematics) maths a. having an unlimited number of digits, factors, terms, members, etc: an infinite series. b. (of a set) able to be put in a one-to-one correspondence with part of itself c. (of an integral) having infinity as one or both limits of integration. Compare finite2 ?infinitely adv ?infiniteness n Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 kairosfocus
KF,
DS, my point is, that if there were an infinitely remote point in time as part of the past it would have to be endlessly remote.
Hmm. I would agree with this, simply because my understanding was that "infinitely" and "endlessly" were exact synonyms in your usage. Hence this would be true by definition. If they are not exact synonyms, what's the difference? More to the point, though, your definition of "infinite past" is different from that used by WLC, John Lane Bell (a mathematician and philosopher), and others who write on this topic. Their concept of an infinite past does not include any points infinitely remote in time. Are we clear on that? When WLC or JLB uses the term "infinite past", they are not asserting that the past includes any points infinitely many seconds from the present; in fact, quite the opposite is true. For WLC and JLB, every instant in this hypothetical infinite past is finitely many seconds from the present. And yet they both agree that the term "infinite past" is appropriate for that case. One can obviously consider the implications of removing this "finite accessibility hypothesis*" as JLB calls it (and he briefly does so), but then your definition of "infinite past" would be different from what everyone else is using, so we would have yet another clash of definitions, something which has plagued this entire discussion (see "endless" vs. "infinite"). My vote is we stick with the definition of "infinite past" used by WLC, et al, and consider only finite time coordinates. You are then welcome to show that WLC's usage of "infinite past" in this context is "dubious". ____ *JLB's finite accessibility hypothesis states that any two points in time are finitely many steps (seconds, say) apart. daveS
DS, my point is, that if there were an infinitely remote point in time as part of the past it would have to be endlessly remote. Where, infinite past requires endlessly -- infinitely -- remote past points in time, or there is no infinitely remote past. And as the issue is a causal succession, that would have to be associated with a transfinitely large past number of causal steps to get from the suggested then to now. The sequence of cause effect bonds from then to now would have to traverse and complete endlessness in finite stage steps. The very contradiction in terms involved shows why this is dubious, and those who propose an infinite -- so, endlessly remote -- past need to show good reason for their claims. The assertion that an endless string of only finite values in finite stage steps is similarly questionable. If finite then by definition not endless. Still too busy to do other than outline. KF kairosfocus
KF,
DS, very briefly, the point is that once there is a supposed infinite past, at some point there would have to be an endlessly remote — transfinitely remote — point. Does not have to be a start point, just, would have to be.
No, this is false. We have been over this "endlessly". WLC himself agrees with me. John Lane Bell agrees with me. You have not given any proofs showing that such points exists. When you get time, I challenge you to find such proofs in the literature on this subject (and not mere assertions). I have cited a few papers, even a couple where this same error crops up (Whitrow, e.g.), and where it is corrected (Bell).
And nope, the notion of endlessly remote finite values in a succession is dubious, a finite value is by definition not endlessly remote for one. More later, local issues have to take my main focus. KF
Certainly dubious, because they do not exist! That is, if you mean, in essence, natural numbers infinitely far from 0. If, on the other hand, you mean that the notion of infinitely many finite natural numbers is incoherent, then you're welcome to be a finitist as far as mathematics goes, but that doesn't mean the physical universe must obey this limitation. daveS
DS, very briefly, the point is that once there is a supposed infinite past, at some point there would have to be an endlessly remote -- transfinitely remote -- point. Does not have to be a start point, just, would have to be. Effectively by definition. The very fact that this is problematic is telling us something. And nope, the notion of endlessly remote finite values in a succession is dubious, a finite value is by definition not endlessly remote for one. More later, local issues have to take my main focus. KF kairosfocus
'There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.' [17] Hilarious last sentence... though evidently true. Axel
KF,
e –> The attempt to step down from A as a suggested transfinite = w + g to the finite range in neighbourhood of 0, runs into the nature of w as a limit ordinal, is in effect not a direct successor to the sequence 0, 1, 2 . . . but rather a value assigned as limit to the endlessness, as order type of the endlessness.
Once more, there is no attempt to count down from a transfinite A to 0 here. The counting (up) through all negative integers to 0 has no beginning, and hence no starting point A.
f –> I have argued that the stepwise +1 stage countup from 0 cannot be completed to the transfinite, that every value attained by this or extensions of it — every natural number we can specifically write own in effect — will be inherently finite, and that he pink/blue tapes example shows that for any arbitrarily large k in he succession, k, k+1, k+2 etc can be put in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 etc, showing in succession that we actually never even begin to scratch the surface of endlessness by any finite stage incrementing cumulative process.
And I don't think anyone has disputed these points.
h –> Indeed even an endlessly sparser as we go subset the primes, is undefinably endless. There is no definable largest prime. Endlessness is a paradigm shift we have to swallow whole.
Not sure about "undefinably endless", but everyone here grasps the fact that there are infinitely many primes. We are not having trouble "swallowing" that idea.
i –> Note, I am NOT speaking to a continuum, a smooth timeline, but to a succession of stages, where going back to the big bang only gets us to 0. In short, the count is by generations of causal succession, not by an imagined clock. Rows in the punched tape, not the presumed tape that runs on with the holes in it.
I don't know about the distinction between a tape and a clock here. Surely you can't disqualify a ticking clock in a thought experiment involving the passage of time?
j –> In this context, it is to my mind readily apparent that an endless, finite stage succession inherently maps to a succession of ordinals and extensions of such, so if there is a logical constraint on the numbers it will extend instantly to what maps to this.
Eh? Can you make this more precise? What is this "mapping"?
k –> In short this is just as if 3 +1 +1 +1 + 6 –> 12, we cannot add three pennies, a three-pence coin and a sixpence without getting a shilling’s value.
I do agree that 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 6 = 12.
n –> In that context, proposing to complete an endless finite stage succession in steps, bridging the transfinite, is at minimum paradoxical and more plausibly is an attempt to effect the logically impossible.
Proposing to X the X-less would be paradoxical, I agree. Proposing to X the Y-less (END the BEGINNING-less) is not necessarily paradoxical.
p –> In this context, it seems clear to me that a claimed transfinite successive past of stages of cause-effect down to now tries to span the transfinite in steps. Never mind clever verbal steps or objections, the claim is quite plain on reflection.
It "tries" to span the transfinite in a transfinite number of steps, you could say.
r –> The past, plausibly is finite, on a constraint of logic. Logic of structure and quantity.
Most would agree that physical evidence indicates the past is probably finite, but I think you're overlooking the "obvious objection" to your argument that Bennett identifies in the quote from post #1078.
t –> And this seems there as a limit to observable reality imposed by logic, never mind that we cannot observe the remote past, or even the much nearer past. u –> I would actually challenge those who propose such while wearing or pointing to the lab coat: kindly, show us observational evidence.
If this is addressed to me, a reminder: my argument is simply that this "counting down from infinity" argument fails to show the past must be finite. I certainly don't have observational evidence of an infinite past. **** I would urge you to take another look at my post #1077. We're over a thousand posts in this thread alone, and you're still referring to a transfinite "starting point" A to this (beginningless!) process of counting through {..., -2, -1, 0}. That tells me you haven't dealt with the distinction between ω and ω*. daveS
Folks, While still busy, I will pick up a few things, let me start fairy early in the last set of exchanges:
A, 1059: >>I think the connection between the mathematics of infinity and metaphysical speculations about time and God are tenuous at best.>> DS, 1061: >>Can you explain how the punched tape example demonstrates that an omnipotent deity, existing outside of time, and who did not begin to exist, cannot create a universe with an infinite past?>> DS, 1063: >>I am merely saying that I see no logical problems with an infinite past, and I don’t think any such problems have been described here. In other words, it hasn’t been shown to be impossible.>> A, 1064: >>1. As far as is known, and as is generally accepted, our universe started about 14 billion years ago, so within our universe there is no issue about an infinite past: the amount of time since the universe began is finite. 2. We tend to accept the model of a number line starting at zero as part of the background framework of events happening in the world, as if time existing as a background clock in respect to which events happened steadily, and in one direction only. As with all applied math, this is a model which maps a mathematical concept to a real-world phenomena, and must be tested to see if it is a valid model. While it certainly suffices for the macroscopic world, we know that at the quantum and relativistic level this model breaks down in places. 3. We also have a model of the world being causally connected from moment to moment in time, each moment being a causal product of the moment before. However, even the implied continuity in the number line model breaks down at the quantum level, both in terms of discrete amounts of energy and time, as well as the introduction of genuine probabilities as opposed to strict deterministic cause and effect. 4. It is a completely untestable metaphysical speculation as to whether anything like the time we experience in our universe exists outside of our universe, including before our universe. To extend the model of a number line within our universe to whatever exists outside/before our universe is just not justified.>>
a --> The first issue is not about God or what he could create, save that not even God can make a violation of the first principles of right reason, For instance, that Canadian Christian children's TV programme title notwithstanding God cannot create a square circle. b --> Likewise, the question is not the evident finite past of our observed cosmos, but whether there is a chain of in some essential sense physical causal antecedents beyond it without limit. As I have modelled ever so many times in this thread, the implied argument is that there is a chain of causal stages Cj: . . . EoE . . . Ck+1 –> Ck –> . . . –> Cn, now. c --> Or, more elaborately, let me go to 7 above:
. . . what is warranted is that step by step finite succession cannot bridge to the transfinite. This is easiest to see starting at 0 and counting up, but it is patent that bridging the transfinite the other way to appear at the present has to bridge the same span. That is why I went to lengths to identify a reasonable ordered succession 0, 1, 2 . . . [TRANSFINITE SPAN] . . . w [--> omega], . . . w + g . . . and identify that A = W + g, a transfinite with w the first transfinite ordinal and g some large finite [so still of the scale aleph null] will be such that in a descent . . . A, A~1 [= w + (g – 1)], A ~ 2, . . . 2, 1, 0, 1*, 2* . . . n, n being now, we see A, A~1 [= w + (g – 1)], A ~ 2, . . . 0, 1#, 2#, . . . and so we run into a transfinite bridge and the count down will not reach from A to 0, no more than it can reach up from 0 to A.
d --> Of course much water has passed under the bridge since then and we have seen that the surreals allows us to make the sort of succession of numbers implied, cf the tree added to the op. Where it remains so that there is no basis for a stepwise spanning of the transfinite and there is no definable finite antecedent to w. e --> The attempt to step down from A as a suggested transfinite = w + g to the finite range in neighbourhood of 0, runs into the nature of w as a limit ordinal, is in effect not a direct successor to the sequence 0, 1, 2 . . . but rather a value assigned as limit to the endlessness, as order type of the endlessness. f --> I have argued that the stepwise +1 stage countup from 0 cannot be completed to the transfinite, that every value attained by this or extensions of it -- every natural number we can specifically write own in effect -- will be inherently finite, and that he pink/blue tapes example shows that for any arbitrarily large k in he succession, k, k+1, k+2 etc can be put in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 etc, showing in succession that we actually never even begin to scratch the surface of endlessness by any finite stage incrementing cumulative process. g --> In short, endlessness has to be taken seriously as part of the definition of naturals and of reals too. So beyond any specific counting number, there is an endless onward succession that can be put in correspondence with the full set. h --> Indeed even an endlessly sparser as we go subset the primes, is undefinably endless. There is no definable largest prime. Endlessness is a paradigm shift we have to swallow whole. i --> Note, I am NOT speaking to a continuum, a smooth timeline, but to a succession of stages, where going back to the big bang only gets us to 0. In short, the count is by generations of causal succession, not by an imagined clock. Rows in the punched tape, not the presumed tape that runs on with the holes in it. j --> In this context, it is to my mind readily apparent that an endless, finite stage succession inherently maps to a succession of ordinals and extensions of such, so if there is a logical constraint on the numbers it will extend instantly to what maps to this. k --> In short this is just as if 3 +1 +1 +1 + 6 --> 12, we cannot add three pennies, a three-pence coin and a sixpence without getting a shilling's value. l --> Logical-mathematical realities can and do causally constrain the real world. If you put the above coins in a tin in a drawer and come back a week later to find less than a shilling's value, it is not logic or arithmetic but the laws of England that were broken, to paraphrase C S Lewis. m --> Mathematics is the logical study of structure and quantity. Laws of logic, likewise, are inextricably entangled into possible realities. n --> In that context, proposing to complete an endless finite stage succession in steps, bridging the transfinite, is at minimum paradoxical and more plausibly is an attempt to effect the logically impossible. o --> And yes, I accept that this shifts how I have to view ordinary mathematical induction. As was already addressed. p --> In this context, it seems clear to me that a claimed transfinite successive past of stages of cause-effect down to now tries to span the transfinite in steps. Never mind clever verbal steps or objections, the claim is quite plain on reflection. q --> Nor does it help to try to suggest an endless succession of finite values on mathematical induction; that too is caught up in the problem. r --> The past, plausibly is finite, on a constraint of logic. Logic of structure and quantity. s --> That is, it seems to me that a claimed infinite successive past is much like a square circle, by claiming to end the endless in steps. t --> And this seems there as a limit to observable reality imposed by logic, never mind that we cannot observe the remote past, or even the much nearer past. u --> I would actually challenge those who propose such while wearing or pointing to the lab coat: kindly, show us observational evidence. ______________ Okay, back to the local budget season rhetorical games and Cicero's point that rhetorical eloquence and wisdom (including the ethics of sustainability) too often never meet. Back in a day or so, DV. KF kairosfocus
Still busy but BA77 has a clip: https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1119397401406525/?type=2&theater kairosfocus
KF, I finally found paper which deals at length with many of the issues that have arisen here:
The Age and Size of the World Jonathan Bennett Synthese Vol. 23, No. 1, Kant and Modern Science (Aug., 1971), pp. 127-146
The first 11 pages or so are most relevant to our discussion. Here is a portion from the first pages which summarizes one of the points I have been making: Bennett begins by reviewing Strawson's essay on an infinite past:
When Strawson discusses this matter he pretends that "for as long as the world has existed, a clock has been ticking at regular intervals", and he then equates the world's age with the length of the series of past ticks. His 'ticks' do exactly the same work as my 'events'. Now, Kant argues like this. If the world never began, then it has been going on forever, and the series of past events---past ticks of Strawson's clock---has infinitely many members. But:
The infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away. (A 426)
That is Kant's argument---his presentation of the alleged conceptual difficulty in the idea that the world is infinitely old. The argument looks bad, because on the face of it it is open to an obvious objection. Kant says that "the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis"---that is, through a one-by-one enumeration of its members---but that is just false. A series of the sort Kant has in mind must, if it is infinite, be open at one end; it cannot have both a first and last member; and so the enumeration of its members, if started 'can never be completed'. But such an enumeration could be completed all the same, if it did not ever start but had been going on for ever.
daveS
KF, I'll take this opportunity to elaborate on the distinction between "endless" and "beginningless", using some of the notation and concepts that appear in the papers I mentioned. As we have seen, the set N has order type ω. If we have a (countably) infinite sequence of distinct events, E_i, where each i is an integer, then the set of all the E_i is ordered (chronologically). [Edit: Naturally I assume that no pair of these events occur simultaneously.] Now suppose we have a one-to-one, order-preserving correspondence between N and the set of all the E_i in such a sequence. Then by definition, the set of the E_i has order type ω as well, and it is appropriate to call the sequence endless. We have used the notation (E_0, E_1, E_2, ...) for endless sequences of events. On the other hand, the set of all nonpositive integers has order type ω*. We could denote that set by Z^-. Clearly there is no one-to-one, order-preserving correspondence between N and Z^-, so ω is not equal to ω*. I will call a countably infinite sequence of events beginningless if the set of all such E_i has order type ω*. You can of course represent such a beginningless sequence by (..., E_(-2), E_(-1), E_(0)). In these threads, we have sometimes used the word "endless" as a synonym for "infinite", but I think it's important, when discussing ordered sets, to reserve the term "endless" for sets of order type ω (for countable sets, anyway), in order to avoid any equivocation. A few observations:
1) No sequence of events in the past has an endless subsequence. 2) No sequence of events in the future has a beginningless subsequence. 3) Every infinite sequence of past events is beginningless. 4) Every infinite sequence of future events is endless.
Agreed so far? daveS
Aleta, Just now I do not have much time given local matters, I responded to a general point on relevance. The claim of an infinite past succession of causally linked stages is subject to the issue of actualising the infinite in successive finite stage steps which is tied to the logic of structure and quantity. Pardon me if I have not exactly intersected with your concerns and have gaps on things you asked, there is a major local development that requires my main effort just now. Similar to the recent trip that put me effectively offline for several days. KF kairosfocus
Thanks, Dave. And kf, I'll point out that not only do you address points to me about things that I don't claim, you also don't address points that I do claim, such as that the model of time as a number line extending beyond our know finite universe is an unjustified metaphysical speculation which renders meaningless the whole discussion about an infinite past time. Aleta
KF, I have to be away for several hours, but I will echo Aleta's request that you not address posts on these subjects to her. It seems to imply (falsely) that she has made certain claims (or taken certain positions) when she hasn't. daveS
kf, you once again address me about claims and positions I haven't made and don't have. Why do you do that? Did you even read 1070? Or do you just repeat your points irrespective of what someone else writes??? Aleta
KF,
Aleta (attn DS), the claim there is a completed infinite past entails completion of the endless. That is the fundamental issue where at minimum a paradox emerges.
I assume you're addressing me, primarily. :P Anyway, it would entail completion of an infinite set. Specifically, completion of "the beginningless", not "the endless".
And, if at ANY remote time in the past only a finite past has been subsequently traversed that points to there being only a finite past.
True. Of course I'm assuming otherwise.
By contrast an ellipsis of endlessness in {0,1,2 . . . } points to a process that is precisely beyond completion,
Perhaps, but again you're referring to a process with a beginning but no end. In the digits of pi example, the process has no beginning but has an end, so is not "endless". I think that while you have spent quite a bit of time discussing "endlessness", the real issue is "beginninglessness". After all, the central topic is an infinite past, which by definition has no beginning. Endlessness and beginninglessness are very different. daveS
Aleta (attn DS), the claim there is a completed infinite past entails completion of the endless. That is the fundamental issue where at minimum a paradox emerges. And, if at ANY remote time in the past only a finite past has been subsequently traversed that points to there being only a finite past. By contrast an ellipsis of endlessness in {0,1,2 . . . } points to a process that is precisely beyond completion, which is why for any definable thus finite k, there will be an onward endlessness k, k+1, k+2 etc that can be matched to 0,1,2 etc endlessly. The foot of the rainbow is ever receding. KF kairosfocus
kf writes,
Aleta & DS: Do you see the problem with claiming to complete — thus, end — an endless, transfinite traverse in finite cumulative steps?
kf, I have never, ever made that claim. Haven't I made that perfectly clear? I have also never, ever made the claim that one could somehow "start" at negativity infinity and proceed to 0 - that claim itself doesn't make sense. And, I have clearly stated that I don't think the number line is a testable model for time as it pertains to something metaphysical beyond our universe. So I really wonder why you keep addressing comments about these issues to me as if I were defending something that I'm not. Seriously, do you pay attention to the establshed positions of other participants in the discussion? Aleta
KF,
Aleta & DS: Do you see the problem with claiming to complete — thus, end — an endless, transfinite traverse in finite cumulative steps?
If the process has a beginning, yes, I see the issue. If an omnipotent deity begins counting through the natural numbers in order, one number per second, then at any point in the future, it will have only counted through a finite subset of N. At no point in the future will this "infinity" be completed. In a beginningless process, that is not an issue. Think of the example of the deity mentally noting the passing of each second through an eternal past. At the time of any particular tick, there has already been infinitely many other ticks previous to it. There is no point at which the number of ticks completed transitions from finite to infinite---it has always been infinite.
you cannot traverse in +1 steps from 0 as a reference, which also reverses to if one claims an endlessly remote past then to reach now such would have had to be traversed in finite stage steps, which runs into the issue of endlessness.
In the example of the beginningless deity, there is no starting point, nothing corresponding to the "from 0" that you have when counting 0, 1, 2, 3, ... . Edit: Something else to consider, which I'm stealing from the philosophy forum I linked to, based on an anecdote told by Wittgenstein. Consider an omniscient deity who never began to exist, and who exists outside of time. Now imagine this deity reciting the decimal digits of pi, one digit per second, in reverse order. He completes this task today, ending with 9, 5, 1, 4, 1, 3. Is that logically impossible? daveS
I've read some of the papers along with some additional sources (written by professional philosophers), and I have to say I think most of the discussion in these threads is at least comparable in quality. Both of the following passages leave me shaking my head. Here's a quote from WLC in his book on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (pages 200-201), with some emphasis added, and separated into paragraphs for readability:
If the universe had no beginning, then at least one temporal chain of events had no beginning. (By temporal chain of events is meant a sequence of discrete physical occurrences that has the usual properties of discrete chronological order.) If E is an event in this chain, then there is an important difference between an infinite past and an infinite future for E; one is actual and the other potential. That the future is a potential infinite means that (1) for any future event in E there will be future events and (2) any event in the future of E is separated from E by a finite number of intermediate events. On the other hand, the past is actual. Whitrow points out that when we try to think back over the series of past events, our train of thought yields only a potential infinite; but this process does not correspond to the actual successive occurrence of these events. Therefore, if the past events are infinite, they constitute an actual infinite. Consequently, if the chain of events prior to E is infinite, then there must be an event O that is separated from E by an infinite number of intermediate events. If not, then the number of events separating E from any event O would be finite, and thus the past would be only a potential infinite, which is impossible. But an infinite number of intermediate events raises two problems: (1) if E is an infinite number of events from O, then with regard to O the notion of the future as a potential infinite is destroyed, since both O and E do occur; (2) when in the temporal chain between O and E does the total number of events that have occurred since O become infinite instead of finite?
Pamela Huby says this in her 1971 paper "Kant or Cantor: That the Universe, if Real, must be Finite in Both Space and Time":
Similarly me may argue of things in space, that any object in space, however far distant, is a finite distance only from every other object. But between any object and any other there can then be only a finite number of objects, and therefore, however vast the total number of objects may be, it will still be finite.
??? daveS
Aleta & DS: Do you see the problem with claiming to complete -- thus, end -- an endless, transfinite traverse in finite cumulative steps? That is interesting. Especially when, over and over again anytime one attains to some finite but large accumulation, k, endlessness still sits there before one even as the foot of the rainbow is ever receding. Which, the pink/blue tape exercise plainly shows. Which then applies to a claimed endless succession of distinct finite causal stages along a timeline to the present. Oh yes, aleph null is the cardinality of first order endlessness, so speaking of aleph zero can be directly translated to endlessness, which then brings up the significance of the ellipsis of endlessness -- you cannot traverse in +1 steps from 0 as a reference, which also reverses to if one claims an endlessly remote past then to reach now such would have had to be traversed in finite stage steps, which runs into the issue of endlessness. And that has been pointed out above many times as a problem. KF PS: I cannot elaborate, main focus is on current local issues just now. kairosfocus
Hmm. Popper, John Lane Bell, and WLC all submitted replies to Whitrow's article, also to the BJPS. I suppose this would have been a good place (for me) to start reading on the subject. daveS
I haven't spent much time looking for publications by working philosophers on this issue, but there are quite a few. I picked one which appeared on the first page of google search results, but wasn't very impressed with this quote:
If n events occurred in sequence before E_0, then there must have occurred an event designated E_(-n), in my notation. Similarly if aleph-zero events occurred before E_0, then there must actually have occurred (in time past) events E_(-aleph-zero). But, starting from any one such event, it would have been impossible to attain the event E_0, just as from the event E_0 it will never be possible to attain events E_(aleph-zero) in the future. Consequently, the concept of an infinite sequence of past events is incapable of culminating in the present event. Hence, just as every future sequence of discrete events from E_0 onward will always be finite, in the sense that never will an event E_n be attained where n is not finite, so in every past sequence the total number of events, however large, can never be infinite.
where:
Similarly if aleph-zero events occurred before E_0, then there must actually have occurred (in time past) events E_(-aleph-zero).
is clearly incorrect. As we've seen here, the set N has cardinality aleph-null, but no element(s) aleph-null. It's not clear to me why he speaks of plural "elements E_(-aleph-null)" either. Source: On the Impossibility of an Infinite Past by G. J. Whitrow in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 29, No. 1 (March, 1978). For some informal discussion, there are some posts on this philosophy forum that seem on the mark. daveS
At 1060, kf wrote,
Aleta, a past causal succession by finite stages runs into issues revealed by the punched tapes exercise. A proposed past-infinite succession like that tries to bridge the transfinite. KF
Hmmm, kf. I'm not sure why you addressed this comment to me. My previous comment at 1059 was about pure math and not at all about a "past causal succession by finite stages." I did make the comment that I thought "the connection between the mathematics of infinity and metaphysical speculations about time and God are tenuous at best." Let me expand on that. First, almost entirely (not completely) I've concentrated on the purely mathematical nature of infinity throughout these threads. Now I'll make some comments about the larger issue of time and an infinite past. 1. As far as is known, and as is generally accepted, our universe started about 14 billion years ago, so within our universe there is no issue about an infinite past: the amount of time since the universe began is finite. 2. We tend to accept the model of a number line starting at zero as part of the background framework of events happening in the world, as if time existing as a background clock in respect to which events happened steadily, and in one direction only. As with all applied math, this is a model which maps a mathematical concept to a real-world phenomena, and must be tested to see if it is a valid model. While it certainly suffices for the macroscopic world, we know that at the quantum and relativistic level this model breaks down in places. 3. We also have a model of the world being causally connected from moment to moment in time, each moment being a causal product of the moment before. However, even the implied continuity in the number line model breaks down at the quantum level, both in terms of discrete amounts of energy and time, as well as the introduction of genuine probabilities as opposed to strict deterministic cause and effect. 4. It is a completely untestable metaphysical speculation as to whether anything like the time we experience in our universe exists outside of our universe, including before our universe. To extend the model of a number line within our universe to whatever exists outside/before our universe is just not justified. Similarly, we have no idea if what we experience as a sequence of causes and effects happening in a temporally linear manner apples to whatever came before and/or is outside our universe. 5. That is why I think the whole argument about a "past infinite causal succession" is an empty topic. We have no idea if our model of time as a number line and events on it as modelled by successive points applies to the world outside our universe, and no way of testing if that is so. It is a misapplication of math to just assume the model is valid, and then to argue about things within the mathematics itself as if they automatically meant something about the world outside of mathematics, and especially about an inaccessible metaphysical world. Aleta
KF,
As for the issue can God make (A and ~ A) true shows that if something is a logical problem it is a problem. If one posits an infinite causal succession in stages, she needs to explain how such is possible. KF
Well, I am merely saying that I see no logical problems with an infinite past, and I don't think any such problems have been described here. In other words, it hasn't been shown to be impossible. daveS
DS, I spoke to something much more restricted, that endlessness is beyond any finite k no matter how large. That is not in itself any proof of omnipotence etc, but it dies show that claimed infinite stepwise causal succession is seriously problematic as it must span the transfinite. As for the issue can God make (A and ~ A) true shows that if something is a logical problem it is a problem. If one posits an infinite causal succession in stages, she needs to explain how such is possible. KF kairosfocus
KF, Can you explain how the punched tape example demonstrates that an omnipotent deity, existing outside of time, and who did not begin to exist, cannot create a universe with an infinite past? daveS
Aleta, a past causal succession by finite stages runs into issues revealed by the punched tapes exercise. A proposed past-infinite succession like that tries to bridge the transfinite. KF kairosfocus
I think the connection between the mathematics of infinity and metaphysical speculations about time and God are tenuous at best. For math to be applied via a model there has to be some way to test the model, and there is no way to test metaphysical speculations. As I've said before, I believe math, as an abstract system, has truth and meaning in and of itself, irrespective of any possible (and untestable) connections with metaphysics. From this point of view, I am more in line with Nelson's view that the math doesn't exist until we invent it than with the idea that all math, not matter how obtruse, has some metaphysical correlate. With that said, I also think the basics of math started as an abstraction based on reality - see my post about the invention of writing the counting numbers at 994. But once the abstract systems are set up, they take on a life of their own that goes beyond a direct correlate with physical reality also. In this way, I really liked Nelson's statement that
But numbers are symbolic constructions; a construction does not exist until it is made; when something is new is made, it is something new and not a selection from a pre-existing collection. There is no map of the world because the world is coming into being.
Aleta
KF,
I suspect it is coming to a point where it is clear that there are valid issues there, it is not as cut and dried as doing a class may suggest.
Well, the Russell and Nelson works have clarified some of these issues for me, certainly. Edit: As have our discussions here, including your own posts to be sure!
Bottomline, trying to traverse the transfinite in finite stage cumulative steps is problematic. As causal succession to our present world fits under that, the implication is suggesting an infinite past for the physical cosmos fails.
I don't really see a strong connection these mathematical/philosophical issues and the possible existence of an infinite past. The radical predicativist position that Nelson adopts in this particular book concerns abstract entities, while the question that kicked off these threads is an empirical one. How can skepticism about the principle of mathematical induction (for example) solve such a question? I believe all those arguing against an infinite past believe in an omnipotent deity, existing outside of time, who did not begin to exist. Who is to say that such a deity could not have arranged for our physical universe to have an infinite past, perhaps intervening occasionally to counteract the effects of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc? All the while this deity could note the passing of each second, much like an eternal ticking clock. I'm not convinced that these mathematical investigations have shown that such a deity could not accomplish this. daveS
Me neither. Ain't math grand. Aleta
Aleta, Wow, that's a very beautiful result. I didn't expect such a nice pattern. daveS
The basketball stuff is not related at all - it's just a complete tangent. Aleta
MT, The OP sets the frame, and the question of the infinite arose in that context. I suspect it is coming to a point where it is clear that there are valid issues there, it is not as cut and dried as doing a class may suggest. Bottomline, trying to traverse the transfinite in finite stage cumulative steps is problematic. As causal succession to our present world fits under that, the implication is suggesting an infinite past for the physical cosmos fails. Where also pulling a cosmos out of non being is even more problematic. We are looking at necessary being root of reality. KF kairosfocus
I can no longer figure out what this thread is about ! Me_Think
Those are all correct, and your answers are exact and mine had some rounding off errors. I worked on this today while watching the games. I set up a spreadsheet, which made me think carefully about the formulas, and made some interesting discoveries by changing the probabilities. I found out it's never better to guess an upset no matter what the odds are: the EV for going with the higher seed in every game, is always better than the EV for guessing one or more upsets. Then I worked out all the formulas and got formulas for EV(0 = no upsets), EV(1), etc. After doing that, I saw some results that were simple and made sense. This all followed a pattern I've noticed before in problem solving. First I work out an example with real numbers; Then I explore it algebraically because both the process and results of working with numbers give me some hints. Then, after doing things the long way, I see some results that have more direct routes. And finally some times I see that results make sense in some more intuitive, meaningful ways. Anyway, if p = probability of the higher seed winning, and q = 1 - p = probability of an upset with the higher seed winning. EV(0) = 4p (This is a duh! You have an expected value of p per game, and there are 4 games.) EV(4) = 4q. Same reasoning. The math doesn't care whether you are playing to win or playing to lose. EV(2) = 2 no matter what the odds. At first this was a surprise, but it makes sense because the math is symmetrical: two upsets is the same as two non-upsets, so you get 1/2 the possible 4 points no matter what. EV(1) = 2p + 1 and EV(3) = 3 - 2p = 2q + 1, which makes sense because the math is symmetrical as to p and q. Interestingly enough, the difference between any two EV's, such as EV(2) - EV(3) is always 2p - 1. Therefore EV(0) is always bigger than EV(1), with the amount of the difference depending on p. Thus, the bigger that p is, the more difference it makes to not pick an upset, which makes sense also. Aleta
Aleta, I just noticed I reversed the probabilities above, saying that 0.7 is the probability of an upset, when it's actually 0.3. Anyway, I got a few minutes to work in this, and did get an EV of 2.8 assuming we predict 0 upsets, and 2.4 assuming 1 upset, both exact. I'm not sure if I made a mistake with the 2.4, since it's a little different than your answer. I also got an EV of 1.2 assuming we predict 4 upsets. Is that what you're getting? I'll try the others tomorrow! I'm interested to know whether you can get a higher expected value by predicting 1 or more upsets if we increase the number of games or adjust the probabilities. daveS
Thanks, Aleta, that helps. I might take a shot at this later today. daveS
You got the basic picture. The first part of the problem, P(0), P(1), etc. is a straightforward binomial probability problem. I used to teach this in pre-calculus class. The second part is trickier. If you get one point for each correct pick, what is the expected value for picking no upsets vs picking one upset. That is, even though the odds are that there will be an upset, the odds are also that you will be pick the wrong game for the upset to occur. I wound up figuring out the EV for picking no upsets is 2.79 and the EV for picking one upset is 2.42, so in this case it's better not to guess. Aleta
Aleta, I don't know enough about the NCAA tournament to understand the question, so I had to resort to some googling. I take it we're talking about the four #5 seed vs. #12 seed games in round 1? And if so, are we trying to find P(0 upsets) and P(1 or 2 upsets) in round 1, assuming a 70% chance of an upset in each of the 4 games? I have a feeling you're asking about something much harder, which I wouldn't even know how to approach... daveS
Cool. So much of this math is stuff I know very little about, other then the broad outline of the issues, but it is fascinating. I particularly like probability. Here's a problem that I'm working on while I start getting geared up for March Madness: given that 5 seeds beat 12 seeds 70% of the time (an empirical fact based on the past 26 years, as of last year), what is the expected value of picking no upsets versus one or two upsets. What's the best strategy from a purely mathematical point of view. Totally off-topic, I know: no infinity involved, although I am skeptical about any metaphysical considerations. :-) Aleta
Aleta, Thanks. I think I'm more in agreement with you than with Nelson about these philosophical issues, but I do find the closing paragraphs of his chapter 1 quite poetic. Looking at his wikipedia page, sadly he passed away a couple of years ago. I didn't realize it until now, but he was the "Nelson" of the Hadwiger-Nelson problem, which has fascinated me for many years. An all-around genius, apparently:
Nelson made contributions to the theory of infinite-dimensional group representations, the mathematical treatment of quantum field theory, the use of stochastic processes in quantum mechanics, and the reformulation of probability theory in terms of non-standard analysis. For many years he worked on mathematical physics and probability theory, and he retained a residual interest in these fields, particularly in connection with possible extensions of stochastic mechanics to field theory. In 1950, Nelson formulated a popular variant of the four color problem: What is the chromatic number, denoted χ, of the plane? In more detail, what is the smallest number of colors sufficient for coloring the points of the Euclidean plane in such a way that no two points of the same color are unit distance apart? We know by simple arguments that 4 ≤ χ ≤ 7. The problem was introduced to a wide mathematical audience by Martin Gardner in his October 1960 Mathematical Games column. The chromatic number problem, also now known as the Hadwiger-Nelson problem, was a favorite of Paul Erdös, who mentioned it frequently in his problems lectures.
daveS
My spouse loves books, and has quite a collection. With that said, there's a Facebook meme going around that says:
Rule #12: The correct number of books to own is n + 1, where n is the number of books currently owned.
Yikes - no wonder we keep running out of bookshelf space. When will it ever end? :-) Aleta
Well this is very interesting. The last paragraph of Chapter 1 of Nelson's book brings up some major topics that tie into several different issues in this discussion.
It appears to be universally taken for granted by mathematicians, whatever their views on foundational questions may be, that the impredicativity inherent in the induction principle is harmless - that there is a concept of number given in advance of all mathematical constructions, that discourse within the domain of numbers is meaningful. But numbers are symbolic constructions; a construction does not exist until it is made; when something is new is made, it is something new and not a selection from a pre-existing collection. There is no map of the world because the world is coming into being.
Now I realize that Nelson's book is presenting a non-standard "radical" view, and without agreeing or disagreeing with all he says, here are some comments. I have argued differently: I have argued that via the symbolic abstraction of pure mathematics, we can embrace a totality - the infinite set of natural numbers. However, I have also argued that this need not refer to anything beyond mathematics: if does not refer to any actual infinity in the real, physical world, but nor does it need to refer to any speculative metaphysical reality such as a world of Platonic ideals, the mind of God, or the Tao. Nelson's notions are even further removed from metaphysics than my view, and there are some important ways in which I agree with him. He says,
But numbers are symbolic constructions; a construction does not exist until it is made; when something is new is made, it is something new and not a selection from a pre-existing collection. There is no map of the world because the world is coming into being.
This is the view that mathematics is invented, not discovered. In spite of the sense that the conclusions were "already there", so to speak, as we "bring them alive" via our logical constructions, they in fact don't exist until the moment our symbolic, logical system brings them into mathematical being. Until someone thought of using iterative functions with complex numbers to create what we now call fractals, and in fact explored the function that creates what we now call the Mandelbot set, there was no Mandelbrot set: math, according to Nelson's statement, is a world coming into being, not a map of some some pre-existing world that we tap into somehow. It is man-made, and its truth and meaning reside within itself, not in reference to anything outside itself. So even though I think that "there is a concept of number given in advance of all mathematical constructions, [and] that discourse within the domain of numbers is meaningful" (that is to say, that we can consider the infinite nature of the numbers as a completed whole), I also learn towards Nelson's view that when we create mathematics we are making "something new and not [making] a selection from a pre-existing collection." Very interesting find, dave. Aleta
Thanks, looks interesting, doing an OCR. KF kairosfocus
KF, I haven't found the source on Russell yet, but looking through another Feferman paper, I found this quote:
There is a radical form of predicativism which does not accept the natural numbers as a “completed totality”, i.e. over which unbounded quantification has a definite truth-functional value. This is the sense of [Nelson 1986]; Nelson’s system is much weaker than PRA, Primitive Recursive Arithmetic, whereas PRA itself is already acceptable to finitists.
which I think might be even closer to what we're discussing. Edward Nelson has actually made the entire book available on his website here. The first chapter (approximately 1 page long total) gives a nontechnical rationale for this radical form of predicativism that Feferman refers to. daveS
DS, okay, do let me know. I agree a specific stated value in PVN or Sci Not'n or the Knuth multiple up arrows notation or whatever will be finite, but due to endlessness there is an onward continuation per do forever that we cannot capture other than by indicating endlessness. This leads to numbers pointed to in general but not defined specifically as 2.8769 *10^2145 would be, in PVN 287690 0 0 . . . 0, where there are 2141 0's to follow. (Obviously writing wholes this way requires care not to put in an inadvertent fractional value.) KF kairosfocus
I asked Origenes some questions in a post at 994 that were a follow up to an earlier conversation. He may not have seen it, and even if he does may not want to respond (which is fine), but I thought I'd bump the issue one time. Aleta
KF, One qualification: I'll have to check the original source to be sure I'm not misstating Russell's position. I'm not clear on whether he allows universal quantification over infinite sets or not (as opposed to arbitrary classes). Note that the passage does make clear that this is allowed:
any particular proposition p is either true or false
but this isn't:
For all propositions p, p is either true or false
although the law of the excluded middle is often stated in that form. daveS
DS, It seems Lord Russell has a point. As I have noted above several times, particular, defined, stated numbers will either come as results of +1 stage finite cumulative steps from 0, or will be stated in forms that depend on such, place value, scientific, etc. The values we can reach will therefore be just as finite. But endlessness must be taken seriously. In that context w is in material part an emergence and recognition of a new quantitative phenomenon rather than a direct successor to any definite individual stated in particular value counting number k. The tapes exercise also shows the process can be repeated endlessly, any arbitrary number of times with the same result. Endlessness is truly extremely strange but pivotal. KF kairosfocus
KF, Reflecting a bit on my post #926, I'm more convinced that your position is quite similar to Russell's regarding N. The gist of that passage is that this is legitimate:
Any particular natural number is finite.
while it is not ok to say:
For all n ∈ N, n is finite.
Is that something you agree with? daveS
UD Editors: We are releasing this comment from moderation in connection with a permanent ban of VC. All commenters should be aware that the surest and fastest way to be shown the exit from these pages is to cast aspersions on our faith.
I guess that's a clear --and interesting-- statement. hrun0815
KF,
DS, every defined prime will be stated as a place value notation number or the like, so it will be finite and on Hamming distance will be finitely distant from 0. As a finite value, there will be endlessly more values beyond that are not defined other than being in the span of onward endlessness.
Can you elaborate on what the bolded "not defined" means? How do I distinguish between "defined" and "not defined" numbers?
What does the pink vs blue tape example indicate about that endlessness?
The pink and blue tape example illustrates that the set N can be put into 1-1 correspondence with proper subsets of itself, and therefore N is infinite. daveS
DS, every defined prime will be stated as a place value notation number or the like, so it will be finite and on Hamming distance will be finitely distant from 0. As a finite value, there will be endlessly more values beyond that are not defined other than being in the span of onward endlessness. What does the pink vs blue tape example indicate about that endlessness? KF kairosfocus
EZ, moderation as stated is not banning. VC has a chance to set himself to the right on attitude. OOPS, just saw the further interaction. He is now banned for cause. KF kairosfocus
UD editors I'm not disagreeing with you on banning Virgil Cain based on his comments and attitude. He was/is combative and antagonistic most of the time. And, it's your blog. You get to make the rules. I will however vote for allowing dissenting views their time on UD. I appreciate the fact that the UD editors have allowed this thread to continue on at great length. And for granting a forum for a discussion of a serious issue without attempting to influence or guide the debate. It is much appreciated. ellazimm
KF, Yes, I see how a physical science perspective could differ from a pure-mathematical perspective.
DS, I think it is more accurate to say that I hold that in the successive counting sets endlessness is a part of the core definition: {0,1,2 . . . }. Where, any specific value we can reach by +1 succession or by stating in notations based on that (e.g. sci notation) will be finite. I do not find it strange in that context that primes may be very far apart, and as we have an existence proof there is no specific largest prime, that far apart-ness has to reckon with the ellipsis of endlessness. However there is no prime we can represent in any specific notation such as place value binary or decimal or hexadecimal or the traditional sexagesimal that will be more than a finite span from the finite [and prime riddled] near neighbourhood of 0, as in 0,1,2,3 etc. KF
Hm. Does this leave open the possibility that there are primes infinitely far from 0? daveS
Virgil Cain is in moderation for responding in kind to his attackers. What kind of moderation punishers the responder and not the people who provokes him with lies, bluffs and personal attacks? Surely not Christians... UD Editors: We are releasing this comment from moderation in connection with a permanent ban of VC. All commenters should be aware that the surest and fastest way to be shown the exit from these pages is to cast aspersions on our faith. Virgil Cain
We look forward to seeing your system, Virgil. Aleta
Virgil
Bijective function, just as I have been saying all along.
So what is the bijective function between the positive integers and the prime numbers? And between sets A and B and the positive integers.
I have using set subtraction.
Except that no one agrees with you or uses the same technique.
That is incorrect. I asked for something specific and it has not been addressed.
Those were specific examples. Maybe you don't understand them.
OK so Jerad doesn’t have any support for his diatribe. All you had to do is say so, Jerad.
You still haven't figured out the relative cardinality of the primes or sets A and B above. The rest is just avoiding the failings of your ideas. If you want to figure out my view then you can read a standard book on set theory. Which I have suggested before. You will find no one using set subtraction regarding cardinality. ellazimm
UD Editors: Virgil Cain is in moderation until he apologizes for inappropriate tone and refusal to heed warnings. Barry Arrington
ez:
How did you figure out the relative cardinality of the evens is one-half that of the positive integers?
Bijective function, just as I have been saying all along.
If you disagree with long-standing and non-controversial mathematics then it is upon you to prove your case.
I have using set subtraction.
It’s two examples of how Cantor’s idea is used. It’s what you asked for.
That is incorrect. I asked for something specific and it has not been addressed. OK so Jerad doesn't have any support for his diatribe. All you had to do is say so, Jerad. Virgil Cain
Virgil
I do? I use it to see if there is a difference between the number of elements.
How did you figure out the relative cardinality of the evens is one-half that of the positive integers? That the relative cardinality of the multiples of three is one-third that of the positive integers?
Yes, it does and you aren’t anyone to say otherwise.
Only you say it does. And you can't find anyone else who agrees with you.
And we know that people who say that are ignorant or desperate
Just because you say so? Where is your academic support and references? If you disagree with long-standing and non-controversial mathematics then it is upon you to prove your case.
LoL! Please show me where I said that. If you cannot then please dismiss yourself from this discussion as you are too dishonest to be in it.
Then how do you calculate relative cardinalities?
And what, exactly, does that have to do with saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality?
It's two examples of how Cantor's idea is used. It's what you asked for.
Academic reference please. Or retract it.
Find an example where it is used in a mathematical research paper or book. It gives you ambiguous answers like when you use it to compare the primes to the positive integers. Cantor's work gives you consistent, workable answers. Instead of just asserting that you are right and everyone else is wrong please read through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set and point out any mistakes you think were made. ellazimm
Aleta, okay. Indeed it is my value on coherence that flags to me claims about infinitely many +1 successive finite values from 0 as at least paradoxical. Where that has led me is to the conclusion that endlessness is pivotal and any arbitrarily large but finite k has endlessly many successors that can be put in 1:1 correspondence with the set from 0,1,2 on. And that forces a more cautious view of ordinary mathematical induction. KF kairosfocus
DS, I think it is more accurate to say that I hold that in the successive counting sets endlessness is a part of the core definition: {0,1,2 . . . }. Where, any specific value we can reach by +1 succession or by stating in notations based on that (e.g. sci notation) will be finite. I do not find it strange in that context that primes may be very far apart, and as we have an existence proof there is no specific largest prime, that far apart-ness has to reckon with the ellipsis of endlessness. However there is no prime we can represent in any specific notation such as place value binary or decimal or hexadecimal or the traditional sexagesimal that will be more than a finite span from the finite [and prime riddled] near neighbourhood of 0, as in 0,1,2,3 etc. KF kairosfocus
Aleta:
Of course Virgil didn’t say what those cardinalities are, because he has no system for naming them, but he certainly said that set subtraction can prove that infinite sets have different cardinalities.
Right but coming up with a system won't be that difficult. But thank you for your support. Virgil Cain
kf asks, "Aleta, at what point did I ever give any indication that I do not have a very high view indeed of coherence? " I didn't say you did, kf. I approved your statement about coherence, and was just making sure that you weren't expressing any reservations about proof by contradcition. Your statement that "I have always freely accepted proofs of a claim T by reductio ad absurdum of the denial ~T, which is what proofs by contradiction of the denial are about" makes that clear, and all is well. Aleta
When EZ wrote, "You say set subtraction can be used to calculate the relative cardinality of infinite sets", Virgil wrote,
LoL! Please show me where I said that.
Hmmm. In 261, Virgil wrote,
Let set A = {0,1,2,3,4,5,…} Let set B = {1,3,5,7,9,11,…} Let set C = {0.2.4.6.8.10,…} A – B = C, proving that all countably infinite sets do not have the same cardinality, ie the same number of elements. And only contrived mental gymnastics can get around that fact.
Of course Virgil didn't say what those cardinalities are, because he has no system for naming them, but he certainly said that set subtraction can prove that infinite sets have different cardinalities. Aleta
Aleta, at what point did I ever give any indication that I do not have a very high view indeed of coherence? Whether in the logical study of structure and quantity or elsewhere? Up to and including holding that coherence is a major worldview test and firmly affirming ex falso quodlibet? And, that self-evident truths are not only manifest to the person able to understand but that the attempted denial instantly lands in patent incoherence and so confusion. Frankly, I hold that the only place a contradiction can exist (beyond merely being stated and symbolised) is in a confused or conflicted mind and that it undermines ability to discern truth from falsehood as if one believes the false s/he is liable to reject the contrary truth that actually conforms to reality . . . but which reality may not be obvious. I have always freely accepted proofs of a claim T by reductio ad absurdum of the denial ~T, which is what proofs by contradiction of the denial are about. KF kairosfocus
ez:
It just doesn’t work with infinite sets.
Academic reference please. Or retract it. Virgil Cain
For DiEB: If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? Virgil Cain
DiEB:
1) Calculus is introduced today via the idea of sequences and limits. Manipulating limits, you often use these very ideas, by dropping a finite number of elements of the sequence, renumbering it, looking at sub-sequences etc.. 2) Think of topology: first-countable spaces, second-countable spaces, separable spaces – here it comes often handy that you can enumerate the bases…
And what, exactly, does that have to do with saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality? What would be affected if Cantor was wrong about that? Virgil Cain
DS, I think I am seeing something there. I think that as one whose home is physics and the like, I tend to look at phenomena and patterns as pointing, and possibly reliable, in a wider context of holding that here are powerful ordering laws in different aspects of reality forming a coherent whole. So if there is a pattern that becomes evident, I see no reason to doubt its continuation absent some countervailing evidence. Proofs are useful in that context but I bear in mind the problems Godel unearthed on axiomatic systems. A theorem in Math relative to an axiom system is not to me a sign of absolute truth but of high credibility and reliability especially in a field that has been around for enough time that the debugging of many eyes has had a chance to pick up readily detectable or even rarer marks of incoherence. Correlation to on the ground facts of math or physical reality or wider intellectual thought help support that confidence. That is part of why I tend to go to models, frameworks and thought exercises. In part, test cases, in part paradigmatic applications and anchorages to experienced reality including of the thought world. I understand mathematics to be the logical study of structure and quantity. Just as my profs taught and exemplified. I take that in the extended sense to include inductive explorations. So for instance when I see a pattern of increasing sparseness of primes in 1 - 1,000, and the dynamic that as we go up we have more and more primes to become prime factors, it is obvious that primes will be sparser as we go on to higher ranges, and indeed a log type decay is not surprising. No of primes per octave or decade of bandwidth is roughly linear in effect once we get far enough along to settle down. That does not prove a theorem but it makes it unsurprising. It is in that context that I found the claims being made on infinite set of finite successive +1 values from 0. At minimum paradoxical. On closer look, my take-away, is the ellipsis of endlessness is pivotal, as the pink vs blue tapes thought exercise underscores. This has implications for how I now look at ordinary mathematical induction, and at axioms that imply or express dependence on succession in steps of finite stage from 0. Endlessness is the heart of the primary sense of infinite, going endlessly beyond any arbitrarily large finite value. Which the tapes example shows cannot be traversed in finite stage steps of accumulated progress. This then speaks to causal chains that propagate in stages, and it makes a claimed infinite past for our world and its direct antecedents problematic or even dubious. KF kairosfocus
ez:
Well, you have yet to use set subtraction to figure out the relative cardinalities of the primes and sets A and B.
I do? I use it to see if there is a difference between the number of elements.
The proof says take all the primes you know and multiply them together.
Lol! That is what I said OK so set subtraction is supported by set theory. Good, we have made some progress today.
It just doesn’t work with infinite sets.
Yes, it does and you aren't anyone to say otherwise.
We do understand. We just know it doesn’t work with infinite sets.
And we know that people who say that are ignorant or desperate
You say set subtraction can be used to calculate the relative cardinality of infinite sets
LoL! Please show me where I said that. If you cannot then please dismiss yourself from this discussion as you are too dishonest to be in it. Virgil Cain
kf, you write,
PS: That we are relying on proof by contradiction to carry enormous weights is a deep and pervasive commitment to coherence of truth and the constraining power on reality posed by logic and its core three laws, identity, non contradiction and excluded middle.
I assume this means you support proof by contradiction, and have no reservations about its power - true? I just want to make sure that I understand your P.S. as a confirmation that proof by contradiction is valid logic. Aleta
KF, One more post before I have to go. Here's a thought experiment. Consider the set S of all natural numbers n such that there exist two consecutive primes p and q such that p and q are separated by a distance of at least n (so |p - q| ≥ n). 1 ∈ S because |3 - 2| ≥ 1. 4 ∈ S because |11 - 7| ≥ 4. (2 and 3 are clearly in S as well). In fact, it's elementary to show that S = N. If, as you say, there are infinite numbers in N, then that means there are two consecutive primes that are separated by an infinite distance! Does that sound right to you? That's one reason I believe you won't be able to prove the statement I posted at the end of #1004, a form of which you have presented in this thread. daveS
KF,
DS, that where specifically a prime will pop up is not currently predictable or reducible to simple readily carried out fast algorithm is worlds apart from, primes exist and can be expected to continue to crop up on an increasingly sparse but non-vanishing dynamic.
Why can they be expected to do so, without actually going through a proof? How do you know the density of primes continues to decrease on average? Again, without actually proving the prime number theorem. daveS
KF, Like I said, we use the term "obvious" in quite different ways, so I believe we're talking past each other to some extent.
Th primes pop up in the first two tens of numbers, showing many of their characteristics, and by 100 to 1,000 they are showing many rarer patterns such as increasing sparseness. But there is no reason to believe on a pattern of ever increasing and endless numbers that there will at some point be no further numbers that are prime. That is something that can be readily seen by one open to it.
Except perhaps the increasing sparseness one observes when one looks at larger and larger primes.
But there is nothing at all objectionable in saying that there is a pattern that is easily seen — is obvious — and would lead to expecting primes to continue cropping up, however sparsely.
True, and I never stated otherwise.
I do not see why you would be wanting to belabour so simple a matter as thought here must be something there that a 10 – 12 year old child could not spot, and as though there must be something wrong with pointing to patterns.
Again, I never stated there was something wrong in pointing to patterns. I think that's how mathematicians make conjectures and go on to prove theorems.
And yet, Aleta picked up the matter [I had not had anything to do with it] and pushed it in my direction in a way that suggests, let’s see you handle this (and even a presumption of a view I do not hold), and you have gone on post after post as though there is something wrong with seeing what I saw as a child and still see — a point that you have not actually answered to.
There is nothing wrong with what you saw as a child. We all observe patterns and make conjectures, even more so as adults. daveS
PS: That we are relying on proof by contradiction to carry enormous weights is a deep and pervasive commitment to coherence of truth and the constraining power on reality posed by logic and its core three laws, identity, non contradiction and excluded middle. kairosfocus
DS, that where specifically a prime will pop up is not currently predictable or reducible to simple readily carried out fast algorithm is worlds apart from, primes exist and can be expected to continue to crop up on an increasingly sparse but non-vanishing dynamic. Then, we can see theorems that support these expectations, moving from patterns and trends to proofs. Beyond, that so sparse a subset is also transfinite underscores the endlessness of counting numbers and the point that such cannot be exhausted in finite stage steps. With implications for claimed actually completed infinite past causal stage chains being seriously problematic. KF kairosfocus
Virgil
Spoken like a little baby who lost its bottle.
Well, you have yet to use set subtraction to figure out the relative cardinalities of the primes and sets A and B. You should work on that.
No, but it tells me that the cardinalities are/ can be different.
But not what they are. I can tell you what they are using a one-to-one mapping.
And yet it is part of the proof.
Not at all. The proof says take all the primes you know and multiply them together.
You have spewed so many false accusations that no one cares what you think.
Well I'm sorry but you don't seem to get how they work or what they mean.
I don’t know but YOU told me that infinity acts differently than the finite.
But the proof doesn't involve infinite numbers. Everything in the proof is finite.
OK so set subtraction is supported by set theory. Good, we have made some progress today.
It just doesn't work with infinite sets.
All this talk about my not understanding math and yet my detractors can’t even grasp the implications of standard set subtraction. Strange but true…
We do understand. We just know it doesn't work with infinite sets. Virgil, you claim you are right and Cantor was wrong. You say set subtraction can be used to calculate the relative cardinality of infinite sets. Show us how to use set subtraction to calculate the primes and sets A and B I defined above. DiEb
1) Calculus is introduced today via the idea of sequences and limits. Manipulating limits, you often use these very ideas, by dropping a finite number of elements of the sequence, renumbering it, looking at sub-sequences etc..
Taylor series, Fourier Analysis, etc. And that's just basic, undergraduate stuff. Virgil told me once he took a Calculus course. I would think he would know all this stuff already. ellazimm
DS, it seems there is a problem on appreciating the difference between the axiom, theorem proof approach and the wider patterns and dynamics of mathematics. Th primes pop up in the first two tens of numbers, showing many of their characteristics, and by 100 to 1,000 they are showing many rarer patterns such as increasing sparseness. But there is no reason to believe on a pattern of ever increasing and endless numbers that there will at some point be no further numbers that are prime. That is something that can be readily seen by one open to it. Proving such a result formally may be a bigger challenge, and the proof that there is a sparseness metric is yet harder to show. But there is nothing at all objectionable in saying that there is a pattern that is easily seen -- is obvious -- and would lead to expecting primes to continue cropping up, however sparsely. We can then go beyond to actual theorems, a different matter. I do not see why you would be wanting to belabour so simple a matter as thought here must be something there that a 10 - 12 year old child could not spot, and as though there must be something wrong with pointing to patterns. And yet, Aleta picked up the matter [I had not had anything to do with it] and pushed it in my direction in a way that suggests, let's see you handle this (and even a presumption of a view I do not hold), and you have gone on post after post as though there is something wrong with seeing what I saw as a child and still see -- a point that you have not actually answered to. The theorems came later in my experience, and yes they are important too but they are not the be all and end all. Where, obviously sparseness is sparseness. KF kairosfocus
@Virgil
Nope, you are lying, again. No one uses the concept that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is useless and sterile.
1) Calculus is introduced today via the idea of sequences and limits. Manipulating limits, you often use these very ideas, by dropping a finite number of elements of the sequence, renumbering it, looking at sub-sequences etc.. 2) Think of topology: first-countable spaces, second-countable spaces, separable spaces - here it comes often handy that you can enumerate the bases... DiEb
KF,
primes exist starting with the first two cycles of 10 and pop up at points in the +1 succession from 0 where — beyond 2 — they must follow a pattern
Pattern? If so, it's a very complicated pattern. The intervals between discoveries of the largest known primes have been on the order of years in recent history, even with at least one distributed computing project searching for them.
Obviously, as one goes deeper into numbers, primes must become ever more sparse as the number of prime factors mounts up as each successive prime comes into play.
"Obviously"?
Now, where in this pattern is there anything that suggests primes will ever peter out to no further primes?
Well, the fact that we can observe empirically that they appear to become more sparsely distributed as one looks at finite subsets of large integers? The fact that it is elementary to construct arbitrarily large sequences of consecutive composite integers?
Indeed, per Wiki for convenience, “the prime number theorem, proven at the end of the 19th century, which says that the probability that a given, randomly chosen number n is prime is inversely proportional to its number of digits, or to the logarithm of n.” That is, there is a sparseness metric that gives an estimate of the density of primes at a given order of magnitude, of order – ln n.
Yes, of course, but the prime number theorem is much less obvious than the proof that Aleta gave!
The first is that, despite their simple definition and role as the building blocks of the natural numbers, the prime numbers grow like weeds among the natural numbers, seeming to obey no other law than that of chance, and nobody can predict where the next one will sprout.
The above quote explains why I would not say the primes follow a "pattern".
I highlight this side of things as the intuitive ability to see significant features and patterns (what appears in conjectures . . . ) is a highly significant part of Mathematics, indeed many key challenges that have moved the discipline forward have come about by addressing such.
Yes, but our intuition can be wrong. Lots of "obvious" propositions turn out to be false. I think you and I just use the word in different ways, and there is not much point in pursuing this particular issue further.
Now, obviously, I am not unaware that there is a longstanding proof of there being no greatest prime.
Of course. I suspect everyone here understood you were aware of Euclid's proof. I think the rest of your post is already on the table. I will repeat my request for a proof of the following:
Let S be the smallest set such that: 1) {} ∈ S 2) If n ∈ S, then n ∪ {n} ∈ S Then there exists a set m ∈ S such that m is infinite.
daveS
All this talk about my not understanding math and yet my detractors can't even grasp the implications of standard set subtraction. Strange but true... Virgil Cain
OK so set subtraction is supported by set theory. Good, we have made some progress today. Virgil Cain
ez:
It doesn’t seem to be helping you to figure out the relative cardinality of the primes or sets A and B
Spoken like a little baby who lost its bottle.
Pardon me for not summarising the complete foundation of modern mathematics.
And another bluff.
And it doesn’t seem to be helping you to figure out what the relative cardinality of the primes is. Or sets A and B.
No, but it tells me that the cardinalities are/ can be different.
The proof doesn’t require you to do that.
And yet it is part of the proof.
I’m not sure you really understand mathematical proofs.
You have spewed so many false accusations that no one cares what you think.
Like what? What could happen?
I don't know but YOU told me that infinity acts differently than the finite. Virgil Cain
Virgil ellazimm, Set subtraction is part of set theory. Perhaps you don’t know set theory. It doesn't seem to be helping you to figure out the relative cardinality of the primes or sets A and B.
People like you, mainly. That is people who are unable to tell us the utility, tell us who uses it and what it is used for. All you do is bluff and lie every time you try to answer. That says it all
Pardon me for not summarising the complete foundation of modern mathematics.
And I have told you over and over again that is meaningless drivel and doesn’t even address the concept we are debating. Look, obviously you have nothing but your bluffs, lies and misrepresentations. Now you seem to have forgotten that set subtraction is part of set theory!
I didn't forget, I use it when appropriate. And it doesn't seem to be helping you to figure out what the relative cardinality of the primes is. Or sets A and B.
1- You have not done the math until you have multiplied the primes
The proof doesn't require you to do that. You can deal with things abstractly.
2- All along you have been telling me that infinity is not intuitive and that it is different. Now, with primes, you are saying the opposite.
I don't think that is what she is saying at all.
And that is my point about validating the proof. Perhaps something strange happens with those large numbers.
Like what? What could happen? I'm not sure you really understand mathematical proofs. ellazimm
I don’t know who you think has to ‘use’ something until you consider it important.
How important can it be if no one uses it for anything? Do tell.. Virgil Cain
Aleta- Two things: 1- You have not done the math until you have multiplied the primes 2- All along you have been telling me that infinity is not intuitive and that it is different. Now, with primes, you are saying the opposite. And that is my point about validating the proof. Perhaps something strange happens with those large numbers. Virgil Cain
ellazimm, Set subtraction is part of set theory. Perhaps you don't know set theory. Nope, you are lying, again. No one uses the concept that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is useless and sterile.
And you know this because
People like you, mainly. That is people who are unable to tell us the utility, tell us who uses it and what it is used for. All you do is bluff and lie every time you try to answer. That says it all
I have told you over and over again that Cantor’s ideas are fundamental to the foundation of modern mathematics and thus are ‘used’ every day by mathematicians.
And I have told you over and over again that is meaningless drivel and doesn't even address the concept we are debating. Look, obviously you have nothing but your bluffs, lies and misrepresentations. Now you seem to have forgotten that set subtraction is part of set theory! Virgil Cain
DS, primes exist starting with the first two cycles of 10 and pop up at points in the +1 succession from 0 where -- beyond 2 -- they must follow a pattern p_k = 2*x + 1, x a chain of at least one prime factor . . . (Obviously, this only says, they are odd from 3 on; evens beyond 2 must meet the expression 2*x. Primes will be such that in addition to being odd, they will have no factor f that evenly divides, ignoring 1) . . . where factorisation on primes is a specifically taught skill. Obviously, as one goes deeper into numbers, primes must become ever more sparse as the number of prime factors mounts up as each successive prime comes into play. Now, where in this pattern is there anything that suggests primes will ever peter out to no further primes? Nowhere, so there is an obvious pattern of endlessness of numbers and no good reason for us to expect primes to vanish. Indeed, per Wiki for convenience, "the prime number theorem, proven at the end of the 19th century, which says that the probability that a given, randomly chosen number n is prime is inversely proportional to its number of digits, or to the logarithm of n." That is, there is a sparseness metric that gives an estimate of the density of primes at a given order of magnitude, of order - ln n. Wolfram on primes notes:
Euler commented "Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate" (Havil 2003, p. 163). In a 1975 lecture, D. Zagier commented "There are two facts about the distribution of prime numbers of which I hope to convince you so overwhelmingly that they will be permanently engraved in your hearts. The first is that, despite their simple definition and role as the building blocks of the natural numbers, the prime numbers grow like weeds among the natural numbers, seeming to obey no other law than that of chance, and nobody can predict where the next one will sprout. The second fact is even more astonishing, for it states just the opposite: that the prime numbers exhibit stunning regularity, that there are laws governing their behavior, and that they obey these laws with almost military precision" (Havil 2003, p. 171).
I highlight this side of things as the intuitive ability to see significant features and patterns (what appears in conjectures . . . ) is a highly significant part of Mathematics, indeed many key challenges that have moved the discipline forward have come about by addressing such. This skill of spotting patterns in mathematical facts and inferring dynamics that may be at work to be assessed and tested through logical connexion to axiom systems and already established key results . . . aka theorems . . . is in fact at the heart of serious praxis of Mathematics. That is already important and too often sadly neglected in overly utilitarian and theorem-proof approaches to learning and understanding Mathematics. Now, obviously, I am not unaware that there is a longstanding proof of there being no greatest prime. An important result. You will see above that I responded to a direct suggestion that I would be likely to reject it or have questions, by pointing to the need for insightful context not just bare bones proofs. Now, there is an onward import. Here we have a reasonably accessible proof that a subset of counting numbers, the primes, goes on endlessly, at points that we currently have no basis for predicting and there is none in prospect. So much so, large primes are used in coding. This highlights endlessness of counting numbers (by direct implication of a fairly accessible proof on the endlessness of a key subset, the primes), and the inability to span that endlessness in finite stage steps. Which I argue, should be recognised in our discussions and even in how we discuss ordinary mathematical induction. Lastly, let me add, that all of this ties to the point that no finite stage, successive, cumulative stepwise process can span the transfinite, can exhaust the infinite. Thus there is a logical constraint on any iterative or successive cumulative process, including causal succession in finite stages or generations. This makes assertions or implications of an infinite stepwise past causal succession of the observed physical cosmos or its suggested predecessors dubious. Which adds to the projected big bang, and to thermodynamic concerns etc on infinite past speculations. And arguments that at any point in the past we were finitely remote from now only manage to entail that the stepwise reachable past is finite. KF kairosfocus
Virgil #993
ellazimm, You are sadly mistaken as set subtraction refutes cantor’s claim wrt countable and infinite sets having the same cardinality. You can ignore that as you have always done but that reflects poorly on you.
I haven't ignored that. I've asked you over and over again to provide any kind of research or academic support you can find for your view. You haven't found any. I've asked you over and over again to use your 'concept' to find the relative cardinality of the prime numbers and sets A and B I defined above. You haven't been able to to those things. You claim that Cantor got it wrong but you have never been able to find a fault in any proof pertinent to the discussion. You ask people to take you seriously but you provide no cause for us to do so.
You are also sadly mistaken about the utility of the concept. You cannot show us who uses it nor what it is used for. And you have lied about that this entire time.
I have told you over and over again that Cantor's ideas are fundamental to the foundation of modern mathematics and thus are 'used' every day by mathematicians. I don't know who you think has to 'use' something until you consider it important. The discussion here is about mathematics. Would you consider the fact that there are infinitely many primes useless because you don't use it? You seem too to confuse theories and theorems. Only mathematics has theorems, things that have proven to be true. If you claim a theorem is incorrect then it's down to you to find a fault in the proof. If you can't, it stands and no amount of asserting or proclaiming matters. Nothing personal, purely objective.
Shame on you and shame on me for trying to have a discussion with you.
It hasn't been much of a discussion. I've asked you some pretty basic questions which you couldn't answer. Aleta I'd love to buy you a drink!! You are very patient and very right. ellazimm
For Origenes, perhaps Mike, and others. The question we discussed earlier, before mutually deciding to part, was something like this. (And Origenes is welcome to rephrase the questions: agreeing on what exactly we are talking about would be a good constructive step.) Where does the truth and meaning of math come from? Can math embody its own truth and meaning within itself as a logical system? Must math be grounded in either the physical world and/or some metaphysical theist/Platonic world to truly have truth and meaning? My answer is that math does embody its own truth and meaning within itself as a logical system. I also belief its foundation began with our experience of the physical world, but, just as with language, the ability to create symbolic systems that are logically coherent has enabled us to transcend that grounding in the physical world. We create math that may be applied back to the world, and that involves a further modeling process that builds on mathematical truths. Applying math to the physical world always is imperfect, if for no other reason than the mathematical concepts are abstractions which are perfect in a way the physical world never can be. I don't believe any metaphysical grounding of math is necessary to validate mathematical truths. I personally am quite agnostic about how and/or whether there is any correspondence between the math we develop and some metaphysical correlate of that math. So that's my position. In order to support it, I'd like to start at the beginning and tell some stories about the history of math. With that context, I will then be interested in any comments about my what people might have to say about the conclusions I reach. Learning to count, and the beginning of the natural numbers (P.S> Although I'm not going to cite sources, I think the stories I'm about to tell are supported by anthropological and archeological evidence.) The simplest way to see if two sets have the same number of items is to match them in a 1:1 correspondence. If I am trading you camels for cows, we can match them up and make sure we have five of each. But given that we have the ability to use language, sometime in the far pre-historic past, people developed words for small sets of objects. A single rock was "one", put another rock with it and that set is "two", etc. This established a 1:1 correspondence between objects and a set of words, so we didn't have to physically match the objects in two sets: we count count one set and then separately count the second to determine if the sets had the same number of items. (As I mentioned in an early post, children usually learn the set of words one, two, three, etc. before they actually understand that you have to apply them in a 1:1 correspondence in order to count properly.) All this happened before written symbols for the numbers were invented. Some interesting archaeological evidence from the Middle East leads to this story: Suppose I am sending 20 camels to India to trade for other goods, and I am entrusting my camels to a trader. However, I am concerned that the trader might not be honest: he might sell a couple camels along the way, and tell the guy in India I only sent 18 camels. We have no written numbers: what can we do? We count 20 small stones and bake them into a closed clay spherical pot, and inscribe our seal on the outside. When the trader gets to India, he gives the pot to the buyer, who breaks the pot, counts the stones, and thus ascertains that he is getting the correct number of camels. The next important step in the development of this very fundamental math was written symbols for the numbers. At some point, the idea of using hash marks (the traditional four vertical lines and a fifth line slanting across them) as a second set of physical objects to be in 1:1 correspondence with the first set was developed. So, in the case of the camel trader, he now scribes 20 hash marks on the outside of the pot. Interestingly enough, we have found these pots with both the stones inside and the hash marks: during this transition they didn't totally trust this new-fangled harsh mark business. :-) However, later we find just the hashmarks, and not the stones, on tablets (because the pot to enclose the stones is no longer necessary.) And thus, written symbols for numbers were invented. From there of course, things became more symbolic: five hash marks became a V, ten hash marks an X, etc. And eventually our modern Arabic numerals and the decimal number system became universal. Furthermore, symbolic representations of various facts beyond just counting were now possible, such as 2 + 3 = 5. Conclusions and questions At this point we have a progression concerning the start of the natural numbers: physical reality -> symbolic representation in words -> symbolic representation in written symbols. So the question is where is the meaning and truth of math at this point? It seems to me that it is clearly grounded in the 1:1 correspondence between the real world, on the one hand, and verbal and written symbols on the other. No metaphysical interpretation is necessary: 2 + 3 = 5 as a fact expressed in symbols has a corresponding truth in the real world when you put a set of two rocks with a set of three rocks. One might have a metaphysical belief about the truth of 2 + 3 = 5, but that is not really necessary at all for understanding the truth of 2 + 3 = 5: just look at the rocks. So my question is very broad: to what extent does Origenes, or anyone else agree with this last paragraph? And if one has disagreements, what are they? Aleta
ellazimm, You are sadly mistaken as set subtraction refutes cantor's claim wrt countable and infinite sets having the same cardinality. You can ignore that as you have always done but that reflects poorly on you. You are also sadly mistaken about the utility of the concept. You cannot show us who uses it nor what it is used for. And you have lied about that this entire time. Shame on you and shame on me for trying to have a discussion with you. Virgil Cain
KF,
DS, notice, I spoke to an obvious pattern. Plausibility fits under that, so I do not know why there seems to be a dispute over a point that sums up what I saw as a youngster based on dynamics and properties of the succession of counting numbers . . .
Well, the fact that the prime numbers do not follow an obvious pattern is one reason I don't feel it's "obvious" there are infinitely many of them. There is no formula for the nth prime, of course. Furthermore, it is known that there are sequences of (at least) 10^10^150 consecutive integers, all of which are composite (insert any large integer there that you please, in fact). A priori, it's not "obvious" that you don't eventually run out. As I stated before, there are infinite rings with only finitely many primes, so that's not inconceivable.
As to undefined onward values, I point out that the ellipsis is not a definition of specific values in the way 139,854 is nor is the do forever +1 succession process... I do not see why there is a belabouring of this.
I'm not understanding your argument here either. Given that 0 is one of these values, and S(n) = n + 1 for all n ≥ 0, what exactly are the undefined values? We have, for example 0, 1, 2, 3; what's the first undefined value? Anyway, I agree this is not very interesting. I really would like you to prove this:
Likewise, point to the copy of the sequence so far successor counting set principle. An endless repetition of successive defined counting sets would end up with one or more that are in themselves endless.
In other words, prove that the smallest set S such that: 1) {} ∈ S 2) If n ∈ S, then n ∪ {n} ∈ S contains an infinite element m. That is, m is in 1-1 correspondence with a proper subset of itself. Once again, I'm asking for a proof. daveS
DS, notice, I spoke to an obvious pattern. Plausibility fits under that, so I do not know why there seems to be a dispute over a point that sums up what I saw as a youngster based on dynamics and properties of the succession of counting numbers . . . I remember, my 2nd father painting a fence late of an afternoon and asking me to count, and on reaching 100 the first time saying ten-ty, then having the standard name given and going on realising I could just keep going and going. As to undefined onward values, I point out that the ellipsis is not a definition of specific values in the way 139,854 is nor is the do forever +1 succession process, and something like the pink and blue tapes exercise shows the significance of onward endlessness. I do not see why there is a belabouring of this. I take it, we both know that the next counting set is the order type of the counting sets so far, collected. KF kairosfocus
Virgil
I have and there is a largest known prime. That supports what I said.
Largest known is not the same as largest. As Aleta's proof shows there is no largest prime. And that has been known for a very long time.
As if. Everything is up for debate especially when it is easily contradicted by standard set subtraction.
I have asked you many, many times to find a fault in proofs of theorems which establish the facts we are discussing. As you have failed to do so then the results stand.
Nope, you are lying, again. No one uses the concept that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is useless and sterile.
And you know this because . . . you are a mathematician? No, you are not. Because you are a physicist? No, you are not. How do you know that no one uses that fundamental result of Cantor's? Have you asked any mathematicians?
You can do it, Jerad. Or admit that you are not fit for this discussion. Heck you can’t even understand that infinity is a journey. And I doubt Cantor grasped that.
I assert that you cannot use set subtraction to determine the relative cardinality of the prime numbers. Or sets A and B I defined above. And a century of mathematicians agree with me. So, if you can't do it either then it's dead.
Again, Einstein isn’t the one who proved his ideas and cantor was ignorant of Einstein’s ideas. So excuse me for trying to drag cantor into the twentieth century.
What? Physics ain't mathematics. Physics has hypothesis and theories. Mathematics has theorems. Big difference. Look it up.
No one has validated the proof.
Find the mistake then. The first time Andrew Wiles thought he had proved Fermat's Last Theorem someone found a mistake and he had to go back and do it again. Find a mistake if you think the conclusion is incorrect.
I have already explained it, Aleta. No one knows what those alleged higher primes are. And without a bijective function your alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is nothing but a pipe dream.
Incorrect.
So go ahead, Aleta, start multiplying the primes. Let me know how well you do with the twenty known largest primes…
What? That's not what the proof says.
Do the math then
Aleta did the math, the proof. That's part of what math is, proofs! If you think it's wrong then find the fault. ellazimm
Virgil, can you show me the invalid part of the proof I've offered. It is the math. Again, I am not claiming that we can figure out what every prime is. We can't. But we can proof that there are an infinite number of them, which is what the proof does. I suppose that if your only point is that we don't know all of them, then of course I agree. But if the question is how many of them are they, the answer is an infinite number. Aleta
Aleta:
I’m not talking about a 1:1 correspondence.
I am. That is the whole point.
But the proof proves there is an infinite number of primes since it proves that there is no largest prime.
Do the math then Virgil Cain
KF,
Quickly, something is obvious, that something else should be the case. If there is a pattern of numbers turning up that are prime, why should that stop simply because the numbers are going on and on? That is so before a logical proof, and it makes an expectation reasonable. It may be hard to prove, but that is a different story.
Yes, based on inductive reasoning, it's plausible (and perhaps a good bet) that there are infinitely many primes. Similarly for the prime number theorem.
Next, beyond any given specific counting number there is an endless undefined continuation, going on endlessly.
How is it undefined? The way the sequence proceeds is perfectly well-defined.
That is, there is no endless counted out set stated and in fact we cannot exhaust the set in principle much less on the material resources available to us.
Well, I don't know what that means. Anyway, I would ask you to focus on this statement:
Likewise, point to the copy of the sequence so far successor counting set principle. An endless repetition of successive defined counting sets would end up with one or more that are in themselves endless.
I say there is no chance of proving this statement. You have a function which accepts finite inputs and can produce only finite outputs. How would it ever generate an infinite output? Remember that ω is a limit ordinal. By definition, it can never be the output of the successor operation. daveS
I'm not talking about a 1:1 correspondence. I just talking about the proof that there is no largest prime. Please note well that the proof does not claim to be able to find all the primes. It just shows that there must be a larger prime, but that larger prime will not the next prime. Example: p1 = 2, p2 = 3, P = 2*3 + 1 =7, which is prime. However, 5 is also prime. 7 is prime, but not the next prime after 3. No ones know a rule for finding all the primes. But the proof proves there is an infinite number of primes since it proves that there is no largest prime. Do you see anything wrong with the proof, or do you understand and accept the logic? Aleta
I have already explained it, Aleta. No one knows what those alleged higher primes are. And without a bijective function your alleged "one-to-one correspondence" is nothing but a pipe dream. So go ahead, Aleta, start multiplying the primes. Let me know how well you do with the twenty known largest primes... Virgil Cain
Virgil writes,
No one has validated the proof.
The proof in 896, or ones similar, have been accepted as valid for more than 2000 years. The first proof was by Euclid. Can you point to which line of the proof seems invalid to you? Aleta
Aleta:
The key word here is known.
That is key as all we can do is go with what we know.
But there is also a proof that there can’t be a largest prime.
No one has validated the proof. And yes they may exist but if you don't know what they are you cannot claim a one-to-one correspondence. Virgil Cain
DS, Quickly, something is obvious, that something else should be the case. If there is a pattern of numbers turning up that are prime, why should that stop simply because the numbers are going on and on? That is so before a logical proof, and it makes an expectation reasonable. It may be hard to prove, but that is a different story. That is what I mean by obviousness. Next, beyond any given specific counting number there is an endless undefined continuation, going on endlessly. That is, there is no endless counted out set stated and in fact we cannot exhaust the set in principle much less on the material resources available to us. This endlessness is the reason where we will see w turning up as a way to recognise the endlessness and see it as a quantitative phenomenon. KF kairosfocus
Virgil says,
I have and there is a largest known prime. That supports what I said.
The key word here is known. But there is also a proof that there can't be a largest prime. Therefore, there are larger primes than the largest known prime, but we don't know what they are. But the proof shows that they do exist. Aleta
If gives a different result than one-to-one correspondence for infinite sets.
Yes, it contradicts what you make of that one-to-one correspondence.
But using one-to-one correspondence provides a consistent result for infinite and finite sets.
Whatever that means. They look inconsistent to me.
Look it up. It’s easy to find.
I have and there is a largest known prime. That supports what I said.
Not at all. A theorem is a proven result, NOT up for debate.
As if. Everything is up for debate especially when it is easily contradicted by standard set subtraction.
Mathematicians use the concept every day in lots of ways.
Nope, you are lying, again. No one uses the concept that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is useless and sterile.
I know what Cantor would say; I’m asking you to apply your ‘concept’ and tell me what those are based on that.
You can do it, Jerad. Or admit that you are not fit for this discussion. Heck you can't even understand that infinity is a journey. And I doubt Cantor grasped that. Again, Einstein isn't the one who proved his ideas and cantor was ignorant of Einstein's ideas. So excuse me for trying to drag cantor into the twentieth century. Virgil Cain
Virgil #977 & 978
Umm set subtraction is part of cantor’s work. Is there anything that prevents it? I mean besides the fact that it contradicts your beliefs.
If gives a different result than one-to-one correspondence for infinite sets. But using one-to-one correspondence provides a consistent result for infinite and finite sets.
Way to ignore what I said. As can easily be looked up no one knows a list of primes that goes on for infinity.
Look it up. It's easy to find.
Right, you just keep posting that which is being debated. I am pretty sure that is a sign of senility.
Not at all. A theorem is a proven result, NOT up for debate. Unless you can find a mistake in the proof. Can you do that?
Literally no one uses the concept I am debating.
Mathematicians use the concept every day in lots of ways. It's foundational to modern mathematics.
You are unable to grasp anything that I have said so far. And I am sure that what you ask can be done as nothing prevents it. Even YOU could do what you ask of me given everything I have told you. Well, that is if you were half the mathematician you want everyone to believe you are. But if you want to continue to make this personal I suggest we get off the internet, face each other and get it over with.
Beating people up doesn't establish mathematical ideas. If you think nothing prevents finding the results I'm asking about using set subtraction then please do so.
Given everything I have told ellazimm, if he was half the mathematician he wants us to believe he is, he should be able to figure out the following: The ‘relative’ cardinality of sets A and B I defined above. The ‘relative’ cardinality of the primes.
I know what Cantor would say; I'm asking you to apply your 'concept' and tell me what those are based on that. I am no great shakes as a mathematician but I do know enough about this topic. ellazimm
Given everything I have told ellazimm, if he was half the mathematician he wants us to believe he is, he should be able to figure out the following:
The ‘relative’ cardinality of sets A and B I defined above. The ‘relative’ cardinality of the primes.
Virgil Cain
EZ:
I’m just asking you to show some academic support for using set subtraction with infinite sets and to use that to determine the cardinality of the primes and some other sets.
Umm set subtraction is part of cantor's work. Is there anything that prevents it? I mean besides the fact that it contradicts your beliefs.
As can easily be looked up, there is a simple one-to-one correspondence between the positive integers and the primes.
Way to ignore what I said. As can easily be looked up no one knows a list of primes that goes on for infinity.
I’ve given you links and links to online material including some theorems which prove what I’m saying is true.
Right, you just keep posting that which is being debated. I am pretty sure that is a sign of senility. Also you have never posted any support showing there is a utility for saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. Literally no one uses the concept I am debating.
And you still haven’t been able to tell me:
You are unable to grasp anything that I have said so far. And I am sure that what you ask can be done as nothing prevents it. Even YOU could do what you ask of me given everything I have told you. Well, that is if you were half the mathematician you want everyone to believe you are. But if you want to continue to make this personal I suggest we get off the internet, face each other and get it over with. Virgil Cain
Virgil #975
Yes, ellazimm, you are sorry. And what I am debating isn’t established and can be proven false via set subtraction. It isn’t my fault that you don’t grasp the implications of set subtraction. It isn’t my fault that you cannot grasp my concept and have to act like a little brat every time we try to discuss it.
I'm just asking you to show some academic support for using set subtraction with infinite sets and to use that to determine the cardinality of the primes and some other sets.
And BTW YOU cannot show the primes and the set of naturals have a one-to-one correspondence. That is because you don’t even know the full list of primes. And it is a given that you will just handwave that away.
As can easily be looked up, there is a simple one-to-one correspondence between the positive integers and the primes. You don't have to take my word for anything I say, it's all easily verified by looking it up online. It's even in Wikipedia.
Academic support? I have been asking for that and you have failed to provide it.
I've given you links and links to online material including some theorems which prove what I'm saying is true. I've even suggested an easily obtainable book on set theory which would help clear things up. Nothing I have said is controversial or outside the bounds of a typical undergraduate course on set theory. Literally thousands of mathematicians would concur and have done research building on Cantor's work. This is not personal, it's about what is proven mathematics. And you still haven't been able to tell me: The 'relative' cardinality of sets A and B I defined above. The 'relative' cardinality of the primes. The cardinality of the rational numbers. Whether or not there is a 'smallest' relative cardinal number. ellazimm
Yes, ellazimm, you are sorry. And what I am debating isn't established and can be proven false via set subtraction. It isn't my fault that you don't grasp the implications of set subtraction. It isn't my fault that you cannot grasp my concept and have to act like a little brat every time we try to discuss it. It is my fault for responding to you, ie someone who obviously can't hold an honest discussion. And BTW YOU cannot show the primes and the set of naturals have a one-to-one correspondence. That is because you don't even know the full list of primes. And it is a given that you will just handwave that away. Academic support? I have been asking for that and you have failed to provide it. bye-bye. Virgil Cain
Virgil #973
I have already pointed out your lies, EZ. And like your true-self you denied them but couldn’t support that denial. And yes, yours is an interesting technique. You don’t know how to argue but you can defame and slander with the best of them.
I'm sorry you think well established and non-controversial mathematics are lies. But if you can provide some academic support for your view that there are relative cardinalities or answer some simple questions about the cardinalities of well-known sets, like the primes, then you might have some basis for your beliefs. ellazimm
I have already pointed out your lies, EZ. And like your true-self you denied them but couldn't support that denial. And yes, yours is an interesting technique. You don't know how to argue but you can defame and slander with the best of them. You are a sick puppy, Jerad Virgil Cain
Virgil #970
Why is it that people are allowed to lie but others are not allowed to point out their lies?
What was said that was a lie?
I apologize for my actions but if I was debating these people face-to-face I would have dropped them like a bad habit. And they would have to eat from a straw for months.
Interesting argument technique. ellazimm
Yes News, I am sure that someone complained about me and I would bet it was someone who has posted provocative and non-substantive posts about me. I wonder how you and KF would feel if the same was done to you. Heck many people have been banned for attacking the UD hierarchy. You guys don't seem to understand that if I wasn't attacked that my posts wouldn't be filled with calling out my attackers. Virgil Cain
OK I apologize for calling people liars and cowards even though the posts they made contained lies, false accusations, nonsensical phrases and unsupported claims. However I still do not understand why the messenger is being picked on and not the people who posted the lies, false accusations, nonsensical phrases and unsupported claims. Every time KF is attacked he attacks back. Every time Barry is attacked he attacks back. Every time News is attacked News hits back. How many times does a person have to be attacked before he can defend himself with the truth? Why is it that people are allowed to lie but others are not allowed to point out their lies? I apologize for my actions but if I was debating these people face-to-face I would have dropped them like a bad habit. And they would have to eat from a straw for months. So I don't understand why it is OK to provoke people into the type of posts I made but bad to respond to the diatribe and lies posted about me. Virgil Cain
KF, With some bolding added:
Kindly notice, I have never argued that endlessness entails infinitude of primes, but that the nature of primes and the endlessness of numbers make it obvious that there should be no end of primes though they should be increasingly sparse on a per +1 basis as we go further and further on. That is how it appeared to me in childhood, and it is how it looks still.
I think our ideas of under what conditions some mathematical proposition is "made obvious" are different. To me it means that a proof is immediate. If we changed the bolded part to "make it plausible", then it would sound about right to me. It's plausible to me that the primes are distributed in accordance with the prime number theorem, based only on the definition of prime and the understanding that N is infinite. I think most people would admit that it's far from obvious.
I suggest, further that this puts forth a context in which a largest, definable specific finite counting set is also not reasonable:
Definitely not reasonable. I think everyone here agrees with this.
This by iteration for k, k’ k” etc at successively higher values, indicates that there is no specific, definable maximum finite scale counting set,
Yes.
there is an endless succession indicated by the ellipsis of endlessness that goes beyond what we can specifically define.
Well, this is where you lose me. If we can't specifically define it, what are we talking about? I don't know of any ordinal numbers that are not "specifically defined". They are all in the sequence 0, 1, 2, ..., ω, ω + 1, ... .
Likewise, point to the copy of the sequence so far successor counting set principle. An endless repetition of successive defined counting sets would end up with one or more that are in themselves endless.
I don't think so. Can you give a rigorous proof? The successor function (on N) takes as input a finite set and outputs another finite set. It's impossible for it to output an infinite set. You are saying something like "if we roll a 6-sided die infinitely many times, eventually a 7 will come up". daveS
News (as mod): Virgil Cain, we have received a complaint about some of your comments, particularly 837 We appreciate your efforts to defend reason, evidence, and reality against the universal acid, but one must take care not to be contaminated oneself. We really must insist that you apologize for the things said there. UD is a family site in that teenagers and U students may be reading and participating. We try to model how mature adults debate a topic and welcome all efforts in that regard. I will watch this space. News
MT:
Infinity means too large or too far off to calculate accurately. It has nothing to do with Philosophical infinity.
I think endlessly beyond any arbitrarily large but finite (thus bounded by some successor) value is a better way to put it. (Hence, my use of the pink vs blue punched tape examples above cf OP to anchor our discussion to concrete realities.) Notice, as already noted above, per AmHD:
in·fi·nite (?n?f?-n?t) adj. 1. Having no boundaries or limits; impossible to measure or calculate. See Synonyms at incalculable. 2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance. 3. Mathematics a. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value. b. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length. c. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. n. Something infinite. [Middle English infinit, from Old French, from Latin ?nf?n?tus : in-, not; see in-1 + f?n?tus, finite, from past participle of f?n?re, to limit; see finite.] in?fi·nite·ly adv. in?fi·nite·ness n. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
CED is similar:
infinite (??nf?n?t) adj 1. a. having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude b. (as noun; preceded by the): the infinite. 2. extremely or immeasurably great or numerous: infinite wealth. 3. all-embracing, absolute, or total: God's infinite wisdom. 4. (Mathematics) maths a. having an unlimited number of digits, factors, terms, members, etc: an infinite series. b. (of a set) able to be put in a one-to-one correspondence with part of itself c. (of an integral) having infinity as one or both limits of integration. Compare finite2 ?infinitely adv ?infiniteness n Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
This gives us an understanding of a primary conceptual sense that mathematical explorations must reasonably answer to. And yes, the philosophical, conceptual sense is not something we can ring fence off and set to one side. Not if we respect truth as coherent and unified, saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. KF kairosfocus
DS (Attn HRUN), If you will look at what I actually said above, you will see -- with all due respect -- you are barking up the wrong tree. (And, one that is revealing on the polarising nature of the divides that surround the underlying design controversies -- do, give us a little credit for understanding the difference between [a] plausibility, [b] proof relative to axiomatised schemes and [c] exploration of driving dynamics and facts, a sort of exploratory logic of structure and quantity analysis by analogy of statistical exploratory data analysis, not to mention [d] instructive thought exercise such as pink vs blue punched tapes . . . proof on axiom systems is not the be all, end all.) Kindly notice, I have never argued that endlessness entails infinitude of primes, but that the nature of primes and the endlessness of numbers make it obvious that there should be no end of primes though they should be increasingly sparse on a per +1 basis as we go further and further on. That is how it appeared to me in childhood, and it is how it looks still. The actual proof by contradiction of for argument positing a finite number of primes . . . thus a largest and finite maximum prime . . . then provides a proof of what is plausible or obvious on separate grounds. As HRUN should now recognise, I contextualised the proof above, to help those of us who may have concerns on seeing a proof presented in the fashionable bare bones no context style, understand the dynamics at work. The discussion on neighbouring pairs of primes shows the same difference, at a different degree of access to proof. I suggest, further that this puts forth a context in which a largest, definable specific finite counting set is also not reasonable: posit for argument that such exists, k. But on the framework of counting sets in succession we can proceed: {0,1,2, . . . k-1} --> k then by +1 successor operation and closure of the collection of counting sets: {0,1,2 . . . k-1,k] --> k+1 And thenceforward we may apply to reach k+2 etc, then exploit endlessness and place k, k+1, k+2 etc in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 etc. (do the succession k times so k' is k^2) This by iteration for k, k' k" etc at successively higher values, indicates that there is no specific, definable maximum finite scale counting set, there is an endless succession indicated by the ellipsis of endlessness that goes beyond what we can specifically define. Call this the endlessly retreating rainbow effect. Likewise, point to the copy of the sequence so far successor counting set principle. An endless repetition of successive defined counting sets would end up with one or more that are in themselves endless. That is, we see why we cannot end the endlessness of +1 increment successive counting sets, even as we also may readily see why any particular set we can write down in say place value notation or scientific notation or by direct +1 stage cumulative succession from 0 will be finite. We cannot exhaust endlessness in +1 steps or procedures dependent on such. We then recognise endlessness of succession as a structural pattern and quantitative phenomenon inviting definition or assignment of a new class of number starting at: {0,1,2 . . . EoE . . . } --> omega (w for convenience) Then per the Ehrlich tree on surreals, etc we go to: w, w+1, etc. Thus we study the logic of structure and quantity. KF kairosfocus
NOTICE to Virgil Cain UD supports the following requirement: You are to provide an apology for your behviour as a token of making amends, or you will in the first instance go on moderation. You have a reasonable, short period in which to do so. GEM of TKI Thread Owner kairosfocus
Origenes @ 960
Dear onlooker, #954 contains a misconstrual of my simple and straightforward argument (see #912 and #934) by a person who asks clueless questions like: “why must math be grounded in something other than math? Why do you get to say that?
Infinity means too large or too far off to calculate accurately. It has nothing to do with Philosophical infinity. It is needed to calculate something (including real world problem) represented by a function where the limit approaches infinity. If you don’t like the word ‘infinity’, you can think of it as ‘too many to bother counting’ or ‘too far off to bother measuring’. There is nothing mysterious about infinity. Me_Think
Thanks, hrun0815. daveS
Re #961: I wish there was a way to like posts on this board. I there was, I'd 'Like' #961! hrun0815
KF, Well, most people would bet that the twin prime conjecture is true, but I think we agree that it does not follow from endlessness and the definition of prime, just as the infinitude of primes does not. BTW, there has been quite a bit of progress on the twin prime conjecture lately. Now it is known that there are infinitely many pairs of consecutive primes differing by 246. daveS
Dear onlooker, #954 contains a misconstrual of my simple and straightforward argument (see #912 and #934) by a person who asks clueless questions like: "why must math be grounded in something other than math? Why do you get to say that?". Origenes
Aleta:
But how do you that it can’t be expressed as fraction, and how do you know that the decimal never repeats (which is a question of infinity).
No one has been able to do so. Everyone who has tried has seen it never repeats and I am OK with infinity.
You seem to deride standard mathematical proofs, and yet you accept a couple of non-obvious facts about the sqrt(2).
I deride them when I can easily contradict them or they really are not proofs. And I have been through the sqrt (2) in math class- more than once. So I accept that it is irrational because I have actually done the math. Virgil Cain
But how do you that it can't be expressed as fraction, and how do you know that the decimal never repeats (which is a question of infinity). My point is that first fact is proved by a proof by contradiction, which you don't understand, and the second makes a statement about infinity. You seem to deride standard mathematical proofs, and yet you accept a couple of non-obvious facts about the sqrt(2). That's my point. Aleta
DS (attn Aleta), As a child, I could see that there should reasonably be endless primes; hence my reference to obviousness as opposed to proof; which is a different matter. I never pondered the pattern of existence of the neighbouring pairs of primes though obviously such exist even in the first 10 or 20 numbers. I would expect that such would follow a similar pattern of increasing sparseness but likewise endlessness, as a reasonable expectation; though that is not anything related to the areas of interest I have had for Mathematics. Cutting to the chase scene, Wolfram -- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TwinPrimeConjecture.html -- >>There are two related conjectures, each called the twin prime conjecture. The first version states that there are an infinite number of pairs of twin primes (Guy 1994, p. 19). It is not known if there are an infinite number of such primes (Wells 1986, p. 41; Shanks 1993, p. 30), but it seems almost certain to be true. While Hardy and Wright (1979, p. 5) note that "the evidence, when examined in detail, appears to justify the conjecture," and Shanks (1993, p. 219) states even more strongly, "the evidence is overwhelming," Hardy and Wright also note that the proof or disproof of conjectures of this type "is at present beyond the resources of mathematics.">> KF kairosfocus
Aleta:
Virgil, how do you know that sqrt (2) is irrational?
It cannot be expressed as any fraction that I know of and in decimal form it is non-ending and non-repeating. IOW it fits the definition. Do you have a point? Virgil Cain
KF, What do you think of Aleta's post #947? Does endlessness imply the existence of infinitely many primes separated by 2? daveS
By, Origenes. Thinking that the truth and relevance of math is equivalent to fantasy fiction unless someone is a believer in some metaphysical speculation about math (even though there is no way all the various speculations could all be right), is an attitude that I have no interest in interacting with, either, so we agree to part. Aleta
Aleta,
Origenes: Clearly, to naturalism the ‘world of pure math’ is as real as ‘Rivendell’, the Elven outpost in Middle-earth.
Aleta: Hmmm. That last statement seems to be breathtakingly wrong.
One would expect an argument to be provided to support this strong statement. Now it just sits there looking like a toddler waiting to be fed. Are you proposing that naturalism holds that the ‘world of pure math’ is out there somewhere — near planet Kepler-452b? In post #919 I suggest a naturalistic grounding of mathematical ideas, like infinity, in certain configurations of brain chemicals of the mathematician.
Aleta: And why must math be grounded in something other than math? Why do you get to say that?
What’s your alternative madam? Math just is, wholly uncaused, eternal and no questions asked? Do you even understand your own question? What you are asking is this: why do things need an explanation? Frankly, I’m baffled. We are done talking. Origenes
Virgil, how do you know that sqrt (2) is irrational? Aleta
DS seeing something and proving it are not the same thing. Think, seeing Pythagoras' Th vs proving it. KF kairosfocus
Aleta:
Is the square root of 2, written sqrt(2), a rational or an irrational number?
Irrational. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
I see that you don’t understand proof by contradiction. Set subtraction has nothing to do with it.
And yet it contradicts Cantor's claim about the same cardinality for all countably infinite sets. Virgil Cain
Origenes writes,
Grounding infinity by a ‘world of pure math’ would indeed relieve the naturalist from his predicament. However, in order to achieve this, naturalism must be able to ground a ‘world of pure math’ and unfortunately this cannot be done. Clearly, to naturalism the ‘world of pure math’ is as real as ‘Rivendell’, the Elven outpost in Middle-earth.
Hmmm. That last statement seems to be breathtakingly wrong. And why must math be grounded in something other than math? Why do you get to say that? Here's one way to look at this: I can think of a number of different ways that people speculate on the metaphysical nature of math, such as Western theism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, neo-Platonism. These all can't be right. So why does someone who has one of these perspectives, even if it's wrong (because they all can't be right) have a superior perspective on the nature of math than one who believes that math derives its validity and meaning from its own internal structure without regard to any additional metaphysical justification. Aleta
Hi kf. You say the the fact that there are an infinite number of primes is "obvious" (931) and that "endlessness patently leads to the result that numbers keep cropping up that will be of the form discussed above which will be prime." (941). Twin primes are pairs of primes that are consecutive odd numbers, such as 17 and 19, as you mentioned in 931. Is it also obvious that, because of endlessness, there will be an infinite number of such pairs? Aleta
Aleta: But I think you are wrong. The naturalist is saying that infinity is meaningful within the world of pure math.
Grounding infinity by a ‘world of pure math’ would indeed relieve the naturalist from his predicament. However, in order to achieve this, naturalism must be able to ground a ‘world of pure math’ and unfortunately this cannot be done. Clearly, to naturalism the ‘world of pure math’ is as real as ‘Rivendell’, the Elven outpost in Middle-earth. So no, I wasn’t wrong. You were wrong by attempting to ground something by something else which cannot be grounded.
Aleta: Whether it is “real” in either a physical or metaphysical sense is not relevant.
If only such unsubstantiated “not-relevant” statements would have some merit to them, all problems could be easily solved. But no, to naturalism this distinction is highly relevant. Physical is real, metaphysical is not real.
Aleta: And what if I am (which is the closest to the truth) an agnostic about the metaphysical nature of math? Does that make my position “less awkward”, but still not quite valid?
Less awkward indeed. Origenes
KF,
DS, endlessness patently leads to the result that numbers keep cropping up that will be of the form discussed above which will be prime. KF
No, I don't think that does it. You would have to say more (for example, essentially repeating Aleta's post above). So far, everything you've said is consistent with the proposition that every 2x + 1 (for x sufficiently large) is composite, and more importantly, that only finitely many primes exist. If you have a proof, I would like to see it, provided that it isn't just a restatement of Aleta's post. daveS
Hi Virgil. Simple question: Is the square root of 2, written sqrt(2), a rational or an irrational number? Aleta
I see that you don't understand proof by contradiction. Set subtraction has nothing to do with it. Aleta
Aleta, Set subtraction is an example of proof by contradiction. Virgil Cain
DS, endlessness patently leads to the result that numbers keep cropping up that will be of the form discussed above which will be prime. KF kairosfocus
KF, Whatever the merits of your post #931, it is certainly not immediately obvious that the set of primes is infinite. There are infinite ("endless") rings with only finitely many primes, where the definition of prime matches the definition of primes in N. daveS
Virgil, a proof by contradiction begins by assuming the opposite of what you are trying to prove, and then showing that leads to a contradiction. We start out by assuming that pn is the largest prime in a finite set, and then show the contradiction: therefore there is no largest prime pn. I assume you are familiar with proof by contradiction - true? Aleta
HRUN, Did you observe that I set out only to provide clarifying context for those likely to be concerned then went on to explicitly state "Then with that context, the proffered proof can be seen to make better sense to the concerned. I find there is too often too much left too implicit"? Where, I set out to highlight why primes past 2 will be odd and will thus have form 2*x + 1, x being a chain of 1 or more multiplied primes? Where also the phenomenon of neighbouring primes (separated by +2) is relevant to the local "density" of primes in their close neighbourhood? KF kairosfocus
Aleta:
For the record, this is a nice proof by contradiction:
Or obfuscation...
Since P is bigger than pn, this means P can’t be a prime, because pn is the largest prime.
If there is a largest prime then obviously the set is not infinite Virgil Cain
EZ:
Fine, let’s see you do it. I say you can’t find the relative cardinality.
See, you do want to make this personal. That means you are totally out of touch with reality.
I can come up with a one-to-one mapping but it will just show that the cardinality of the primes is the same as the positive integers.
No one can as all the primes are not known. You lose. Virgil Cain
But I think you are wrong. The naturalist is saying that infinity is meaningful within the world of pure math. Whether it is "real" in either a physical or metaphysical sense is not relevant. Your position would claim that vast segments of mathematics, if not all of mathematics, was meaningless and unreal to a naturalist. Would this change how the naturalist does math? Would it make his math any different than the math done by a theist? The answer to both these rhetorical questions is "no", it wouldn't. And what if I am (which is the closest to the truth) an agnostic about the metaphysical nature of math? Does that make my position "less awkward", but still not quite valid? The math has meaning in respect to the system in which it resides, and it has as much "reality" as any other abstract concept. And your examples aren't good analogs. The meaning of a Bible verse is an opinion, and the nature of the Tao is a metaphysical speculation. Those are not the same thing as a proof that there are an infinite number of primes. (And I assume you accept the proof.) Aleta
Aleta, Let me put it another way. Can a naturalist weigh in on a discussion about the meaning of Psalm 82? Sure he can. And yes, he can also join a discussion about whether the Tao is all-knowing or not. He may even be a dominating knowledgeable participant in such discussions. However there is something awkward about his position, to say the least, since he holds that he is not discussing anything meaningful and real. My point is that a naturalist discussing infinity is in the exact same position. Origenes
The difference between #896 and #931 is an amazing demonstration of what some clarity can achieve. I am still puzzling out how #931 shows that there is no largest prime, rather than showing that all primes have the form 2x+1. And I am also trying to understand what the discussion of neighboring primes adds here? hrun0815
Origenes write,
a naturalistic context does not accommodate for infinity.
A "naturalistic context", as far as I know, doesn't believe there is actually an infinite number of anything in the real world. That's been stated here a number of times. But that doesn't mean that infinity as a concept within the basic mathematical system of numbers is meaningless. There is a difference, which I've described several times in above posts, between the self-contained system of pure mathematics and the application of math to the physical world. Also, you writes,
So yes, when a Taoist contemplates infinity it refers to something real.
So I can legitimize the mathematics of infinity if I am a Taoist but not if I am a naturalist? How can the validity of the math depend on such a distinction. The math is true or not irrespective of the metaphysical perspective of the person holding it. Can you imagine me teaching a course on Cantor, and starting the course by asking about the metaphysical positions of all the students so I could know who could actually, validly, accept the math I was about to teach and those who couldn't! Aleta
Aleta, it is immediately obvious there is no highest prime given endlessness and definition of primes, though they patently become sparser on average; that I have seen since childhood before doing any advanced mathematics. The (or in principle any) proof proffered may have issues or concerns so I would not start there but with first principles: a prime is not cleanly divisible by any lower whole number, disregarding 1. As a consequence 2 is prime and thereafter all primes must be odd starting with 3. This gives a conceptual bridge. Given any even will have odds as neighbours -- where any even will be 2 * x, where x may be a prime or a train of multiplied prime factors -- all primes beyond 2 will necessarily be 2 *x +1 (actually allowing x to go to 0 allows start at 1). This includes neighbouring primes such as 17 and 19, where 15 and 17 or 19 and 21 are not neighbouring primes, as well as, 25 and 27 are neigbouring odds but not primes. Then with that context, the proffered proof can be seen to make better sense to the concerned. I find there is too often too much left too implicit. KF PS: Successive primes, however discovered, can be ranked in order, and that order will continue endlessly in a counting sequence, i.e. first degree endlessness. At any prime in the sequence p_k, P-k+1 etc could be matched onward 1:1 with, 0,1,2 etc, yielding yet another transfinite pattern. kairosfocus
Aleta: People such as Origenes who believe that naturalists can’t have any validly grounded form of knowledge because we are “just matter” (...)
Your paraphrase of my point is off the mark. I've been very clear in #912: meaning depends on context and a naturalistic context does not accommodate for infinity — as far as I can tell. So, point out that I'm mistaken about that lack of accommodation or explain how meaning does not depend on context. But please don't distort my simple point.
Aleta: In respect to the metaphysical nature of math, I am basically an agnostic leaning towards Taoistic Platonism. Does that count? :-) Is my mathematics now meaningful?
The Tao is infinite. So yes, when a Taoist contemplates infinity it refers to something real. Origenes
DS, the ellipsis of endlessness -- part of the core concept. Cannot be attained to, cannot be spanned in +1 steps due to endlessness, just as the foot of the rainbow I looked at across the Caribbean this morning from an aircraft window cannot be reached from where one is (and looking at it did make me think of this thread). Can be envisioned, not reached. I think that has consequences. KF kairosfocus
Hi kf. The proof at 896 shows that there are an infinite number of primes without resorting to any induction or stepping-through process. Is it a valid proof, in your eyes. Does it convince you that the set of all primes is an infinite set? Aleta
MT:
If you don’t like the word ‘infinity’, you can think of it as ‘too many to bother counting’ or ‘too far off to bother measuring’. There is nothing mysterious and hateful about poor infinity.
First yes there are people hostile to infinity for various reasons, including things that are at best odd. Second, the above proffered concepts fail. Infinity is not just large or too big to bother but endlessly large beyond any finite value. And at the opposite scale, infinitesimal is all but zero small. Both become very important. One of the key properties which is in the wider context is that a transfinite span cannot be traversed in finite stage cumulative steps from 0 or a similar start point. It turns out that a lot pivots on this. Especially when we address causal succession by stages, or generations or iterations. KF kairosfocus
KF, I ran across this passage by Solomon Feferman in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, p. 593, edited by Stewart Shapiro. It concerns a distinction made by Bertrand Russell between the words "all" and "any", and perhaps is akin to a distinction you are making:
Before going into the actual structure of types in Russell’s setup, let me draw attention to an earlier section of the article, headed "All and Any" (ibid., pp. 156– 159). Here, in contrast to the first quotation from Russell above, a distinction was made between the use of these two words. Roughly speaking, in logical terms, the statement that all objects x of a certain kind satisfy a certain condition φ(x) is rendered by the universal quantification (∀x)φ(x) in which "x" now is a bound variable, while the statement that φ(x) holds for any x is expressed by leaving "x" as a free variable. In modern terms, the logic of the latter is treated as a scheme to be coupled with a rule of substitution. The importance of this distinction for Russell has to do with the injunction against illegitimate totalities. In particular, with p a variable for propositions, he would admit "p is true or false, where p is any proposition" (i.e., the scheme p ∨ ¬p, but not the statement (∀p)(p ∨ ¬p) that "all propositions are true or false" (in both cases using truth of p to be equivalent to p).
Edit: There appears to be no closing parenthesis at the end of the above quotation in the original. daveS
KF,
I note that for every value in T that we can define and see as finite there are endlessly more values that can be placed in onward succession in 1:1 correspondence with the counting sets from 0, 1, 2 on.
I agree.
In that context the most I think we can reasonably say is that every counting set or natural number reached in successive +1 steps from 0 as actually taken will be finite, and similarly, every represented number such as place value or scientific notation that depends on such will be finite and will be succeeded by an onward endless succession that can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with the naturals from 0.
I also agree with this, although I'm not sure of the meaning of "as actually taken". And by definition, there are no natural numbers not reachable in successive steps from 0. Certainly the counting set ω is not reachable in successive +1 steps from {}. daveS
VC, You have gone on and on beyond what you were warned about. KF kairosfocus
In respect to the metaphysical nature of math, I am basically an agnostic leaning towards Taoistic Platonism. Does that count? :-) Is my mathematics now meaningful? But seriously, whether math exists in some independent way, whether it be in Platonic ideals, the mind of God, the Tao, or whether it is a consequence of the creation of symbol systems not grounded at a higher metaphysical level, the math works within the symbol system itself. The proof that there are an infinite number of primes is true within the symbol system of natural numbers irrespective of the metaphysical nature of math. People such as Origenes who believe that naturalists can't have any validly grounded form of knowledge because we are "just matter" brings a much larger metaphysical element to this discussion that is, in my opinion, for me, not something I want to invest my time in here. And Mike, re my post at 911: If you are implying in your questions something similar to the same points Origenes is making - that math is in some way just clever manipulations of symbols unless it derives from some larger metaphysical source, then please say so. For instance, it would clarify your position for me if you would answer this question from 911:
My question to you is this: is any part of mathematics something other than a “clever manipulation of symbols and language”, or is all mathematics a “clever manipulation of symbols and language”? And if some mathematics is not a “clever manipulation of symbols and language” and some is, can you explain the criteria which separates the two, and give examples?
Aleta
DS (attn EZ): I note that for every value in T that we can define and see as finite there are endlessly more values that can be placed in onward succession in 1:1 correspondence with the counting sets from 0, 1, 2 on. And I do not know how to be clearer and more specific than that, in stating that I have come to view endlessness as a pivotal part of the definition of the naturals. In that context the most I think we can reasonably say is that every counting set or natural number reached in successive +1 steps from 0 as actually taken will be finite, and similarly, every represented number such as place value or scientific notation that depends on such will be finite and will be succeeded by an onward endless succession that can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with the naturals from 0. (And EZ, that is not dodging, I an trying very hard to go with what I see in the logic including that of ordinary mathematical induction. I think we should all take a pause ad realise that especially post Godel -- incomplete, open to possibility of incoherence -- axiomatic systems in mathematics are different from mathematical facts and are not to be equated to absolute, unquestionable truth. I seriously question the conclusion that has been presented as that there are infinitely many specifically definable successive finite numbers from 0. Not least were there such as the successor is in effect a copy of the list so far, there would be definable individual members that are endless sets in themselves. So, I have backed off to a more cautious position that pivots on endlessness being integral to the set, so there is an onward endless succession beyond any defined finite value.) KF PS: Back. kairosfocus
ellazimm: Well all the Christian mathematicians I’ve know have had the same view on mathematics and concepts like infinity as everyone else.
That is not possible by definition. Meaning depends on context and naturalists and theists don't share the same context. As I have pointed out (see #912) "infinity" has true meaning for the theist, it refers to something real. Not so for the naturalist.
ellazimm: IF the universe is strictly the product of unguided, natural forces then you’ll be wrong. You’re making an assumption before you know the situation.
In effect I'm saying that the idea that blind unthinking particles do mathematics is incoherent. You say (paraphrasing): "but if they do, then you would be wrong". I have to respectfully disagree. I would still claim 'incoherence' if the universe were such that blind unthinking particles are doing mathematics. Origenes
Origenes
My aim was to point out that the theist has an entirely different view on mathematics and mathematical concepts like infinity.
Well all the Christian mathematicians I've know have had the same view on mathematics and concepts like infinity as everyone else. To some extent math is a community effort and it's hard to do good work if you're too far from the village centre.
If you are asking me if the reduction of the mental, including (brilliant) mathematical ideas, to blind unthinking particles bumping into each other is a coherent idea, then I have to say no.
IF the universe is strictly the product of unguided, natural forces then you'll be wrong. You're making an assumption before you know the situation. ellazimm
ellazimm: Why couldn’t we come up with complicated mathematical idea even if our thoughts are just products of brain chemistry?
I didn't say that naturalism makes mathematical discoveries unlikely. What I'm saying is that, given naturalism — "if our thoughts are just products of brain chemistry" — there is no grounding for a "complicated mathematical idea" other than ... brain chemistry; blind unthinking particles bumping into each other. IOWs a "complicated mathematical idea" is nothing of itself and must refer to a certain configuration of brain chemicals. A perfected neurophysiology must be able to pinpoint e.g. "infinity" as a certain configuration of chemicals in the brain of the mathematician. My aim was to point out that the theist has an entirely different view on mathematics and mathematical concepts like infinity. If you are asking me if the reduction of the mental, including (brilliant) mathematical ideas, to blind unthinking particles bumping into each other is a coherent idea, then I have to say no. Origenes
Origenes
Whether said or not, you both should know by now, that theists, contrary to naturalists, do hold that there is “something in the real world that is infinite” and perfect. Also theists, contrary to naturalists, hold that “abstract mathematical ideas” refer to real objects grounded by a truly existent real mental realm. Under naturalism the mental (abstract mathematical ideas included) is a byproduct of brain chemistry — and/or reducible to it.
I can't comment on what theists think or conclude, that's up to them. Why couldn't we come up with complicated mathematical idea even if our thoughts are just products of brain chemistry? Aside from some just not believing it? ellazimm
Aleta & Ellazimm,
Aleta: I don’t think anyone in this discussion has said there is something in the real world that is infinite, just as there is no perfect circle.
ellazimm: Yes!! Exactly.
Whether said or not, you both should know by now, that theists, contrary to naturalists, do hold that there is "something in the real world that is infinite" and perfect. Also theists, contrary to naturalists, hold that "abstract mathematical ideas" refer to real objects grounded by a truly existent real mental realm. Under naturalism the mental (abstract mathematical ideas included) is a byproduct of brain chemistry — and/or reducible to it. Origenes
Aleta
I don’t think anyone in this discussion has said there is something in the real world that is infinite, just as there is no perfect circle. But, as I said before, using infinity in mathematics has led to powerful tools that are applicable to the real world (calculus, for instance). But again, and this is critical, there is a difference between pure mathematics, at all levels, as an abstract logical system, on the one hand, and the application of math to the real world.
Yes!! Exactly. I would add that it can be helpful to think of the written form of mathematics as a language or shorthand; it has its own grammar and syntax rules. Many of the symbols COULD be replaced with regular words but it would be much harder to scan. I used to have some of my students write out in English an infinite series and it took up a lot more room and was much harder than using the standard mathematical symbols. Some of them are falling out of use which is sad. Here is a partial list. Notice how long the 'translation' of some of the symbols are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols ellazimm
Virg
What prevents it from being done? It is as easy as finding the bijective function. Or at the most difficult finding other relative cardinalities and plotting the counts against the primes.
Fine, let's see you do it. I say you can't find the relative cardinality. I can come up with a one-to-one mapping but it will just show that the cardinality of the primes is the same as the positive integers. You say that's not true but you can't prove your view.
It runs with the current notion of a bijective function. And that runs with current notion what makes them countably infinite sets.
If you're so sure then let's see you do it in such a way that you can find its relative cardinality.
Your lies, bluffs and false accusations just expose your desperation.
If you think it's possible to figure out the relative cardinality of the primes then lets see you do it.
I need a system, not just a concept. And set subtraction just shows there is a difference (or not) between the two sets. Also the bijective function that produces the one-to-one mapping between the two sets is the relative cardinality.
So, relative to the positive integers, you think the relative cardinality of the evens (or odds) is one-half, the relative cardinality of the multiples of three is one-third, etc. Now, figure it out for the primes. Or admit you can't.
Who cares? What is the highest known prime? And if that is the highest known prime then how do you know there is one higher?
There is a well known proof that there is no 'greatest' prime number. Aleta gave a nice version of it. ellazimm
Origenes writes,
Words and symbols must mean something, else they are (obviously) meaningless. In order to mean something a word or symbol must be, by definition, about something else.
I don't agree. Pure mathematics is not "about something else." It is about itself: it is a self contained, logically coherent abstract system. We can make it about something else by building a model which maps mathematical concepts to real-world objects, but that is then applying math, which is different than just doing math. The Mandelbrot set, or the identity e^(i*pi) = -1, to pick two common examples, are not about anything, but they are not meaningless. Origenes also writes,
At the moment I cannot come up with a naturalistic accommodation of infinity.
I don't think anyone in this discussion has said there is something in the real world that is infinite, just as there is no perfect circle. But, as I said before, using infinity in mathematics has led to powerful tools that are applicable to the real world (calculus, for instance). But again, and this is critical, there is a difference between pure mathematics, at all levels, as an abstract logical system, on the one hand, and the application of math to the real world. Aleta
mike1962 @ 907
Sorry, you do not understand the point of my posts. Please re-read and see if you can glean it.
mike1962 @ 905
What I’m asking beyond that is what does infinity mean, if anything? I hope my intent is coming through.
As I said in my earlier comment, Infinity-in practical terms- means 'too large to count' or 'too far off to measure'. For philosophers it might mean a power which they can't comprehend.
what does a perfect circle mean beyond the clever manipulation of symbols and language (which at very least, it undoubtedly is)?
Perfect Circle can exist only in mathematical realm but it can be used to compare it to imperfect circles in real world to see how imperfect our circle is. Sorry AFAIK, perfect circle has no meaning even in Philosophy. Me_Think
Mike1962, Words and symbols must mean something, else they are (obviously) meaningless. In order to mean something a word or symbol must be, by definition, about something else. Meaning depends on context. In a solipsistic universe "external world" has no meaning, since it isn't about a real object. In a naturalistic universe the term "God" has no meaning, since it isn't about a real object. IOWs "infinity" has a meaning if your philosophy can accommodate infinity. If you believe in eternal life and/or an "infinitely great being" then I guess infinity means something. At the moment I cannot come up with a naturalistic accommodation of infinity. If there is none, then for the naturalist "infinity" is nothing over and beyond clever linguistic and symbolic trickery. Origenes
So, Mike, can you explain more what your thoughts on this are. For instance, you wrote,
Now, since perfect circles are an impossible object in time and space, what does a perfect circle mean beyond the clever manipulation of symbols and language (which at very least, it undoubtedly is)?
My question to you is this: is any part of mathematics something other than a "clever manipulation of symbols and language", or is all mathematics a "clever manipulation of symbols and language"? And if some mathematics is not a "clever manipulation of symbols and language" and some is, can you explain the criteria which separates the two, and give examples? Thanks. Aleta
mike1962,
I understand the difference between the two with respect to mathematical definitions. I reject that uncountable sets actually exist.
Thanks. Your questions about the meaning of infinity are probably too hard for me. On the other hand, I'm sure we could discuss uncountable sets and be perfectly intelligible to each other, despite the fact that one of us doubts their existence. If I were to give you a list of infinite sets, you could tell me which were countable and which were uncountable (according to me, anyway). This suggests to me that the concept of infinity is something beyond clever linguistic or symbolic trickery. daveS
Aleta: What do you mean by asking what does it mean? I didn't simply ask what it means, but what it means beyond the manipulation of language and symbols. We can back down a level and deal with something simpler, if you like. For example, using Knuth's computer notation, what does 2^^^6 mean? This presumed finite quantity, which could never be counted in time and space, given all the resources available, presumably stands for a meaningful quantity? But does it really. In what sense could it be a meaningful quantity beyond the mere symbols themselves? mike1962
I guess I don't get your point. What do you mean by asking what does it mean? What do you think math means? Do you think that some concepts (like "2") have a meaning while some (like perfect circles) don't. Perhaps you ought to offer your own views on this subject? Aleta
Me_Think, Sorry, you do not understand the point of my posts. Please re-read and see if you can glean it. P.S. I love math. Infinity does not annoy me. mike1962
Mathematics is the language of science. Just because some one doesn't like mathematics, doesn't mean it is trickery. I don't know why infinity annoys people. If you don't like the word 'infinity', you can think of it as 'too many to bother counting' or 'too far off to bother measuring'. There is nothing mysterious and hateful about poor infinity. Pi (which determines the circle) is needed only up to 16 digits for all practical purposes. NASA uses 16 digits for the Space Integrated Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (SIGI). Beyond that, more accurate Pi may be needed for calculating large tracts of universe volume. Again, there is no need to bother thinking about Pi beyond 16 digits for all practical purposes. Me_Think
Aleta: I just read 900. I think it’s pretty odd to call pure mathematics “clever linguistic/symbolic trickery.” I don't intend to minimize the brilliance of those who have developed the mathematics of infinity. That is not my purpose. Now, you certainly agree that at very least, the mathematics of infinity is certainly a clever manipulation of symbols and language, right? What I'm asking beyond that is what does infinity mean, if anything? I hope my intent is coming through. Should we not develop theorems about circles because perfect circles don’t exist. Of course, we should. Now, since perfect circles are an impossible object in time and space, what does a perfect circle mean beyond the clever manipulation of symbols and language (which at very least, it undoubtedly is)? Should we not use derivatives in calculus because they are based on limits as certain values go to infinity. Of course, we should. But I hope you see the point of my post now. mike1962
I just read 900. I think it's pretty odd to call pure mathematics "clever linguistic/symbolic trickery." Should we not develop theorems about circles because perfect circles don't exist. Should we not use derivatives in calculus because they are based on limits as certain values go to infinity. Should we not use natural exponential functions because continuous change of infinitesimal amounts don't actually exist? Those are rhetorical questions. If we don't develop the pure mathematics we don't have the tools to apply to the real world even if there is also a slight imperfection as we move from the pure mathematics to the application. What would you have mathematicians do? What part of pure math would you consider not "clever linguistic/symbolic trickery?" Aleta
Aleta: And what do you mean “actually exist.” Do you mean in the real world, Yes. or do you mean that they can’t even be posited as mathematical concepts? Of course, they can be posited as mathematical concepts. But what the meaning is, is another matter. Does infinity mean something beyond the clever manipulation of language and symbols? If so, what? mike1962
And what do you mean "actually exist." Do you mean in the real world, or do you mean that they can't even be posited as mathematical concepts? Aleta
daveS: Do you accept the distinction between countable and uncountable sets? I understand the difference between the two with respect to mathematical definitions. I reject that uncountable sets actually exist. mike1962
Aleta: Pure mathematics is about ideas, not about what can happen in the physical or temporal world that I agree. The mathematics of infinity are interesting, particularly to pure mathematicians, but have no pragmatic use. But it goes beyond this. What interests me, personally, is what it means. Does infinity really represent something meaningful beyond some interesting and clever linguistic/symbolic trickery? mike1962
mike1962, Do you accept the distinction between countable and uncountable sets? It would seem to me that if you reject the existence of infinite sets, then this distinction would make no sense. daveS
That is the discussion we'v been having for three threads and and well over a 1000 posts. There is a vast field of mathematics about infinity. Pure mathematics is about ideas, not about what can happen in the physical or temporal world that Do you think, mathematically, that there are infinitely many natural numbers? {1,2,3 ...} Or do you think it is nonsense to even talk about this set as a whole just because we could never count them all? Aleta
Aleta @ 896, What this proof by contradiction amounts to is that if we count indefinitely, we will never run into the last prime in our counting. But since it is impossible to count infinitely, what does this really mean beyond the fact that if we count indefinitely we won't run into the last prime in our counting? When you smuggle infinity into the proof you drag in a contention between temporal counting (something we can do) and transcendent infinity (something we can never reach by counting.) This changes the nature of the proof to something a lot less obvious. In effect, it makes it nonsense. Clever, and perhaps interesting to some, but useless as a proof that there are really infinitely many primes. If infinity as a quantity doesn't exist, then an infinity of primes as a quantity cannot exist. This leads to another interesting question, which should be obvious. mike1962
For the record, this is a nice proof by contradiction: Prove: There is no highest prime (which implies there is an infinite number of primes) 1. Assume there is a highest prime, so there are a finite number of primes. Let them be p1, p2, p3, ... pn, where p1 = 2, p2 = 3, p3 = 5 and pn = the highest prime. Now let P = (p1 x p2 x p3 x ... x pn) + 1 2. Since P is bigger than pn, this means P can't be a prime, because pn is the largest prime. 3. However, if you divide P by any of the known primes (p1 or p2 or ... pn), you get a remainder of 1, 4. Therefore P is prime because it has no prime factors. 5. But that contradicts 2, in which we showed that P wasn't prime. 6. Therefore, the assumption in 1 must be wrong because it leads to a contradiction. 7. Therefore, there is no largest prime. 8. Therefore there are an infinite number of primes. Q.E.D. Proofs by contradiction are lovely. Aleta
Do you see the number, Aleta? I would say that is a flaw. Virgil Cain
A proof that there is always a higher prime. Do you see a flaw, Virgil? http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/q2.html Aleta
Cantor's approach: "The heck with it- call them equal and let's go have a beer." Pure mathematics at its finest. Now I know why Aleta and Jared love it so much. Virgil Cain
EZ:
I disagree, I don’t think it can be done.
What prevents it from being done? It is as easy as finding the bijective function. Or at the most difficult finding other relative cardinalities and plotting the counts against the primes. But you are right- you couldn't do it.
And it runs counter to other work showing what the cardinality of the primes is.
It runs with the current notion of a bijective function. And that runs with current notion what makes them countably infinite sets.
Your ignorance of the mathematics does not carry the day.
Your lies, bluffs and false accusations just expose your desperation.
Using set subtraction and your ‘concept’ do you think the set of relative cardinalities is a well-ordered set?
I need a system, not just a concept. And set subtraction just shows there is a difference (or not) between the two sets. Also the bijective function that produces the one-to-one mapping between the two sets is the relative cardinality.
Which of sets A or B has the higher cardinality?
Who cares? What is the highest known prime? And if that is the highest known prime then how do you know there is one higher? Virgil Cain
Virgil
It can be done, Jerad. Nothing prevents it. If you were half the mathematician that you think you are you could do it given everything I have told you about my concept. Unfortunately you are too stupid to understand what that means.
I disagree, I don't think it can be done. And it runs counter to other work showing what the cardinality of the primes is. Which is why I suggested it as a test of your 'concept'. And you haven't been able to figure out it out. So, if you can't show it then you 'concept' doesn't work. I fully expect you to continue to dodge the issue since you've been doing that for months and months now. But if your 'concept' can't handle cases that Cantor's approach can handle then your concept is like a lame horse. It can't get the job done. And what does your 'concept' say about the cardinality of the rational numbers? Are there more rational numbers between 1 and 10 than between 1 and 2? Can you prove your answer?
And your lies have been pointed out many more times. All you have are bluffs and lies.
Your ignorance of the mathematics does not carry the day. But it continues to serve to make you look ignorant and foolish.
Set subtraction is properly constructed math.
Using set subtraction and your 'concept' do you think the set of relative cardinalities is a well-ordered set? Which of sets A or B has the higher cardinality? ellazimm
daves:
There are endless examples. How about tackling the set of all labeled trees on any finite number of vertices? How does the cardinality of this set compare with the cardinality of N?
OK, if I develop a system I will give it some thought. Virgil Cain
EZ:
It looks like you can’t find the cardinality of the primes or sets A and B above since you haven’t done so.
It can be done, Jerad. Nothing prevents it. If you were half the mathematician that you think you are you could do it given everything I have told you about my concept. Unfortunately you are too stupid to understand what that means.
Your ignorance of its importance within mathematics has been pointed out to you many, many times.
And your lies have been pointed out many more times. All you have are bluffs and lies. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
There are an infinite number of of rationals between any two rationals. Example: between 0 and 1 there is {1/2, 1/4, 3/4, 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 7/8 , …} These are truly dense, in the mathematical sense, and not just dense in the Virgilean sense of spread out within another set.
Clueless. And your set structure leaves much to be desired. But I would think a simple inversion and direct comparison would be at hand.
And yet the number of rationals is the same as the number of naturals: see http://www.homeschoolmath.net/.....ntable.php for an easy demonstration of the proof.
I am pretty sure that is what is being debated so just restating it doesn't help. And the "proof" leaves much to be desired.
Intuition does not help much in thinking about infinity,
That is only your opinion and is not an argument.
but properly constructed math does.
Set subtraction is properly constructed math. Virgil Cain
Virg #886
You can’t even follow along. That’s pathetic, Jerad. Thank you for proving that it is useless to have a discussion with you.
It looks like you can't find the cardinality of the primes or sets A and B above since you haven't done so. I can determine the cardinality of all those sets though.
There isn’t any importance to saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality and no one can verify it.
Your ignorance of its importance within mathematics has been pointed out to you many, many times. You're making yourself sound very foolish. Especially when you're also avoiding answer some simple math based questions. ellazimm
EZ:
I think I know what the cardinality of the primes is.
You can't even follow along. That's pathetic, Jerad. Thank you for proving that it is useless to have a discussion with you.
A ‘practical’ application has nothing to do with Cantor’s work being important and verified.
There isn't any importance to saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality and no one can verify it. Virgil Cain
VC,
What are they? I cannot say if my ideas apply unless I know what you are talking about.
There are endless examples. How about tackling the set of all labeled trees on any finite number of vertices? How does the cardinality of this set compare with the cardinality of N? daveS
Aleta #883
I wonder what Virgil thinks of that?
He thinks it's incorrect; I've mentioned it to him before. BUT he's never been able to find a mistake in any of proofs of that. So, he thinks there are different 'sizes' of infinity but he thinks there are 'classes' of infinity. Take the counting numbers and subsets of it. The cardinality of the evens or the odds would be one-half the cardinality of the positive integers. I asked him if he thought there was a smallest infinite cardinal number because the cardinality of the positive integers would be bigger than the cardinality of the evens which would be bigger than the cardinality of the multiples of three, etc. But he couldn't decide as I recall. I could be wrong about that. I should have asked him about {1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 . . . } How fast would the ticker go then (using his 'infinity is a journey' metaphor). I'd avoid talking about theorems though, he thinks some are true and some aren't.
Intuition does not help much in thinking about infinity, but properly constructed math does.
Amen to that. Should we mention the imaginary numbers? Or the surreal numbers? Or the hyper-real numbers? :-) ellazimm
Consider the rationals. There are an infinite number of of rationals between any two rationals. Example: between 0 and 1 there is {1/2, 1/4, 3/4, 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 7/8 , ...} These are truly dense, in the mathematical sense, and not just dense in the Virgilean sense of spread out within another set. And yet the number of rationals is the same as the number of naturals: see http://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/rational-numbers-countable.php for an easy demonstration of the proof. I wonder what Virgil thinks of that? The naturals are a proper subset of the positive rationals, which is the reverse of the evens being a proper subset of the naturals, and yet the rationals have the same cardinality as the naturals. Intuition does not help much in thinking about infinity, but properly constructed math does. Aleta
How about the set of all factorials? How dense is that? They get pretty spread out pretty darn fast! :-) Aleta
Virgil
t can be done, Jerad. Nothing prevents it. Even you could do it given everything I have told you. Stop trying to make this personal.
I think I know what the cardinality of the primes is. And we're talking about your counter-idea. So, lets's see you do it. Nothing personal about it.
It’s as if you think Einstein was refuted or a moron because someone else did the actual validation of his idea.
What? Are you comparing yourself to Einstein?
Make your case or stuff the innuendoes. Obviously you don’t understand the density argument. See, your childish accusation style just further provokes and adds nothing.
I think Aleta understands it very well. AND you could shut everyone up if you'd just prove you understood it by finding the relative cardinalities of the primes.
And the pursuit of the relative cardinalities would be a noble quest. And guess what? It is the same as the pursuit of the bijective functions that map elements from one set to the elements of another. Of course the natural matching doesn’t need a function and is very clear.
Great, do it.
And AGAIN, the reason for asking for a practical application of Cantor’s concept is that in the absence of it then no one can really say if cantor is right or not. If Cantor was wrong about the cardinality of infinite sets then really nothing happens and intuition rules. There seems like there would be a greater number of naturals than evens and that is because there are.
A 'practical' application has nothing to do with Cantor's work being important and verified. If you think he was wrong then find a fault with one of his proofs. That's how math is done.
What are they? I cannot say if my ideas apply unless I know what you are talking about.
Why don't you look stuff up yourself for a change? ellazimm
Aleta I know. I even suggested once he look over the prime number theorem for some help. He can calculate 'relative' cardinalities for the easy stuff: the evens, the odds, the multiples of 3, etc. But give him a geometric sequence or the primes and he can't handle those. ellazimm
daves:
Most of the countably infinite sets people are interested in are not sets of real numbers.
What are they? I cannot say if my ideas apply unless I know what you are talking about. Virgil Cain
VC,
That has nothing to do whether or not someone can come up with a relative cardinality for primes.
Hmm. So the set of primes does have a cardinality? Anyway, if you want to use densities to determine a notion of cardinality, I guess you could do that, but that would only work for subsets of R. And there are many ways of measuring densities, so you would have to choose one. Most of the countably infinite sets people are interested in are not sets of real numbers. It's not clear how your ideas will extend to those sets. daveS
And the pursuit of the relative cardinalities would be a noble quest. And guess what? It is the same as the pursuit of the bijective functions that map elements from one set to the elements of another. Of course the natural matching doesn’t need a function and is very clear.
Dance all you like but:
Yes logic and reasoning are beyond you. And AGAIN, the reason for asking for a practical application of Cantor’s concept is that in the absence of it then no one can really say if cantor is right or not. If Cantor was wrong about the cardinality of infinite sets then really nothing happens and intuition rules. There seems like there would be a greater number of naturals than evens and that is because there are.
Dance, dance, dance.
Your responses betray you, Jerad. You are incapable of understanding an argument and you can only parrot the party line. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
Here, of course, there is no clearcut “density” (an idea he doesn’t understand),
Make your case or stuff the innuendoes. Obviously you don't understand the density argument. See, your childish accusation style just further provokes and adds nothing.
because the primes, on the average, spread out as you encounter them. Therefore he has no idea what the cardinality of the primes might be using his ideas.
Yes, it could be determined and nothing prevents it. It would be a great mathematical pursuit Virgil Cain
EZ Jerad:
Can you or can you not find the cardinalities of the primes? Find the other cardinalities and make your comparisons. Or admit you can’t do it.
It can be done, Jerad. Nothing prevents it. Even you could do it given everything I have told you. Stop trying to make this personal. It's as if you think Einstein was refuted or a moron because someone else did the actual validation of his idea.
You don’t understand Cantor’s work
You are just a sore loser. Virgil Cain
Aleta: I think you mean by “non-realizable” not being tied to a clear real-world representation. Right. Not possible to instantiate in space and time. And by “beyond symbolic manipulation”, I think you are asking to what extent math is true beyond the fact that is internally logically coherent and consistent. I would put it this way: what extent math is "true" beyond the fact that the manipulation of the symbols (which is what we actually deal with) is internally logically coherent and consistent. mike1962
Hi Mike. As I was writing, I was aware of this truth issue, but I'm not sure exactly awhat you mean.
What does mathematical “truth” mean when dealing with the non-realizable abstract, beyond (interesting to be sure) symbolic manipulation?
I think you mean by "non-realizable" not being tied to a clear real-world representation. And by "beyond symbolic manipulation", I think you are asking to what extent math is true beyond the fact that is internally logically coherent and consistent. Do I interpret your question correctly? Aleta
EZ, you might recall that when Virgil talks about mappings, he's really just talking about what I called subset matchings, not a counting mapping. That's how he decided that the evens have 1/2 the naturals, because two naturals go by for every one match. In the case of the primes he would match 2 -> 2, 3 -> 3, 5 -> 5, 7 -> 7, etc. Here, of course, there is no clearcut "density" (an idea he doesn't understand), because the primes, on the average, spread out as you encounter them. Therefore he has no idea what the cardinality of the primes might be using his ideas. Aleta
Virgil Can you or can you not find the cardinalities of the primes? Find the other cardinalities and make your comparisons. Or admit you can't do it.
And the pursuit of the relative cardinalities would be a noble quest. And guess what? It is the same as the pursuit of the bijective functions that map elements from one set to the elements of another. Of course the natural matching doesn’t need a function and is very clear.
Dance all you like but: can you find the cardinality of the primes, yes or no?
And AGAIN, the reason for asking for a practical application of Cantor’s concept is that in the absence of it then no one can really say if cantor is right or not. If Cantor was wrong about the cardinality of infinite sets then really nothing happens and intuition rules. There seems like there would be a greater number of naturals than evens and that is because there are.
Dance, dance, dance. You don't understand Cantor's work and you clearly don't understand a mathematical proof. Can you find the cardinality of the primes or not? I'm not going to pay you but I am willing to bet some money you can't do it. Shall we say $10? $50? $100? ellazimm
Aleta: But also, note that the question of applicability is separate from the question of mathematical truth. I appreciate what you wrote @858. What does mathematical "truth" mean when dealing with the non-realizable abstract, beyond (interesting to be sure) symbolic manipulation? mike1962
And AGAIN, the reason for asking for a practical application of Cantor's concept is that in the absence of it then no one can really say if cantor is right or not. If Cantor was wrong about the cardinality of infinite sets then really nothing happens and intuition rules. There seems like there would be a greater number of naturals than evens and that is because there are. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
But to the pure mathematician, the reverse is true: math is worth pursuing, and has a truth of its own, irrespective of the ways we can apply it at this time, or ever.
And the pursuit of the relative cardinalities would be a noble quest. And guess what? It is the same as the pursuit of the bijective functions that map elements from one set to the elements of another. Of course the natural matching doesn't need a function and is very clear. Virgil Cain
EZ:
After Aleta made yet another effort to explain to you the importance of Cantor’s work
Umm, she was spewing irrelevant nonsense. And then started with the false accusations. All of which I was sick of days ago.
Then you, in your reply to daveS, showed that you do have a ‘system’ which you denied.
You just have reading comprehension issues. My statement was a hypothetical.
So, you and your approach cannot figure out the cardinality of the primes.
Of course we could. We just couldn't do it via some function. We would have to set other relative cardinalities and check those against the density of primes.
And yet Cantor’s system handles this case quite easily.
Yes just giving up and saying they are the same is easy. The hard part comes in getting around the set subtraction refutation of the claim. But again if you want me to do some work, work that you could do using what I told you about my concept and if you were really a mathematician, then you have to pay me. So time to own up or shut up. Virgil Cain
Earth to Aleta:
I think the bolded part is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated.
Most of what you posted in response to me is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. If you don't spew your diatribe then I don't post that response. Virgil Cain
daves:
Didn’t you say that right here?
That has nothing to do whether or not someone can come up with a relative cardinality for primes. Virgil Cain
Joe/Virgil After Aleta made yet another effort to explain to you the importance of Cantor's work you replied:
LoL! I appreciate the difference between mathematics and pure BS
And
I doubt that and just because you can say it doesn’t make it so. Most people understand that Cantor’s concept wrt the cardinality of infinite sets is counter-intuitive. So no, Aleta, what you say doesn’t have any merit.
And
That is just a pathetic way to “argue”, Aleta. So kindly go play in traffic. You have nothing but the rantings of someone who cannot make a case.
All very rude and disrespectful. Of someone who has had a lot more patience than anyone else I know of trying to understand what you are saying. You say over and over again that people don't even try and understand what you are saying and yet when someone does you treat them like that. Then you, in your reply to daveS, showed that you do have a 'system' which you denied.
The set of primes would have a relative cardinality based on its mapping function with, for example, the naturals. If you couldn’t devise such a function then you would have to figure out its relative density with some other method.
So, you and your approach cannot figure out the cardinality of the primes. Because you can't find an appropriate function nor do you have 'some other method'. And yet Cantor's system handles this case quite easily. As it handles sets A and B that I defined previously. If you think none of this matters then just say so and say you can't figure out the cardinalities I'm asking about. If you think it does matter then figure them out or admit you can't. Whatever it is make a statement. You dance and dodge and duck but you don't come up with the goods. Or admit you can't. Can you or can't you? Time to own up. ellazimm
Hey, kf,I know you're busy elsewhere, but at some point, take a look at 860
860 Virgil CainMarch 11, 2016 at 2:30 pm Aleta: ... That is just a pathetic way to “argue”, Aleta. So kindly go play in traffic. You have nothing but the rantings of someone who cannot make a case.
I think the bolded part is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. Aleta
VC,
I didn’t say that.
Didn't you say that right here?
ellazimm: And you still haven’t figured out the cardinality of the primes. Virgil Cain: There isn’t one as cardinality refers to the NUMBER of elements and infinity isn’t a humber. You don’t even understand the very basics of mathematics.
daveS
daves:
The fact that VC has stated that the set of primes doesn’t even have a well-defined cardinality in his sense does not bode well.
I didn't say that. And seeing that mathematicians find figuring out the bijective function is worthwhile then it seems my concept is as well. My concept runs off of figuring out the mapping functions between given sets. The set of primes would have a relative cardinality based on its mapping function with, for example, the naturals. If you couldn't devise such a function then you would have to figure out its relative density with some other method. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
Virgil seems to think his question is critical to the discussion, perhaps not appreciating the difference between pure and applied mathematics.
LoL! I appreciate the difference between mathematics and pure BS
So, if Virgil’s question is in respect to pure math, the answer is that if Cantor was wrong that countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, which would imply that the underlying logic was wrong, a whole system of understandings about numbers would also be wrong.
I doubt that and just because you can say it doesn't make it so. Most people understand that Cantor's concept wrt the cardinality of infinite sets is counter-intuitive. So no, Aleta, what you say doesn't have any merit.
But also, note that the question of applicability is separate from the question of mathematical truth.
Or reality vs imagination or philosophy. What makes something the mathematical truth?
Virgil would have no use for the Mandelbrot set, or e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0.
That is just a pathetic way to "argue", Aleta. So kindly go play in traffic. You have nothing but the rantings of someone who cannot make a case. Virgil Cain
Aleta,
So, if Virgil’s question is in respect to pure math, the answer is that if Cantor was wrong that countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, which would imply that the underlying logic was wrong, a whole system of understandings about numbers would also be wrong. Given that this theory of set has been extensively studied, tested, and extended, and is a core of a great deal of math, the chances of Cantor’s basic idea about cardinality being wrong is pretty much zero.
Very interesting post. FWIW, my take on VC's question is that we certainly could try dividing the collection of countably infinite sets into sets of different "sizes" (provided we don't have two conflicting definitions of cardinality in force simultaneously). Mathematicians don't find that worthwhile, apparently. Moreover, it would clearly require a lot of ad hoc judgments. Probably many pairs of sets would be non-comparable. The fact that VC has stated that the set of primes doesn't even have a well-defined cardinality in his sense does not bode well. The mainstream mathematicians are "lumpers" while VC is a "splitter" in this instance. daveS
Virgil seems to think his question is critical to the discussion, perhaps not appreciating the difference between pure and applied mathematics. So even though it is not relevant to whether Cantor's ideas about cardinality are true or not, I'll say a few things. The question is
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all?
Mathematics is a tremendously powerful and useful tool in understanding the world. However, to apply math you have to have some math to apply, so people, some people especially, like to develop pure mathematics irrespective of whether it a has an application. For instance, non-Euclidean geometry was developed out of purely mathematical questions concerning the parallel postulate, but the idea that spaces could have different types of curvatures and other properties has become a very useful tool. Reciprocally, practical questions often stimulate the creation of pure math that doesn't have an application. For example, questions about feedback loops in weather systems led to the invention of fractals which led to the discovery of the Mandelbrot set, which itself has no practical applications that I know of. So sometimes pure math has an affect in terms of practical understandings, and sometimes not. However, very often math is developed that at the time doesn't seem to have any applications, and then later is found to do so. Also, because pure math is an abstract system with idealized components, when math is applied it is always imperfect in some way: there are no perfect circles; there is not an infinite number of anything; natural exponential growth, which assumes continuity, most likely is never exact, and so on. So to apply math one must make a model relating the perfect concepts of pure math to the less than perfect aspects of the real world and our ability to know it perfectly. So, if Virgil's question is in respect to pure math, the answer is that if Cantor was wrong that countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, which would imply that the underlying logic was wrong, a whole system of understandings about numbers would also be wrong. Given that this theory of set has been extensively studied, tested, and extended, and is a core of a great deal of math, the chances of Cantor's basic idea about cardinality being wrong is pretty much zero. If Virgil's question is in respect to applied math, then the question becomes in what ways is the general topic useful. It may be that the specific fact that countable infinite sets have the same cardinality has no specific practical application, but the whole edifice of the set theory begun with Cantor is used all the time. But also, note that the question of applicability is separate from the question of mathematical truth. If applicability is one's hallmark of importance, a great deal of math would be irrelevant. Virgil would have no use for the Mandelbrot set, or e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0. Also, sometimes math is applied in fields one has no interest in or knowledge about, so one might think it made no difference, and yet someone else would find it critical. For instance fractals, which are based in theory on infinite iterations, has extremely important applications in studying turbulence, but Virgil might have no idea of that connection. But to the pure mathematician, the reverse is true: math is worth pursuing, and has a truth of its own, irrespective of the ways we can apply it at this time, or ever. From that point of view, if Virgil's question is about a practical affect, the answer is it doesn't make in difference as the mathematical truth: in the world of math, the evens have the same cardinality as the naturals, irrespective of whether that has a practical use anyplace. Aleta
Look, if neither of you are going to answer my question then there isn't anything else to discuss as obviously you are just going to continue your dishonest remarks. But thank you for proving my point! Virgil Cain
ellazimm:
Like I said, anyone who really understands set theory knows what is true.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Too bad not one of those people can answer my question.
You keep asking for answers that already exist
That is incorrect and proves that you are dishonest. But I do understand that is all that you have. Virgil Cain
Virgil
LoL! @ ellazimm- Nice cowardly non-response. The avoidance of my question speaks volumes. Thank you for continuing to prove my point.
Like I said, anyone who really understands set theory knows what is true. You keep asking for answers that already exist but you haven't read them and you don't understand them when they are pointed out to you. ellazimm
Aleta:
What’s wrong with being a woman?
ellazimm is proud to be a woman. Virgil Cain
ellazimm:
He wasn’t wrong.
How do you know? The concept doesn't have any practical applications so it is clear anyone can say anything and still be OK.
Over a hundred years of mathematicians agree.
That is neither an argument nor relevant.
And Cantor’s work gave a firm foundation of modern mathematics.
A useless concept isn't a foundation, Jerad. Virgil Cain
What's wrong with being a woman? :-) Aleta
LoL! @ ellazimm- Nice cowardly non-response. The avoidance of my question speaks volumes. Thank you for continuing to prove my point. Virgil Cain
Virgil
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all?
He wasn't wrong. Over a hundred years of mathematicians agree. And Cantor's work gave a firm foundation of modern mathematics. Anyone who has studied real set theory understands that. It doesn't make a difference to toaster repairmen though. And anyone who has studied real set theory would be able to figure out the cardinality of the primes. And sets A and B that I defined previously. ellazimm
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? The avoidance of my question pretty much says it all. Thank you. Virgil Cain
Aleta
Aleta @ 839- Thank you for proving to be totally clueless. Jerad attacked me and made it personal. Jerad can’t even deal with my argument and he cannot answer a simple question about Cantor’s claims. and you have avoided that question because you know that by answering it you will have proven my point.
Awww, he likes you!! ellazimm
ncorrect. ‘ellazimm’ was mine BEFORE ‘Jerad’. I switched because KF thought I was a woman.
You act like a woman. Answered my question yet? Too bad because if you did you would make my point. Virgil Cain
And you still haven’t figured out the cardinality of the primes.
There isn't one as cardinality refers to the NUMBER of elements and infinity isn't a humber. You don't even understand the very basics of mathematics. Virgil Cain
Virgil
Jerad was banned before. And then he created the fake ellazimm. And now he posts lies and false accusations because he cannot handle the arguments.
Incorrect. 'ellazimm' was mine BEFORE 'Jerad'. I switched because KF thought I was a woman. Got that wrong as well. Figured out the cardinality of the primes yet? Or of sets A and B defined above? I guess you can't do that. Better to just admit it and move on. ellazimm
Aleta @ 839- Thank you for proving to be totally clueless. Jerad attacked me and made it personal. Jerad can't even deal with my argument and he cannot answer a simple question about Cantor's claims. and you have avoided that question because you know that by answering it you will have proven my point. Virgil Cain
EZ Jerad:
Love your academic reasoning.
Look at the pap I was responding to. It was devoid of academic reasoning. Virgil Cain
Jerad was banned before. And then he created the fake ellazimm. And now he posts lies and false accusations because he cannot handle the arguments. Virgil Cain
Aleta
Hey kf, vouve warned Virgil, and now he posts 837. How long does it get to go on?
Joe was banned before. And then he created the fake Virgil. I wonder what pseudonym he'll use next? ellazimm
Virgil
ellazimm has been exposed as a poseur, a coward and a liar. Time to crawl back under your rock, Jerad
Missed your addendum the first time around. And you still haven't figured out the cardinality of the primes. Or the sets A and B defined earlier in this thread. Too bad Cantor could answer those questions. ellazimm
Hey kf, vouve warned Virgil, and now he posts 837. How long does he get to go on? Where are the snippers when we need them? ;-) Aleta
Virgil
ellazimm, Give it up, Jared. You don’t have a clue and you are too stupid to think for yourself. Add that to the fact that you choked on my question and we get it, you don’t know jack. However you have proven that you are a liar and spewer of false accusations. Nice job
Love your academic reasoning. ellazimm
ellazimm, Give it up, Jared. You don't have a clue and you are too stupid to think for yourself. Add that to the fact that you choked on my question and we get it, you don't know jack. However you have proven that you are a liar and spewer of false accusations. Nice job ellazimm has been exposed as a poseur, a coward and a liar. Time to crawl back under your rock, Jerad Virgil Cain
Virgil Give it up Joe. You've proven you don't really understand Cantor's work. Time to stop pretending you do. ellazimm
mike1962 @ 832
Physical body, correct.
Correct. In hindsight, I think my comment was insensitive. I apologize for it. Me_Think
Aleta:
Virgil, the density issue between the naturals and the reals uses exactly the notions of infinity that you reject.
Nonsense. Make your case and then answer the question that you have been avoiding: If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all?
If you look at the arguments that the rationals have the same cardinality as the naturals, but the reals don’t, you will find the exact same arguments that you reject when you say the evens are smaller than the naturals.
Make your case as opposed to just a bald accusation.
Also, what doe Cantor say about set subtraction with infinite sets?
Did he say something about it? Post it and we can all have a look. Virgil Cain
ellazimm #831 It's pretty clear that you are nothing but a horse's arse and a mathematical weenie. If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? It is very telling that my detractors refuse to answer that simple question. It’s as if they know that by answering it they will prove my point. That says it all Virgil Cain
Me_Think: OK, so in the end some of us are not even food for microbes Physical body, correct. mike1962
Virgil #829 It's pretty clear you don't really understand Cantor's work at all. You claim to agree with . . . Oh never mind. You'll never actually take anyone's word for it so I'd just be wasting my time. You claim to have an understanding that decades of mathematicians don't have yet you clearly haven't even understood that which you argue about and against. ellazimm
Virgil, the density issue between the naturals and the reals uses exactly the notions of infinity that you reject. If you look at the arguments that the rationals have the same cardinality as the naturals, but the reals don't, you will find the exact same arguments that you reject when you say the evens are smaller than the naturals. Also, what doe Cantor say about set subtraction with infinite sets? Aleta
EZ:
But that is part of Cantor’s basic premise!!
That's your opinion and only an opinion. However seeing that the claim is useless I doubt it is fundamental to his thesis.
That what he defines to be the smallest infinite cardinal number!!
That's redundant and wrong. For one cardinality refers to the number of elements. Also infinity is not a number.
What part of what he said do you agree with then?
Everything else. duh. That means everything dealing with finite sets as well as his saying that, due to the density issue, the reals have a greater cardinality than the naturals. If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? It is very telling that my detractors refuse to answer that simple question. It’s as if they know that by answering it they will prove my point. Virgil Cain
Mapou
I have been using Fourier analysis in my speech recognition research for years. It’s funny but I have never encountered anything infinite about it. In fact, I use a finite and discrete computer to do my work. How is that possible if, as you seem to claim, it uses infinities?
You never looked at the mathematical definitions then. Start here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis Lots and lots of infinities there. On every integral and every series.
That is a lie as I do not reject Cantor. I just reject his notion that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. If Jerad takes that to mean I reject cantor then Jerad is a bigger arse than I thought.
But that is part of Cantor's basic premise!! That what he defines to be the smallest infinite cardinal number!! What part of what he said do you agree with then? ellazimm
EZ:
But you and Virgil do have Cantor rejection in common.
That is a lie as I do not reject Cantor. I just reject his notion that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. If Jerad takes that to mean I reject cantor then Jerad is a bigger {SNIP -- KF] than I thought. Virgil Cain
EllaZimm @825, I have been using Fourier analysis in my speech recognition research for years. It's funny but I have never encountered anything infinite about it. In fact, I use a finite and discrete computer to do my work. How is that possible if, as you seem to claim, it uses infinities? You know why? It's because, regardless of what you have been taught or may believe, neither calculus, nor Einstein's physics, nor Cantor's work ever use any infinities whatsoever. It's a big lie. You, like some religious people I know, have been believing in a lie. But that's OK with me. I don't care. This is my last reply to you. I got other things to be busy with. Have fun. Mapou
Mapou Our resident mathematical luddite. :-)
The reason that I’m so insistent on this is that I’m tired of mathematicians and theologians sending humanity on a wild goose chase and preaching their crackpottery to an unsuspecting public. If infinity does not exist (and it most certainly does not), then Einstein was right when he wrote to his friend Besso that “nothing remains of my entire castle in the air and of the rest of modern physics.”
And yet Einstein's work and that of many, many other physicians and mathematicians works and has great predictive power despite having a firm theoretical basis on something you say doesn't exist. I'll stick with the stuff that works I think.
Why? Because both GR and SR are based on the existence of infinity. Why? Because continuous structures (fields) assume infinite smoothness. And, by all means, we should not stop at infinity. The same can be said of time, distance and space. Pi and perfect circles, too, are non-existent. So any talk from the physics community of gravitational waves as ripples in spacetime is the ultimate in crackpottery.
Have you ever used Fourier analysis? Another very useful mathematical technique. Based on judicious use of infinite series.
Modern physics is swimming in crackpottery. It is sitting on a mountain of crap. How did it get this way? We can put the blame squarely in the mathematicians’ laps. Cantor comes to mind. Calling an abstract set “infinite” or claiming that some infinities are larger than other infinities is downright irresponsible. It smacks of some sort of mental disease. Cantor was a nut, wasn’t he?
Turns out that the mathematics community eventually recognised how insightful and powerful Cantor's arguments were. Very few people even try to do work without encompassing his ideas. But you and Virgil do have Cantor rejection in common. And neither of you has come up with a viable, rigorous alternative that can stand up to scrutiny AND handle pertinent situations. For example: are there an infinite number of prime numbers? Yes or no? Are there the same number of rational numbers as real numbers? Yes or no? Does f(x) = 1/x ever reach the value of zero? Yes or no? What is the value of f(x) = 1/x as x gets closer to zero? ellazimm
mike1962 @ 823
Nah, the dust of my cremated body will probably not be too appetizing for any other organisms. As for my consciousness, well, we’ll see, won’t we.
OK, so in the end some of us are not even food for microbes. Me_Think
Me_Think: In the end we are food for microbes, nothing else. Nah, the dust of my cremated body will probably not be too appetizing for any other organisms. As for my consciousness, well, we'll see, won't we. mike1962
Virgil Cain @821, You're insulting me, man. At this point, all can say is, pack it where the sun does not shine. See you around. Mapou
Mapou:
I see nothing infinite in a few symbolic markings on my screen.
Well educated people see what I wrote as a representation of an infinite set. So perhaps you should get an education. Virgil Cain
Virgil:
{1,2,3,4,5,…}- that is an infinite set.
You're kidding me? I see nothing infinite in a few symbolic markings on my screen. They look very much finite to me. All you have shown me is a mathematical formula on how to build a series of numbers. My question still stands.
If an infinite set exists, where is it?
The reason that I'm so insistent on this is that I'm tired of mathematicians and theologians sending humanity on a wild goose chase and preaching their crackpottery to an unsuspecting public. If infinity does not exist (and it most certainly does not), then Einstein was right when he wrote to his friend Besso that "nothing remains of my entire castle in the air and of the rest of modern physics." Why? Because both GR and SR are based on the existence of infinity. Why? Because continuous structures (fields) assume infinite smoothness. And, by all means, we should not stop at infinity. The same can be said of time, distance and space. Pi and perfect circles, too, are non-existent. So any talk from the physics community of gravitational waves as ripples in spacetime is the ultimate in crackpottery. Modern physics is swimming in crackpottery. It is sitting on a mountain of crap. How did it get this way? We can put the blame squarely in the mathematicians' laps. Cantor comes to mind. Calling an abstract set "infinite" or claiming that some infinities are larger than other infinities is downright irresponsible. It smacks of some sort of mental disease. Cantor was a nut, wasn't he? Mapou
EZ:
Proving Cantor wrong would mean having to come up with an alternative to his ‘system’...
That is false and exposes your ignorance. You can definitely prove a concept is wrong without having a replacement. If Eddington would have found that gravity didn't bend light in the way Einstein explained in his equations then Einstein would have been proven wrong and no replacement would have been attempted. Do you ever think? And this is why I don't take your criticisms seriously. Virgil Cain
Thanks, EZ, for your comments. Aleta
Aleta:
It appears that I now correctly understand your position about the “relative cardinality” of infinite sets in respect to the Cantorian cardinality of the natural numbers.
There isn't a Cantorian cardinality of the natural numbers and I haven't picked a standard yet. Virgil Cain
And again: If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? It is very telling that my detractors refuse to answer that simple question. It’s as if they know that by answering it they will prove my point. ellazimm choked and spewed a non-sequitur that he really thinks answered the question. Everyone can see that he didn't even address it. So do any other detractors care to answer it? If not then my point is made and you have nothing to say about it. Virgil Cain
Mapou:
If an infinite set exists, where is it?
{1,2,3,4,5,...}- that is an infinite set. Virgil Cain
ellazimm- we have nothing to discuss as all you do is lie and bluff. Set subtraction proves that Cantor was wrong. Again I have been over and over this with you and you still ignore it. And when you spew nonsense like:
And you keep pretending that since you have no personal knowledge of the ‘practical’ application of a core concept in Cantor’s work the whole thing doesn’t matter anyway.
It just proves my point about you. No one has any knowledge for the practical application of saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. And no that is not a core concept in Cantor's work. You have serious issues, kiddo. Virgil Cain
Virgil, KF, Mapou I don't understand why but you all are dancing around questions that have been addressed to you that are pertinent to the way this thread has evolved. Virgil: you and I have discussed at great length (on your own blog) your system of relative cardinalities. You 'calculated' the 'relative' cardinality of many infinite sets. So why are you now saying you haven't given it much thought at the same time baldly declaring that Cantor was wrong and you have proved it? I have asked you over and over again on this thread to determine the cardinality of sets A and B (defined a long ways above) and you won't even say whether you can or not. And you keep pretending that since you have no personal knowledge of the 'practical' application of a core concept in Cantor's work the whole thing doesn't matter anyway. But you have proved him wrong? Proving Cantor wrong would mean having to come up with an alternative to his 'system' which means you have to be able to answer questions like the ones I keep asking you. KF, daveS asked you over and over again several straight-forward yes or no question that are purely mathematical and you danced around it as if answering would threaten your life. daveS appears to have teased out one answer but why did you not just address the issue directly? We're just asking you about the mathematics NOT the cosmology or theology. I don't understand why you write paragraph upon paragraph of prose that avoids answering simple, direct questions. Mapou, you like bringing up concepts and ideas that you know will get people riled up but this time, when Aleta addressed your statements and then asked you a question in return you stomped off. I have noticed you behaving that way on other threads. You think it's a good and important thing to question authority (I agree) but you seem to have a real problem when you are questioned in return. What was it about Aleta's question that you found so objectionable? I have been participating on the blog for a number of years. I have been ridiculed many times (as you will all remember) and have been banned for no stated reason as you will also remember. On this thread Aleta, daveS and myself (to a much lesser extent) have been trying to figure out what it is you believe about a neutral topic and have been doing so in a generally respectful manner. Why is it so hard to answer some questions? This thread is not part of some greater war, it's about mathematics. In academic environments you HAVE to be prepared to face intense questioning, it's how it works. You can't just say whatever and expect people to nod and smile and take it on faith. They are going to do their best to stress it and pull it apart before they bring it into the fold. That's the way it should be, that's how you make sure that new stuff actually makes sense: the crucible of scrutiny. It's nothing personal. But if you can't defend your ideas and, especially, if you don't even try, then people are going to stop paying attention. Maybe you don't care if anyone takes you seriously but I don't that very much. All three of you have written hundreds of posts declaring yourselves to be right about various topics. When someone is trying to take you seriously and figure out what exactly you are saying that is exactly the time to answer some questions. ellazimm
mike1962 @ 811
In the end. We die. Period. You make your peace with that. Whatever it is
In the end we are food for microbes, nothing else. Me_Think
In the end. We die. Period. You make your peace with that. Whatever it is. mike1962
KF,
DS, by definition of endlessness T will go beyond any arbitrarily large finite value and in that sense is endless or infinite. Every specific defined term of T will be finite but endlessness cannot be exhausted.
Thanks. It appears we agree that T is an infinite set, and every element of T is finite? daveS
DS, by definition of endlessness T will go beyond any arbitrarily large finite value and in that sense is endless or infinite. Every specific defined term of T will be finite but endlessness cannot be exhausted. The ellipsis that indicates endlessness is a key component of the set. KF kairosfocus
Thanks, Mike. I said approximately the same things at 798. Aleta
Aleta: does pi exist? It depends on what you mean by "exist." "Exist" can mean a number of things. At very least, Pi is an intellectual abstraction invented/discovered by humans, resolvable to various degrees using algorithms. Whether or not it "exists" outside of that is a matter of strenuous philosophical contention by those very humans. Ultimately, nothing makes sense. But Pi as an abstraction has demonstrable usefulness to humans pragmatically. (Pardon the semi-redundancy.) mike1962
P.S. I also believe "the universe is both finite and discrete". We're not talking about the physical universe. We're talking about abstract mathematical concepts which can be applied, always with some lack of precision, to the real world. But the question is about the natural numbers as a mathematical concept. Aleta
But in 795 you wrote,
Aleta, answer my question first. Then I’ll answer yours.
I answered yours. You don't agree with me, I assume, but I answered. Perhaps you should follow through and answer mine, even if I might not agree with you. How many natural numbers are there? Aleta
Aleta, Do not address me anymore. Our conversation is over. Mapou
Mapou, does pi exist? This has nothing to do with religion at all. Aleta
Aleta speaks just like a Darwinist/materialist/atheist or Christian fundamentalist. With a forked tongue. Mapou
Mapou, does pi exist? It is an abstraction. If abstractions don't exist, does mathematics not exist? How about "tree". It's an abstraction. By saying that abstractions don't exist you are denying the existence of everything that makes human knowledge possible. Aleta
KF,
Your T is the set of naturals from 1 on and again continues endlessly in succession. No particular member in T we can note down will be infinite and no finite value in T will begin to exhaust the set.
Would you please answer these questions directly? Is T an infinite set? Is every element of T finite? daveS
Abstractions do not exist, by definition. PS. This is the reason that the universe is both finite and discrete. Live with it. Mapou
Mathematical ideas are abstract concepts, and we're quite capable of inventing symbols for and thinking about them. Infinite sets are in the same place as perfect circles, ?, sqrt(-1), the Mandelbrot set, 10^200, and any other mathematical concept. Some people believe these exist in some Platonic realm, and some believe they exist only as symbolic abstractions that we have invented. But in any case, the question of "where is infinity" is not different than "where is" any other mathematical concept. Some mathematical concepts are tied more closely to physical reality than others. The counting numbers have direct physical representations, circles can come close to perfect, etc. Others concepts like e, the Mandelbrot set, and infinity don't have direct physical representations. But they all are, from a purely mathematical point of view, abstract ideas symblized in language and mathematical symbols. They exist within mathematics as such irrespective of whether we can point to something that exists in the physical world. Your turn: how many natural numbers are there? Aleta
Mapou, do abstractions exist? If so, transfinite sets do. KF kairosfocus
DS, your set S was reciprocals of naturals continued endlessly per ellipse. Your T is the set of naturals from 1 on and again continues endlessly in succession. No particular member in T we can note down will be infinite and no finite value in T will begin to exhaust the set. Endlessness is a crucial component and there is a continual pointing across it. Stepwise finite stage endless succession cannot be completed. And the definition of w and its status as a limit ordinal without definable predecessor reflects that. There is no definable specific finite natural number of endless degree of removal from 0 or 1; tied to inability to traverse endlessness in steps. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, Answer my question first. Then I'll answer yours.
If an infinite set exists, where is it?
Mapou
Hi Mapou. How many natural numbers are there? You know, N = {1,2,3,...} How many numbers are in that set? Aleta
Virgil @790, My point is that, before we can talk about infinite sets, we gotta ask ourselves the following question:
If an infinite set exists, where is it?
Unless and until we can answer the question, we are just urinating against the wind. We cannot just poof things into existence. IOW, if you can compare two things, they are not infinite. Mapou
Thanks, Virgil. It appears that I now correctly understand your position about the "relative cardinality" of infinite sets in respect to the Cantorian cardinality of the natural numbers. Aleta
If infinity exists, where is it?
Infinity is a journey and you are on it, albeit only for a very short time :cool: Virgil Cain
Mapou:
The idea that one infinity can be bigger or smaller than another is about as cretinous and brain dead as it can get.
Without context I would agree. But given the context it is easy to see that some infinite sets have a higher density than others. It also seems that we can quantitatively classify two different types of infinite sets. From that it follows that there are at least two different types of infinities when it comes to numbers and that one is going to have a higher density than the other. Virgil Cain
If infinity exists, where is it? If time exists, where is it? If space exists, where is it? If distance exists, where is it? If unicorns exist, where are they? PS. Don't mind me. I'm just imitating Immanuel Kant. Mapou
The idea that one infinity can be bigger or smaller than another is about as cretinous and brain dead as it can get. It beats the flat earth hypothesis by light-years. Mapou
kairosfocus- I copy that and thank you for your patience. Virgil Cain
Aleta, I would start with some accepted standard, yes. But I would allow for a cardinality greater than, equal to or less than that standard. It is all relative, hence the name. That way you don't need any special pleading to get around the ramifications of set subtraction.
Therefore, Virgil’s belief, based on his set subtraction method, is that there are an infinite number of levels of infinity, both less than and greater than the level infinity associated with the natural numbers.
And that follows from Cantor's reasoning behind small and big infinity- and again I am not sure if the naturals is what I would use as a standard. I haven't given it much thought but that is what I would most likely start with and then see if another standard is better. Virgil Cain
KF,
DS, again, ellipsis of endlessness and the k, k+1 etc vs 0, 1, 2 etc effect highlighted through the pink vs blue tapes, the ellipsis of endlessness again. And there is not a problem with an infinite array of values in the near neighbourhood of 0 as values run towards the infinitesimal, with of course yet another type of endlessness, endlessly smaller and smaller. KF
You're not responding to my question. I'm asking whether my set T is an infinite subset of N consisting only of finite natural numbers. daveS
As far as I can tell, Virgil's view is that every infinite proper subset of the natural numbers has a different cardinality. Much as Cantor named aleph null (A0) as the cardinality of the naturals and A1 as the cardinality of the reals, and then built a sequence of further levels of infinity from there, Virgil seems to have the idea that we can start with the cardinality of the naturals and build down from there. The evens have fewer members than the naturals, the set of all squares would have even fewer members, the set of all factorials even fewer yet. Interesting enough, the integers would have more members than the naturals, by the same argument Virgil uses for the odds and evens. Let I = the integers = {0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3, ...}, N = the naturals = {1,2,3,...), and N- = the non-positive integers {0,-1,-2,-3, ...} Then I - N = N-, so N and N- have fewer members than I. One more example: let N = the naturals and let N1 = {2,3,4,..}, so that N - N1 = {1}. By Virgils reasoning, the cardinality of N1 is one less than the cardinality of N, although still infinite. Therefore, Virgil's belief, based on his set subtraction method, is that there are an infinite number of levels of infinity, both less than and greater than the level infinity associated with the natural numbers. This seems to be what he believes. Aleta
VC, the warning is there. Point out the errors or wrongs, but kindly do not resort to further inappropriate language. I do not have time to police, and will act on what I see. KF kairosfocus
DS, again, ellipsis of endlessness and the k, k+1 etc vs 0, 1, 2 etc effect highlighted through the pink vs blue tapes, the ellipsis of endlessness again. And there is not a problem with an infinite array of values in the near neighbourhood of 0 as values run towards the infinitesimal, with of course yet another type of endlessness, endlessly smaller and smaller. KF kairosfocus
kairosfocus:
VC, I am beginning to run out of patience, please fix your tone. KF
And I have already run out of patience, hence my tone. Strange that you confront me for my responses but let the attacks and lies I am responding to alone. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
We’ve discussed your system of ‘relative’ cardinalities many, many times on your blog.
We have discussed the concept but not the system as I don't have a system, yet. And you can't even grasp the concept. Virgil Cain
KF, Do you agree or not that I have shown an infinite subset of N consisting of only finite numbers? Let me take a fragment of one of your posts from above and edit it a little:
And when sets are isomorphic and endless they must have the same cardinality — scale index — shown by finding a 1:1 correspondence. Isomorphism can be shown by transformation: {1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...} [edited next three lines] x -> 1/x {2, 4, 8, 16, ...} The sets {1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...} and {2, 4, 8, 16, ...}[edited] have countable endlessness, first degree endlessness, cardinality aleph null.
Therefore {2, 4, 8, 16, ...} is an infinite subset of N consisting of only finite values. Edit: BTW, I agree there's nothing special about the set I've chosen here; it does not 'change' anything. I made the switch partly for variety's sake. daveS
DS, I notice again, ellipsis of endlessness. The pattern is, naturals we reach in steps or represent using notations dependent on such, will be finite, and so will their reciprocals. But that brings us to the k, . . . problem. Ellipsis of endlessness. 1/k, . . . headed to 0 as limit (thus, heading towards infinitesimal scale) does not materially change the situation. KF kairosfocus
DS (Attn Vc etc), First, I am not going to be available for some days, so no new thread just yet. Apart from the question, what would such a thread add? Second, I appreciate the loading issue, but with the tone problem I have not had time to police, and with me incommunicado for a time upcoming, a new thread is not advisable right now. Notice has been served on tone so I expect a marked improvement over the next several days. There will be no further warnings. KF kairosfocus
Got it, me_think. Aleta
Aleta @ 772
Virgil is right, me_think, about the cardinality of the reals and naturals: they are different.
The "Profound effect" comment @ 768 was supposed to be a snark, except that it backfired :-) ! Me_Think
#766 VC
LoL! I don’t have a system yet, jerk.
Oh don't be so shy. We've discussed your system of 'relative' cardinalities many, many times on your blog. Any you know what? You couldn't figure out the cardinalities of the primes then either! And a bunch of other infinite sets as I recall. And now you can't figure out the cardinalities of sets A and B from above. I can do all of those for you if you want me to. Just say the word. By the way, you are mis-spelling my first name. ellazimm
KF, First, would it be possible to set up a new thread to continue the discussion? This one isn't (always) loading properly.
Pardon but first the sequence 1/n of course goes to endlessly smaller numbers heading to the infinitesimals.
This is a side issue but no infinitesimals are involved. I'm only working with real numbers in this example. The numbers in the sequence are the reciprocals of the powers of 2, all (real) rational numbers. Do you at least agree that the set {1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...} is infinite? And that every element is positive? daveS
Virgil is right, me_think, about the cardinality of the reals and naturals: they are different. However, since Virgil rejects Cantor in general, it's odd that he would invoke Cantor at all. Aleta
VC, I am beginning to run out of patience, please fix your tone. KF kairosfocus
DS, Pardon but first the sequence 1/n of course goes to endlessly smaller numbers heading to the infinitesimals. The endlessness cannot be completed in steps of reciprocals either, and we are right back at the main issue. Ever multiplicative inverse we can reach in steps of succession will be finite, as the numbers in the main sequence are finite. Marking correspondences and leaving off zero: 1/1 --> 1 1/2 --> 2 1/3 --> 3 . . . 1/n --> n . . . lim 1/n --> 0 Again we see pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness. KF kairosfocus
LoL! @ Me_Think:
Of course there would be profound effect – you would have proven that the set of real numbers has greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers !
Cantor has already said that the reals have a greater cardinality than the naturals. small infinity, big infinity But thanks for the continued laughs, MT Virgil Cain
Joe @ 767,
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all?
Of course there would be profound effect - you would have proven that the set of real numbers has greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers ! - because set of real numbers has the same cardinality as the set of all subsets of the set of natural numbers. Me_Think
Again: If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? It is very telling that my detractors refuse to answer that simple question. It’s as if they know that by answering it they will prove my point. Thank you for proving my point. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
You haven’t understood any of the answers or links to answers I’ve provided.
Liar. Also not one of your answers nor links even addresses my question. It's as if you are proud to be a bluffing loser.
You refuse to listen to anyone who disagree with you.
Nice projection
You can’t use your own system
LoL! I don't have a system yet, jerk. Virgil Cain
#760 VC
You are a legend in your own itty-bitty mind.
Ah, the Virg we know and love.
You haven’t answered the question so what is there to believe?
You haven't understood any of the answers or links to answers I've provided. You refuse to listen to anyone who disagree with you. You can't use your own system to figure out the cardinalities of sets A and B above. Or the primes. But Cantor's system can handle all those cases easily. ellazimm
Have you found a mistake in any of Cantor’s work?
Yes, standard set subtraction proves he was wrong. Virgil Cain
Aleta, I dare you to answer the question: If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? Will you choke like Jared/ EZ has or will you actually address the actual question? Virgil Cain
Aleta:
Therefore, the evens are both a subset of the naturals and countable by the naturals. Both are infinite at the same level so to speak: there are the same number of evens as there are naturals.
And yet standard set subtraction proves that there are not the same number of elements between the evens and the naturals. And your only asinine response is to say that you cannot use set subtraction in this case. Virgil Cain
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? Jared:
If you won’t believe me then read a real book on set theory.
You haven't answered the question so what is there to believe? It is very telling that my detractors refuse to answer that simple question. It’s as if they know that by answering it they will prove my point. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
I think one reason Virgil reverted back to hostile, rude non-discussion because the points I’m making are coming perilously close to pointing out some confusions in his thinking.
You are a legend in your own itty-bitty mind. Virgil Cain
I think one reason Virgil reverted back to hostile, rude non-discussion because the points I'm making are coming perilously close to pointing out some confusions in his thinking. Consider the set of even numbers E and the set of natural numbers N Now let Ef (f for finite) be a finite set of even numbers, such as = {2,4,6,... 2000) Let Cf be a counting mapping for Ef. Cf is a subset of N (because counting is done with natural numbers), and Cf will only go up to 1000. Cf = {1,2,3,... 1000} 2 -> 1 4 -> 2 ... 2000 -> 1000 Notice that Ef is not a subset Cf. Counting mappings do not do the same thing as subset mappings. Ef has the same cardinality as Cf, which is 1000. Both sets have 1000 elements. If you are interested in subsets, you need to consider another set, let us call it Sf = {1,2,3,...2000} Here the mapping 2 -> 2, 4 -> 4, ... 2000 -> 2000 shows that Ef is a subset of Sf. However Sf has twice as many elements as Ef, because it also includes all the odds. This mapping, however, has nothing to do with counting. It just shows that for any number of evens Ef, there is a subset of the naturals that contains Ef, but this relationship doesn't count the number of elements in Ef. These are the two ideas that Virgil is conflating. ============= Now, how does this apply to the entire infinite sets of E and N? The argument above for Ef and Cf shows that for any finite even number, every element of Ef can be mapped to one of the natural numbers, and that the cardinality of the two sets are the same: if f = 2 billion rather than 2000, then there is still a counting mapping which shows that Ef has 1 billion elements. If we had another even number, the count goes up by one. Thus, by induction, any finite set of evens, no matter how large, can be counted by being mapped to a subset of the naturals. (And in all cases, the set of evens under consideration is not a subset of the set being used to count it.) However, when we consider the infinite sets, the two concepts, subsets and counting, merge. The evens are a subset of the naturals, as 2 -> 2, 4 -> 4, ... forever. The evens can be counted by the naturals, as 2 -> 1, 4 -> 2, ... forever Therefore, the evens are both a subset of the naturals and countable by the naturals. Both are infinite at the same level so to speak: there are the same number of evens as there are naturals. Aleta
#757 VC
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all?
If you won't believe me then read a real book on set theory. I know you won't do that but you won't believe anyone who disagrees with you.
It is very telling that my detractors refuse to answer that simple question. It’s as if they know that by answering it they will prove my point.
Have you figured out the 'relative' cardinality of the sets A and B I defined above? Have you figured out the cardinality of the prime numbers? Have you found any academic support for your 'system'? Have you found a mistake in any of Cantor's work? ellazimm
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? It is very telling that my detractors refuse to answer that simple question. It's as if they know that by answering it they will prove my point. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
I take it that Virgil is not interested in discussing this anymore.
You are changing things, Aleta. So no, I am not interested in your flailing change. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
It’s part of the foundation of Cantor’s work.
Look, you have already proven that you cannot follow along nor answer a simple question. And by doing so you have proven that no one uses the concept that countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are just a bluffing loser. And a foundation would have a practical use. Absent a practical use then anyone can say anything about it and they would be correct as no one could ever refute them.
Maybe he figured out you were going to prove him incorrect.
No one can do that absent a practical use for the concept I am debating. But obviously you are too dim to grasp that simple fact. Virgil Cain
#748 VC
The question pertains to that small part of set theory and does not pertain to the entire theory.
It's part of the foundation of Cantor's work. You really should take a real set theory course someday. And, by the way, counting elements in a set is creating a one-to-one mapping between the elements of the set and (and at least some of) the positive integers. #751 Aleta
Yesterday we were having a fairly civil discuss as I tried to understand your thoughts. I’m not sure why such a simple thing as discussing counting in the context of set mappings prompted your comment this morning.
Maybe he figured out you were going to prove him incorrect. ellazimm
I take it that Virgil is not interested in discussing this anymore. And yes, it would be kernels of coin and grains of rice. I edited my post. Aleta
Aleta:
Actually, it’s the mathematical explanation of what counting is.
As if.
Obviously I picked a very small set for illustration purposes, but if I threw a bushel of corn on the floor and asked you to count the grains one-by-one, you would go through the same process,
No, I would laugh in your face. Also corn has kernels and not grains. So I would be laughing really hard. Virgil Cain
to Virgil: re 749. You write,
No, it seems like an imbecile’s way to do so. Nice job.
Actually, it's the mathematical explanation of what counting is. Obviously I picked a very small set for illustration purposes, but if I threw a bushel of corn on the floor and asked you to count the kernels [was grains] one-by-one, you would go through the same process, using the names of the numbers as the counting mapping. You'd count {one, two, three,... X} until you got to the last kernel, and then X would be the number of kernels (the cardinality of the set). In the post I just wrote I explained how this is the process that little children go through when they first learn to count. There is also archeological evidence that pre-historic people in the Middle East used a similar principle of 1:1 correspondence before the invention of written numbers, baking a number of pebbles in a clay sphere to represent the number of camels being transported across the desert by a trader. Yesterday we were having a fairly civil discuss as I tried to understand your thoughts. I'm not sure why such a simple thing as discussing counting in the context of set mappings prompted your comment this morning. Aleta
Thanks to the discussion with Virgil yesterday, I now understand a distinction that I wasn't aware in our respective viewpoints that may help further the discussion about cardinality. I mentioned this last night, but will now summarize here. There are two different mappings being discussed, used for different purposes, which I will call a. the subset mapping, and b. the counting mapping the subset mapping Let A and B be two sets. The subset mapping maps every element in A with a matching element in B, if one exists. If every element in A maps to an element in B, A is a subset of B. If the mapping is 1:1, so that every element in B is also mapped to an element in A, A and B are identical sets. However, if B has at least one element that is not mapped to a matching element in A, A is a proper subset. Example: A = {a,c,d} and B = {a,b,c,d,e} All three elements in A have a matching element in B, but some elements of B {b,e} don't have a corresponding element in A. Therefore, A is a proper subset of B. Notice that this mapping has nothing to do with how many elements are in the sets. the counting mapping Let A be a set. The counting mapping maps every element of A to a subset C of the natural numbers, in order, in a 1:1 correspondence. Thus, the cardinality of A is the same as the cardinality of C. Example: let A = {a,b,c} and C = {1,2,3} Then a 1, b 2, and c 3 is a counting mapping, and A has three elements because the cardinality of C is three. Note several things: a. the elements of A can be any kind of thing: letters, numbers, objects, etc. b. the counting mapping has nothing to do with subsets. In the example above, A is of course not a subset of B. Even if A contained numbers, such as A = {5,10,15}, the counting mapping would still produce a cardinality of three without there being any subset relationship. c. With counting, the order of the mapping doesn't make a difference, because the number of elements doesn't depend on the order that you count them in. In the above example, b 1, c 2, and a 3 is an equally valid counting mapping. That is, with counting, there are more than one possible 1:1 correspondences which count the given set. As an aside, learning this 1:1 correspondence concept is one of a child's first mathematical developmental milestones. Most children learn the verbal counterpart of C when they learn to recite {one, two, three, four, five} before they learn to actually match each word with a unique object. Given five objects, they might count faster than they touch and winding up saying there are six or seven objects, or touch an object twice, or if the objects are not in a line get confused about where they've started and which objects they counted. Only when they learn to accurately match each word with each object in a 1:1 correspondence have they truly learned to count. Teachers of math watch for this development in pre-schoolers and kindergarten students. Summary, and another example The subset mapping and the counting mapping are two different things. However, in some cases where set A contains numbers, both mappings might seem like they come into play. Consider the set A = {2,4,6,8,10} and consider the counting mapping with C = {1,2,3,4,5} Notice that some elements of A, but not all, are also elements of C. Therefore, A is not a subset of C. However, that is irrelevant. We are just counting A, so it makes no difference whether it is a subset of C or not. The cardinality of A has nothing to do with whether A is a subset of C or not. Aleta
Aleta:
For example, I want to know the cardinality of the set A = {a,b,y,z} To do so, we create the mapping
LoL! As if one needs to create a mapping in order to count the number of elements in a finite set.
Does this seem to you like the proper way of finding the cardinality of a finite set?
No, it seems like an imbecile's way to do so. Nice job. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
I’ve told you over and over again that Cantor’s set theory is fundamental to the foundation of mathematics and so if he were ‘wrong’ the whole building would be unsteady.
LoL! I have told you over and over again that has NOTHING to do with what I am asking. What is wrong with you? It's as if you don't have a clue. I am asking about one small part of set theory and not about the entire thing. Obviously you have other issues. But thank you for proving that you don't have a brain and cannot think for yourself. Anyone else care to try to answer the question: If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? The question pertains to that small part of set theory and does not pertain to the entire theory. Virgil Cain
kf writes,
Accordingly, as causal succession meets that test, some have tried to suggest that the mathematical result claimed to be shown of there being an infinite number of finite naturals is good enough to claim a transfinite past succession.
I don't believe anyone in this discussion has claimed that. The fact that you think someone (other than you) thinks these are related is probably one of the main reasons why you resist the simple conclusion about all natural numbers being finite. Aleta
KF, After reading some of Aleta's recent posts, the following occurred to me. It's a way to explain how N has infinitely many finite elements, using the function y = 1/x, which has come up already. Let S be the set usually denoted by {1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...}. S includes the member 1/2 and if x ∈ S, then x/2 ∈ S. S is clearly an infinite set, as we can see through the assignment x -> x/2, which defines a 1-1 correspondence between S and one of its proper subsets. Furthermore, every element of S is positive. This means the reciprocals of elements of S are all positive and finite. So, let T be the set of all reciprocals of elements of S. Note that x -> 1/x is a 1-1 correspondence, so S and T have the same cardinality. But T is a subset of N, so N includes an infinite subset, all of whose members are finite. Therefore N has infinitely many finite members. daveS
D, the thread has indeed been on a tangential matter but that is sufficiently close to the proper focus that I have gone with it. It is clear that no one can defend the notion of a finite stage sequence of steps from 0 bridging or traversing a transfinite range. Accordingly, as causal succession meets that test, some have tried to suggest that the mathematical result claimed to be shown of there being an infinite number of finite naturals is good enough to claim a transfinite past succession. But in fact the evidence in hand is such a succession of finites is just that finite. For there to have been an actually infinite past, at some remote zone in time, there would have had to be an actual transfinite past time. Which will not fly. The pink vs blue tapes example shows why as the attainment of any k is always utterly less than endless tot he point that the remainder k, k+1 on can be put in 1:1 correspondence with the naturals from 0. The evidence is that a finite stage stepwise process is going to be finite, and the way we get to the transfinite in Math is by a leap of faith that points across a literally infinite span. It is going to be very hard indeed to argue for an actually infinite space-time physical past for our cosmos and its antecedents. At the same time, a contingent cosmos points to necessary being root, and we are very close to the issue of eternity vs time. Okay gotta run now. Your inputs welcome. KF kairosfocus
Aleta @681
Dionisio, re 679: I think it was fairly clear that when I wrote “to a believer, such as kf” I was referring to a believer in God. Thus when I answered your question “Aren’t you a believer, too?” in the negative, I was referring to God also. For you to now say “Oh, really? Don’t you believe anyone, anything or in anything? Absolutely not?” is not a reasonable response.
Why do you think that it was fairly clear that when you wrote “to a believer, such as kf” you were referring to a believer in God? Clear to whom? To you or to other readers? Is everyone expected to know what you are referring to if it is not explicitly stated in a clear manner? Words have meaning, even if many people don’t care about the exact meaning of words and the contexts they are written in. Please, believe me, it took me too long to realize that fundamental truth. Unfortunately, still many times I fail to pay as much attention to the meaning of words as I should. I share this with you, because I would have appreciated enormously had someone told me this long ago, when I was much younger. For a number of years I existed in that oblivious state of mind that seems prevalent in the world. Fortunately Someone very precious to me graciously opened my eyes and made me see everything much clearer. BTW, switching between Slavic, Spanish and English languages almost daily makes it a little more challenging to pay attention to details and to understand the meaning of what others say or write. The problem gets worse when we add to the scenario the fact that my hearing is not good. On top of that my reading comprehension is poor, my communication skills almost nonexistent. My IQ score is about the same as my age, but changes in the opposite direction. My mind works so slow, that when someone tells me a joke on the weekend, I get it by Tuesday, after my wife explains it to me. ? Have a good day. PS. Note that many comments posted in this site form an interesting philosophical and theological “eintopf”. That’s why ‘assuming’ someone’s worldview position in the discussions here may have a high probability of resulting very inaccurate, to say it mildly. My time off is almost over. I have to go back to work, hence might not find much spare time to look at what’s discussed here. Anyway, most of that discussion seems above my pay grade, but have learned a few things from it. Learning doesn’t end. ? BTW, in one of your posts you were not sure whether to refer to me as he or she. FYI - Dionisio is a Spanish male name, though maybe derived from a Greek male name. Dionisio
#722 VC
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all?
I've told you over and over again that Cantor's set theory is fundamental to the foundation of mathematics and so if he were 'wrong' the whole building would be unsteady. Look, I know you don't have a vast background in mathematics and that means that, sometimes, you won't 'get' the implications of a concept you disagree with. No one is saying that Cantor's work affects everyday life for most people on the planet. And if that's all you're interested in then why are you arguing about it all so much? You keep saying you're right and Cantor was wrong AND you want to believe that Cantor's work didn't matter anyway. It seems to me you are fighting two battles you have no real interest in. ellazimm
velikovskys @721
Dionisio: Didn’t you understand my question? Perfectly, did you understand mine?
Perfectly? Really? Hmm... let's see: Dionisio @662
What’s the bottom line of this discussion thread according to KF’s OP?
velikovskys @671
If the volume of KF’s responses is an indicator, the discussion of mathematics . Why, what do you think it is?
Dionisio @677
Didn’t you understand my question?
velikovskys @721
Perfectly, did you understand mine?
My question explicitly said “according to KF’s OP” But you explicitly answered according to the volume of KF’s responses Do you see the difference? And you said you understood my question 'perfectly'? What does the word 'perfect' mean to you? Does the word 'perfect' mean 'kind of' to you? Or does it mean 'I guess' or 'maybe' or 'perhaps' or 'whatever'? :) Words have meaning, even if this world thinks otherwise. Please, believe me, it took me a long time to realize that fundamental truth. Have a good day. [emphasis mine] Dionisio
Yes, I agree Virgil, finding the cardinality of a finite set is easy. In informal language, we just count the members of the set. More formally, we put the set in a 1:1 correspondence with the natural numbers. For example, I want to know the cardinality of the set A = {a,b,y,z} To do so, we create the mapping a -> 1 b -> 2 y -> 3 z -> 4 Therefore, A has a cardinality of four. Does this seem to you like the proper way of finding the cardinality of a finite set? Aleta
With finite sets a one-to-one correspondence is easy as all you have to do is find the cardinality of each set. Try your example with an infinite set. Virgil Cain
to Virgil: Good, Virgil. I'm beginning to understand your thinking better. 1. You write,
Aleta, The natural way of matching is to take the same numbers and match them. That is how it is done to determine if one set is a subset of another. Let set A = {0,1,2,3,4,5,…} Let set B = {1,3,5,7,9,…} Set A has every element in set B covered by natural matching and set A has numbers that set B does not have.
The mapping you discussed back in #709 (2 -> 2, 4 -> 4, etc) shows that E (the evens) is a subset of N (the naturals) because every number in N is also in E. That is the natural way to map the numbers to show that E is a subset of N. Furthermore, since some numbers in N, the odds, are not in E, that means E is a proper subset of N. I think I get all that. 2. Now I think a 1:1 correspondence between sets is a different subject. For instance, in 730, I wrote,
Given A = {a,b,c} and B = {1,2,3), the mapping a -> 1 b -> 2 c -> 3 is a bijective function because it maps a 1:1 correspondence.
This is a 1:1 correspondence between two sets that don't have any elements in common. Also, mappings don't have to be in any particular order. For instance, with the sets above, a -> 3 b -> 1 c -> 2 is also a 1:1 correspondence. There can be more than 1:1 correspondence between sets. This is easier to see in a case such as this one where the sets don't contain the same type of thing as elements. Also, since there is a 1:1 correspondence, we know the sets have the same number of elements. 3. So we have two different things: a. proper subsets in which the sets have at some elements in common, but not all, but not necessarily the same number of elements, and b. 1:1 correspondences, in which the sets don't necessarily have the same types of elements, although they might, but do have the same number of elements. So, Virgil, do you agree with this summary of things about sets? Aleta
On the one hand, in reference to the first half of your post, I apologize, Dionisio. I understand that mistakes in what you would expect in proper English might be confusing. However, the very first set of exchanges we had were confusing because I didn't see that I had an extra "are" in the sentence. I think all my replies were friendly, and when I finally realized my mistake, I apologized. At that point, you asked this question: "Off topic, does this discussion relate to the ID concepts proposed in this blog? How?" That was off-topic, but I spent some time answering. At that point, you asked what I would consider a not-so-friendly question:
If you and your comrades were only interested in pure math, why did ya’ll get attracted to this site and specially to discussion threads started by OPs that were allegedly not about pure math? Aren’t there pure math discussion forums on the internet? Do you have so much spare time for reading things you’re not interested in? Just curious. :)
From that point on, most of your posts to me were challenging, and you have continued to question my motives. I don't know why you have chosen that approach - that's your business, but I wouldn't say that you have been a"person that is really interested in the discussions as a mutually beneficial exchange of information, where the involved persons enjoy learning and sharing information in a friendly chatting [way]." Aleta
Aleta @631
4. When ellazimm wrote, “I find the psychology of debates on this sight very interesting.”, Dionisio wrote, “English is not my first (native) language. Please, can you explain that English sentence?” I think Dionisio is being disingenuous here. His (or her) English seems quite good. He made a similar remark to me when I left a extra “are” in a sentence. I am virtually certain that he knows that ellazimm meant “site”, not “sight”, and that Dionisio knows what the sentence means.
My native language is Spanish. There have been situations where I have encountered phrases or sentences in Spanish that I have not understood clearly and have asked someone about their meaning, even though I recognized all the words in the given text. Some words in Spanish have different meanings when used in different countries. Sometimes when I read a text written in English language, I try to learn from it the contents, style, grammar and vocabulary. Basically I use every opportunity to learn the language, when time is available for that. I do the same when I read text written in other languages (mainly Slavic) that I have studied and currently use relatively frequently. There are many unknown to me English idiomatic expressions in different regions of the vast English speaking world. This case of ‘sight’ in lieu of ‘site’ could have been one of those regional idioms. This was not the case of a misspelling that rendered the word unknown. There are situations when I see what looks like an obvious grammar or spelling error. I may or may not let someone else know about it, depending on the particular case. For example, in the above quoted text, copied from your post @631, we read this sentence: “He made a similar remark to me when I left a extra “are” in a sentence.” This sentence could have been written: “He made a similar remark to me when I left an extra “are” in a sentence.” Do you see the difference? However, this minor change does not affect the meaning of the sentence, as far as I can tell. Hence, normally I would not report it at all. It’s not worth mentioning. I mentioned it now for illustration only. In the particular case of the statement “I find the psychology of debates on this sight very interesting.”, I could have asked the question differently. For example, I could have asked: “shouldn’t it read ‘site’ rather than ‘sight’?” or “is that sentence correctly written?”. But I chose a more indirect questioning form in order to see the author’s reaction to my observation or question. As I’ve said before, I’m interested in letting my potential interlocutor to reveal his/her true motives for engaging in the discussion early on before we get too deep into it. A person that is really interested in the discussions as a mutually beneficial exchange of information, where the involved persons enjoy learning and sharing information in a friendly chatting, will react to any observation or question in a more humble manner than what I perceived from you and the other interlocutors related to this particular situation. Definitely I perceived your and some of your comrades’ reactions to my simple questions were not as ‘nice’ as it would be expected from persons who don’t have any problems with others asking them questions or making observations about anything. Fortunately all our comments are written in this public forum and available for double checking anytime. Maybe my perception of your reaction to my questions was inaccurate, but it’s up to you to improve it. However, you don’t have to. BTW, as far as I’m concerned, you may ask me any question you deem interesting. Just keep in mind that I don’t have much to offer in terms of scientific knowledge. Perhaps I will have to admit that I don’t know the answer for many questions you could ask me. But definitely I won’t have any problems publicly declaring my poor knowledge of many topics, which disqualifies me from offering anything worth reading in most discussions in this site. Dionisio
KF:
endlessness, the sets have the same sort of endlessness
Yes but they have different densities. And that is the key. Virgil Cain
VC, endlessness, the sets have the same sort of endlessness and can be transformed into one another, e,g take n from set 1 and do 2n +1, 0 +1 = 1, 2+1 = 3, 4+1 = 5, etc. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, The natural way of matching is to take the same numbers and match them. That is how it is done to determine if one set is a subset of another. Let set A = {0,1,2,3,4,5,...} Let set B = {1,3,5,7,9,...} Set A has every element in set B covered by natural matching and set A has numbers that set B does not have. And because of that it is a logical contradiction to say that both sets have the same cardinality, ie the same number of elements. Virgil Cain
KF,
DS, my intent is the exact opposite, to OBJECT that were the set actually transfinitely completed as successive +1 increment members from 0 it WOULD then have at least one endless member, on the copy the list so far principle of succession.
I have to run now, but isn't this exactly what I said in #731? The set I described is assumed to be "completed". daveS
DS, my intent is the exact opposite, to OBJECT that were the set actually transfinitely completed as successive +1 increment members from 0 it WOULD then have at least one endless member, on the copy the list so far principle of succession. Which would undermine the all members are finite claim. This is linked to the notion of an infinite number of +1 successive counting sets from 0. Where in fact when stepwise succession gets to arbitrarily large but finite k from k-1, k is {0, 1, 2 . . . k -1} --> k where then k+1 is therefore {0,1, 2 . . . k} And so forth where {}--> 0; {0} --> 1; {0,1} --> 2 etc. So, transfinitely many successive finite members is problematic. Instead the successive process at any k, k+1 pair is still finite and we indicate unlimited onward succession that we cannot actually complete by the ellipsis of endlessness. It is that endlessness that leads to omega being without definable "less one" predecessor. KF kairosfocus
KF, PS to my #728: You need to prove that the set most mathematicians express as { {}, {0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, ... } has an infinite member. We're into the thousands of posts on this topic now, and at this point, I'm expecting rigorous proofs. daveS
Hmmm. I'm confused, but maybe we can clear this up. Bijective function is just a name for a mapping that creates a 1:1 correspondence, I think. Example: Given A = {a,b,c} and B = {1,2,3), the mapping a -> 1 b -> 2 c -> 3 is a bijective function because it maps a 1:1 correspondence. So, I'm wondering what you mean by "artificial". You write,
"A bijective function is an artificial method of getting a one-to-one correspondence."
Couldn't you just write,
A bijective function is a method of getting a one-to-one correspondence.
? Could you explain if and how the word artificial changes the meaning of those two sentences? Aleta
Aleta:
Since the odd numbers in N don’t map to anything, it seems to me this would not be bijective. Is that true?
It is true. You don't seem to understand what I am saying. A bijective function is an artificial method of getting a one-to-one correspondence. I am saying it is, in reality, the relative cardinality between the two sets. The proof is that it gives a one-to-one correspondence. Virgil Cain
KF,
DS, the next set principle is long since established, it is the point that the order type is the list of sets so far and becomes the next in succession cf von Neumann. KF
Yes, of course. That in no way implies:
That were such to be suggested, as the next counting set is the copy of the list so far, that would require an endless thus non-finite, element in the set[.]
daveS
DS, the next set principle is long since established, it is the point that the order type is the list of sets so far and becomes the next in succession cf von Neumann. KF kairosfocus
Thanks, Virgil. In 709, I offered this mapping, which you said was what you had in mind:
2 (in N) maps to 2 (in E) 4 (in N) maps to 4 (in E) 6 (in N) maps to 6 (in E) etc.
Since the odd numbers in N don't map to anything, it seems to me this would not be bijective. Is that true? Aleta
Aleta, Yes the bijective function maps the two sets one to one. And it is also how to tell the relative difference in cardinalities of the two sets. For example n-> 2n means one is twice the size as the other, ie has two times the elements. Virgil Cain
Thanks, Virgil. Back at 665 you said that "the relative cardinality can be determined by the bijective function." I looked up bijective function, and it means 1:1: every element in the first set maps to one and only one element in the second set. Your mapping doesn't doesn't map 1 or 3 or any of the other odd numbers to any number in E. Therefore, your mapping doesn't seem to be a bijective functions because it doesn't create a 1:1 correspondence. Does this seem correct to you? Aleta
Yes Aleta- you have figured out how to determine if one set is a subset of another. See we already have a matching process so there is no need to invent another. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
The ‘count’ is not the size of the set.
Sure it is. As I have said you don't grasp the fact that infinity is a journey and you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
You can’t ‘count’ the size of the integers.
Cardinality refers to the number of elements. So yes counting is a valid way of determining that. If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? Everyone sees that you are too chicken to answer that. And by avoiding it you prove that you have nothing. Virgil Cain
Dionisio: Didn’t you understand my question? Perfectly, did you understand mine? velikovskys
Good, Virgil. I think I am understanding now. Tell me then, if this right: 1 (in N) doesn't map to anything in E 3 (in N) doesn't map to anything in E and so on. Therefore, when, for instance, 4 (in N) maps to 4 (in E), N has traversed four numbers (1, 2, 3,and 4) but E has only traversed two numbers (2 and 4). Therefore at that point N has twice as many numbers as E. Is this what you are saying? Have I figured this out correctly? Aleta
KF,
DS, I have pointed out where the problems lie, amounting at minimum to a paradox, and that has been reasonably shown not merely asserted. KF
No, I disagree. You haven't pointed to anything that I consider problematic. This assertion:
That were such to be suggested, as the next counting set is the copy of the list so far, that would require an endless thus non-finite, element in the set?
is in dire need of a proof. daveS
#714 VC
Wow, talk about a convoluted defense. The counters in question count forever. That means they are endlessly counting. And one counter will always have a higher count than the other- always and forever mean endlessly.
The 'count' is not the size of the set. You can't 'count' the size of the integers. If both counters ticked at the same rate but one started one tick before the other then you would say that the 'set' that started earlier was bigger. It doesn't work that way. That was what Cantor established. That is what is now accepted, non-controversial mathematics. ellazimm
Yes, Aleta, that is what I mean. That it took you so long to figure that out tells me you are not up for this discussion. That you refused to support your nonsensical claim about set subtraction cements that. Virgil Cain
LoL! @ EZ Jared:
At the moment is issue is that Virg is saying things that fly in face of well-established and non-controversial mathematics.
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? TSZ ilk avoided that question at all costs and I am sure that my detractors here will do the same. Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.
Repeating it won’t make it correct.
That what I say fits the definition makes it correct. Virgil Cain
DS, I have pointed out where the problems lie, amounting at minimum to a paradox, and that has been reasonably shown not merely asserted. KF kairosfocus
KF:
In the case of two counters, one set to half rate, at finite values from the same reset point A will read about twice B. But that is not the same question as endlessness. No counter can bridge stepwise to actual endlessness.
Wow, talk about a convoluted defense. The counters in question count forever. That means they are endlessly counting. And one counter will always have a higher count than the other- always and forever mean endlessly. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
You don’t know what isomorphic means.
No, Jared, you are the one with definition deficit. Virgil Cain
KF,
DS, Do you see that my point is, the finites are finite and the transfinites are transfinite where omega is a limit ordinal with no definable immediate predecessor — as I said already in so many words?
Yes, I have seen you post words to that effect many times already. We both agree that is true, I take it.
That therefore to suggest an infinite collection of successive finite counting sets is problematic?
I've seen that assertion, but no proof.
That were such to be suggested, as the next counting set is the copy of the list so far, that would require an endless thus non-finite, element in the set?
An assertion again, but no proof. And likewise for the rest. What I understand you to be saying is that even the act of defining the (complete!) set: { {}, {0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, ... } leads to contradictions. But that is exactly the definition of N (and of ω) so I don't see any option for you other than to reject the existence of the set N, and any other infinite sets as well. And therefore ω itself cannot make sense to you. But I thought we agreed above that ω was a well-defined ordinal? daveS
#708 VC
Sets are only isomorphic artificially.
You don't know what isomorphic means. ellazimm
#703 KF At the moment is issue is that Virg is saying things that fly in face of well-established and non-controversial mathematics. And he refuses to accept that he is wrong. Maybe you should try talking to him about that. #704 VC
If there is more than one correspondence then there isn’t any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence, by definition.
Repeating it won't make it correct.
LoL! All you have demonstrated is your ignorance. The definition is clear and it supports my claim. That you are trying to argue that proves that you are desperate.
What's the 'natural' mapping between sets A and B above then? I can show you a one-to-one mapping if you like. It's very easy. And see if you can figure out the 'relative' cardinality of sets A and B (defined above) and the set of primes numbers instead of just name calling. ellazimm
Oh, I see, Virgil. Tell me if this right: 2 (in N) maps to 2 (in E) 4 (in N) maps to 4 (in E) 6 (in N) maps to 6 (in E) etc. Is that what you mean? Aleta
Sets are only isomorphic artificially. The counter tests proves cantor was wrong. Set subtraction proves Cantor was wrong. Virgil Cain
VC, tone again. And when sets are isomorphic and endless they must have the same cardinality -- scale index -- shown by finding a 1:1 correspondence. Isomorphism can be shown by transformation: {0,1,2 . . . } n x 10 {0, 10, 20 . . . } The set and its proper subset have countable endlessness, first degree endlessness, cardinality aleph null. In the case of two counters, one set to half rate, at finite values from the same reset point A will read about twice B. But that is not the same question as endlessness. No counter can bridge stepwise to actual endlessness. That is why I pointed to the tapes example and added a case where a cream tape has holes every 0.2 inches. For a finite span from 0 the pink and blue will show the same increment and cream, half. But all three are endless to the RHS, and that is the material point. KF kairosfocus
Again your position fails the counter test. Two counters, one counting every second and one counting every other second. These counters count forever, ie they are infinite counters. One counter will always have a higher count than the other. Always and forever. Everytime someone looks one counter will always have a higher count than the other. always and forever. And having a higher count means it has more elements. Look my concept is the same as Cantor’s different sizes of infinity. Meaning both look at the density of the set. And my approach doesn’t lead to logical inconsistencies exposed by standard set subtraction. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
Could you show me the natural mapping more specifically, please.
So you are admitting that you do not know how to tell if one set is a subset of another? Then talking about set theory with you is a waste of time. The natural mapping is matching up the like numbers from two (or more) sets. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
The whole world disagrees with you and we must be lying.
The whole world doesn't disagree with me and I have explained your lie. Like the pathetic imp you are you won't even address it.
Your method doesn’t work.
That is your uneducated opinion.
No one uses it.
No one uses the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. The concept is useless. If there is more than one correspondence then there isn’t any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence, by definition.
That is simply not true as I have demonstrated.
LoL! All you have demonstrated is your ignorance. The definition is clear and it supports my claim. That you are trying to argue that proves that you are desperate. Virgil Cain
EZ, Mathematics is the logical analysis of structure and quantity. It is not settled by majorities or schools of thought and axiom systems post Godel are very open to question. The issue I am seeing here is one on a claim that to my mind is problematic, an infinite succession of finite and discrete values incremented from 0 at +1 per step. Where the next member is the collected list so far. This implicates the ordinary proof by induction, on case 0 then case k => case k+1. This is a finite chaining, inherently, as case k is bounded by case k+1 and then in effect case k+1 is fed back into the case k register. Thus clearly the natural numbers we may count to will be finite. But the point of the ellipsis of endlessness is that there is no upper limit. Where as the pink/blue tape thought exercise shows, at any arbitrary k that is finite, there is always endlessness ahead that will go to 1:1 match between k, k+1 etc and 0,1, 2 etc. The endless is not traversed in +1 steps. We point across the ellipsis and conclude. The point then is that inductive chaining attains to the potentially infinite but does not in itself complete the infinite in chained steps. We add a sub axiom of pointing across the endless succession onward represented by an ellipsis. But in this case in view the claim seems problematic. That all naturals we can actually count to or specifically note down are finite is obvious, but we have to reckon with the force of endlessness. That is how I see it. Now, if I am wrong and there is a simple solution apart from a leap of faith across endlessness, it should be apparent. KF kairosfocus
Virgil says, "No, the obvious mapping would be the mapping used to determine if one set is a subset of the other. that is the natural mapping." Could you show me the natural mapping more specifically, please. That is, what does 1 map to, what does 2 map to, etc. Thanks. Aleta
#698 VC
Liar
The whole world disagrees with you and we must be lying. Your method doesn't work. You can't even tell me the 'relative' cardinalities of sets A and B defined above or the positive prime numbers. You cannot point to a single mistake in a single proof of the work Cantor did. Your method has no academic or research support. No one uses it. Because it doesn't work. You can't even make it work.
If there is more than one correspondence then there isn’t any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence, by definition.
That is simply not true as I have demonstrated. Would you like me to do another? Two sets can usually be matched up many ways, some one-to-one, some not. IF you can find even a single one-to-one matching then the sets are 'the same size'. It's not that hard to grasp. ellazimm
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? TSZ ilk avoided that question at all costs and I am sure that my detractors here will do the same. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
Let N = {1,2,3,…n,…} Let E = {2,4,6,…2n,…) Also, consider the obvious mapping between the sets: 1 -> 2 2 -> 4 3 -> 6 … n -> 2n
No, the obvious mapping would be the mapping used to determine if one set is a subset of the other. that is the natural mapping. Again your position fails the counter test. Two counters, one counting every second and one counting every other second. These counters count forever, ie they are infinite counters. One counter will always have a higher count than the other. Always and forever. Everytime someone looks one counter will always have a higher count than the other. always and forever. And having a higher count means it has more elements. Look my concept is the same as Cantor's different sizes of infinity. Meaning both look at the density of the set. And my approach doesn't lead to logical inconsistencies exposed by standard set subtraction. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
I’m not lying.
Yes you are lying and now you are trying to change the subject. You are lying about the utility of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You have lied about that for years. You say you have linked to the utility of saying that yet you never have. You are a liar. Well I showed above that simple set subtraction proves that the set of positive integers has more elements than the set of positive even integers and positive odd integers.
You were incorrect.
No, I am correct. You even did the math and came up with the same answer. If there is more than one correspondence then there isn’t any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence, by definition.
That is incorrect.
LoL! You are in no position to make such a claim. OTOH I have provided a definition which agrees with me. And if I can subtract one set from another and get a set with infinite elements then it is obvious that the three sets do not have the same number of elements.
Again, incorrect.
Again, your say-so is meaningless as you are a nobody.
You have been shown, many, many times, how your ideas fail.
Liar Virgil Cain
DS, Do you see that my point is, the finites are finite and the transfinites are transfinite where omega is a limit ordinal with no definable immediate predecessor -- as I said already in so many words? That therefore to suggest an infinite collection of successive finite cunting sets is problematic? That thus the key is that the ellipsis of endlessness entails that we cannot succeeed in +1 steps to the infinite? That were such to be suggested, as the next counting set is the copy of the list so far, that would require an endless thus non-finite, element in the set? That this becomes seriously problematic, underscoring the solution that we cannot succeed to the transfinite in +1 steps? That the ellipsis of endlessness is thus a vital component of the set of counting sets from 0 on? KF kairosfocus
#694 KF
That is we may only specifically attain to finitely many concrete finite values such as 1987 *10^2016 etc, values that depend on stepwise and surpass-able increments of +1 from 0 or (as illustrated) on representations such as place value or sci notation that use similarly dependent components. But the endlessness goes beyond what we can reach in that way. We can establish a pattern sufficiently in steps but then we must always point to the do forever onward that goes beyond what we can attain in finite stage steps from 0. Indeed notice the just above riff on Hilbert’s Hotel to see the point about endless steps of counting onward from a further k steps on. Thus also observe use of infinitesimals in the y = 1/x function to catapult to hyper-reals in the transfinite domain, cf Ehrlang’s tree of numbers.
You really must learn to espouse mathematics in a standard form. I asked if you had any academic publications or research work which supports or elucidates your view. I read your view over and over again and I'm asking if there is anyone other than you who thinks the way you do. Could you at least give me a mathematical definition of 'endlessness'? Please? ellazimm
KF,
And in the case of finitude of natural counting sets, that becomes material. For, on the copy of the set-list so far premise, actual succession to endless degree would include that some members in the far zone would have to copy in that endlessness into individual members. Which, would render such members non finite.
Let's assume than α is a nonfinite counting set as described above. Then we have a strictly increasing sequence: {}, {0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, ... , α Now it is impossible that α is the least nonfinite counting set, because such a thing cannot exist. By definition, α = n ∪ {n} for some natural number n, which implies that n < α and that n is also infinite. However, this is at odds with the proposition that there is a least infinite ordinal ω. Are we agreed on this? daveS
EZ, the phenomenon of endlessness as shown by the ellipsis of endlessness is the heart of the conception of infinity routinely appearing in mathematics {0,1,2 . . . k, k+1, . . . } . The second ellipsis is unbounded, endless, as opposed to the first, and the expression is a commonplace. It should not be a debatable point. I find it amazing that you want yet another definition after the many in this thread, just scroll up: that which goes on beyond any arbitrarily large but finite value, in a nutshell, cf the pink vs blue tape and the k, k+1 etc matched to 0,1,2 etc to to see what this means. The thought exercise is WLOG and keeps the speculations anchored to realities in the empirical world -- which is important. The relevant case in point is the ongoing set of collected successive counting sets, which goes on and on beyond any arbitrarily large k that is finite and bounded by k+1; we therefore accept that we can only point and collect the ellipsis of endlessness INSIDE the set definition, giving omega as symbol of its order type. Third, that after k finite numbers there is a k+1th only illustrates that this too is finite, as we then feed the former k+1 into the value-k register and repeat, thus we only attain to finite values in steps. That is we may only specifically attain to finitely many concrete finite values such as 1987 *10^2016 etc, values that depend on stepwise and surpass-able increments of +1 from 0 or (as illustrated) on representations such as place value or sci notation that use similarly dependent components. But the endlessness goes beyond what we can reach in that way. We can establish a pattern sufficiently in steps but then we must always point to the do forever onward that goes beyond what we can attain in finite stage steps from 0. Indeed notice the just above riff on Hilbert's Hotel to see the point about endless steps of counting onward from a further k steps on. Thus also observe use of infinitesimals in the y = 1/x function to catapult to hyper-reals in the transfinite domain, cf Ehrlang's tree of numbers. KF kairosfocus
#692 KF
As a further result, it seems to me that we cannot automatically assume that per ordinary mathematical induction, properties of succession from case k to case k+1 will be unaffected by endless-NESS. The chain does show that any value we may reach is indeed going to behave in the specified way once case 0 and the chaining obtain, but such will not actually traverse the endless. And in the case of finitude of natural counting sets, that becomes material. For, on the copy of the set-list so far premise, actual succession to endless degree would include that some members in the far zone would have to copy in that endlessness into individual members. Which, would render such members non finite.
You can't be asserting that there is only a finite number of finite numbers because you can always find one more. Which means you can't point to a boundary or line which, when crossed, takes you into the infinite. Do you have any academic or research papers which explore your concept of 'endlessness' which you can link to. I'd like to see it defined and worked out rigorously.
Therefore, we need to revert to transfinite induction (and possibly recursion) for cases where the potential but not actualised transfinite is not good enough. But, as the very name implies, that goes beyond the finite.
Do you have an example of a case? ellazimm
VC (Attn A, DS etc), You are bringing out some of the ways first degree so-called "countable" endlessness changes everything. Which is a strategic result. Yes in a finite pattern, {0,1,2,3, 4 . . . . k}, k LT k+1 "less" {0, 2, 4, . . . [k]} "gives" {1, 3, 5 . . . [k]} But in the endless case the standard counting sequence, the evens and the odds become simply different ways of expressing first degree endlessness, as we can transform one pattern into the next. It is the endlessness that is here shown to be a decisive component of the structured sets. It literally changes the import of everything. This then refocuses the points of concern I have discussed above, starting from the argument from the easily seen bounded-ness of 0, 1, 2 etc, the closure under succession so k which is k x (+1) from 0 is then bounded by the k+1th step, k + 1 and the extension that therefore all naturals, endlessly, are finite. Endlessness counts and generates strange results but ought not to generate contradictions, so we modify our thinking if a particular approach ends in questionable claims. This is of course a summary of another famous proof technique, proof of claim X by demonstration of contradiction in its denial ~X. We notice, from the pink vs blue endless punched tape thought exercise, that truncating at k, k+1 etc and putting in 1:1 correspondence with the undisturbed sequence preserves an endless match. That is starting the succession from any finite k, k+1 is equivalent to (strictly, isomorphic with) starting from 0,1 etc. Because of onward endlessness. And this truncation and correlation process can be repeated endless-LY via do forever looping, with the same result every time. (Hilbert's Hotel has a similar result for bringing in new guests of endless number. Move the old guests in rooms n to rooms 2n and put the new guests into 1,3,5 etc endlessly. [In closer comparison with our case, consider an endless train of buses with k new guests lined up in front of the hotel which is full as usual. The manager broadcasts, present guests in room n move to room n+k, then puts the latest busload into rooms 1 to k. This can be repeated endlessly. This of course shows that such a hotel cannot be physically built. Magic step, the new guests are actually repair people and rooms 1 to k are going under repair, bus 1 is carpenters, bus 2 electricians, etc, so now rooms 1 to k go through first repairs, with guests moved to k+1 on. Bus 2 then shifts the first lot of carpenters to rooms K +1 to 2k, and the process continues. The whole lot of actual guess are still there even as the repair people keep on coming into the rooms 1 to k and earlier repair people shift up another k rooms. At no stage is there need for actual guests to leave, no matter that the crazy hotel was full to begin with. In short these thought exercises are telling us that endlessness produces weird results.] ) As a result, we see that no finite stage, stepwise succession can traverse endlessness. Instead we use this process to set up the pattern (the potential infinite) and project a leap of endless faith, often putting it into axioms, as has been discussed above. In the case of the claim that all naturals, are finite but there are infinitely many such finite natural counting sets, I think this is a step too far. For, it can be seen that the next counting set is the list of sets so far from 0. As a result if a list of such is wholly of finite elements, the members of the list, necessarily, will be finite. At the same time, the endless list has been assigned order type the first transfinite, omega, which is not a natural. The solution, to my mind, is that the endlessness cannot be completed in successive finite stage steps and so while every specific natural we can reach by stepwise finite stage process is indeed finite, we cannot exhaust the endlessness. The ellipsis of endlessness is a major, material component of the set that collects successive counting sets. As a further result, it seems to me that we cannot automatically assume that per ordinary mathematical induction, properties of succession from case k to case k+1 will be unaffected by endless-NESS. The chain does show that any value we may reach is indeed going to behave in the specified way once case 0 and the chaining obtain, but such will not actually traverse the endless. And in the case of finitude of natural counting sets, that becomes material. For, on the copy of the set-list so far premise, actual succession to endless degree would include that some members in the far zone would have to copy in that endlessness into individual members. Which, would render such members non finite. The solution to my mind is that ordinary mathematical induction extends to the potentially infinite, not the actual completion of endlessness. So we must reckon with a fallacy of composition on taking the leap to endlessness. Therefore, we need to revert to transfinite induction (and possibly recursion) for cases where the potential but not actualised transfinite is not good enough. But, as the very name implies, that goes beyond the finite. KF kairosfocus
KF @690 Very timely advice. Thank you. BTW, apparently this discussion thread remains popular: :)
Popular Posts (Last 30 Days) A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no… (15,843) Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . . (2,351) Homologies, differences and information jumps (2,318) Larry Moran needs to do some more reading (1,716) A Little Timeline on the Second Law Argument (1,700)
Dionisio
NOTICE: There is no need for the use of questionable vocabulary (e.g. Mathematics has nothing to do with questionable sexual behaviour) and accusatory verbal grenades. Where, if people are speaking with disregard to truth that will show itself well enough. I am asking for such language to be avoided in the interests of preserving a tone that is family friendly. Comment is a privilege on good behaviour, not a right. KF kairosfocus
Hi Virgil. I've been thinking about your comment about the number of elements in the even natural numbers, so I'm going to try to explain what I understand. Let N = {1,2,3,...n,...} Let E = {2,4,6,...2n,...) Also, consider the obvious mapping between the sets: 1 -> 2 2 -> 4 3 -> 6 ... n -> 2n ... Now, consider the 5th term of N, which is 5. The matching term in E is 10, but both N and E have 5 numbers at that time: N has 1,2,3,4,5 and E has 2,4,6,8,10 So at that time, for n = 5, they both have the same number of numbers. Now consider the 1 billionth term: the 1 billionth term of N is 1 billion and the 1 billionth term of E is 2 billion, but just as with 5, the number of terms in each set is the same. They both have 1 billion terms. Since the same argument can be made for any number, for any term n in N, the number of terms in N and E at that time are equal. The actual numbers are different (the number in E is twice that of the number in n), but the number of numbers in each set is the same. Since this is so for any n, how do numbers of numbers in N and E ever get to be unequal? Aleta
Well, this is interesting. I just found the post in which kf gave me a warning, at 644.
I especially won’t bother with people who don’t appreciate the importance of pure mathematics, irrespective of applied utility, and I also am not fond of discussing things with people who call others [SNIP — Aleta warning. KF]
Since kf snipped what I wrote we can't see what I said, but I remember that I had quoted Virgil in 643 as calling EZ a "cowardly wanker." Those were Virgil's words, directed at EZ, not my words. However, now 643 uses the phrase "mathematical weenie", which Virgil edited after my post at 644. It is clear that Virgil edited his post, because in 649, EZ quoted Virgil's original statement:
NOTE- I am NOT asking about Cantor’s set theory but just one small part of it. That means when Jared responds with Cantor’s set theory is fundamental he proves that he is a cowardly wanker who cannot support his position.
So now I understand the situation. Aleta
Virgil
But EZ is lying. You should be talking to him about that
I'm not lying. Everyone else agrees with me. You haven't yet told me what the cardinality of sets A and B (as defined above) are.
Well I showed above that simple set subtraction proves that the set of positive integers has more elements than the set of positive even integers and positive odd integers.
You were incorrect.
If there is more than one correspondence then there isn’t any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence, by definition.
That is incorrect. There can be many mappings between two sets. There can even be multiple one-to-one mappings. The key point is: IF there is even one one-to-one mapping then the sets are 'the same size'.
And if I can subtract one set from another and get a set with infinite elements then it is obvious that the three sets do not have the same number of elements.
Again, incorrect.
Again, cuz you say so isn’t an argument. That you refuse to even address what I said speaks volumes.
I have addressed your . . . proclamations. I gave you two sets, A and B defined above, which your set subtraction method doesn't work. And you haven't been able to tell me their cardinalities. Just like you've never been able to tell me the cardinality of the set of prime numbers. Your method doesn't work.
But anyway, seeing that you are a liar and I get reprimanded for calling you what you obviously are, we have nothing to discuss.
I'm not lying. You are incorrect.
He also says that an infinite set has to given all at once, which it obviously cannot be as infinity is a journey. Also mathematics isn’t a consensus and you can’t even answer a basic question.
You have been shown, many, many times, how your ideas fail. You have been given many, many references to correct information. You have been shown time and time again correctly worked out examples. You cannot find any academic support for your ideas. You have not been able to find fault with any proof of any mathematical theorem. NO ONE agrees with you. No one. Give it up. ellazimm
EZ Jared:
See Virgil, even KF disagrees with you. Like we said.
He also says that an infinite set has to given all at once, which it obviously cannot be as infinity is a journey. Also mathematics isn't a consensus and you can't even answer a basic question. Virgil Cain
If there is more than one correspondence then there isn’t any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence, by definition.
Clearly you are mistaken as I showed.
Except you didn't show anything. So clearly you are just a bluffing loser who cannot understand a definition. And if I can subtract one set from another and get a set with infinite elements then it is obvious that the three sets do not have the same number of elements.
Again, clearly you are mistaken.
Again, cuz you say so isn't an argument. That you refuse to even address what I said speaks volumes. But anyway, seeing that you are a liar and I get reprimanded for calling you what you obviously are, we have nothing to discuss. Virgil Cain
kairosfocus:
VC (attn EZ & A), well above I showed how the set of naturals can be directly transformed into the set of evens or the set of odds.
Well I showed above that simple set subtraction proves that the set of positive integers has more elements than the set of positive even integers and positive odd integers. Virgil Cain
kairosfocus:
VC, there is not any reason to toss verbal grenades such as “liar.”
But EZ is lying. You should be talking to him about that Virgil Cain
kf writes,
VC (attn EZ & A), well above I showed how the set of naturals can be directly transformed into the set of evens or the set of odds. Likewise for the set of tens or the set from k, k+1 on. That is they are all isomorphic and of the same cardinality.
Thanks, kf. That is a nice clear statement. Aleta
Dionisio, re 679: I think it was fairly clear that when I wrote "to a believer, such as kf" I was referring to a believer in God. Thus when I answered your question "Aren’t you a believer, too?" in the negative, I was referring to God also. For you to now say "Oh, really? Don’t you believe anyone, anything or in anything? Absolutely not?" is not a reasonable response. Aleta
kf writes, "Aleta, you are also warned on language. KF" Please let me know what post, and what language, you are objecting to Aleta
Aleta @631
3. WhenI wrote, “I think, to a believer such as kf, […]”, Dionisio wrote, “Aren’t you a believer, too?” No.
Oh, really? Don't you believe anyone, anything or in anything? Absolutely not? :) Dionisio
Dionisio,
“mainly interested in mathematics here” Your comrade used the word ‘only’ but now you say ‘mainly’? Do you see the difference? Do you see the conflicting (inconsistent) statements?
Well, Aleta and I are not the same person. We are bound to make conflicting statements now and again.
What’s your goal in this discussion? [emphasis mine]
I don't have a "goal" per se. I, like many people, enjoy discussing things on the internet. When I read a post that interests me, or that I perhaps disagree with, I will often reply. When I read something that I believe is definitely wrong, I will offer a correction. These threads actually have been quite productive for me, as I have learned a lot and have found a number of books and articles to add to my reading list. daveS
velikovskys @671
Dionisio: What’s the bottom line of this discussion thread according to KF’s OP?
If the volume of KF’s responses is an indicator, the discussion of mathematics . Why,what do you think it is?
Didn't you understand my question? [emphasis mine] Dionisio
#670 KF
I showed how the set of naturals can be directly transformed into the set of evens or the set of odds.
See Virgil, even KF disagrees with you. Like we said. ellazimm
#655 VC
You were supposed to be addressing the utility issue.
You always punt on that so I thought I'd just skip to the other bits.
It is contained in C and it is what the natural correspondence is
Are you sure? Look again. Read what I wrote. Please.
If there is more than one correspondence then there isn’t any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence, by definition.
Clearly you are mistaken as I showed.
And if I can subtract one set from another and get a set with infinite elements then it is obvious that the three sets do not have the same number of elements.</blockquote. Again, clearly you are mistaken.
ellazimm
daveS @667
Well, like Aleta, I am mainly interested in mathematics here, but certainly I have weighed in on a few tangential subjects. The post that started this whole discussion had to do with the possibility of an actual infinite past, so naturally that rises to the surface now and again. I think it’s typical of posters here to participate in the occasional side-discussion, especially in these lengthy threads.
"mainly interested in mathematics here" Your comrade used the word 'only' but now you say 'mainly'? Do you see the difference? Do you see the conflicting (inconsistent) statements? What's your goal in this discussion? [emphasis mine] Dionisio
#655 VC
Are you saying that you didn’t understand the relevance of what I posted? Figures
Not at all. I am suggesting that you are confusing a definition vs an example.
Who cares? If you did then you should be able to figure it out by yourself given everything I have told you. If you can’t figure it out then you aren’t the mathematician that you think you are.
I have an answer, I can address the question. Can you? Are the sets A and B as defined above the same size or not? I'll tell you my answer after you tell me yours. ellazimm
VC, there is not any reason to toss verbal grenades such as "liar." KF kairosfocus
Dionisio: What’s the bottom line of this discussion thread according to KF’s OP? If the volume of KF's responses is an indicator, the discussion of mathematics . Why,what do you think it is? velikovskys
VC (attn EZ & A), well above I showed how the set of naturals can be directly transformed into the set of evens or the set of odds. Likewise for the set of tens or the set from k, k+1 on. That is they are all isomorphic and of the same cardinality DUE TO ENDLESSNESS of the first degree. Endlessness counts, it is an important component of the relevant sets. And it has consequences that have been of concern to me. I have already showed how, consistently, the relevant sets are composed on finite stage stepwise cumulative increments from 0. This gives the peculiar characteristics and it is also the context in which I stress that a crucial part of several axioms is an infinite leap of faith across the ellipsis of endlessness. I think that has implications for inductive step by step conclusions. KF kairosfocus
Aleta @631
2. In response to my comment that “I once wrote the theological question, “Does God need an ellipsis”, Dionisio wrote, “Is that a scientific comment.” Of course not – it says clearly that it is a theological question.
Do you see the difference between 'comment' and 'question'? Since you claimed that you were interested solely in pure math issues when you entered this discussion thread, why did you write a non-scientific comment? If one wants to talk only about basketball, but the discussion also includes canoeing, shouldn't one move somewhere else where they only discuss basketball issues? Dionisio
Aleta, you are also warned on language. KF kairosfocus
Dionisio,
Well, maybe they were not ‘hidden’ but unclear. However, it seems like after some of you have answered a few questions your true motives have been clarified a bit. At least more details have come up to the surface. For example, you may look @659. :)
Well, like Aleta, I am mainly interested in mathematics here, but certainly I have weighed in on a few tangential subjects. The post that started this whole discussion had to do with the possibility of an actual infinite past, so naturally that rises to the surface now and again. I think it's typical of posters here to participate in the occasional side-discussion, especially in these lengthy threads. daveS
Aleta @663
re:662 I answered that question in 661 – maybe our posts crossed paths.
There are two questions @662. You tried to answer the first one @661 to no avail. Didn't answer the second one yet. Please, be concise. Thank you. Note that you don't have to answer any questions. But I appreciate that you do. Dionisio
Aleta:
2c. Does E have exactly 1/2 as many element as N?
As infinity is a journey it would all depend on when you looked. However the relative cardinality can be determined by the bijective function. Virgil Cain
Aleta:
More civil, rational, on-topic argument from Virgil.
LIAR! You have no shame and are a pathetic example of a human.
Considering that I was responding to a blatant lie, that was rational and on-topic. Virgil Cain
re:662 I answered that question in 661 - maybe our posts crossed paths. Aleta
Aleta @635
My “true” motives? What are they? Am I hiding them? I like to discuss things, and I like to have the opportunity to clarify and articulate my views. I’m interested in math, philosophy, and religion. I like discussing my thoughts on theism and atheism. Anything wrong with that? :-)
See @659 an example of your conflicting statements. How do you explain such an inconsistency? Your explanation @661 tries to justify things to no avail. What's the bottom line of this discussion thread according to KF's OP? Dionisio
It seems to me, Dionisio, that you are trying to make an issue out of something that doesn't exist. If you were to read all three posts on this topic, you would see that I multiple times said I was interested in the pure math, and not interested in the connection to other topics such as time or God. It wasn't until post 509 that I said anything about other than the pure math, and that actually had a point related to the math. I didn't bring up God again until you asked the question as to whether the pure math discussion had anything to do with the OP, and I replied to that. I quit discussing math with kf about post 530. You then brought up the topic of the connection to the purpose and interests of this site at 587. So my statement at 587 was a general statement about the vast bulk of my participation in the topic of infinity up until that point - it certainly wasn't a statement that math was the only thing I was ever interested in. My statement at 631 was a further statement that I have more interests than math. There are no conflicts here. I really don't get what point you are trying to make. You seem to be beating around the bush about something - how about just coming straight out and telling us what's on your mind? Aleta
daveS @651
Well, from my perspective it appears that way. We obviously have our disagreements, but I see no reason to suspect that kairosfocus, Aleta, ellazimm, or any of the other serious contributors have hidden motives.
Well, maybe they were not 'hidden' but unclear. However, it seems like after some of you have answered a few questions your true motives have been clarified a bit. At least more details have come up to the surface. For example, you may look @659. :) Dionisio
Aleta @587
[…] those of us involved in the discussion (daveS, ellazim, and myself) were only interested in the pure mathematics.
Aleta @631
[Dionisio to KF @618] 1. “BTW, I see that your interlocutors that claimed to be interested only in the math part of the discussion have gotten involved in non-math discussions too? :)”
Yes, I have. But up until just the last few days, we were discussing pure math. I have other interests than pure math.
Aleta @587 "[...] only interested in the pure mathematics." Aleta @631 "I have other interests than pure math." [emphasis mine] Doesn't the word "only" @587 seem to conflict with the statement @631? :) Dionisio
OK, Virgil, now you've got me curious about what you believe, so here are some questions. 1. Let N = the natural numbers {1,2,3,...} I assume you agree that there are an infinite number of members in this set? Is it true that you believe that? 2. Let E = even natural numbers {2,4,6,...} 2a. Is this an infinite set? I assume you believe it is infinite. Is it true that you believe that? 2b. Does this set have fewer members than N? I assume you believe it does because you said so in #261. 2c. Does E have exactly 1/2 as many element as N? I don't know whether you believe this is so, or not, Would you be willing to answer these few questions so I can be sure I understand your position? Aleta
More civil, rational, on-topic argument from Virgil.
LIAR! You have no shame and are a pathetic example of a human.
kf, I appreciate your giving Virgil a warning earlier. And I agree that it might be useful for you to add your two cents to a simple proposition: "The set of natural numbers has the same cardinality (aleph null) as the set of even natural numbers because a 1:1 correspondence between the two can be established." Aleta
How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other.
I have done the first many times
LIAR! You have no shame and are a pathetic example of a human. Virgil Cain
EZ Jared:
Congratulations for posting the definition of what a one-to-one mapping is but not whether or not it is the only mapping.
Are you saying that you didn't understand the relevance of what I posted? Figures
Is A or B (defined above) ‘larger’.?
Who cares? If you did then you should be able to figure it out by yourself given everything I have told you. If you can't figure it out then you aren't the mathematician that you think you are.
It was an example of how set subtraction was inadequate to address the cardinality of sets.
You were supposed to be addressing the utility issue.
I’m confused.
Yes, I know.
That isn’t what I defined C
It is contained in C and it is what the natural correspondence is
Are you saying my one-to-one mapping is not one-to-one?
If there is more than one correspondence then there isn't any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence, by definition. And if I can subtract one set from another and get a set with infinite elements then it is obvious that the three sets do not have the same number of elements. Virgil Cain
#652 VC
No, it is true- one and only one. Even wikipedia agrees:
Congratulations for posting the definition of what a one-to-one mapping is but not whether or not it is the only mapping. Is A or B (defined above) 'larger'.? You still haven't answered.
An illustrative example of what? How does that demonstrate the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality?
It was an example of how set subtraction was inadequate to address the cardinality of sets. Can you say which of sets A or B is bigger?
It’s not my fault that the links you provided have nothing to do with what I am asking. It’s not my fault that all you can do is bluff you way through this. Too bad wikipedia disagrees with you one the one to one correspondence thing.
I'll let everyone else take the time to assault the hill you've dug in on.
And then there is the natural mapping used to determine if one set is a proper subset of the other: C={10,20,30,40…} D={10,20,30,40…} That means that Jared’s is not a one-to-one as there is more than one way to match the elements. And that goes against the definition.
I'm confused. That isn't what I defined C to be. Please pay attention. And I provide two different mappings between C and D (one one-to-one and one not) so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying my one-to-one mapping is not one-to-one? I can prove it. AND you still haven't said which is bigger, A or B. And you still haven't determined the relative (to the positive integers) cardinality of the prime numbers. ellazimm
Here’s an illustrative example. C = {1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 . . . } D = {10, 20, 30, 40 , 50 . . . } Here is a one-to-one mapping: 1 ~ 10, 2 ~ 20, 3 ~ 30 . . . 10 x element in C ~ element in D
And then there is the natural mapping used to determine if one set is a proper subset of the other: C={...,10,...20,...30,...40...} D={10,20,30,40...} That means that Jared's is not a one-to-one as there is more than one way to match the elements. And that goes against the definition. Virgil Cain
A one-to-one correspondence demands there be one and only one way to match the elements.
Incorrect.
No, it is true- one and only one. Even wikipedia agrees: bijection:
1. each element of X must be paired with at least one element of Y, 2. no element of X may be paired with more than one element of Y, 3. each element of Y must be paired with at least one element of X, and 4. no element of Y may be paired with more than one element of X.
and the bluff:
I won’t argue with you anymore since you are determined not to change your mind despite the evidence.
You have yet to present any evidence relevant to the question.
Here’s an illustrative example. C = {1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 . . . } D = {10, 20, 30, 40 , 50 . . . } Here is a one-to-one mapping: 1 ~ 10, 2 ~ 20, 3 ~ 30 . . . 10 x element in C ~ element in D Here is a non-one-to-one mapping: element in C ~ mod(element in D,10) or element in D mod 10
An illustrative example of what? How does that demonstrate the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality?
It’s not my fault you don’t understand the links I gave you many times or the basis of modern mathematics.
It's not my fault that the links you provided have nothing to do with what I am asking. It's not my fault that all you can do is bluff you way through this. Too bad wikipedia disagrees with you one the one to one correspondence thing. Virgil Cain
Dionisio,
daveS @634
Pardon me for jumping in, but isn’t it clear that most of us participating in this thread just like to discuss mathematics?
No, not at all.
Well, from my perspective it appears that way. We obviously have our disagreements, but I see no reason to suspect that kairosfocus, Aleta, ellazimm, or any of the other serious contributors have hidden motives. daveS
#645 KF Why don't you weigh in on this issue? Why not help clear up the mathematical disagreement? ellazimm
#642, 643 VC
LoL! A one-to-one correspondence demands there be one and only one way to match the elements.
Incorrect. You should have read those books on Set Theory I recommended.
You are pathetic as that has nothing to do with the question I asked. My question pertains to a small and obviously insignificant part of Cantor’s set theory. We have been over and over this many times and you still insist on spewing your cowardly nonsense.
I won't argue with you anymore since you are determined not to change your mind despite the evidence.
But you don’t even know what a one-to-one correspondence means.
Let's see what others think shall we?
LoL! Set subtraction works if you use it relative to a standard set. But obviously you are too dim to grasp that even though we have gone over it.
Fine then tell me whether or not sets A and B as above are the same size or not.
A one-to-one correspondence means there is one and only one way to match the elements. That is in the definition.
Incorrect.
How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other.
I have done the first many times and you're incorrect on the second. Here's an illustrative example. C = {1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 . . . } D = {10, 20, 30, 40 , 50 . . . } Here is a one-to-one mapping: 1 ~ 10, 2 ~ 20, 3 ~ 30 . . . 10 x element in C ~ element in D Here is a non-one-to-one mapping: element in C ~ mod(element in D,10) or element in D mod 10 (I'm forgetting my math as opposed to Excel notation.) (knowledgeable readers please leave VC to address the situation himself)
NOTE- I am NOT asking about Cantor’s set theory but just one small part of it. That means when Jared responds with Cantor’s set theory is fundamental he proves that he is a cowardly wanker who cannot support his position.
It's not my fault you don't understand the links I gave you many times or the basis of modern mathematics. You denying the evidence does not obligate me to restating the evidence over and over and over again. If you want to understand the arguments take a real set theory course. And now you have to decide which is 'bigger', A or B? Using your system. ellazimm
daveS @634
Pardon me for jumping in, but isn’t it clear that most of us participating in this thread just like to discuss mathematics?
No, not at all. Dionisio
Tell me Aleta- what kind of person responds to a question with an answer that doesn't even address the question and then runs around the internet claiming to have answered the question? This is exactly what EZ Jared is doing. Virgil Cain
LoL! @ Aleta- You just cannot support your claims, Aleta, and everyone knows it. I bother with people like Aleta and EZ Jerad because they can only "support" their claims by repeating what is being refuted/ debated. I love pure mathematics and I dislike condescending people like Aleta that pollute it. Virgil Cain
VC [SNIP– warning VC, KF] KF kairosfocus
Hi EZ. I see that you've been around the block with Virgil on this. I certainly won't bother. I especially won't bother with people who don't appreciate the importance of pure mathematics, irrespective of applied utility, and I also am not fond of discussing things with people who call others [SNIP -- Aleta warning. KF] So Virgil is not worth my time. Aleta
How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other. NOTE- I am NOT asking about Cantor's set theory but just one small part of it. That means when Jared responds with Cantor's set theory is fundamental he proves that he is a mathematical weenie who cannot support his position. Virgil Cain
EZ Jerad:
There usually are many different ways to math up elements of two sets. BUT if there is a matching that is one-to-one then the sets, finite or infinite, has the same cardinality.
LoL! A one-to-one correspondence demands there be one and only one way to match the elements.
I know, you never got the links I gave you about how Cantor’s set theory is fundamental to the foundation of modern mathematics.
You are pathetic as that has nothing to do with the question I asked. My question pertains to a small and obviously insignificant part of Cantor's set theory. We have been over and over this many times and you still insist on spewing your cowardly nonsense.
Again, IF there is a one-to-one correspondence between two sets then they have the same cardinality.
But you don't even know what a one-to-one correspondence means.
(I can give you ‘formulas’ for each if you like but your set subtraction method doesn’t work.)
LoL! Set subtraction works if you use it relative to a standard set. But obviously you are too dim to grasp that even though we have gone over it. A one-to-one correspondence means there is one and only one way to match the elements. That is in the definition. Virgil Cain
#640 Virg
EZ Jerad, still choking- How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other.
There usually are many different ways to math up elements of two sets. BUT if there is a matching that is one-to-one then the sets, finite or infinite, has the same cardinality.
And yes I am convinced that I am right as no one can demonstrate otherwise. To prove I am wrong one would have to show the consequences of what I say. Yet the only consequence I can find is that text books would have to be changed.
I know, you never got the links I gave you about how Cantor's set theory is fundamental to the foundation of modern mathematics. I won't bother posting them again, there's no point.
Have you figured out the utility in what Cantor spews, Jerad? Until you do you cannot say that I am wrong and you are right. However the definition of a “one to one correspondence” says that I am right. But you just ignore that.
Again, IF there is a one-to-one correspondence between two sets then they have the same cardinality. End of. No 'natural' or 'artificial' considerations. If you can find a one-to-one correspondence then you've proven the two sets have 'the same size'. Set subtraction doesn't work for all pairs of sets but one-to-one mappings do. A = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 . . . } B = {5, 6, 8, 12, 20, 36 . . .} Which of these sets is larger or are they the same size? (I can give you 'formulas' for each if you like but your set subtraction method doesn't work.) ellazimm
EZ Jerad, still choking- How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged "one-to-one correspondence" is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other. And yes I am convinced that I am right as no one can demonstrate otherwise. To prove I am wrong one would have to show the consequences of what I say. Yet the only consequence I can find is that text books would have to be changed. Have you figured out the utility in what Cantor spews, Jerad? Until you do you cannot say that I am wrong and you are right. However the definition of a "one to one correspondence" says that I am right. But you just ignore that. Virgil Cain
#636 Aleta
Virgil, however, is the one that is wrong. Not even kf would agree with Virgil here.
He will not ever budge from his erroneous position so I wouldn't spend much time arguing with him if I were you. He's got no published support for his views, he can't find any errors in work supporting Cantor's system and he believes in 'relative cardinalities' (i.e. that the cardinality of the positive even integers is half that of the positive integers) but he can't say what the 'relative' cardinality of the primes is. He's seen the one-to-one mapping argument many times so don't waste your breath on that. He's convinced he's right and will not back down.
However his alleged “one-to-one correspondence” fails in many cases as there is more than one way to correlate the two sets- one natural and one that is artificial.
Cantor’s mapping function actually gives us the relative cardinality. Not that Aleta will understand any of that.
See what I mean? Have you figured out the 'relative' cardinality of the primes yet Virg? ellazimm
A = {0,1,2,3,4,5,…} B = {1,3,5,7,9,11,…} C = {0.,2,4,6,8,10,…} If these sets all had the same cardinality, ie the same number of elements, then sets subtraction should prove that claim. And yet A-B=C. That means that Set A has more elements than both sets B and C. And more elements means it has a higher cardinality. Only mental gymnastics can get around that fact. Virgil Cain
LoL! @ Aleta- Aleta said that subtracting infinite sets is not allowed and yet could not provide any support for her claim. And yes, Cantor was wrong and there isn't any way to support his claims. However I have found a way to refute his claims. Cardinality refers to the number of elements in a set. Set subtraction proves that the cardinalities of certain countably infinite sets are different. Cantor offered a kluge to get around that. However his alleged "one-to-one correspondence" fails in many cases as there is more than one way to correlate the two sets- one natural and one that is artificial. Also no one can say what the utility is for Cantor's proclamation. Meaning saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality is useless and meaningless and saying that they do not have the same cardinality changes nothing but text books. It also makes everything equal, meaning we use the same correlation for determining if one set is a proper subset of another as we would for determining the relative cardinality of the sets. Cantor's mapping function actually gives us the relative cardinality. Not that Aleta will understand any of that. Virgil Cain
Virgil believes that the sets A = {0,1,2,3,4,5,…} B = {1,3,5,7,9,11,…} C = {0.,2,4,6,8,10,…} have different cardinalities because A - B = C. Virgil believes the standard mathematics about infinite sets and cardinality, begun by Cantor, are wrong. Virgil, however, is the one that is wrong. Not even kf would agree with Virgil here. Aleta
My "true" motives? What are they? Am I hiding them? I like to discuss things, and I like to have the opportunity to clarify and articulate my views. I'm interested in math, philosophy, and religion. I like discussing my thoughts on theism and atheism. Anything wrong with that? :-) Aleta
Dionisio, Pardon me for jumping in, but isn't it clear that most of us participating in this thread just like to discuss mathematics? daveS
Aleta @631
Dionisio asks a bunch of questions
Anything wrong with that? :)
I am curious about the motivation or purpose behind this bunch of questions.
Simply to let you reveal your own true motives for participating in this discussion. No one else can reveal them better than you. The same applies to your party comrades and anybody else here or anywhere else. This is a universal valid approach I learned from my Master. It seems to work well. :)
Most of them seem to be more pointed comments disguised as questions.
Can you provide an example?
But, I answered them anyway.
Thank you. I appreciate you did. Probably other readers also appreciate you clarified further your motives. :) Dionisio
Aleta has already proven to be ignorant of mathematics with her unsubstantiated statement above that set subtraction does not apply to infinite sets. After she was exposed for that gaff she decided to ignore me and prattle on. So Aleta has made statements about infinity that are clearly wrong. Virgil Cain
Dionisio asks a bunch of questions: 1. "BTW, I see that your interlocutors that claimed to be interested only in the math part of the discussion have gotten involved in non-math discussions too? :)" Yes, I have. But up until just the last few days, we were discussing pure math. I have other interests than pure math. 2. In response to my comment that "I once wrote the theological question, “Does God need an ellipsis", Dionisio wrote, "Is that a scientific comment." Of course not - it says clearly that it is a theological question. 3. WhenI wrote, "I think, to a believer such as kf, […]", Dionisio wrote, "Aren't you a believer, too?" No. 4. When ellazimm wrote, "I find the psychology of debates on this sight very interesting.", Dionisio wrote, "English is not my first (native) language. Please, can you explain that English sentence?" I think Dionisio is being disingenuous here. His (or her) English seems quite good. He made a similar remark to me when I left a extra "are" in a sentence. I am virtually certain that he knows that ellazimm meant "site", not "sight", and that Dionisio knows what the sentence means. 5. When I wrote, "For what it’s worth, I’m a bit interested in my own psychology – why do I keep posting??? I’m sure I’m close to an end.", Dionisio wrote, "Almost 10 days later you’re still posting here? What did you mean by “close to an end.”?" Well, first, I have finally quit discussing infinity with kf, so I was close to an end for that. And second, as I said, I wonder why I post here sometimes. 6. Dionisio asks again, "Does the above quoted comment @613 [about the theological question God needing an ellipsis} belong in the ‘pure mathematics’ topic category that you mentioned in the above quoted comment @587?" Again, no. The word theological is pretty clear. 7. When I wrote, "I got started in this discussion because someone made some statements about infinity that were wrong, and so I became interested.", Dionisio asks, "What specific statements about infinity were wrong? What specifically was wrong about those statements?" I am not about to try to summarize the things that kf has said that I think are wrong - we spent three posts doing that. However, the first statement that was wrong, which I was referring to in the comment above, was
Infinity is illogical for a very simple reason. Nothing can be compared to infinity without introducing a contradiction. Why? It’s because any finite quantity is infinitely small compared to infinity, making the quantity both finite and infinitesimal at the same time. As simple as that.
That's wrong. I am curious about the motivation or purpose behind this bunch of questions. Most of them seem to be more pointed comments disguised as questions. But, I answered them anyway. Aleta
#629 addendum
"[...] a ‘finite’ number of anonymously visiting readers [...]"
Here's something about that 'finite' number: Apparently over 1.5k net visitors?
Popular Posts (Last 30 Days) A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no… (15,811) Homologies, differences and information jumps (2,474) Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . . (2,269) Larry Moran needs to do some more reading (1,716) A Little Timeline on the Second Law Argument (1,690)
Dionisio
ellazimm @628
My comments that you ask about were not part of the general discussion and were directed at Aleta in particular and they understood my meaning so I don’t feel the need to explain them.
No problem. In this case of an open forum with a 'finite' number of anonymously visiting readers who can draw their own conclusions, what you just wrote may serve as the explanation you're willing (or capable) to offer. :) No one has to answer any questions. However, sometimes the way one answers certain questions may reveal one's true motives. :) Thank you. Dionisio
#621, 623 Dionisio My comments that you ask about were not part of the general discussion and were directed at Aleta in particular and they understood my meaning so I don't feel the need to explain them. ellazimm
Full Definition of infinite
1: extending indefinitely : endless 2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible 3: subject to no limitation or external determination 4 a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large b : extending to infinity c : characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms
http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Dionisio
Mapou @609
The very word “infinity” is an oxymoron.
"Infiniti" is the brand name of a car made by Nissan, which is out of reach (pricey). :) Dionisio
Aleta @599
I got started in this discussion because someone made some statements about infinity that were wrong, and so I became interested.
What specific statements about infinity were wrong? What specifically was wrong about those statements? Note that after reading posts in this thread I can't answer those questions myself, hence I kindly ask you to answer them. Thank you. Dionisio
Aleta @587
[...] those of us involved in the discussion (daveS, ellazim, and myself) were only interested in the pure mathematics.
Aleta @613
This is the key point. I once wrote the theological question, “Does God need an ellipsis.” I think, to a believer such as kf, the answer would be “no”: God sees the whole set because he also is infinite.
Does the above quoted comment @613 belong in the 'pure mathematics' topic category that you mentioned in the above quoted comment @587? :) Dionisio
ellazimm @503
The whole culture is fascinating.
What did you mean by "culture" in the quoted statement? :) Dionisio
Aleta @499 February 26
For what it’s worth, I’m a bit interested in my own psychology – why do I keep posting??? I’m sure I’m close to an end.
Aleta @613 March 6 Almost 10 days later you're still posting here? What did you mean by "close to an end."? :) [emphasis mine] Dionisio
ellazimm @498
I find the psychology of debates on this sight very interesting.
English is not my first (native) language. Please, can you explain that English sentence? Thank you. :) Dionisio
Aleta @613
I think, to a believer such as kf, [...]
Aren't you a believer too? :) Dionisio
Aleta @613
This is the key point. I once wrote the theological question, “Does God need an ellipsis.” I think, to a believer such as kf, the answer would be “no”: God sees the whole set because he also is infinite.
Is that a scientific comment? Dionisio
KF 602 Yes, noted your interesting comment on that subject. Thank you. Here's my comment: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/peer-review/retracted-scientist-makes-top-10-list/#comment-599419 BTW, I see that your interlocutors that claimed to be interested only in the math part of the discussion have gotten involved in non-math discussions too? :) Dionisio
kairosfocus:
...and Math must in the end try to be anchored to reality...
"One must be able to say at all times - instead of points, straight lines and planes - tables, chairs and beer mugs." - David Hilbert Mung
KF, I can't parse the first few sentences, but starting here:
So it seems to me that the reachable values are finite and the EoE is pivotal.
"Reachable" again, which I'm guessing means able to be generated by computer program in a finite number of steps. I don't think Aleta and I, or most working mathematicians recognize this limitation. I would emphasize I don't find anything "wrong" with finitism. It's an interesting approach, and it's surprising what finitists are able to achieve under such severe restrictions, but their rationale for the program doesn't do much for me.
I add, if we chain copy so far to endlessness — which is what infinity means — then w, w+1 etc should belong, or more specifically, endless individual copies of the list so far.
It seems to me such a fundamental fact would have been proven and published. Have you found any reference to this? Finally I don't want to get too meta, you posted this in another thread yesterday:
Z, the mere fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge the author of the remarks I cited, Nancy Pearcey, speaks volumes.
While at the same time avoiding my questions about {0, 1}^*. daveS
DS and A, in short take a leap of faith. The point is we see there in axiomatic frames and the way that we represent {0,1,2 . . . } and more exactly the +1 successive build out from 0 that is in Ehrlang's tree etc. On the idea of an infinite set of finite sequence members from 0, raises the issue of the successive case being copy of the set so far. Where ordinary mathematical induction pivots on succession from case 0. So it seems to me that the reachable values are finite and the EoE is pivotal. I add, if we chain copy so far to endlessness -- which is what infinity means -- then w, w+1 etc should belong, or more specifically, endless individual copies of the list so far. I don't want to be a finitist, but I think I see reason to hold that inductive chaining on case 0 and case k => case k+1 will have that stepwise spanning issue that becomes relevant when one says what is tantamount to there are infinitely many -- endless -- +1 stage successors to 0 and they are all finite. Paradox at minimum. KF PS: Time and space are not strictly necessary tot he issue I have pointed out, just succession in +1 steps from 0. At any k, k+1 we can put the onward endless succession in 1:1 correspondence with the undisturbed sequence from 0. Pink/blue tapes just illustrate the point. kairosfocus
MT, I am puzzled. End of space, apart from say heat death? I suggest it is well accepted our observed cosmos has a beginning the singularity. Do you mean my reference to the scale of the observed cosmos about 90 bn LY? Or what? KF kairosfocus
Dave writes,
Numbers are abstract things. Constructing the set N shouldn’t take up time or space, right? And most mathematicians accept that we can work with a completed set N, despite your concepts of “attainable”, “actualizable” sets, or sets that we can “directly reach”.
This is the key point. I once wrote the theological question, "Does God need an ellipsis." I think, to a believer such as kf, the answer would be "no": God sees the whole set because he also is infinite. Well, mathematics let's us do that too. Infinite sets are an abstraction, perfect circles are an abstraction, the Mandelbrot set (in its infinite detail) is an abstraction, God is an abstraction. We couldn't do math if we didn't idealize its components. If kf took the same attitude towards theology that he is taking here, objecting to infinity because our tape machine can't reach it, he would be much more humble about making pronouncements about such things as the "root of reality." Aleta
PPS to my #611: Feng Ye posted a draft of his book here. Also, some general discussion at stackexchange. daveS
KF,
DS, do you not see the point of concern:
I could understand the concern if I felt constrained to work only with those natural numbers that could be generated (in principle) by a program running on a digital computer in a finite time interval, starting with just 0 and the successor operation. In that case, I would be restricted to finite subsets of N only. I believe that most mathematicians don't work under such constraints. Numbers are abstract things. Constructing the set N shouldn't take up time or space, right? And most mathematicians accept that we can work with a completed set N, despite your concepts of "attainable", "actualizable" sets, or sets that we can "directly reach".
Similarly, ordinary mathematical induction hangs on case 0 then has a chaining premise by which case-k => case-k+1, which obviously is not going to actually complete the transfinite chain.
As I've said before, you therefore do not accept the Axiom of Induction.
So, I would modify the conclusion that there is an endless implicitly actualisable — infinite — succession of finite successor counting sets to {} –>0, into the more conservative point that actualisable successive members will be finite. However, as closure endless-LY is present that is now a part of the set, a quasi-member in effect.
No. I'm going to insist on no "quasi" this or that. Something either is or is not a member of a set. P or not P, right? PS: Do you have answers to my three questions about {0, 1}^*? That's about as simple as infinite sets get. I submit that if we can't agree on the answers to my three questions, then there is no hope of coming to terms on the mathematics of an infinite past. PPS: This looks like an interesting read. The blurb:
Strict Finitism and the Logic of Mathematical Applications, by Feng Ye This book intends to show that radical naturalism (or physicalism), nominalism and strict finitism account for the applications of classical mathematics in current scientific theories. The applied mathematical theories developed in the book include the basics of calculus, metric space theory, complex analysis, Lebesgue integration, Hilbert spaces, and semi-Riemann geometry (sufficient for the applications in classical quantum mechanics and general relativity). The fact that so much applied mathematics can be developed within such a weak, strictly finitistic system, is surprising in itself. It also shows that the applications of those classical theories to the finite physical world can be translated into the applications of strict finitism, which demonstrates the applicability of those classical theories without assuming the literal truth of those theories or the reality of infinity.
daveS
KF, What is at the end of Space ? How will you know the end of space? What differentiates space from nothing ? There is no way to construct a physical world with an end of space scenario. Me_Think
KF, The very word "infinity" is an oxymoron. It's a shame it has become the basis of a religion of cretins. See you around. Mapou
Mapou (and Joe if you are watching), the exercises above give me a whole new view on your position on many mathematical topics. Though I find that it is reasonable to see a transfinite realm and especially an infinitesimal one, I have come to more and more recognise that difficulties lurk. And I must always respect the premise that on matters of truth-seeking (and Math must in the end try to be anchored to reality) no consensus of some August magisterium and no imposed definition or axiom can be beyond question from first principles and Einstein's favourite tool of insight, thought exercises. KF kairosfocus
DS, do you not see the point of concern:
an actually completed endless and infinite set of successive +1 separated finite values from 0 on, where any next value is a copy of the list so far?
I suggest that the real solution is, such an endless list cannot actually be completed to endless-NESS. Second, that given the pink/blue tape example it can only proceed successively to finite extent leaving such endlessness onwards that it can always be put in 1:1 correspondence with the set from 0 on. Third, that were it actually completed it would have to include among the list of "copies of the set so far" at least one endless member, Fourth, instead we may see that in fact it is incomplete and the incompleteness is inherent in the collection so that we point across the ellipsis of endlessness to recognise this as a new type of quantity, omega the first transfinite. Which then is dependent on not only the finite counting sets we can reach in +1 succession accumulated from 0, but also -- critically -- on the endless-NESS of successive-NESS of said counting sets. (I use -ness to in effect point to a distinct identifiable concept that has been described by endless and successive acting as in effect [quasi-] adjectives . . . as in, adverbs. Sorry, I am fishing for precision.) So, we never actually can compose an endless string and sequence of successive counting sets, nor can we properly conclude that were such a string possible ALL of its members all the way to endlessness would be finite. Notwithstanding the copy of the set so far principle of succession. In short the do forever loop of succession inherent in defining successive counting sets cannot actually go to endless extent. We cannot complete and end a stepwise finite stage traversal of the endless. Instead what the exercises actually show is that the successive counting sets we can directly reach will be finite, that those we can actually represent in notations such as place value or scientific that give specific numbers are also dependent on the same inherently finite succession, and that the ongoing endlessness cannot be actually traversed. Attempts to move to a potential infinity and point across the ellipsis of endlessness in this particular case seem to me to run into the above challenges. So, pointing to the axiom of infinity . . . Wiki for convenience (as in 513 above):
In words, there is a set I (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in I and such that whenever any x is a member of I, the set formed by taking the union of x [–> in context the succession from {} on thus far is in mind in a generalised case] with its singleton {x} [ –> this goes on to the next step] is also a member of I. Such a set is sometimes called an inductive set. This axiom is closely related to the von Neumann construction of the naturals in set theory, in which the successor of x is defined as x U {x}. If x is a set, then it follows from the other axioms of set theory that this successor is also a uniquely defined set. Successors are used to define the usual set-theoretic encoding of the natural numbers. In this encoding, zero is the empty set: 0 = {}. The number 1 is the successor of 0: 1 = 0 U {0} = {} U {0} = {0}. Likewise, 2 is the successor of 1: 2 = 1 U {1} = {0} U {1} = {0,1}, and so on. A consequence of this definition is that every natural number is equal to the set of all preceding natural numbers. [--> the copy the sequence so far principle, Notice, too, how this embeds a do forever succession (loop) in the heart of the definition of the list of natural counting sets] This construction forms the natural numbers. However, the other axioms are insufficient to prove the existence of the set of all natural numbers. Therefore its existence is taken as an axiom—the axiom of infinity. This axiom asserts that there is a set I that contains 0 and is closed under the operation of taking the successor; that is, for each element of I, the successor of that element is also in I. [--> notice, it says in effect each successor, endlessly -- an in principle process that cannot be actualised in finite stage steps, is a member. It closes the set as defining successors to be members and a finite reachable k will always have k+1 but this then falls under the point seen from the pink vs blue tape example, the traversal is not complete and onward endlessness obtains as can be seen by truncating the blue tape at k and putting k, k+1 etc in 1:1 correspondence with the un-shifted pink tape from 0,1 etc. If you want an inductive point this can be done k then k+1 times then k+2 times, the k+2th one showing that the kth case implies the k+1th case, and the k steps k times that the steps may be expanded to squaring without altering the point of never beginning to exhaust endlessness. For concreteness set k = 10^150 and square to 10^300, and see that such would not begin to exhaust endlessness. At 0.1 inches, each k-step would pull 10^144 miles of tape, the observed cosmos being some 10^23 miles across IIRC. Just for those who struggle with abstract values. ] Thus the essence of the axiom is: There is a set, I, that includes all the natural numbers. The axiom of infinity is also one of the von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel axioms
Similarly, ordinary mathematical induction hangs on case 0 then has a chaining premise by which case-k => case-k+1, which obviously is not going to actually complete the transfinite chain. I think as at now, that there is a premature pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness that is not sufficiently reckoning with the consequence of actualised +1 stage step completion. Instead I think we should embrace the forced fact of incompleteness of the succession and see that we never get to the stage where a copy of the set so far would have to be endless, reflecting an actualised endless succession. So, I would modify the conclusion that there is an endless implicitly actualisable -- infinite -- succession of finite successor counting sets to {} -->0, into the more conservative point that actualisable successive members will be finite. However, as closure endless-LY is present that is now a part of the set, a quasi-member in effect. And we then recognise an emergent phenomenon from this process, a new type of quantity, first degree endlessness of cardinality aleph null and involving the first transfinite ordinal omega [w for convenience] and its relevant successors w+1 etc. As a consequence we never actually complete an endless succession of "copy of the list so far" recursively growing finite counting sets. However by recognising the highly material endless-NESS component of the structured set of successive counting sets, we may then point beyond it to the transfinite ordinals. As one consequence w is both the order type of the set with the endlessness component -- {0,1,2 . . . k, k+1 . . . EoE . . . } -- and has no specific actually defined member of that set as a predecessor. It is a limit ordinal. Clipping again from Wolfram on limit ordinals:
Limit Ordinal An ordinal number alpha>0 is called a limit ordinal iff it has no immediate predecessor, i.e., if there is no ordinal number beta such that beta+1=alpha (Ciesielski 1997, p. 46; Moore 1982, p. 60; Rubin 1967, p. 182; Suppes 1972, p. 196). The first limit ordinal is omega.
This highlights the significance of the EoE component and implies the exact point that the +1 stage succession from {} cannot be actualised to endlessness. This is how I find myself, as guided by the premise that we seek coherence always. I don't have to like or desire it, but if that is what I see it is what I see thus far. KF PS: The implications of inherent and inescapable failure to traverse an endless span in +1 steps of course speaks to views that try to claim an infinite spatio-temporal causal succession culminating for the moment in our common now-world. And, no; pointing out that at any actual past we can show we are finitely remote is just that, finitely remote. I find the notion of an infinite past causal succession of all and only temporally finitely remote stages, is an attempt to traverse the infinite in finite stage steps and falls under the problem highlighted by both the contradiction in terms and the force of the two tapes example. kairosfocus
KF, I don't know what you're asking here, but the set you describe is the one assumed to exist by the Axiom of Infinity (the version posted first in this thread). daveS
DS, an actually completed endless and infinite set of successive +1 separated finite values from 0 on, where any next value is a copy of the list so far? KF kairosfocus
KF,
Do you not see the evident incoherence here? Were there an endless temporal-spatial, causally connected past of successive stages, then at some degree of remove from the present one or more of the terms in the train would have to be at a transfinitely large sequence remove from now.
I've seen this assertion many times here, but with no justification. Have you asked any actual mathematicians about this?
This is because a sequence can be seen as an ordered succession and duly labelled with counting subscripts will have to have reached to endlessness; which brings out the problem.
I don't know what "reaching to endlessness" means. The sequence we're talking about is infinite, no doubt. But so is the set of (finite) natural numbers.
The finite, inherently, is bounded and not endless in itself or endlessly removed in +1 steps from 0.
When you say "the finite", are you speaking of the set or its members? It would be helpful if you used finite/infinite/endless as adjectives rather than as nouns. I can understand "set A is finite" or "set X is infinite", but statements about a generic "the finite" are less clear. You brought up the fallacy of composition earlier. It really seems there is some conflation of the properties of the set with the properties of its members here. I'll ask once more for yes/no answers to these questions. There is nothing unfair about that. All the notation and concepts I will refer to are utterly standard. Some have appeared in this thread. If you can't give straight yes/no answers to these questions, then we simply don't have a basis for discussion.
1) The set {0, 1}^* is infinite. Yes/No? 2) Each element of {0, 1}^* has finite length. Yes/No? 3) The set of lengths of strings in {0, 1}^* is unbounded. Yes/No?
I will volunteer to answer first. The answer to each question is "Yes". daveS
DS:
This universe has an infinite past, yet every time coordinate is finite, and every instant in time is a finite number of seconds from the present.
Do you not see the evident incoherence here? Were there an endless temporal-spatial, causally connected past of successive stages, then at some degree of remove from the present one or more of the terms in the train would have to be at a transfinitely large sequence remove from now. This is because a sequence can be seen as an ordered succession and duly labelled with counting subscripts will have to have reached to endlessness; which brings out the problem. The finite, inherently, is bounded and not endless in itself or endlessly removed in +1 steps from 0. Where the counting set succession is such that any large reachable member k is: {0,1,2 . . . k-1} --> k Where for counting sets, the k, k-1 registers can be updated and the string extended to k, k+1 etc endless-LY. That is we see the successor is list of members so far principle and the boundedness of k by k+1. The do forever succession process,inherently is finite and bounded at any stage. At all stages, it never attains to endlessness as the far zone members would then have to include members that themselves are endless. An actually infinite successive string of counting sets that are all finite becomes a self contradiction. That is we should distinguish a succession of inherently finite elements from a completed traversal of endlessness. Where also, the pink and blue tapes thought exercise shows that for any k, k+1 etc, the onward subset can be put in 1:1 correspondence with the full un-shifted un-truncated set, that is the endlessness of successive counting sets cannot be spanned in finite stage successive accumulative steps. As a consequence we cannot have had an actually infinite succession of causal stages to date. The logic of successive counting sets joins many other lines of evidence in pointing to a bounded, finite actual past for our world. KF kairosfocus
D, noted: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/peer-review/retracted-scientist-makes-top-10-list/#comment-599288 KF kairosfocus
Aleta Thank you for clarifying that. Have a good weekend. Dionisio
KF, Off topic, you may want to take a quick look at the article linked @1 about the paper referenced @3 in this thread: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/peer-review/retracted-scientist-makes-top-10-list/#comment-599226 Dionisio
Dionisio asks some questions that contain some misconceptions:
If you and your comrades were only interested in pure math, why did ya’ll get attracted to this site and specially to discussion threads started by OPs that were allegedly not about pure math? Aren’t there pure math discussion forums on the internet? Do you have so much spare time for reading things you’re not interested in? Just curious. :)
First, I can't speak for others, but I've paid attention to this site off and on for many years, and participated in threads on a number of topics. This is the first pure math discussion I think I've ever had here. However I have participated in a number of threads about the philosophy of math and its applicability to the real world, which is quite relevant to topics that show up here regularly. So it is incorrect to state that I was "attracted to this site [] specially to discussion threads started by OPs that were allegedly not about pure math." Also, the mathematics of infinity is relevant because if one doesn't understand the math correctly, one won't be able to apply it to real world situations correctly. I got started in this discussion because someone made some statements about infinity that were wrong, and so I became interested. Hopefully these answers will satisfy Dionisio's curiosity. :-) Aleta
KF,
This also illustrates the point that subtracting a finite k from a first order endlessness does not alter the endlessness. Arguably, we may reasonably represent: w – k = w. Such, bridges to the idea of an infinite past as w+g stepped down g steps gets to w, and in trying to go beyond by k steps will meet the barrier that first order endlessness is in play.
Do you have a response to my #581? It is not the case that every number you can construct need be a valid time coordinate in every universe-with-an-infinite-past. I am assuming a universe with only real number time coordinates. No ω's or other infinite values allowed. This universe has an infinite past, yet every time coordinate is finite, and every instant in time is a finite number of seconds from the present. daveS
I think Spitzer explains the three types of infinities adequately. This will add more clarity for further discussion :
1. “A-infinity.”: “Infinite” frequently has the meaning of “unrestricted,” (e.g., “infinite power” means “unrestricted power”). It can only be conceived through the “via negativa,” that is, by disallowing or negating any magnitude, characteristic, quality, way of acting, or way of being that could be restricted or introduce restriction into an infinite (unrestricted) power. Therefore, “infinite,” here, is not a mathematical concept. It is the negation of any restriction (or any condition that could introduce restriction) into power, act, or being. 2.“B-infinity.” “Infinite” is also used to signify indefinite progression or indefinite ongoingness. An indefinite progression is never truly actualized. It is one that can (potentially) progress ad infinitum. Examples of this might be an interminably ongoing series, or an ever-expanding Euclidean plane. The series or the plane never reaches infinity; it simply can (potentially) keep on going ad infinitum. Thus, Hilbert calls this kind of infinity a “potential infinity.” 3.“C-infinity.” “Infinite” is sometimes used to signify “infinity actualized within a finite or aggregative structure.” Mathematicians such as Georg Cantor hypothesized a set with an actual infinite number of members (a Cantorian set) which would not be a set with an ever-increasing number of members or an algorithm which could generate a potential infinity of members. Examples might be an existing infinite number line, or an existing infinite spatial manifold, or the achievement of an infinite continuous succession of asymmetrical events (i.e., infinite past history).
Me_Think
Aleta @592 RE: your comments @587, @589 If you and your comrades were only interested in pure math, why did ya'll get attracted to this site and specially to discussion threads started by OPs that were allegedly not about pure math? Aren't there pure math discussion forums on the internet? Do you have so much spare time for reading things you're not interested in? Just curious. :) Dionisio
MT (attn D et al): In this thread, the focus has been on something different, further following up a concern expressed by Spitzer regarding a claimed infinite physical past of the cosmos we inhabit, in whatever form:
Infinities within an aggregating succession imply “unoccurrable,” “unachievable,” and “unactualizable,” for an aggregating succession occurs one step at a time (that is, one step after another), and can therefore only be increased a finite amount. No matter how fast and how long the succession occurs, the “one step at a time” or “one step after another” character of the succession necessitates that only a finite amount is occurrable, achievable, or actualizable. Now, if “infinity” is applied to an aggregating succession, and it is to be kept analytically distinct from (indeed, contrary to) “finitude,” then “infinity” must always be more than can ever occur, be achieved or be actualized through an aggregating succession. Any other definition would make “infinity” analytically indistinguishable from “finitude” in its application to an aggregating succession. Therefore, in order to maintain the analytical distinction between “finitude” and “infinity” in an aggregating succession, “infinity” must be consider unoccurrable (as distinct from finitude which is occurrable), unachievable (as distinct from finitude which is achievable), and unactualizable (as distinct from finitude which is actualizable). We are now ready to combine the two parts of our expression through our three common conceptual bases: “Infinite Past Time” “(The) unoccurrable (has) occurred.” “(The) unachievable (has been) achieved.” “(The) unactualizable (has been) actualized.” Failures of human imagination may deceive one into thinking that the above analytical contradictions can be overcome, but further scrutiny reveals their inescapability.
The direct form of this conundrum can be put: ending the endless, emphasising the contradiction in terms. However there is a linked issue as to an infinite, finite stage succession which opens up mathematical considerations. Those considerations show that a stepwise traversal of the endless is not feasible. This is also a context in which a fairly wide range of linked mathematical issues came up. Which became a main focus in this thread. As one result, Ehrlich's tree of numbers great and small has been put on the table as a point of reference. The upshot of all this is that Spitzer's point is crucial, and indeed in counting up or chaining in finite stages from 0 or its neighbourhood, we find that at any finite k, k+1 etc we may place the shifted truncated sequence -- and thus, proper subset from k on -- in 1:1 correspondence with the unshifted sequence and find that once endlessness is involved such stepwise processes cannot traverse it in stages. The pink/blue punched tape thought exercise as is illustrated in the OP provides further illustration. This also illustrates the point that subtracting a finite k from a first order endlessness does not alter the endlessness. Arguably, we may reasonably represent: w - k = w. Such, bridges to the idea of an infinite past as w+g stepped down g steps gets to w, and in trying to go beyond by k steps will meet the barrier that first order endlessness is in play. This supports the point that stepwise, finite stage traversal of endlessness is infeasible. Such has ontological import in a world in which there is a pattern of causal-temporal succession, but it is based on logical considerations regarding structure and quantity. The proposal of an infinite causal-temporal succession for our world in some form, credibly fails. Thus we see a beginning is seriously on the table on grounds of the logic of structure and quantity. (Which, is an expression that describes the focus and core method of Mathematics.) Moving forward, what is now on the table is the suggestion of a beginning from utter non-being (a real nothing). However as non being has no causal properties were there ever such utter nothingness, such would forever thereafer obtain. Patently, such is not the case. Therefore we contemplate the alternative: we inhabit an inherently contingent world with a finitely remote beginning. This then points onwards to the root of our world as a necessary being sufficient to account for a world such as we experience. Where, a NB can be characterised as an entity so connected to the framework for a world to exist that once any possible world is, it must exist. Indeed, further such beings are not dependent on external, enabling on/off causal factors. By contrast with say how a fire depends on heat, oxidiser, fuel and combustion chain reaction. A serious candidate NB will either be impossible as a square circle is, or it will be actual in any possible world. For instance, try to imagine a world in which distinct identity and two-ness (based on distinction of distinct entities) does not exist, or began to exist at some point or can cease from existing. The von Neumann construction on the empty set and successors alone is enough to put paid to such an imaginary world. Two-ness is inescapably integral to the existence of any world. It is also vital to the possibility of logic as distinct identity is the root of logic: World W = {A|~A}, from this law of identity, that of non contradiction and exclusion of the middle come. Without these, logical reasoning is impossible. For, we must have distinct identity to think and communicate, not least regarding structure and quantity. So, we are forced to the further conclusion that NBs are actual, necessarily present once any actual world exists. Which is another way of saying that if something -- a world -- now is, credibly, something always was. Something not caused, not dependent on enabling on/off external entities and not subject to either beginning nor end. Something that merits the term, eternal. Notice, such is a conceptual analysis on the recognised existence of an actual world. It is in this ontological context that we may then understand that God as understood in ethical theism is in fact a serious candidate necessary being root of reality and would be the fountainhead of rationality, mathematics and a world that is orderly and generally lawlike in its operations. With, the implication being, that either God is an impossible being (and we must seek another NB root of reality) or else he is actual. Such, is what is now on the table. And it is clearly a part of the wider context of thought relevant to the debates over design which will be relevant to the interest of those following that debate and cultural issue. It can further be said that mathematics and logic, once surfaced as meta issues, are always relevant to a scientific issue. Further lurking are the broader meta issues of philosophical considerations. If we are to discuss in a responsible, informed way, such will come up. But that does not change the core generic design inference principle: it is credible, on observed tested and reliable signs, to infer that the best current scientific/inductive explanation of certain features of the observed cosmos and of biological life in that cosmos, is intelligent design. Such is scientific/inductive in focus. KF kairosfocus
Well, according to Borde-Guth-Vilenkin if average Hubble constant is a positive value, the universe is past incomplete, which means there has to be a beginning- at least in classical metrics. This is where the concept of "there has to be a God to begin the universe and universe can't be infinite" came from. Me_Think
I'd like to take a look at Spitzer's thesis:
His doctoral dissertation (entitled, A Study of Objectively Real Time – Director: Paul Weiss, reprints through University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan) is concerned with the fundamental nature and underlying conditions of temporality. He connects this ontology of time to the special and general theories of relativity.
daveS
Re 590. If you look at the very first post in the series of three on this topic at https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/an-infinite-past-cant-save-darwin/ you'll see that the quote from Spitzer that started all this is from a book "New Proofs for the Existence of God". I didn't say "ID concepts = the existence of God". I did say, and it's true for many people here, that the existence of God has a relationship to ID concepts. For instance, a link about Spitzer that kf provided in the first thread, at http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology, starts thusly:
Cosmology The Magis God Wiki: Cosmology Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics? © Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011 This will be an overview of a more complex treatment which may be found in my recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (hereafter “NPEG”). I have given a series of lectures on these matters in an on-line series called Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue which can be accessed at our (hereafter “PID”) website – see lectures #1-6. It will be rather quick paced, and if some of you want a more thorough treatment you may want to refer to the book. I will divide the topic into three parts: 1. Can Science Give Evidence of Creation and Supernatural Design? 2. What is the Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation? 3. What is the evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic Fine-tuning?
So saying that the beginning OP is related to both ID and the existence of God is fairly well supported, I think. Aleta
D, glance at the OP, you will see that a key issue is the idea of an actually infinite past. KF kairosfocus
Aleta @587
The original topic in the opening post three posts ago, when all this started, had some relationship to ID concepts (the existence of God), [...]
Where did you read that ID concepts = the existence of God? Dionisio
The nature of numbers is a mathematical issue. Linking mathematics to anything real via a mathematical model brings up the additional issue of applying mathematics. Our discussion (mine, anyway) has just been about the pure math. Aleta
D, passing through. Infinity is always of significance. So is the nature of numbers and so would be things linked thereto. KF kairosfocus
Dionisio asks, "Off topic, does this discussion relate to the ID concepts proposed in this blog? How?" The original topic in the opening post three posts ago, when all this started, had some relationship to ID concepts (the existence of God), but those of us involved in the discussion (daveS, ellazim, and myself) were only interested in the pure mathematics. Aleta
KF, Thank you for the detailed explanations posted @572-574, 579. Food for thoughts. Dionisio
Aleta @582
Re 578. Yes, I think that sentence is grammatically correct.
daveS @583
Aleta, I think perhaps the first “are” could be omitted?
Aleta @584
Oops! Of course! I really have a problem with reading what I think I wrote and not seeing what I actually wrote.
No problem. Join the club! We all have that kind of problem reading, seeing, hearing and interpreting written, spoken text or visual images accurately. Our minds seem to betray us on some occasions. If that simple and obvious error can go undetected, now let's think of more complex issues explained by other persons. How can we ensure that we get the exact meaning of what others are trying to tell us? "The trouble with every one of us is that we don't think enough." - Thomas J. Watson, NCR Co. 1911. BTW understanding someone else's message, idea or point of view doesn't mean agreeing with it. Off topic, does this discussion relate to the ID concepts proposed in this blog? How? Thank you. Dionisio
Oops! Of course! I really have a problem with reading what I think I wrote and not seeing what I actually wrote. My fault, Dionisio. The sentence should say,
A1.2 This definition ensures that all natural numbers are finite.
My apologies. Aleta
Aleta, I think perhaps the first "are" could be omitted? daveS
Re 578. Yes, I think that sentence is grammatically correct. Aleta
KF, Ok, but I will just say again that there are no ω's on my time axis. All the time coordinates I have been referring to are (real) integers. daveS
DS, that is my exact point, once one counts down to w the endlessness confronts. Cannot be bridged. We can only have a finite real world, operational succession. KF kairosfocus
D, I thought to add to 572 from another angle: >>[Let me expand for some r +1 as a proposed endless member:] {0,1,2 . . . k, k + 1 . . . Ellipsis of endlessness] . . . } –> r+1 Is there thus a definable immediate predecessor r: {0,1,2 . . . k, k + 1 . . . finite Ellipsis] . . . r -1} –> r Not at all, the value r+1 is a synonym for w and there is no immediate predecessor that is definable. Endlessness must be taken seriously. Instead of the meaningless r-1 and r, I therefore suggest that we accept the inability to exhaust the endless and then assign order type w to the whole, explicitly including endlessness. Where the modified conclusion would be, all natural numbers we can reach in finite stage steps from 0 will be finite (this takes in place value notation and scientific notation etc), but the set continues endless-LY and we recognise an emergent quantity, the order type of such endless continuation, w.>> KF kairosfocus
Aleta @575
Hi Dionisio. I’m not quite sure what part of the sentence you don’t understand: “A1.2 This definition ensures that all are natural numbers are finite.” “This definition” refers to A1.1. The natural numbers are the set {1, 2, 3, …}. Finite means having a particular value, as opposed to infinite.
As I mentioned @571, the text I copied from your post @462 and quoted @569 reads:
A1.2 This definition ensures that all are natural numbers are finite.
Is that sentence grammatically correct? It sounds a little confusing to me. But again, English is not my first language. Spanish is my mother tongue (native language). Thank you in advance for clarifying this before I continue reading your posts 462 & 505 as per your request. Dionisio
KF,
Where we can put in 1:1 correspondence endlessly: C(w+g) –>C(w + {g-1}) –> . . . EoE . . . and 0, 1, 2, . . . EoE . . . which cannot be bridged in finite stage steps.
Can you explain how the indices in the first sequence go? If g is a finite number, then: ω + g, ω + (g - 1), ω + (g - 2), ... reaches ω + 0 = ω in a finite number of steps. What is the next term in the sequence? daveS
KF, Thank you for explaining this again. I see your point. Dionisio
Hi Dionisio. I'm not quite sure what part of the sentence you don't understand: "A1.2 This definition ensures that all are natural numbers are finite." "This definition" refers to A1.1. The natural numbers are the set {1, 2, 3, ...}. Finite means having a particular value, as opposed to infinite. Aleta
D, coming back full circle to the OP, that then leads me to ponder the claim of an infinite actual past of causal steps to arrive at the present. A conceptual analysis shows this requires ending the endless by traversing the transfinite in finite stage steps. That is a contradiction in terms and a warning. Going back to earlier stages, let us do a down count of former stages of the proposed infinite past physical cosmos to 0 at singularity then up to now:
. . . {Ellipsis of endlessness] . . . Ck --> Ck-1 --> . . . C2 --> C1 --> C0 --> C1* -->C2* --> . . . [finite ellipsis] . . . Cn-1* --> Cn* that is, now
The claim advanced above is that at every actually remote time/stage ck, one is finitely remote from the singularity but there is an endless and so infinite list of such stages. My view has been, the out fails, as the only reasonable meaning of an actually infinite past is that we have traversed an endless succession, not just a finite one. So, the implication is we have been at:
C(w+g) -->C(w + {g-1}) --> . . . EoE . . . Ck --> . . . C1* --> C0 --> Cn*
Where we can put in 1:1 correspondence endlessly: C(w+g) -->C(w + {g-1}) --> . . . EoE . . . and 0, 1, 2, . . . EoE . . . which cannot be bridged in finite stage steps. So, we have good reason to hold the actual past to be finite. Where also, that something -- a cosmos -- came from non-being is questionable. Non-being has no causal powers so were there ever non being utterly, such would forever obtain. If something now is that works by causal-temporal succession, at finitely remote time and stage, it began to be and did not come from non being. This points to a necessary being cause of the observed cosmos. Where such a being is eternal as opposed to causally dependent. KF kairosfocus
D, I see you are likely to be at nearly the same point where I was. The argument is on reaching any k in the set of counting sets it is bounded by k+1 and so we can recycle the load k+1 into the k register endless_LY, then infer per axioms that this finitude extends to all naturals (reconceptualising the succession as identifying a typical case then generalising to the whole). Leaving, the conclusion at there are infinitely many successive natural numbers, all of which are finite. I found that quite jarring -- especially given the copy the set so far principle -- and so have reassessed ordinary mathematical induction and the sort of do forever succession involved with sequences, to come out as I commented just above. KF kairosfocus
Aleta & DS (attn D also), I would suggest that the issue that starting from k, k+1 and onward endlessly we can set the truncated numbers in 1:1 correspondence with the un-truncated natural numbers leads to the conclusion that on cycling k+1 into the k register and keeping on, there is never a point where the sequence from 0 in +1 steps begins to actually exhaust the endlessness. In that context, were we to actually ever reach to the far zone of an endless value the issue that the next member is a copy of the set thus far [let me add by way of example] {0,1,2 . . . k} --> k+1 . . . intervenes. If there is an endless list of natural counting sets redesignated [ --> successively, in the logic chaining sense . . . ] as numbers, then that would point to there being endless members in the set if the chaining actually attains the remote transfinite zone from 0. This is a key part of the concern I have been having. I think the resolution is that the k, k+1 cycle never actually begins to exhaust the succession of ordinals. Yes, it is always finite, but equally, the endlessness represented by the ellipsis of endlessness counts. In this case, to take a leap that in one swooping step we conclude -- [a]all naturals are finite, and at the same time-- [b] the list of such is endless . . . is a leap too far in my view. Instead, I suggest that the k, k+1 do forever can cycle endless-LY . . . adverb . . . in principle but will also never go beyond a finite value in practice. To extend the "we only reach finite values" is then problematic. Instead, we should accept the "only to finite values" and "never exhaust the endlessness" seriously. We then see the naturals as being defined on endless idealised succession, which cannot be completed in actuality. Then we take the whole process: {0,1,2 . . . k, k+1, . . . [Ellipsis of endlessness] . . . } and recognise that there is now a new phenomenon, first order endlessness, which we assign an order type, omega (let us use w): {0,1,2 . . . k, k+1, . . . [Ellipsis of endlessness] . . . } --> w Where we then go on w, w+1 etc in the transfinite, remote zone that cannot be accessed operationally by any do forever process that moves in finite stages. So, when I look at ordinary mathematical induction that embeds a first base case 0, or 1, then hangs from it a chain that case k => case k+1, I see such a chaining, which inherently cannot exhaust the endless, for the reasons captured by the thought exercise of the pink and blue punched tapes, which is WLOG. The cautious conclusion of such an induction is that for any value of k we can step up to, or express in forms dependent on stepwise processes, the conclusion will hold endless-LY as opposed to -- we have exhausted the endless in steps. What we are doing often is we take a leap of endless scale and assign the conclusion across the span. But in he case of the conclusion that all natural numbers are finite this is problematic as if there is an endless string of such, then the copy of the set thus far principle: {0,1,2 . . . k} --> k+1 . . . will imply that some such values are transfinite or endless as individual members of the set. [Let me expand for some r +1 as a proposed endless member:] {0,1,2 . . . k, k + 1 . . . Ellipsis of endlessness] . . . } --> r+1 Is there thus a definable immediate predecessor r: {0,1,2 . . . k, k + 1 . . . finite Ellipsis] . . . r -1} --> r Not at all, the value r+1 is a synonym for w and there is no immediate predecessor that is definable. Endlessness must be taken seriously. Instead, I therefore suggest that we accept the inability to exhaust the endless and then assign order type w to the whole, explicitly including endlessness. Where the modified conclusion would be, all natural numbers we can reach in finite stage steps from 0 will be finite (this takes in place value notation and scientific notation etc), but the set continues endless-LY and we recognise an emergent quantity, the order type of such endless continuation, w. Omega, w for convenience [never mind the Gk letter is a form of o], is then the first definable transfinite, capturing the endless character of the string of ordinals reflected in counting set succession from 0. In all this, I again thank and acknowledge DS for his providing the link to Ehrlich, which allows me to see numbers whole through a tree structure, the surreals. And which of course allows for mild infinitesimals such as 1/w and so also 1/(w +g) where g is a large but finite value. In turn this brings to bear the catapult hyperbolic function, y = 1/x, that moves between the very near neighbourhood of 0 and the transfinite domain. With room for creating a continuum between A = (w+g) and B = (w + {g +1}) by catapulting neighbouring infinitesimals between m = 1/A and n = 1/B, which then obviously points to a continuum onwards. Likewise in the finite zone near 0, continuum can be defined by shifting the continuum between [0,1] through the same process of reciprocals of neighbouring values, or simple addition. After all 1.7 = 1 + 0.7. And the usual hyper reals can be seen as hard infinitesimal reciprocals that are far along in the band from w beyond one or more onward ellipses of endlessness in that zone. This means there is no definable first hyper real. Thus I would now have on the table just one more main point of concern, namely the clash between [0,1] as a continuum and the way hyper reals and infinitesimals have been defined as such that the latter are below any real number, seemingly implying a gap as opposed to a continuum of the reals in the very near neighbourhood of 0. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, Thank you, but my question was about the text quoted @569, which was copied from your post. Is it correctly written? Please, note that English is not my first language, hence I try to read most English text very carefully, so that I can understand it and at the same time improve my knowledge of the language. Obviously, in a blog like this we can't be 'picky' about misspellings or even grammar errors, as long as they don't render the text difficult to understand. In this particular case, I could not quite get the exact meaning of the quoted text. Thank you. Dionisio
Refer back to A1.1. Rephrased slightly:
The natural numbers start with zero, and are such that for every natural number k, k + 1 is also a natural number
Since 0 is finite (has a particular definite value), and since adding 1 to a finite number gives a finite number, this definition ensures that every natural number is finite. Aleta
daveS Ok, thanks. Aleta, Thank you for pointing to those two posts. Let me see if I can understand them. What does the following mean?
A1.2 This definition ensures that all are natural numbers are finite.
Dionisio
to Dionisio: the idea of always being able to get to the next natural number by adding 1 is not at issue, nor is the fact that there is no end to this process. See posts 462 and 505 for a summary of where some disagreements lie. Aleta
Dionisio, Yes, the part you quoted is correct. I have no disagreement with that. daveS
KF
As every finite k has a k+1, then refresh the k register with contents of k+1 and repeat. At every k, k+1 etc can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1, 2 . . . yielding the reliable finding that we have not even begun to exhaust endlessness.
Isn't that simply fundamental? I still don't quite understand your interlocutors' argument. My poor mind is too limited to fully grasp the sense of infinity. What's the largest negative number one can think of? Whatever it is, just subtract 1. The same for the largest positive number, but then add 1 to it. Can it be an end to that iteration on either direction? Dionisio
KF,
DS, It seems to me that stepwise finite stage succession is fundamental and is inherently incapable of going beyond the finite. As every finite k has a k+1, then refresh the k register with contents of k+1 and repeat. At every k, k+1 etc can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1, 2 . . . yielding the reliable finding that we have not even begun to exhaust endlessness.
Depending on the conditions, that might be the case, as I stated in #561.
My further point is we take the whole construct of attainable finite succession followed by leap and recognise a new emergent numerical phenomenon, order type w, first degree transfinite.
Well, that seems reasonable, although I still am not clear on what "attainable" means regarding possibly infinite sets. daveS
D, welcome. I am thinking we need to put together a reasonably coherent picture of the number jungle and significance i/l/o claimed actually infinite past for the observed space-time world and its physical antecedents. KF kairosfocus
DS, It seems to me that stepwise finite stage succession is fundamental and is inherently incapable of going beyond the finite. As every finite k has a k+1, then refresh the k register with contents of k+1 and repeat. At every k, k+1 etc can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1, 2 . . . yielding the reliable finding that we have not even begun to exhaust endlessness. It is therefore my view as at now that the ellipsis of endlessness is a critical part of the relevant sequences etc, and that the result is that we take the infinite leap of faith, or axiom if you want to call it that -- why this is additional and imposed; my discussion seeks significance. My further point is we take the whole construct of attainable finite succession followed by leap and recognise a new emergent numerical phenomenon, order type w, first degree transfinite. Then we build out in the ever expanding world of the transfinies, which are themselves endless. And of course the tree points to building down in the near neighbourhood of 0. KF kairosfocus
KF This discussion thread and the article https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/mathematics/fyi-ftr-on-ehrlichs-unified-overview-of-numbers-great-and-small-ht-ds/ are very interesting. They take my mind on a refreshing tour of very fundamental and sometimes difficult mathematical concepts. Thank you. Dionisio
KF,
DS, it seems to me that it is readily adequately established that no finite step by step process can traverse the transfinite in stages.
If the process takes place in time and has a beginning, maybe so.
My response is any actual set we can attain to will be finite, but we may point to continuation endless-LY as opposed to actually attaining endlessness.
This depends on what you mean by "attain to". I accept that we can attain to the set N by invoking the Axiom of Infinity, one version of which simply asserts "there exists an infinite set". If you mean that the only subsets of N which can be attained to are those which could occur as the output of a program running on a digital computer, with no infinite loops, then I believe you have a different standard than is held by most mathematicians. (I'm assuming that the output of the program consists of a list of natural numbers in decimal form).
But when one claims to have both only finite sets in succession AND to attain to an unlimited collection, and endless collection that is in principle completed by closing off with an ellipsis of endlessness, that does become problematic.
I'm still not clear on the problem this raises. I've brought up the example of {0, 1}^*. Do you agree that's an infinite set? I think of the entire collection {0, 1}^* as having been attained to once we set out the definition. daveS
DS, it seems to me that it is readily adequately established that no finite step by step process can traverse the transfinite in stages. At any k it will still have endlessness ahead that can be put in 1:1 correspondence with the sequence from 0, 1, 2 on. Second, it is clear that the chaining logic involved in ordinary mathematical induction and in the axioms cited entails pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness, so falling subject to the point. What we do is by a step of faith of literally infinite scale, complete the span through pointing across that ellipsis of endlessness. In the case of successive counting sets, it is also the case that the next in series copies the list of sets so far thus cumulatively causing a growing list within the members in the succession. This was explored in 217 above, as has been repeatedly pointed out. That is unproblematic if the list of such sets is finite and limited. But when one claims to have both only finite sets in succession AND to attain to an unlimited collection, and endless collection that is in principle completed by closing off with an ellipsis of endlessness, that does become problematic. My response is any actual set we can attain to will be finite, but we may point to continuation endless-LY as opposed to actually attaining endlessness. I add, i.e. {0,1, 2 . . . k, k+1 . . . } where the last ellipsis is endless as opposed to the first. This is rather like the issue of the open interval which has no last member as such short of the limit value. I add, e.g. [0,1) implies that any number we can squeeze in just short of 1 will fit but not 1 itself which generally includes 0.9999999 . . . [ellipsis of endlessness] as an equivalent form boiling down to the series 9*10^-1 + 9*10^-2 + . . . + 9*10^-k + . . . [EoE]. The difference is, such endlessness in this case: {0,1, 2 . . . k, k+1 . . . } . . . is based on +1 steps and is divergent as a sequence heading for the infinite. So, the counting numbers we may attain to -- by direct count or representation using place values or scientific style notation which both depend on power series that will use counting numbers in them, etc -- will all be finite but the set is unlimited in extension. And in view of the endlessness, we impose that the order type of the transfinite set is w. That is, we recognise a "new" phenomenon has emerged and symbolise the identifiable quantity. Which then becomes a borderline case, emergent from a stepwise succession with the pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness. That seems to me a reasonable view so far. KF kairosfocus
KF,
The solution I see is that we do not actually complete, i.e. the ellipsis of endlessness is crucial to the set of successive counting sets. We see that whenever we get to a specific value we will have something finite that can be exceeded by imposing successor, but the set as a whole is plus endlessness. So we never get to that point.
Then I say that you just don't accept the Axiom of Infinity (and the Axiom of Induction as well). Which is your prerogative of course. There are a few mathematicians in the same camp, but they are rare. From my point of view, there is nothing to "operationalize" about the construction of N. It exists (mathematically) by virtue of the Axiom of Infinity, not as a result of some step-by-step endless process. daveS
PS: Post Godel, there are a lot of leaps of faith involved in doing Math etc. Passing over ellipses of endlessness is one of them. kairosfocus
DS, I could point to the Turing Machine as key exemplar and leave it at that, but let me elaborate slightly. Let us start with the idea of operational definitions (without locking ourselves into logical positivism). Wiki for convenience:
An operational definition is a result of the process of operationalization and is used to define something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of a process (or set of validation tests) needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity.[1][2] Since the degree of operationalization can vary itself, it can result in a more or less operational definition.[3] The procedures included in definitions should be repeatable by anyone or at least by peers . . . . The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the subject, written by Richard Boyd, indicates that the modern concept owes its origin in part to Percy Williams Bridgman, who felt that the expression of scientific concepts was often abstract and unclear. Inspired by Ernst Mach, in 1914 Bridgman attempted to redefine unobservable entities concretely in terms of the physical and mental operations used to measure them.[5] Accordingly, the definition of each unobservable entity was uniquely identified with the instrumentation used to define it.
Generalising, reduce the problem in hand to a model based on goal directed input, processing and output activities and associated idealised/abstract computational elements, similar to the processes used with a Turing machine or the like. Though obviously we are substituting an intelligent mathematical (or physical) reasoner for doing a detailed algorithm on a machine of specified architecture, which would require far more elaboration as the machine is utterly dumb. Where, substitutions, algebraic representations, transformations based on established theorems or axioms, register transfers or transformations, etc are associated with idealised processing devices -- mathematical operators in principle able to be executed by an electronic or electromechanical device, e.g. a logging amplifier or integrator or differentiator -- yes I have analogue as well as digital computational units in mind at least as abstractions. Thus we are looking at somewhat informal or summary step by step procedures executed on idealised apparatus on inputs to yield desired outcomes through steps. Think about how a function is viewed as an input value mapped to an output, and shift to how an input function is mapped to an output one. As another illustration. I do not need to get into well use an ideal capacitor and charge it up from a controlled input current that maps the input voltage analogue of the input function to form an integral as output. The von Neumann construction of the counting numbers as counting sets is a typical case for a stepwise process that has a do forever endless in principle loop, as has often appeared in this thread. The idea is what are you doing how, how does this yield the result. (Though that is at close to algorithmic level, and often resorts to things like finite state machines.) The key case in thread is generating or addressing counting sets (as was discussed in 217) and operations of moving along such stretched out in a string. Idealised punched paper tapes with colour codes, read heads, sprockets to move, counters and registers, process units etc as abstracted to a virtual machine of some level. Notice abstract reference to a printer or to storage units. On hotels, notice speaking about a public address unit with broadcast capacity, able to instruct guests in rooms n to go to room 2n. Guests are intelligent agents able to hear, understand and carry out the operation of moving from room n to room 2n. But obviously a variable would be stored and its value updated by the operation of doubling and symbol matching would be involved. In the tapes case, pink tape sits there, blue one is pulled in some large finite number of units, k. Match 1:1, maybe by optical alignment -- note additions to OP above. Endlessness is treated as an all at one go matter. (If you wish, optical alignment would be tested by shining through a light for each row looking for a match, with some sort of grand and gate to pick up a mismatch also a paper detector that operates similarly so if blue is now ended that would be picked up. of course, both are endless, and that was the key premise. Though strictly we cannot physically implement such, we can sufficiently represent this in a thought exercise. As it is transmission line analysis pivots in part on an infinite regress of filter ckt elements in a network, and then we can evaluate what we see "looking into" the line. Infinite case idealisation.) It is readily seen that row k, k+1 etc can be matched to the unmoved 0, 1, 2 etc, and that is enough to see that if done again, the same will obtain because of the endlessness. Thence the problem that no finite length pulled in will begin to approach the far endless zone. What we find ourselves doing is seeing through generalisation that we could do forever in principle and jumping over the ellipsis of endlessness tot he overall result. But in this case a key concern I have is that we need to track the counting sets. As next set is in effect a set so far copy, if the list of such sets is actualised as endless, then at some stage we are looking at making endless copies to be elements. Which would not be finite, by definition. (As in a finite entity will have something of the same type that goes beyond it, as k has k+1 as bound etc.) The solution I see is that we do not actually complete, i.e. the ellipsis of endlessness is crucial to the set of successive counting sets. We see that whenever we get to a specific value we will have something finite that can be exceeded by imposing successor, but the set as a whole is plus endlessness. So we never get to that point. Though the ordinary mathematical induction has shown that for any specific case k, we can go to k +1. The result chained form case-0 will hold to any specific k. But the set as a whole has transfinite architecture represented by the ellipsis of endlessness. Its order type is then symbolised as w. Then we begin again as w+1 etc are successors. With a finite incrementing process. To see the sets or whatever we may call them in the end whole, we use ellipses of endlessness and the sort of pointing past generalisation already noted. Going to numbers great, and to numbers small. With of course much more specialised procedures for generating successors. Operations are being carried out that move form input to process to outputs, i.e we see operationalisation. And the process of tying to thought exercises, generalising and abstracting from the sort of machines etc we have looked at, help tie us to reality. And make it more likely to spot where things have gone wrong. Or to help us spot things we would otherwise miss. KF kairosfocus
KF, I still don't know what you mean by "operationalizable", or how you determine what is or isn't operationalizable. My guess is that you would regard only constructs (i.e., finite strings in some language) which would be accepted by some finite automaton as operationalizable, but I'm not sure. That's not the view of most mathematicians, I believe. [Edit: Well, that's probably not quite what I have in mind. Perhaps I will rephrase it later when I find the words]. As to the use of the term "leap of faith", I don't know. It's unknown whether ZFC is even consistent (and that's practically speaking not going to solved). However, it is thought to be consistent and has delivered valuable results so far, so going by track record, working within ZFC appears to be productive. daveS
H'mm: it strikes me that the sub-axiomatic step of pointing onward across an ellipsis of endlessness from a point of potential [but not operationalisable] infinity has a descriptive title as to the mental operation involved: an endless (thus literally infinite) leap of faith. I add to answer DS's q, this is not an operational step and though such a leap of faith is appropriate and necessary for many things, we should understand its true (and humbling . . . ) nature when we take it. We should also understand operational import, as in for instance when we do ordinary induction, we chain on by such a leap not by what can be reached stepwise by a chain of case k => case k+1, then iterate value of k to what was previously k +1 . . . the use of computational variables and abstract storage registers for present value practically beg for us to recognise them. Then, we face the implication of endlessness, i.e. at no finite k, no matter how large, have we even begun to exhaust endlessness; we can line up the blue tape with the pink again and lo and behold it is as if we are back to 0,1, 2 etc. We must walk by faith and not by sight [stepwise operations]. KF kairosfocus
Mung,
I think this has been part of the problem all along here. Mathematics divorced from reality.
Yes, I think that is ultimately true. daveS
KF,
DS, operationalised definitions and constructs are commonplace in mathematics. Including in contexts highly relevant to the matters we have discussed.
I know about operational definitions, but I'm asking what the "operational" constraints are. The Axiom of Infinity states that there is an infinite set, but you are saying that we can only reach finite values "operationally", which is unclear to me. Is it "operationally" illegitimate to simply apply the Axiom of Infinity to construct the set N all at once? daveS
daveS: If I sit down and do some mathematics, I don’t worry about any “operational” constraints on sets I can construct. I think this has been part of the problem all along here. Mathematics divorced from reality. Mung
PS: Illustrations added to show tapes and Turing Machines, used in operational form, abstract mathematical models which are thought exercises set up to explore the logic of structure (abstract and spatial alike) and quantity (here involving the tree of numbers great and small based on defining sets etc). kairosfocus
DS, operationalised definitions and constructs are commonplace in mathematics. Including in contexts highly relevant to the matters we have discussed. Observe, courtesy Wiki:
In mathematics, a Dedekind cut, named after Richard Dedekind, is a partition of the rational numbers into two non-empty sets A and B, such that all elements of A are less than all elements of B, and A contains no greatest element. Dedekind cuts are one method of construction of the real numbers. The set B may or may not have a smallest element among the rationals. If B has a smallest element among the rationals, the cut corresponds to that rational. Otherwise, that cut defines a unique irrational number which, loosely speaking, fills the "gap" between A and B. In other words, A contains every rational number less than the cut, and B contains every rational number greater than or equal to the cut. An irrational cut is equated to an irrational number which is in neither set. Every real number, rational or not, is equated to one and only one cut of rationals. Whenever, then, we have to do with a cut produced by no rational number, we create a new irrational number, which we regard as completely defined by this cut ... . From now on, therefore, to every definite cut there corresponds a definite rational or irrational number .... —?Richard Dedekind[1] More generally, a Dedekind cut is a partition of a totally ordered set into two non-empty parts A and B, such that A is closed downwards (meaning that for all a in A, x LTE a implies that x is in A as well) and B is closed upwards, and A contains no greatest element. See also completeness (order theory). It is straightforward to show that a Dedekind cut among the real numbers is uniquely defined by the corresponding cut among the rational numbers. Similarly, every cut of reals is identical to the cut produced by a specific real number (which can be identified as the smallest element of the B set). In other words, the number line where every real number is defined as a Dedekind cut of rationals is a complete continuum without any further gaps. Dedekind used the German word Schnitt (cut) in a visual sense rooted in Euclidean geometry. His theorem asserting the completeness of the real number system is nevertheless a theorem about numbers and not geometry.
and:
A Turing machine is an abstract machine[1] that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules; to be more exact, it is a mathematical model that defines such a device.[2] Despite the model's simplicity, given any computer algorithm, a Turing machine can be constructed that is capable of simulating that algorithm's logic.[3] The machine operates on an infinite[4] memory tape divided into cells.[5] The machine positions its head over a cell and "reads" (scans[6]) the symbol there. Then per the symbol and its present place in a finite table[7] of user-specified instructions the machine (i) writes a symbol (e.g. a digit or a letter from a finite alphabet) in the cell (some models allowing symbol erasure[8] and/or no writing), then (ii) either moves the tape one cell left or right (some models allow no motion, some models move the head),[9] then (iii) (as determined by the observed symbol and the machine's place in the table) either proceeds to a subsequent instruction or halts[10] the computation. The Turing machine was invented in 1936 by Alan Turing,[11][12] who called it an a-machine (automatic machine).[13] With this model Turing was able to answer two questions in the negative: (1) Does a machine exist that can determine whether any arbitrary machine on its tape is "circular" (e.g. freezes, or fails to continue its computational task); similarly, (2) does a machine exist that can determine whether any arbitrary machine on its tape ever prints a given symbol.[14] Thus by providing a mathematical description of a very simple device capable of arbitrary computations, he was able to prove properties of computation in general - and in particular, the uncomputability of the Hilbert Entscheidungsproblem ("decision problem").[15] Thus, Turing machines prove fundamental limitations on the power of mechanical computation.[16] While they can express arbitrary computations, their minimalistic design makes them unsuitable for computation in practice: actual computers are based on different designs that, unlike Turing machines, use random access memory.
In the case in view, the two tapes with a read head and with blue advanced to k are in question, or the recursive stepwise setting up of a potential infinity or endlessness then pointed across by use of an ellipsis of endlessness. KF kairosfocus
From the PS:
Thus the essence of the axiom is: There is a set, I, that includes all the natural numbers.” [–> which becomes endless in principle though operationally we may only succeed to finite specific values...
What do you mean by "operationally" here? If I sit down and do some mathematics, I don't worry about any "operational" constraints on sets I can construct. daveS
KF,
Recursion and unfolding all the way up and down.
Recursion is achieved in one (or finitely many steps). See here for various examples. The definition of N we have been using:
0 ∈ N If k ∈ N, then k + 1 ∈ N N is the smallest set satisfying the above two conditions.
is recursive and constructs N in finitely many steps. Erlich is using suggestive language (unfolding, etc.) here, but if you find a formal construction of the surreal numbers in a first-order language, then you will see that it consists of finitely many steps. A "proof" with infinitely many steps is not possible. [Edit: At least in first order theories. Infinitary logic does exist which allows such things, but that is certainly not involved with the proofs we are discussing pertaining to N, and I'm fairly certain the surreal numbers as well. See here for a discussion]. I don't know if anyone has bothered to write out such a construction; usually mathematicians stick to natural-language proofs because they are more comprehensible.
However, the other axioms are insufficient to prove the existence of the set of all natural numbers. Therefore its existence is taken as an axiom—the axiom of infinity. [–> forcing the result by pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness]
I don't know if I would call it "forcing the result", but that's in the right ballpark. We assume that an infinite set exists, period. No additional steps need, now we have N. daveS
PPS: Cf headlined as PPS here, with illustrations: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/mathematics/fyi-ftr-on-ehrlichs-unified-overview-of-numbers-great-and-small-ht-ds/ kairosfocus
PS: For convenience Wiki on Ax inf:
In words, there is a set I (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in I and such that whenever any x is a member of I, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x} is also a member of I. Such a set is sometimes called an inductive set. Interpretation and consequences This axiom is closely related to the von Neumann construction of the naturals in set theory, in which the successor of x is defined as x U {x}. If x is a set, then it follows from the other axioms of set theory that this successor is also a uniquely defined set. Successors are used to define the usual set-theoretic encoding of the natural numbers. In this encoding, zero is the empty set: 0 = {}. The number 1 is the successor of 0: 1 = 0 U {0} = {} U {0} = {0}. Likewise, 2 is the successor of 1: 2 = 1 U {1} = {0} U {1} = {0,1}, and so on. A consequence of this definition is that every natural number is equal to the set of all preceding natural numbers.
[--> the copy set to date principle highlighted in 217 above; this is where my concern that were N to be all finite values but extends endlessly, at some point it would need endless members. Of course -- like the ever receding foot of the rainbow -- that cannot be reached and so we have the ellipsis as a crucial part of N, i.e. we may only actually operationally succeed to finite values but may do so without upper limit. The endlessness of first order is then transferred to its order type w]
This construction forms the natural numbers. However, the other axioms are insufficient to prove the existence of the set of all natural numbers. Therefore its existence is taken as an axiom—the axiom of infinity. [--> forcing the result by pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness] This axiom asserts that there is a set I that contains 0 and is closed under the operation of taking the successor [--> which is endless in principle but operationally is ever limited to finite and bounded individual values]; that is, for each element of I, the successor of that element is also in I. Thus the essence of the axiom is: There is a set, I, that includes all the natural numbers. [--> which becomes endless in principle though operationally we may only succeed to finite specific values and as the pink/ blue paper tape thought exercise shows, for every k of arbitrarily large but finite scale we can truncate the tape so far and set k to correspond to 0 in the unmoved pink tape, k+1 to 1, etc and obtain an endless 1:1 match, that is endlessness is pivotal and cannot be traversed stepwise]
I have commented on points. kairosfocus
F/N: Ehrlich, with emphasis: >>Among the striking s-hierarchical features of No is that much as the surreal numbers emerge from the empty set of surreal numbers by means of | a transfinite recursion that provides an unfolding of the entire spectrum of numbers great and small (modulo the aforementioned provisos), the recursive process of defining No’s arithmetic in turn provides an unfolding of the entire spectrum of ordered fields in such a way that an isomorphic copy of every such system either emerges as an initial subtree of No or is contained in a theoretically distinguished instance of such a system that does.>> Recursion and unfolding all the way up and down. Where AmHD:
re·cur·sion (r?-kûr?zh?n) n. 1. Mathematics a. A method of defining a sequence of objects, such as an expression, function, or set, where some number of initial objects are given and each successive object is defined in terms of the preceding objects. The Fibonacci sequence is defined by recursion. b. A set of objects so defined. c. A rule describing the relation between an object in a recursive sequence in terms of the preceding objects.
In short a pattern is established then it is universalised by pointing across ellipsis of endlessness. Which is also embedded in relevant axioms. KF kairosfocus
KF,
PS: kth successor –> successive what . . . ?
Natural number? You can construct any finite set {0, 1, 2, ..., k} using the successor operation. To construct the set N requires the Axiom of Infinity. daveS
F/N: Ehrlich, pp 7 - 8:
Among the striking s-hierarchical features of No is that much as the surreal numbers emerge from the empty set of surreal numbers by means of | a transfinite recursion that provides an unfolding of the entire spectrum of numbers great and small (modulo the aforementioned provisos), the recursive process of defining No’s arithmetic in turn provides an unfolding of the entire spectrum of ordered fields in such a way that an isomorphic copy of every such system either emerges as an initial subtree of No or is contained in a theoretically distinguished instance of such a system that does.
KF PS: kth successor --> successive what . . . ? kairosfocus
KF, That's the misleading aspect of the domino model I referred to somewhere above. It implies that mathematical induction is simply the application of the law of detachment over and over, which is not the case. Without the Axiom of Induction, you would be right. But this axiom does the "heavy lifting" that you refer to, omitting the do forever loop. It in essence says you can replace these "do forever" loops with one (or just a few) steps. Edit:
the induction axiom describes an essential property of {N}, viz. that each of its members can be reached from 0 by sufficiently often adding 1 [–> do forever looping creating stepwise succession]
This simply states that any natural number is the k-th successor to 0, for some finite k. It doesn't say anything about do forever loops, and that's not how N is constructed. daveS
F/N: Wiki has an interesting remark on ordinary mathematical induction:
Having proven the base case and the inductive step, then the structure of {N} is such that any value can be obtained by performing the inductive step repeatedly. It may be helpful to think of the domino effect. Consider a half line of dominoes each standing on end, and extending infinitely to the right (see picture) [--> similar to the punched tape]. Suppose that: The first domino falls right. If a (fixed but arbitrary) domino falls right, then its next neighbor also falls right. With these assumptions one can conclude (using mathematical induction) that all of the dominoes will fall right. [--> strictly, that the dominoes in sequence from the first will be subjected to a chaining process propagating stepwise from one to the next, however this then runs into endlessness of the chain as set up] If the dominoes are arranged in another way, this conclusion needn't hold (see Peano axioms#Formulation for a counter example). Similarly, the induction axiom describes an essential property of {N}, viz. that each of its members can be reached from 0 by sufficiently often adding 1 [--> do forever looping creating stepwise succession]
That is, we see the do forever iteration implicated in the process. This runs into the problem that for any k achieved in k finite steps, from k, k+1 on is just as much able to be put in 1:1 correspondence with the undisturbed set as before. This illustrates a case in point of pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness. KF kairosfocus
F/N: Headlined (HT DS), the numbers sandbox is now officially open for play. KF kairosfocus
PS: Footnoted to OP is a picture of Ehrlich's grand number tree. This sets a context for discussion in a unified context with room enough for pondering numbers great and small through the surreals. Not to mention rather unusual operations on surprising numbers. kairosfocus
DS, That does look promising, Abstract:
Abstract. In his monograph On Numbers and Games, J. H. Conway introduced a real-closed field containing the reals and the ordinals as well as a great many less familiar numbers including [lists] to name only a few. Indeed, this particular real-closed field, which Conway calls No , is so remarkably inclusive that, subject to the proviso that numbers—construed here as members of ordered fields—be individually definable in terms of sets of NBG (von Neumann–Bernays–Godel set theory with global choice), it may be said to contain “All Numbers Great and Small.” In this respect, No bears much the same relation to ordered fields that the system R of real numbers bears to Archimedean ordered fields. In Part I of the present paper, we suggest that whereas R should merely be regarded as constituting an arithmetic continuum (modulo the Archimedean axiom), No may be regarded as a sort of absolute arithmetic continuum (modulo NBG), and in Part II we draw attention to the unifying framework No provides not only for the reals and the ordinals but also for an array of non-Archimedean ordered number systems that have arisen in connection with the theories of non-Archimedean ordered algebraic and geometric systems, the theory of the rate of growth of real functions and nonstandard analysis. In addition to its inclusive structure as an ordered field, the system No of surreal num-bers has a rich algebraico-tree-theoretic structure—a simplicity hierarchical structure—that emerges from the recursive clauses in terms of which it is defined. In the development of No outlined in the present paper, in which the surreals emerge vis-a-vis a generalization of the von Neumann ordinal construction, the simplicity hierarchical features of No are brought to the fore and play central roles in the aforementioned unification of systems of numbers great and small and in some of the more revealing characterizations of No as an absolute continuum.
KF kairosfocus
KF,
But what I am really saying is, how does the jungle get set in order with a tree of unifying relationships? Particularly among the trans-finites? Surreals? Whatever?
I don't know anything about this, but last post on this page at stackexchange discusses the relationship between hyperreals and surreal numbers, with a link to this paper. Theorem 1 states:
Whereas R is (up to isomorphism) the unique homogeneous universal Archimedean ordered field, No [the surreal numbers] is (up to isomorphism) the unique homogeneous universal ordered field.
The precise definitions are given in the paper, but the key one is (paraphrased):
An ordered field A is said to be universal if every ordered field whose universe is a class of NBG can be embedded in A.
Apparently every ordered field can be embedded in the surreal numbers, so it's "large as possible" in some sense. This is based on the NBG axiom system for set theory rather than ZFC. daveS
Aleta, pardon but k is transfinite, o is not. I suggest that makes a difference for looking at them. I notice as follows as a simple clip at Wolfram:
Transfinite Number One of Cantor's ordinal numbers omega, omega+1, omega+2, ..., omega+omega, omega+omega+1, ... which is "larger" than any whole number.
which is suggestive. I essay no proof-claim there, I just notice a resemblance that would "fit" with a hard infinitesimal catapulting to something in say the bolded range or one of its many onward cousins. But what I am really saying is, how does the jungle get set in order with a tree of unifying relationships? Particularly among the trans-finites? Surreals? Whatever? This being beyond main focus but relevant to the principle that knowledge claims should be unified where possible. GEM kairosfocus
kf writes,
PS: k as defined looks like enclosed by two ellipses of endlessness within the transfinites, i.e. it sits far out among transfinites.
That's a strange thing to say. We could write the integers as {... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...} 0 sits between two ellipses: Is it "far out" among the integers? Is it more or less far out than 70 billion billion billion? Aleta
DS, I just noted, there are two ellipses of endlessness surrounding the transfinite k and neighbours, which looks interestingly inviting of a siting suitably remote from w among transfinites. But this is just a look not an argument. My real point is there is a jungle out there that has strange critters of unknown linkages inviting some unification. On that front try: http://shelah.logic.at/files/825.pdf on candidates to be "the" -- even that is controversial it seems -- hyper reals. KF kairosfocus
Due to problems displaying Greek letters, here's a correct 528: Supporting Dave in 522: In the hyperreals
There is infinitude of infinite integers, i.e., not finite elements of PA1infinity: ... k - 2, k - 1, k, k + 1, k + 2, ..., 2 k, 3 k, ..., k² - k, ..., k² - 1, ... which shows that our choice of k was pretty much arbitrary. It's more common to use the symbol omega instead. However, there is certainly a danger of confusing it with the first infinite ordinal number. The latter is of course defined uniquely.
[Note: a Greek K shows up on the website where I have typed k, and a Greek w where I've typed omega.] http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/Infinity/HyperrealNumbers.shtml Aleta
KF,
DS, what is the least ordinal greater than any 1 +1 +1 . . . +1 where the string is not transfinitely long? KF
The least ordinal greater than any 1 + 1 + ... + 1 is ω. The least hyperinteger greater than any 1 + 1 + ... + 1? There is no such thing. See Aleta's link. daveS
Aleta, point taken, but I think the same question applies as was just posed to DS. KF PS: k as defined looks like enclosed by two ellipses of endlessness within the transfinites, i.e. it sits far out among transfinites. kairosfocus
DS, what is the least ordinal greater than any 1 +1 +1 . . . +1 where the string is not transfinitely long? KF kairosfocus
Thanks for hunting that down, Aleta. daveS
Supporting Dave in 522: In the hyperreals
There is infinitude of infinite integers, i.e., not finite elements of PA1?: ... ? - 2, ? - 1, ?, ? + 1, ? + 2, ..., 2?, 3?, ..., ?² - ?, ..., ?² - 1, ?², ... which shows that our choice of omega was pretty much arbitrary. It's more common to use the symbol omega instead. However, there is certainly a danger of confusing it with the first infinite ordinal number. The latter is of course defined uniquely.
[Note: the Greek w shows u on the website where I have typed omega.] http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/Infinity/HyperrealNumbers.shtml Aleta
Khan Academy vid https://www.khanacademy.org/math/recreational-math/vi-hart/infinity/v/kinds-of-infinity . . . a look at the jungle. kairosfocus
KF,
DS, there is a first transfinite ordinal w and there are hyper integers.
Yes, but there is no first transfinite positive hyperinteger. The ω in the hyperreal wikipedia article is not a von Neumann ordinal. daveS
EZ, denialism -- a term you tossed in like a live grenade -- is so loaded a term that it is beyond the pale of civil discussion. Second, I have pointed out sufficient above that shows there is a jungle out there full of strange critters. And, the concept that we can tie hyper reals etc together is demonstrably on the table. It is also quite clear to me that ordinary induction is successive and that ever so many core points embed or imply do forever loops. Notice how a definition of reals progresses on what premise just above. So we do have to look at endlessness, which is indeed doing a lot of heavy lifting. The y = 1/x catapult does seem very fruitful. KF kairosfocus
DS, there is a first transfinite ordinal w and there are hyper integers. The construction pointing to w seems reasonable to me as w being first ordinal greater than any chain of +1s from 0, interpreted on the von Neumann construction. Why, then, a call for specific reference on that? KF kairosfocus
#513 KF
Rhetoric about denialism — which is horrifically loaded with Holocaust denial — does not help settle the matter. Nor does the notion, we do not dispute this, it is settled so there, only the ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked denialists would challenge the Consensus. EZ, I am looking at you here.
You throw this into a purely academic discussion. YOU are loading the discussion. YOU are trying to make this into something else. YOU are poisoning the waters. Why, I don't know. This discussion has nothing to do with Holocaust denial. So why bring it up? Why?
And EZ, motive mongering or how I came up with the idea of pink and blue paper punch tapes is of little value. In fact, as Turing tapes of endlessness were discussed and as coloured 3+5 punched paper computer tapes exist, it seemed reasonable to look at parallel tapes running off endlessly and to ponder in ways that are anchored to an intuitive, simple entity. Thought exercises and abstracted models thereof are commonplace in several linked fields. And there is Hilbert’s hotel.
And there is Hilbert's hotel. Let me ask you this: have you had any of your work looked at by a group of reputable mathematicians? Have you submitted any of your ideas to any kind of magazine or peer-reviewed journal? Have you presented any of your ideas to a conference or gathering of bone fide mathematicians? I'm not trying to be rude I just want to know if you've HONESTLY had your contentions examined and critique by people who know the field. ellazimm
KF,
1 LT omega, 1+1 LT omega, 1+1+1 LT omega, 1+1+1+1 LT omega, . . . . [–> Obviously w is the first transfinite and is recognised as being in the hyper reals *R but not the reals R]
Eh? Do you have a reference? The problem is there is no "first transfinite" in the hyperreals. Given any positive infinite hyperinteger k, there exists infinitely many other positive infinite hyperintegers less than k. That means the ω above cannot be the same as the ordinal ω we have been referring to. daveS
Aleta, I have said w is not in N. What I have said is that the set we label N will have w as its order type and the ellipsis of endlessness is pivotal to its meaning. Where w does not appear out of nothing or sneak in magical properties, it is the order type resulting from endless succession that cannot be operationally completed stepwise. KF PS: Let me add, every number we can reach in N by a +1 stage sequence or extensions to that such as writing down in place value or scientific notation etc (all of which will involve series) will be finite and have another number beyond that will by iteration be finite. But due to endlessness we cannot exhaust N. Taking the +1 succession and the equivalent succession of sets, to go to actual endlessness -- infeasible -- would entail copying the set as a whole, endlessness within endlessness. But also this is the set we count by, if it has endless continuation there is an open endedness we CANNOT exhaust. That is where w steps in to point past the ellipsis. kairosfocus
PS: FWIW, Wiki on hyper reals:
The system of hyperreal numbers is a way of treating infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals, *R, are an extension of the real numbers R that contains numbers greater than anything of the form 1 + 1 + . . . + 1. [--> so these will be transfinite], Such a number is infinite, and its reciprocal is infinitesimal. [--> hence the use of the catapult function y = 1/x to go between the neighbourhood of 0 and the relevant range] The term "hyper-real" was introduced by Edwin Hewitt in 1948.[1] . . . . The idea of the hyperreal system is to extend the real numbers R to form a system *R that includes infinitesimal and infinite numbers, but without changing any of the elementary axioms of algebra. Any statement of the form "for any number x..." that is true for the reals is also true for the hyperreals. [--> not for any x in R, x is finite] For example, the axiom that states "for any number x, x + 0 = x" still applies. The same is true for quantification over several numbers, e.g., "for any numbers x and y, xy = yx." This ability to carry over statements from the reals to the hyperreals is called the transfer principle. However, statements of the form "for any set of numbers S ..." may not carry over. [--> okay] The only properties that differ between the reals and the hyperreals are those that rely on quantification over sets, or other higher-level structures such as functions and relations, which are typically constructed out of sets. Each real set, function, and relation has its natural hyperreal extension, satisfying the same first-order properties. The kinds of logical sentences that obey this restriction on quantification are referred to as statements in first-order logic. The transfer principle, however, doesn't mean that R and *R have identical behavior. For instance, in *R there exists an element omega such that 1 LT omega, 1+1 LT omega, 1+1+1 LT omega, 1+1+1+1 LT omega, . . . . [--> Obviously w is the first transfinite and is recognised as being in the hyper reals *R but not the reals R] [--> cf below, this w may be further along than the previous, i.e. there is a construction below that has predecessors and successors with surrounding ellipses of endlessness. That invites exploration but that is not primary for this thread's purpose. Note my suggestion on mild infinitesimals above vs hard ones, on analogy of the catapulting function 1/x] but there is no such number in R. (In other words, *R is not Archimedean.) . . . . The hyperreals *R form an ordered field containing the reals R as a subfield. Unlike the reals, the hyperreals do not form a standard metric space, but by virtue of their order they carry an order topology. The use of the definite article the in the phrase the hyperreal numbers is somewhat misleading in that there is not a unique ordered field that is referred to in most treatments. However, a 2003 paper by Vladimir Kanovei and Shelah[4] shows that there is a definable, countably saturated (meaning omega-saturated, but not of course countable) elementary extension of the reals, which therefore has a good claim to the title of the hyperreal numbers. ---> in short just who are these guys is a debate but there is a suggestion as to how to unify] Furthermore, the field obtained by the ultrapower construction from the space of all real sequences, is unique up to isomorphism if one assumes the continuum hypothesis . . .
And on surreals
In mathematics, the surreal number system is an arithmetic continuum containing the real numbers as well as infinite and infinitesimal numbers, respectively larger or smaller in absolute value than any positive real number. [--> I note my remaining qualms about the closed interval [0,1] and how it must be continuous] The surreals share many properties with the reals, including a total order LTEQ and the usual arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division); as such, they form an ordered field. (Strictly speaking, the surreals are not a set, but a proper class.[1]) If formulated in Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory, the surreal numbers are the largest possible ordered field; all other ordered fields, such as the rationals, the reals, the rational functions, the Levi-Civita field, the superreal numbers, and the hyperreal numbers, can be realized as subfields of the surreals.[2] It has also been shown (in Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory) that the maximal class hyperreal field is isomorphic to the maximal class surreal field; in theories without the axiom of global choice, this need not be the case, and in such theories [--> norice, we are now in the zone of exploratory theories in Maths which work as explanatory models] it is not necessarily true that the surreals are the largest ordered field. The surreals also contain all transfinite ordinal numbers; the arithmetic on them is given by the natural operations . . . . In the first stage of construction, there are no previously existing numbers so the only representation must use the empty set: { | }. This representation, where L and R are both empty, is called 0. Subsequent stages yield forms like: { 0 | } = 1 { 1 | } = 2 { 2 | } = 3 and { | 0 } = -1 { | -1 } = -2 { | -2 } = -3 The integers are thus contained within the surreal numbers. (The above identities are definitions, in the sense that the right-hand side is a name for the left-hand side. That the names are actually appropriate will be evident when the arithmetic operations on surreal numbers are defined, as in the section below). Similarly, representations arise like: { 0 | 1 } = 1/2 { 0 | 1/2 } = 1/4 { 1/2 | 1 } = 3/4 so that the dyadic rationals (rational numbers whose denominators are powers of 2) are contained within the surreal numbers. After an infinite number of stages [--> do forever loops again with ellipses of endlessness pointed across . . . ], infinite subsets become available, so that any real number a can be represented by { La | Ra } [--> reals imply do forever loops], where La is the set of all dyadic rationals less than a and Ra is the set of all dyadic rationals greater than a (reminiscent of a Dedekind cut). Thus the real numbers are also embedded within the surreals. But there are also representations like { 0, 1, 2, 3, … | } = omega { 0 | 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, … } = epsilon where omega is a transfinite number greater than all integers and epsilon is an infinitesimal greater than 0 but less than any positive real number. Moreover, the standard arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) can be extended to these non-real numbers in a manner that turns the collection of surreal numbers into an ordered field, so that one can talk about 2*omega or omega - 1 and so forth.
Looks like its a positive jungle out there full of stranger and stranger critters. kairosfocus
w is not in N. Every number in N is finite. w is not in N, so it doesn't negate the fact that all numbers within N are finite. Aleta
DS, I thank you for sharing a link. However, I remain at a point where the concept of an actualised infinity of successive finite only values from 0 on in steps of +1 cannot seem reasonable. The largest finite values attained -- being successively collections of prior sets in the succession (as was noted already in discussing axiom of infinity) -- obviously would be inherently finite and will copy the sequence of counting sets so far. That was highlighted back in 217. So, it seems to me that an actualised collection of an infinite string of . . . finite value only . . . counting sets from 0 is not feasible. From what I see, the assertion that all that lurks under the ellipsis of endless continuation in {0,1, 2 . . . } will be finite will fail. How it fails is not that there are infinite attainable values, but that the transfinite zone cannot be operationally attained to. Ordinary induction chains and has the same counting embedded, as do the axioms. When we complete the domain conceptually by pointing across the ellipsis, we enfold a span that cannot be counted out. The all at once step, however, does not lead to oh all in the collection are finite. For the copy- of- the- set- so- far reason above. Instead, it seems to me that the ellipsis of endless continuation of counting sets and succession to such taken as a whole {0,1,2, . . . } lead rather to the transfinite order type w and onward as a concept, an idealisation beyond actual counting. That seems to resolve my concern, we only can operationalise finites but the succession may continue endless-LY and has order type w, cardinality aleph null. Then we may speak of the endless collection as a whole understanding we cannot operationally complete it. An endless tape, therefore obviously cannot be physically actualised no more than HH can, but the thought exercise is instructive; hence my remark that the tape records inspection reports on the HH rooms, one byte/row per room in succession. This points to the extended ordering of successive numbers from w on, beyond an impassable ellipsis of endlessness. That would be the remote far zone that could be contemplated, counting sets in succession cannot be extended operationally to a point of: "the next set k is now transfinite." But endlessness -- the key issue -- has implications that can be used in an analysis, one of which is counting onwards from k, k+1 etc will 1:1 match the original order from 0, 1 etc, i.e. the set of endless successive rows is infinite and attempting to traverse the endless in steps will be futile; it will never attain to a transfinite value. Bringing in the ellipsis, {0,1,2 . . . } --> w, we are instantly at the zone of w on, which cannot be physically realised or attained to in a do forever loop but may profitably be mathematically discussed on an all at one go basis for {0,1,2 . . . }. So an endless continuation of tapes is conceptual and one may therefore reasonably suggest the far zone is the recognised transfinite one -- in effect the tape dissolves into the extended ordered numbers. Where on this w etc would be beyond the naturals or reals. Resolving that concern-point. There is a qualitative difference thanks to the ellipsis of endlessness. The transfinite emerges from the endless-NESS of successive counting sets which can only be operationalised to finite extent. We cannot operationally complete an endless traverse of +/-1 steps. Which is the main point after all, and it is what brings a logical focus to the issue of a proposed endless causal succession as the past leading to the world of today. Such a proposed endless space-time past does not seem to be a tenable view. We cannot traverse an endless span in finite stage steps. (The issue of from k, k+1 on we can match the from 0,1 on shows how such will be frustrated. Endlessness is not realisable operationally in steps.) From that, we then may ask questions as to a unified far zone. KF kairosfocus
PS to my #516: This appears to be a (relatively) accessible introduction to the hyperreals. I challenge you to read it and decide whether you are more comfortable working with the hyperreals vs. the natural and real numbers. daveS
KF,
Thus w is first transfinite ordinal, and all numbers feasibly reachable by +1 steps of succession from 0 will be finite and bounded by onward equally finite successors. Which is all that ordinary mathematical induction can reach.
That actually sounds more or less accurate. With ordinary mathematical induction, you prove statements such as "the sum of all positive integers at most n is n(n + 1)/2". This applies only to natural numbers, each of which is finite.
m –> 1/m –> A = w + g
Ugh. You're throwing around equations which have no solutions again. As I stated earlier in the discussion, this is like an assertion that a particular square is congruent to a particular circle.
No claims for truth are made, only pragmatic utility tied to unification of a range of things that apart from unification are puzzling in a cognitive sense. *** At this stage I feel a much lessened sense of concern, regarding what I have been looking at.
Well, if you are interested in the truth, you should still have a great deal of concern, as there are numerous errors in the above posts. If you really want to pursue this, I suggest reading up on the construction of the hyperreals (not an elementary textbook such as Keisler's). daveS
KF,
A, I must note to you that you are resorting to refusing a given answer stated in the explicit context that there is a gap in views that can make simplistic y/n without explanation meaningless.
In the context of ZFC and standard definitions, there is no reason you cannot give a clear yes or no answer to Aleta's question.
Where, by definition of the tape, all along their length they have punched rows. Accordingly, it is hard to reject the point that there are spatially endlessly remote rows which duly have row-counts that are endlessly larger than any arbitrarily high but finite row value k. Which is the long way round to, these are infinitely far away. With appropriate row numbers.
I've asked you to name a row which is infinitely far away from row 0. We have labels for each row (use any system of numerals you want). Can you do so?
So now we come to labelling and giving values to rows in the tapes. For finite extension in steps that is not an issue. But the onward pointing to endlessness does raise an issue that is not resolved by saying ordinary induction takes them all in in one step. For, as the finite stepwise chain hits any k an endless succession always lies beyond. Bridging by an implicit sub axiom of pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness will be freighting that implicit step with the heavy lifting to reach the conclusion. Which leads to the point, why take that step?
Are you asking why people generally accept the Axiom of Induction? If so, that's an entirely separate issue from what I have been discussing, which is simply what theorems can be proved using this axiom.
Concrete and readily represented, even turning glyphs into simple keyboard graphics: Pink, with near end: |0 === . . . k, k+1 ====> . . . Blue, pulled in k and cut just before k, continuing on to RHS endlessly: |k, k+1 ====> . . . Both can be set in 1:1 correspondence, and pull in k and match can be endlessly repeated beyond case o as above. (I just used do k times to get to k*k rows pulled in.) What mathematical language can we use to address that endlessness, resolving paradoxes?
Well, the set of natural numbers is in 1-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers k or greater, for any natural number k. Where's the paradox? I think we've given adequate explanations of that fact in standard mathematical language. Have you found any sources which describe the same concerns you have, by the way?
DS, BTW, a PA system vs chaining in sucession on Hilbert’s Hotel brings out the difference between all at once setwide processes and inherently finite chained successive ones. I don’t know about you but instantly on hearing of the hotel and what happens to provide room for fresh guests the issue is, how do you get the guests to all go to room 2n from room n? A PA system, with broadcast capability. By contrast with trying to propagate in a chain of steps.
I think that particular detail is left unspecified. The room reassignment puzzle demonstrates a purely mathematical issue, and if you start worrying about logistics, you're missing the point.
For me, it first makes me a lot more wary of discussions of the infinite and the mathematics connected therewith. I have a lot of sympathy for the non standard analysis approach. Hyper reals and infinitesimals. I am now much more wary of discussions of naturals and of reals.
Er, have you looked at the construction of the hyperreals? If you are wary of the natural and real numbers, you should be doubly so of the hyperreals. It's a rather strange set. And of course, the natural numbers and reals are embedded in the hyperreals, so you are not going to get away from them in this way. daveS
F/N: I think I can summarise what seems to make sense to me, for the sake of record. First, the two tapes are pivotal, as is the difference between all at once, stepwise +/-1 processes and the sort of convergent series completed in finite spans of space and time that crop up in Zeno's paradoxes. (For these last, the rapid trend to infinitesimals in time and space converges to a very finite limit in both space and time as a trajectory plays out.) Second, the ellipsis of endlessness is crucial to distinguish the near 0 zone and the transfinitely far one. As it cannot be bridged in stepwise +/-1 processes, there is an operational barrier between the zones. In that context, it is a plausible step to assign the transfinitely remote zone values such as w, w+1, . . . w+g, . . . so succession continues in stepwise +/-1 processes, but one conceptually catapults to get there. The y = 1/x function applied to mild infinitesimals as a suggestion, would be such a catapult. What I can now do is to take [a] the inherent finitude of +1 increments from 0, and [b] the issue of a do forever loop from 0 that [c] goes on endless-LY but never spans the ellipsis of endlessness and [d] use the three to synthesise a picture that I think (thus far; this is exploratory . . . ) is coherent. The counting succession from 0 in +1 steps is endless in succession process via do forever, but cannot exhaust endlessness. Indeed at any given k, k+1 etc the shifted blue tape can be put back in 1:1 correspondence with the unshifted pink one. This guarantees the span cannot be completed and shows how endlessness beyond any specified finite kth step of arbitrarily large scale, is no nearer to ending the endless than when it all began at 0. The succession of such counting steps goes on endlessly but by virtue of that is never completed in the sense of spanning the endlessness. I can see the sense in which the natural counting numbers are defines by that summary and constraint. What we can ever reach is finite but the succession continues, and at any k we then set a bound on k by the k+1th step following. The picture of the natural numbers (and the near 0 zone of the tapes), then would be:
An endless-LY continued sequence of finite numbers comprising a set that in aggregate -- as ideally pointed to across an ellipsis of endlessness -- is indeed just such; endless.
The successor to and order type of that block is then w, followed by its own successors w+1 etc. The far zone of the tapes. Thus, per Wolfram:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OrdinalNumber.html In formal set theory, an ordinal number (sometimes simply called an “ordinal” for short) is one of the numbers in Georg Cantor’s extension of the whole numbers. An ordinal number is defined as the order type of a well ordered set (Dauben 1990, p. 199; Moore 1982, p. 52; Suppes 1972, p. 129). Finite ordinal numbers are commonly denoted using arabic numerals, while transfinite ordinals are denoted using lower case Greek letters. It is easy to see that every finite totally ordered set is well ordered. Any two totally ordered sets with k elements (for k a nonnegative integer) are order isomorphic, and therefore have the same order type (which is also an ordinal number). The ordinals for finite sets are denoted 0, 1, 2, 3, …, i.e., the integers one less than the corresponding nonnegative integers. The first transfinite ordinal, denoted omega, is the order type of the set of nonnegative integers (Dauben 1990, p. 152; Moore 1982, p. viii; Rubin 1967, pp. 86 and 177; Suppes 1972, p. 128). This is the “smallest” of Cantor’s transfinite numbers, defined to be the smallest ordinal number greater than the ordinal number of the whole numbers. Conway and Guy (1996) denote it with the notation omega={0,1,…|}. From the definition of ordinal comparison, it follows that the ordinal numbers are a well ordered set. In order of increasing size, the ordinal numbers are 0, 1, 2, …, omega, omega+1, omega+2, …, omega+omega, omega+omega+1, …. The notation of ordinal numbers can be a bit counterintuitive, e.g., even though 1+omega=omega, omega+1>omega. The cardinal number of the set of countable ordinal numbers is denoted aleph_1 (aleph-1).
Thus w is first transfinite ordinal, and all numbers feasibly reachable by +1 steps of succession from 0 will be finite and bounded by onward equally finite successors. Which is all that ordinary mathematical induction can reach. But the ellipsis of endlessness sets an impassable gulch to the far zone from w on. The tapes tell the tale:
Pink, with near end: |0 === . . . k, k+1 ====> . . . Blue, pulled in k and cut just before k, continuing on to RHS endlessly: |k, k+1 ====> . . . Both can be set in 1:1 correspondence, and pull in k and match can be endlessly repeated beyond case o as above. (I just used do k times to get to k*k rows pulled in.)
Where it is perhaps noteworthy that as Wolfram notes:
The first transfinite ordinal, denoted omega, is the order type of the set of nonnegative integers (Dauben 1990, p. 152; Moore 1982, p. viii; Rubin 1967, pp. 86 and 177; Suppes 1972, p. 128). This is the "smallest" of Cantor's transfinite numbers, defined to be the smallest ordinal number greater than the ordinal number of the whole numbers. Conway and Guy (1996) denote it with the notation omega={0,1,...|}.
The bar at end of the ellipsis of endlessness is then highly significant, and we could write: {0, 1, 2, … |} --> omega, omega+1, omega+2, …, omega+omega, omega+omega+1, …. To parallel with: 0, 1, 2, …, omega, omega+1, omega+2, …, omega+omega, omega+omega+1, …. Where the rows on the tapes now have a natural sense. Exploring further (I add: as the tapes are just that, continuous tapes with punched holes, so the issue of a continuum naturally arises . . . ), mild infinitesimal m --> 1/m --> A = w + g, beyond the span of the naturals and so also reals as usually conceived. Then m has neighbours such that descending from m to n we have 1/n --> B = w + (g +1), and as there is a continuum in [0,1] we can fit between m and n a range of mild infinitesimals that catapult to fill in the continuum between A and B. This is WLOG so it would make reasonable sense to suggest this as a continuum beyond the span of the naturals and reals, linked to infinitesimals close to 0 in the span [0,1], a continuum. Could this be a picture of the hyper real line emerging? (Though, I find the notion of a continuum [0,1] with infinitesimals near 0 that are effectively a gap of non reals, a bit troubling. I note, a practical definition is a number so small that m^2 ~ 0. That's how Engineers, Applied Scientists and Physicists treat them. {10^-300}^2 = 10^-600 after all which vanishes in additions dominated by order 10^-300. Of course suitable steps have to be taken to yield a particular value and not just its closely near neighbourhood, hence limit approaches.) That would for me be a reasonable conjecture of coherent utility suitable for modelling type approaches as opposed to setting out on a chain of proof from a set of axioms. No claims for truth are made, only pragmatic utility tied to unification of a range of things that apart from unification are puzzling in a cognitive sense. A tentative so far explanation, not a proof. A suggestion, it looks like this might help make sense of, not a claimed proof. And, obviously such a view fits with the primitive, primary sense of the infinite seen in say the arrow pointing on forever on axes of a graph of the Cartesian plane or the Argand Plane. At this stage I feel a much lessened sense of concern, regarding what I have been looking at. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, EZ & DS: I notice, a pattern that needs to address an underlying structure in Mathematical thought. For, there is a major shift of approach that happens when one moves to axiomatic systems. Such in effect set up abstract model worlds that may be fruitful but -- ever since the 1930,s -- face Godel's two point challenge. For no suitably complex system will we have both consistency and completeness, and there is not a constructive approach that guarantees consistency even at the price of limitations. Such is fundamental, and one of the implications is that test cases (in Mathematical contexts, often abstract thought exercises) are important. In the general area being disputed in the above thread, Russell's paradox on sets (and the illustration of the village Barber for whom as he shaved himself it was undecidable to assign him to the set choices shave self vs shaved by Barber leading to fatal ambiguity) forced reformulation. Similarly, Hilbert's Grand Hotel Infinity was a challenge to understand implications of the concept, infinity. A, I must note to you that you are resorting to refusing a given answer stated in the explicit context that there is a gap in views that can make simplistic y/n without explanation meaningless. I have put up the case of the pink/blue punch tapes running off endlessly precisely to put on the tape a primary, concrete case. In that on pulling in the blue tape any arbitrarily large but finite number of rows, k, the remaining tape from k, k+1 etc on can be put in 1:1 correspondence with the unshifted pink tape. Indeed, the exercise may be done k times over, each time j showing that the j-1th try has left the endlessness intact and so empowering an ordinary mathematical induction that any finite pull in does not terminate endlessness and so also the property of being infinite. By generally accepted principle, infinite sets of the relevant class can be put in 1:1 correspondence with proper subsets. Where, by definition of the tape, all along their length they have punched rows. Accordingly, it is hard to reject the point that there are spatially endlessly remote rows which duly have row-counts that are endlessly larger than any arbitrarily high but finite row value k. Which is the long way round to, these are infinitely far away. With appropriate row numbers. How does that fit with endless succession? That becomes an issue for paradox, as we see that ordinary mathematical induction starts with case-0 or 1 then adds a chaining pattern of implication and typically projects to all cases, pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness. My concern here is this point across is carrying all the weight of the conclusion, and a more conservative statement would be that all we can reach by finite stage, step by step processes will carry the stepwise propagated property. The point of the ellipsis of endlessness is in part that there is a far zone that cannot be spanned in finite stage successive steps. In particular, steps of +1. The two tapes illustrate in a thought exercise, how that result comes across. In the context of the various axioms, it has been pointed out above, that the set of axioms embeds stepwise processes that get to a potential infinity bridged by pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness. For convenience, Wiki discusses the Axiom of infinity:
In words, there is a set I (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in I and such that whenever any x is a member of I, the set formed by taking the union of x [--> in context the succession from {} on thus far is in mind in a generalised case] with its singleton {x} [ --> this goes on to the next step] is also a member of I. Such a set is sometimes called an inductive set. This axiom is closely related to the von Neumann construction of the naturals in set theory, in which the successor of x is defined as x ? {x}. If x is a set, then it follows from the other axioms of set theory that this successor is also a uniquely defined set. Successors are used to define the usual set-theoretic encoding of the natural numbers. In this encoding, zero is the empty set: 0 = {}. The number 1 is the successor of 0: 1 = 0 U {0} = {} U {0} = {0}. Likewise, 2 is the successor of 1: 2 = 1 U {1} = {0} U {1} = {0,1}, and so on. A consequence of this definition is that every natural number is equal to the set of all preceding natural numbers. This construction forms the natural numbers. However, the other axioms are insufficient to prove the existence of the set of all natural numbers. Therefore its existence is taken as an axiom—the axiom of infinity. This axiom asserts that there is a set I that contains 0 and is closed under the operation of taking the successor; that is, for each element of I, the successor of that element is also in I. Thus the essence of the axiom is: There is a set, I, that includes all the natural numbers. The axiom of infinity is also one of the von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel axioms.
In short, there it lies, the potential infinity established by pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness. With von Neumann's construction closely embedded. The concern I have had, then is about that pointing across and its implication in cases like the two tapes. One import I see is that the effective definition of the successive counting sets deemed natural numbers makes that set to be the reachable by stepwise do forever successor process that cannot actually be completed due to endlessness. This sets up a paradox between finite stepwise process and endlessness. So now we come to labelling and giving values to rows in the tapes. For finite extension in steps that is not an issue. But the onward pointing to endlessness does raise an issue that is not resolved by saying ordinary induction takes them all in in one step. For, as the finite stepwise chain hits any k an endless succession always lies beyond. Bridging by an implicit sub axiom of pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness will be freighting that implicit step with the heavy lifting to reach the conclusion. Which leads to the point, why take that step? Or, is there not a difference between the primary sense of endlessness of succession and definitions and axiomatic steps that in effect lead to an infinite number/succession of finite, +1 stage separated values, leading to something like infinite finitude. Paradox, it appears. Rhetoric about denialism -- which is horrifically loaded with Holocaust denial -- does not help settle the matter. Nor does the notion, we do not dispute this, it is settled so there, only the ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked denialists would challenge the Consensus. EZ, I am looking at you here. And, A, right from the beginning, I have pointed to the primary sense of the infinite, the endless succession that lurks in the arrow we put on graph axes, origin, line of reals with wholes as milestones marked, arrow of endlessness. Whatever we find by way of axiomatic algebraic model or labels, that succession to endlessness beckons. This issue is not some vague mystery that I have been evasive about, I have asked, how can one find a reasonable answer as to how one rejects that an endless succession goes to a zone of endlessness, i.e. beyond finite bounds? And what does this primary, primitive sense have to say to our axiomatisation? To date, I find no satisfactory resolution. Given say the thought exercise of tapes, I cannot dismiss endlessness, and given the inherent finitude of deeply embedded stepwise +1 stage procedures of succession, joined to pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness, I cannot see that a model that converts the whole number succession into an infinite chain of the finites is less than paradoxical verging on outright contradiction. The finite is ended, the endless by definition is not. The endless tape exercise points to a far zone with onward succession not subject to spanning in +1 steps. How to capture that in reasonable terms seems unanswered. And EZ, motive mongering or how I came up with the idea of pink and blue paper punch tapes is of little value. In fact, as Turing tapes of endlessness were discussed and as coloured 3+5 punched paper computer tapes exist, it seemed reasonable to look at parallel tapes running off endlessly and to ponder in ways that are anchored to an intuitive, simple entity. Thought exercises and abstracted models thereof are commonplace in several linked fields. And there is Hilbert's hotel. Think of the tapes as the inspection report on the HH rooms if you will, a one- ascii character symbol denoting room condition. Matters not how they are marked, the point is here are the pink and blue tapes running endlessly to RHS from a zeroth row to begin with. With every row punched in some way. Patently, if stretched out with rows going off at 0.1 inch pitch, then if endless there is a remote endless zone just as there is a near ended, zero row neighbourhood zone. Concrete and readily represented, even turning glyphs into simple keyboard graphics: Pink, with near end: |0 === . . . k, k+1 ====> . . . Blue, pulled in k and cut just before k, continuing on to RHS endlessly: |k, k+1 ====> . . . Both can be set in 1:1 correspondence, and pull in k and match can be endlessly repeated beyond case o as above. (I just used do k times to get to k*k rows pulled in.) What mathematical language can we use to address that endlessness, resolving paradoxes? Obviously, one point is, the endless by the very force of that concept cannot be ended in actuality. (And that is not a dubious, dismissible worldview point, it is basic logic.) DS, BTW, a PA system vs chaining in sucession on Hilbert's Hotel brings out the difference between all at once setwide processes and inherently finite chained successive ones. I don't know about you but instantly on hearing of the hotel and what happens to provide room for fresh guests the issue is, how do you get the guests to all go to room 2n from room n? A PA system, with broadcast capability. By contrast with trying to propagate in a chain of steps. Infinite sets dealt with in steps run into the potential infinite then point across the ellipsis of endlessness issue. A broadcast system by contrast operates on the whole at once. And -- as fair comment given deteriorated tone at this point as you had exchanges just above -- it is a significant conceptual gap that you responded to that with an exclamation mark of dismissal. A, we can, broadcast, posit an endless tape with punched rows all along its length, as was done. Then that sets up the issue of stepwise processes vs the transfinite. That allows exploration; which lets us begin to identify the limitations of stepwise processes and to observe how such are embedded from the roots even in axioms. Is there anything inherently dubious in positing endlessness all at once, then thinking on how that relates to counting set based approaches? I think not. Where, of course, seeing the tape whole and not created by a do forever loop of succession gives a different perspective. Indeed moving to pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness is exactly a pulling back to the original single glance at the whole approach. So, where does this all come out? For me, it first makes me a lot more wary of discussions of the infinite and the mathematics connected therewith. I have a lot of sympathy for the non standard analysis approach. Hyper reals and infinitesimals. I am now much more wary of discussions of naturals and of reals. When trying to down count from the transfinite runs into headaches so easily, that is a warning flag. Tapes, think of a sprocket drive and read head in the far zone decrementing by 1s, -1 steps. Can it reach to a k-neighbourhood of 0 in steps? No, it would have to span endlessness. It can move from some start point and move a finite distance leftwards in steps but absent a definite start point it cannot arrive from the far right zone of endlessness, just as a similar drive and head at k cannot span in steps to the far zone. Where of course, easy to discuss concrete thought mechanisms force out things that are easily lost in forests of abstract symbols. That is why thought exercises can be very strategic. If we cannot readily resolve one, then that is a sign that we have not got the whole act together yet. At the same time, I have a much deeper appreciation for the force of Spitzer's point. Implicitly ending the endless on successive finite stages is an absurdity and fallacy. And, pointing to the tapes, there is need for an adequate discussion of endlessness as a whole not just do forever loops of the potentially infinite completed by pointing. KF PS: The LOGIC of necessary being and of ontological roots of a contingent world is a point in philosophy not theology. Indeed, it is antecedent conceptually. And the eternal is different from the temporal. The pink and blue tapes thought exercise rests on neither but on glorified common sense abstraction from very real computer technology of several decades past. kairosfocus
#511 daveS
Good points. I hadn’t thought how the tape model could reinforce these misconceptions, but I think I understand now.
I wouldn't worry about it, KF has an agenda and for various reasons he was bound to disagree with something somehow. If you check his own website stuff you'll see how he can mangle even straightforward mathematics. His motivations aren't about the mathematics but about what he can support with what he thinks he understands. #510 Aleta
A theological question: Does God need an ellipsis?
Well, if s/he/it is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end then sometimes you must find a way to fill in the intermediate space! More seriously, it's we who need the ellpsii. Ellipsises? Whatever. But really they're just short hand for "and so on in the same fashion". Like much of mathematics, we replace thoughts and procedures with symbols 'cause they're easier to write down. Get your students to write out entirely in words a simple algebra problem sometime. ellazimm
Aleta, Good points. I hadn't thought how the tape model could reinforce these misconceptions, but I think I understand now. daveS
A theological question: Does God need an ellipsis? Aleta
No guilt, of course! But I do think the concrete nature of the tapes has helped fuel kf's confusion. As we discussed previously, the tape reinforces the idea that the natural numbers must be traversed one-by-one to come into existence, rather than already existing in their totality by virtue of the definitions. Concretely, there can be no endless tape in any material sense: the tape is endless in the sense that the process of unrolling it further can never stop, but thinking of a concrete thing being infinitely long conflates the metaphor with the abstraction. So I think the tape has been a confusing metaphor. Also, and I'll mention this now that the discussion is over, I also think a source of kf's confusion is that the beginning stimulus of the topic concerned time as a model for the natural numbers (the integers, actually.) Two problems with this: one is that we envision ourselves, or the world, as being in time, moving through it step by step, and that we see ourselves as only being able to move in one direction. So time, like the tape, emphasizes the view from any particular point rather than a mathematical view of the set as a whole. Ironically, what I am saying is that, rather than a view from inside the natural numbers, mathematically we have a "God's eye" view of the set as a whole, from outside the natural numbers. This is what Cantor did when he declared/created w and aleph null as transfinite numbers: he looked at the whole infinite set of natural numbers and began doing mathematics with its infinitude as a concept in and of itself. And, to perhaps further the irony, and the idea of a God's eye view, how would God see the natural numbers? Given that God is supposed to be outside of time, and infinite in scope, would he have any problem seeing that all the natural numbers were finite, and yet at the same time be able to see the entire infinite set of them? :-) Supposedly God can both see the world from any particular moment in time, now, and simultaneously see all moments of time: all the past and all the future. If he can handle that with the entire universe, surely he cold handle it with the natural numbers. P.S. This last point is of course not a real topic of conversation, but I think it is interesting to perhaps tie the topic of mathematical infinity to the speculative theological beliefs of kf and others here at UD. KF just wrote in the thread that Dave mentioned that "If a cosmos now is, something always was, a root of the reality we experience." So theologically kf is willing and seemingly able to accept the existence of an infinitude as a whole, from a God's eye point of view, in respect to "the root of reaity", but not so able mathematically when contemplating the infinitude of the set of finite natural numbers. Just some thoughts. Aleta
Aleta, IIRC, I am the one guilty of bringing in the Turing machine tapes, just because I thought they illustrated the Hilbert Hotel (and the set N) well. I also thought they would enable KF to understand our point of view, but unfortunately that didn't happen. I brought up the tapes sometime after KF made reference to the PA system (!) in the Hilbert Hotel, and I was looking for a way to strip away all the irrelevant implementation details. daveS
#506 daveS
Well, I don’t think you or ellazimm or I are having any difficulty with the tape, and I find their freeswinging origins arguments unpersuasive at best, but it’s an interesting contrast.
The only trouble I had with the tapes stuff was why it was introduced. I guess it was some example KF found and, in his usual copy-and-paste style he threw it in to make the discussion sound more . . . academic. I tend to stick with KISS myself when trying to explain complex things. Maybe he's used to being able to convince people by throwing wave after wave of hard to understand stuff and eventually they agree with him even if they really don't understand what he's talking about. Anyway, we seemed to have scared KF off. He hasn't been on UD at all since his last comment above. Maybe he's just busy. ellazimm
Aleta, I think you're right. I had a glimmer of hope when I read this from KF:
DS, My point is that there are endlessly more onward members than any specific finite value as proved not merely asserted.
but things seem to have reverted. After spending quite a bit of time in these threads, I found it interesting to look at this post, which begins:
Crimnologist and former atheist Mike Adams summarizes the three foundational philosophical alternatives to the Cosmos:
First, we can say that it came into being spontaneously – in other words, that it came to be without a cause. Second, we can say that it has always been. Third, we can posit some cause outside the physical universe to explain its existence.
We are here struggling to understand a paper tape (albeit infinite), and they are over there solving the origin of the cosmos. Well, I don't think you or ellazimm or I are having any difficulty with the tape, and I find their freeswinging origins arguments unpersuasive at best, but it's an interesting contrast. daveS
A parting shot: kf will not answer my direct questions, we know, so I am going to answer them for him. The issue is this: we claim all natural numbers are finite. kf does not agree this is so. We all agree that the set of natural numbers N is infinite. We agree that means that for any natural number k there are an endless, infinite number of further natural numbers. In fact it is this property - the fact that we can put any proper subset of the natural numbers in a 1:1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers itself, that is the characteristic that defines the infinite nature of the natural numbers. We all agree about all of the above paragraph. Now there are only two logical possibilities: A: Every natural number is finite, or B. There are natural numbers that are not finite. kf rejects A. Therefore, kf concludes B: there exists non-finite natural numbers. That is, he believes there is a least one, or more, numbers X which are greater than any finite natural number. This is consistent with his vague, unspecified language about "passing the ellipsis" into the "far zone", which is "infinitely far from" all finite natural numbers. This is what kf believes: he believes in the existence of non-finite natural numbers that are greater than any and all finite natural numbers. He believes in a kind of transfinite number within the set of natural numbers. For kf, N = {1, 2, 3, ... k, k + 1 (the finite naturals) ... the transfinite naturals} This is, I think, the inescapable conclusion to be reached from discussing this issue with him for quite a lengthy time. Aleta
Yep - more good points. I agree with all you say. Aleta
#499 Aleta
For what it’s worth, I’m a bit interested in my own psychology – why do I keep posting??? I’m sure I’m close to an end.
It is like a bag of Doritoes isn't it? You crave them and then when you eat too many you feel a bit ooky. I find the perpetual denialism, especially about things that are not in any way controversial, interesting and perplexing. It's a real insight into agenda driven thinking and cognitive biases. The whole culture is fascinating. ellazimm
This part of my post #501 needs correction, and conveys the opposite of what I meant:
There are many mathematical objects that cannot be constructed in a finite (or even countable!) number of steps. The real numbers are even worse.
For example, I mean in the Cauchy sequence version of the construction of R, you do not iterate through all (classes of) Cauchy sequences in Q one after another and build up R one element at a time, even though that might appear to be the case if you try to conceive if it as a looping process. The real proofs and constructions of such objects consist of a finite number of steps. daveS
KF,
Let that value be k, it can be attained from 0 in k steps, and exceeded in the k+1th. That can be seen for any arbitrarily large finite row number, but the problem is the tape goes on endlessly beyond that, by definition and with rows punched in all the way. Something we cannot attain to in steps.
Perhaps not, but who said it could? [Edit: I'm assuming beginningless processes are off the table here!] There are many mathematical objects that cannot be constructed in a finite (or even countable!) number of steps. The real numbers are even worse. Most mathematicians don't envision even the natural numbers as being constructed in a sequence of steps. There's the Axiom of Infinity, and that's that.
If the tape goes on endlessly beyond any arbitrarily large value (and that is required to retain 1:1 matching) then as the rows have a finite pitch of 0.1 inches, rows are not merely arbitrarily far apart. For, it seems that between the zone we can attain to in finite +1 steps and the far zone of endlessness there will be rows that are transfinitely far apart, endlessly far apart.
Specifically which rows are infinitely far apart? You have natural number labels for each row, so if this were the case, wouldn't you be able to name some of these rows? In the sentence: "Row 0 and row ____ are infinitely far apart", what number goes in the blank? In reality, there is just one "zone", consisting of all rows finitely distant from row 0. I don't follow most of the rest, but this:
And that means that w does not suddenly emerge as the follow on to any particular member but that it is emergent on pointing to endlessness as completing step. By use of the ellipsis. It is a conceptual leap on recognising endlessness.
seems at least partially correct. As we have seen, ω is not a successor to any ordinal. ω is not of the form α ∪ {α} for any other ordinal α. It is literally the union of all finite ordinals. Or, put another way, ω = N. daveS
to kf. I'll note that you repeat, again, all sorts of things you've said many times before. But you won't answer a simple and obvious question.
Is it true that one or the other of these must be true: either all natural numbers are finite or some natural numbers are not finite?
Aleta
All good points, EZ, and I too find the psychology interesting. I especially agree with you about the difference between pure mathematics and the task of modeling the world with mathematics - I've had some long conversations here about that before. For what it's worth, I'm a bit interested in my own psychology - why do I keep posting??? I'm sure I'm close to an end. Aleta
#491 Aleta
But I’ve enjoyed conversing with dave and ellazimm! :-) Thanks.
You are a star. With a lot more patience than me. I find the psychology of debates on this sight very interesting. You and I are used to being in an academic situation where you get things wrong at times. And we've learned to own up to our mistakes and move on. But if you're not used to that (and if you feel like you're besieged on all sides) then you can't afford to concede on anything. You're constantly afraid that any hole in the damn might become a flood that will drown you. I get that but, in this case, we are just talking about objective mathematics. I have no intention of wading into the question of the existence or non-existence of an infinite past for the universe. And the solution to that conundrum is a matter of using the correct model NOT the mathematics underlying the model. So KF's basic approach (attack the mathematics to uphold the world view) fails at the gate. And he's wrong about the mathematics as well. But he's in 'circle the wagons' mode. And his real 'battle' has nothing to do with mathematics. ellazimm
DS, The basic point is endlessness. In effect, pick any arbitrarily large value k, pull in the blue tape by k rows, k times. Every one of those k times the remaining tape will still match the unpulled tape 1:1, providing both are endless. That is the sets of rows on both tapes are infinite. The paradox I perceive comes in in claiming at the same time that EVERY row corresponds to a finite ordinal value. Let that value be k, it can be attained from 0 in k steps, and exceeded in the k+1th. That can be seen for any arbitrarily large finite row number, but the problem is the tape goes on endlessly beyond that, by definition and with rows punched in all the way. Something we cannot attain to in steps. Represented so innocently by three dots in an ellipsis. (And the one who, above, dismissed the use of y = 1/x as what I have called a catapult needs to look to the discussion of hyper reals and infinitesimals in nonstandard analysis. I just pick up another point, it seems there is little point in replying to every dismissal when given in such sharp terms.) If the tape goes on endlessly beyond any arbitrarily large value (and that is required to retain 1:1 matching) then as the rows have a finite pitch of 0.1 inches, rows are not merely arbitrarily far apart. For, it seems that between the zone we can attain to in finite +1 steps and the far zone of endlessness there will be rows that are transfinitely far apart, endlessly far apart. This does not seem to be consistent with the argument that as case 0 is finite and case-k being finite entails case-k+1 is finite, then ALL cases for rows will be finite in label and finitely remote. At minimum, there is a paradox there to be resolved. Or at least, that is how it seems. Next, it seems to me that inherently the sort of ordinary induction just outlined itself crucially relies on +1 step chaining and is subject at every step to the onward unreachable endlessness. Moving to the assumption that cases b less than a case a are all so entails case a for all a in A [as a new form of accumulation], with less than only implying a built in ordering relationship, then leads to the issue as to the span of A. (Is A finite or transfinite and if the latter does it necessarily enfold only finite members, or is there an implicit involvement of the transfinite in individual members? In effect, where do we close off the curly braces, and what does this entail when an ellipsis of endlessness is involved or implied? In the case, {0,1,2 . . . k, k+1, . . . [ellipsis of endlessness . . .]} that seems to entail order type w, cardinality aleph null and that assigning w [omega] to the whole {0,1,2 . . . k, k+1, . . . } --> w does not suddenly introduce a new property on the RHS. It is there on the LHS already. That is, the span is endless and implicitly, members in the far zone from 0 will hold endlessly large values. As, each member from 0 on in succession is the collection of the preceding members so endlessness of the whole will be attained by endless collection in particular members. The incrementally emergent set in effect self copies its members so far endlessly to create new members, until we point onward from the potentially infinite to the whole and somehow symbolise the whole. At least, that is how it looks. And that means that w does not suddenly emerge as the follow on to any particular member but that it is emergent on pointing to endlessness as completing step. By use of the ellipsis. It is a conceptual leap on recognising endlessness. At least, again, that is how it looks.) That is how it looks, not a happy picture [e.g. a set incrementally swallowing itself like the proverbial snake to emerge anew as extended to successor is instantly uncomfortable as we look to the set as a whole endlessly continued], but that is the picture I see. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, There is a logical issue at stake, and when you and DS asked me about it, I replied in logical terms. Cf 487 - 8 & 492. KF PS: Let me borrow from 497 below:
If the tape goes on endlessly beyond any arbitrarily large value (and that is required to retain 1:1 matching) then as the rows have a finite pitch of 0.1 inches, rows are not merely arbitrarily far apart. For, it seems that between the zone we can attain to in finite +1 steps and the far zone of endlessness there will be rows that are transfinitely far apart, endlessly far apart. This does not seem to be consistent with the argument that as case 0 is finite and case-k being finite entails case-k+1 is finite, then ALL cases for rows will be finite in label and finitely remote. At minimum, there is a paradox there to be resolved. Or at least, that is how it seems. Next, it seems to me that inherently the sort of ordinary induction just outlined itself crucially relies on +1 step chaining and is subject at every step to the onward unreachable endlessness. Moving to the assumption that cases b less than a case a are all so entails case a for all a in A [as a new form of accumulation], with less than only implying a built in ordering relationship, then leads to the issue as to the span of A. (Is A finite or transfinite and if the latter does it necessarily enfold only finite members, or is there an implicit involvement of the transfinite in individual members? In effect, where do we close off the curly braces, and what does this entail when an ellipsis of endlessness is involved or implied?
kairosfocus
kf has several times written whole posts about the importance of basic logic as a foundation for right reason. And yet, when faced with a simple logical statement (either all natural numbers are finite or some natural numbers are not finite), he refuses to address it. This has nothing to do with red and blue tapes, or with the fact that we all agree that there is an endless number of natural numbers past any particular finite number k, or about authority. This is just, as kf says, about logic and structure. Address the logic, kf! Is it true that one or the other of these must be true: either all natural numbers are finite or some natural numbers are not finite? Stay true to your principles here and address the logic. Aleta
KF, I'm getting lost in that italicized sentence. It might be helpful to list the assumptions, one by one, which supposedly lead to a contradiction. For example: 1) The tape is endless (that is, infinite). 2) The rows are each labeled with finite natural numbers in increasing order (so row 0, row 1, row 2, etc). 3) The "span" of the tape is endless (?) I don't really know what this means, other than there are rows in the tape arbitrarily far apart. For example, there are rows 10^150 inches apart. There are also rows 10^150^150 inches apart. There are rows any finite number of inches apart. And so on. daveS
re 490: I am appealing to logic, and kf is failing. See 484. Aleta
Folks, I again simply point to the tapes thought exercise. If every value for the number of a row in the succession in the endless tapes is finite, the value will necessarily be some k (i.e. kth row), exceeded by k+1 and achieved in k increments of 0.1 inches. This finite value cannot be endless, being completed in k steps and then bounded and exceeded by k+1. How then is the span of the tape with rows every 0.1 inches along its length in succession from row 0, endless, apart from that for any finite k, there will be k+1, etc onward without limit, and by limitlessness violating the claim that every value corresponding to a natural number in the sequence 0, 1, 2 . . . without end is finite? And no I am not pretending to be cleverer than all Mathematicians etc, I am asking how is an apparent paradox to be resolved without falling into contradiction? KF kairosfocus
I give up also. See my post at 462 where I summarize the ways in which kf avoids specificity, repeats things we agree on, and will not answer direct questions that would help us understand what he means (such as a very simple question at 484). But I've enjoyed conversing with dave and ellazimm! :-) Thanks. Aleta
EZ & Aleta: (& DS, attn HRUN . . . who needs to learn what has been pointed out several times but studiously ignored: that Mathematics sometimes advances by challenging the consensus so appeal to authority rather than the logic of structure and quantity, fails . . .),
kf, I actually understand perfectly well and you just reaffirmed it. You are right and DS is wrong. And if math disagrees with you it is obviously wrong as well. There is no appeal to authority, just a description of the situation from your point of view. hrun0815
KF,
DS, I am trying to see how it can be reasonably concluded that there are infinitely many finite natural numbers. The two tapes thought exercise is in that specific context. To my sense, it would seem hard to avoid that every finite k is reachable in k finite steps and is exceeded on the k+1 step, so no span from 0 of finite stages in cumulative succession can be transfinite, can end the endless.
The Turing Machine tape is an excellent thought experiment. And yes, it is true that every finite k is reachable in k finite steps. It is also true that no "span" from 0 consisting of finitely many steps can be transfinite. In other words, {0, 1, 2, ..., k} is always a finite set.
Therefore I incline that the sets of ordered counting sets in endless succession should reach a zone which each member will itself be endless.
I don't know why this would be necessary. The collection of finite "counting sets" is "endless", no?
I could see with the naturals being defined on an unending succession of finite steps where every number actually attainable in finite-stage increments to k number of steps will be finite [where k may be arbitrarily large but not transfinite], but that points beyond to the endlessness. KF
Yes, the first part describes the natural numbers accurately. In fact, the Peano axioms specify that each natural number is obtainable by applying the successor operation to 0 finitely many times, so you cannot generate any members of N at infinite distance from 0. daveS
DS, I am trying to see how it can be reasonably concluded that there are infinitely many finite natural numbers. The two tapes thought exercise is in that specific context. To my sense, it would seem hard to avoid that every finite k is reachable in k finite steps and is exceeded on the k+1 step, so no span from 0 of finite stages in cumulative succession can be transfinite, can end the endless. Therefore I incline that the sets of ordered counting sets in endless succession should reach a zone which each member will itself be endless. What such is labelled or classified as is secondary. I could see with the naturals being defined on an unending succession of finite steps where every number actually attainable in finite-stage increments to k number of steps will be finite [where k may be arbitrarily large but not transfinite], but that points beyond to the endlessness. KF kairosfocus
EZ, again is or is not each tape receding to the endlessly remote. If not the tape is finite. If it is, it is infinite and there will be rows infinitely remote. Infinite in the primary sense. These cannot be reached by any cumulative process of finite stage steps but on attaining the potentially infinite we may point to the endlessly remote zone. As is routinely done in practical mathematics. A look at the ordinary mathematical induction shows that it embraces a do forever loop in steps from case k to k+1 in succession. Also, when we look at the set of natural counting sets in succession we see: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . or, {0,1, 2 . . . k, k+1 . . . Ellipsis of endlessness . . . } That is there is a span of endlessness within the set, which by definition cannot be bridged in finite steps. That's where I would expect to find a far zone that is ideally there but cannot be finitely attained to in steps. Where for every finite k, regardless of how large, k is bounded by k+1 and is finite and attainable in k +1 increments from 0. The ordinary induction on case 0 or case 1 and the chaining principle Case-k => case-k+1, is inherently finite though open ended. Whatever model we need to account for our tape as a thought exercise needs to account for these phenomena. And sorry, this is mathematics, appeals to modesty in the face of collective authority are not enough. There is a thought exercise on the table, close to the traditional Turing Machine. We need a reasonable scheme that adequately accounts for an endless tape that recedes from row 0 to the RHS with rows of holes all the way. Actually, two, one pink, one blue. The blue is pulled in k rows, k times over. Due to endlessness, at each k-pull, it must still match pink 1:1 because of endlessness. Which entails that there are infinitely many rows, accumulating at 0.1 inch per row to the RHS: |0, 1, 2 === . . . k, k+1 [finite values] . . . ===> . . . |k, k+1 [finite values] . . . ===> . . . (matching 1:1) KF kairosfocus
Aleta,
3. So either, by force of logic, every one of the infinite number of natural numbers in N is finite (our position), or there are numbers in N which are not finite (which seems to be your position.) Which is it, then: is every natural number of finite, or are there numbers in N that are not finite.
By the rules of right reason, as a matter of fact! :-) Surely KF cannot avoid answering this question? daveS
#483 KF
Note my concern is pivoting around the claim there is an infinite number of finitely large natural numbers, where any finite k — ponder the tape to see why — will not be transfinitely remote, endlessly remote; k* 0.1 inches will be exceeded and bounded by (k+1)*0.1 inches and so forth on a do forever. Any finite k can be arrived at in k finite steps of +1 from 0, then exceeded in the next step, with +1 here going at the rate of 0.1 inches per step. This is the context in which I looked again at what say ordinary mathematical induction actually shows, and what is entailed by the apparent pattern of do forever loops starting in axioms, and the commonplace ellipsis of endlessness.
I give up. You've got some issue that I can't discern which is throwing up a roadblock. Please feel free to stand in opposition to well established mathematics. Because you are not a research mathematician it probably doesn't matter anyway. If you're teaching students then I do worry but I can't do anything about it. ellazimm
Again, you repeat something we agree with: Where beyond any arbitrary finite k, however large (I picked 10^150 and 300, the square of that, to give and idea of what I am saying), there will be endlessly more rows. That is, for any arbitrary finite k, there are an infinite number of further natural numbers greater than k. WE AGREE WITH THIS!!! Do you get that!!! WHY DO YOU KEEP REPEATING THIS??? If all you mean by "remote zone" is this fact, that there will always be an infinite number of further numbers, then you are not saying anything that we don't all know. But what you are NOT doing is responding to a simple argument: 1. The set of natural numbers N is an infinite set. 2. Every specific natural number k is finite. 3. So either, by force of logic, every one of the infinite number of natural numbers in N is finite (our position), or there are numbers in N which are not finite (which seems to be your position.) Which is it, then: is every natural number of finite, or are there numbers in N that are not finite. Aleta
Aleta, the issue is the tape, always the tape. If we cannot satisfactorily model something as simple as the thought exercise of an endless punch paper tape, we do not genuinely understand yet. This includes that we must be able to speak to the zone that is far away receding endlessly from us, with punched holes in it. Where beyond any arbitrary finite k, however large (I picked 10^150 and 300, the square of that, to give and idea of what I am saying), there will be endlessly more rows. Such that we may pull in k, and do so k times and yet still there is going to be endless tape remaining yet ahead such that the remainder may be matched 1:1 with the un-pulled tape next to it. And pardon me but the term I used is not meant to suggest hidden agendas and ideological threats or stratagems, only that terms are freighted -- is that less suggestive? -- with perceptions and contexts. The issue is I think there is a paradigms issue here. KF PS: Note my concern is pivoting around the claim there is an infinite number of finitely large natural numbers, where any finite k -- ponder the tape to see why -- will not be transfinitely remote, endlessly remote; k* 0.1 inches will be exceeded and bounded by (k+1)*0.1 inches and so forth on a do forever. Any finite k can be arrived at in k finite steps of +1 from 0, then exceeded in the next step, with +1 here going at the rate of 0.1 inches per step. This is the context in which I looked again at what say ordinary mathematical induction actually shows, and what is entailed by the apparent pattern of do forever loops starting in axioms, and the commonplace ellipsis of endlessness. kairosfocus
#480 KF You forgot to mention Newton and Liebniz. Aside from the 18th century disagreement I am not familiar with, the rest of your examples have been vigorously argued over and discussed but no one was persecuted or ostracised with the possible exception of Cantor. I would argue that Cantor had other problems which made it harder for him to deal with the academic animosity his ideas created. Make no mistake, what Cantor proposed was incredibly radical and such ideas have to be tested in the fires of scrutiny. As they should. He made an extra-ordinary claim which required extra-ordinary proof and some time to sink in. Now his ideas are not controversial. And I think you've erroneously thrown in Godel's incompleteness theorem which is not the mathematical equivalent of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Of course there are some gaps and controversies but these days a) they are worked out in a collegiate fashion and b) what we are discussing with you is not controversial any more. Just listing some of the past 'controversies' does not prove your point that issues are 'loaded'. It just means that people disagree usually for very good reasons. In mathematics the 'battleground' is now purely intellectual and academic. The only 'loading' is egotistical. No one is marginalising others, no one is being forced out of academic positions, no one is being stifled or bullied. My point is that using the term 'loaded' is inaccurate. Our disagreement with you is purely mathematical. There's no call to add a layer of manipulation or menace. ellazimm
so, kf, you agree with this statement (which is an attempt to put into more precise mathematical language whta you are saying:) “there exists a number X (or numbers) in the set of natural numbers such that for every natural number k, X is greater than k. In such case, X would then be a number in the “transfinitely remote zone”, and would be an example of a natural number that is not finite.” Aleta
EZ, if you think that there are not loaded issues in Math then you know little of the relevant history. Was it 20 years ago a suit from C18 was settled between families of two mathematicians? In this field cf Hilbert et al vs Cantor, and the issues Cantor had with others also. In the mix put Russell's paradox and the import of the setting up of ZFC. Toss in Godel on incompleteness for good measure. What I am saying is there are some concept gaps and that is why I use the thought exercise of punched tape to focus issues concretely. And it is why I put up an algorithm at 217. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, further to this, the conditions set up that there are endlessly remote cells in a zone beyond any finitely remote k no matter how large. If we set up a scheme that cannot accept and comfortably digest this primary sense of the infinite, something is deeply in need of rethinking. Especially as we can show the significance of k, k+1 etc by putting the blue tape onward from row k in 1:1 correspondence endlessly with the unmoved pink tape from 0, 1, 2 etc. This helps make my concerns concrete. KF kairosfocus
Yes, we agree on this: for any natural number k there is an infinite number of natural numbers greater than k. That is what it means to say the set is infinite. "Simply pointing" to this is just a restatement of something we all agree on. I don't think you need to keep repeating this. What is not clear is your beliefs about points 4 and 5 in post 471: Are all natural numbers finite? You claim this is not true. Or do you believe, as 5 says, that "there exists a number X (or numbers) in the set of natural numbers such that for every natural number k, X is greater than k. In such case, X would then be a number in the “transfinitely remote zone”, and would be an example of a natural number that is not finite." If all natural numbers are not finite, you seem to be claiming that there are natural numbers that are something other than finite. Please explain that in more precise language. Aleta
Aleta, I simply point to the two tapes, with rows endlessly beyond any row that is finitely beyond the near end. Infinity, primary sense. At least, a break from tax day here. KF kairosfocus
KF,
DS, My point is that there are endlessly more onward members than any specific finite value as proved not merely asserted.
The question was not whether this statement is proved or assumed. The question was which of my two statements in #419 you were making. Finally it appears that you are clearly stating #1, which comes as a surprise to me. Just a couple of days ago, I said I was 80% sure you were making statement #2.
And in a context where symbols are loaded, answering y/n to a loaded question is not sensible.
Well, as you have now clarified that it's 1 and not 2, it appears that it was/is sensible in this case to ask for yes/no answers.
If you cannot see why there are endlessly remote rows of the sequence beyond any finite k no matter how large on the primary sense of infinite, then there is a problem.
Pardon, but the problem was your lack of clarity, not my understanding. And despite your slipping back into ambiguity, I will interpret this sentence as again affirming 1 and not 2. *** Now that we have settled that, let's observe that statement 1 is consistent with the proposition that all natural numbers are finite. And of course that each cell C in the infinite Turing Machine tape is finitely many steps from cell 0. daveS
473 Aleta
kf accepts that N is an infinite set, and that w and aleph null are names for the transfinite ordinal and cardinal numbers associated with N. He also accepts that w is not a number within N, but rather a number about N: the number of natural numbers within N. By accepting w, he obviously accepts that there are an infinite number of natural numbers.
Are you sure he accepts that? Because he seems to think he can all of a sudden take another step and get to the infinites. I think he's mixed up about what well ordered means. Anyway, we're not going to change his mind so it's probably time to quit. ellazimm
#470 KF
And in a context where symbols are loaded, answering y/n to a loaded question is not sensible. The difference in context has to be explained. And that is in part why I am looking to the concrete case to illustrate many features of the problem.
It's mathematics, symbols aren't 'loaded'. This isn't an ideological disagreement. You're just being asked a question which you can give a yes or no answer to. 472 KF Yes, I know what ordinal numbers are! You can be very, very patronising at times. You don't get to the first ordinal number by counting up from 0 in steps of one!! Just because the set of ordinals is well ordered doesn't mean you can get from the finites to the infinites in a step-wise fashion!! There are an infinite number of whole numbers before you get to omega so you can't get there by counting! Neither can you get there via getting step-wise smaller and smaller. Again: omega is larger than any particular whole number but you can't climb the staircase of whole numbers and suddenly step onto an infinite step. It doesn't work that way. Every whole number has another whole number 1 bigger than it. Every step up lands you on another finite step and you CAN count how many steps it took to get there. This is not context driven or 'loaded'. Either you get it or you don't. Not everyone gets it and there's no shame in that. I don't 'get' Donald Trump or Kim Kardashian, they're both just so much gobbly-gook to me. ellazimm
Hi EZ. This sequence has very little to do with the issues about the natural numbers. kf accepts that N is an infinite set, and that w and aleph null are names for the transfinite ordinal and cardinal numbers associated with N. He also accepts that w is not a number within N, but rather a number about N: the number of natural numbers within N. By accepting w, he obviously accepts that there are an infinite number of natural numbers. That's about all you need to know from previous posts in respect to the current discussion about the natural numbers. Aleta
EZ, I am actually busy, but will say this much, it would be wise to read the thread above before jumping in to comment. If you do, you will see the point of surprise when the Wolfram listing of the succession of ordinals appears; I set apart the list and bold it:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OrdinalNumber.html In formal set theory, an ordinal number (sometimes simply called an "ordinal" for short) is one of the numbers in Georg Cantor's extension of the whole numbers. An ordinal number is defined as the order type of a well ordered set (Dauben 1990, p. 199; Moore 1982, p. 52; Suppes 1972, p. 129). Finite ordinal numbers are commonly denoted using arabic numerals, while transfinite ordinals are denoted using lower case Greek letters. It is easy to see that every finite totally ordered set is well ordered. Any two totally ordered sets with k elements (for k a nonnegative integer) are order isomorphic, and therefore have the same order type (which is also an ordinal number). The ordinals for finite sets are denoted 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., i.e., the integers one less than the corresponding nonnegative integers. The first transfinite ordinal, denoted omega, is the order type of the set of nonnegative integers (Dauben 1990, p. 152; Moore 1982, p. viii; Rubin 1967, pp. 86 and 177; Suppes 1972, p. 128). This is the "smallest" of Cantor's transfinite numbers, defined to be the smallest ordinal number greater than the ordinal number of the whole numbers. Conway and Guy (1996) denote it with the notation omega={0,1,...|}. From the definition of ordinal comparison, it follows that the ordinal numbers are a well ordered set. In order of increasing size, the ordinal numbers are 0, 1, 2, ..., omega, omega+1, omega+2, ..., omega+omega, omega+omega+1, .... The notation of ordinal numbers can be a bit counterintuitive, e.g., even though 1+omega=omega, omega+1>omega. The cardinal number of the set of countable ordinal numbers is denoted aleph_1 (aleph-1).
I trust this will be enough to give some pause in the rush to dismissive judgement. KF kairosfocus
In kf's long repeat of things said many times before, and of things we agree about, such as the endless nature of the natural numbers, he says,
So, ordinary induction shows that we can chain a conclusion in a do forever, but always finite loop. It will be reliable for any finite value, but to point across the infinite endless ellipsis and conclude all natural numbers are finite is tantamount to saying that the endless tapes are endless but have only finitely remote points. But beyond ANY finite value no matter how high, there is an endless continuation. That endlessness does not vanish into finitude, it is there, and by force of logic there is a remote zone beyond any arbitrarily large but finite row number. One that we can in effect secondarily model as transfinitely remote.
This encapsulates the confusion. We all agree that there are are an infinite, endless number of further natural numbers past any arbitrarily large specific natural number k. However, I'm thinking the concrete metaphor of "endless tape" is perhaps confusing things, because there could be no real endless anything. I think we all understand well enough to couch things in strictly mathematical terms. We all agree, I think, that
1. The set of natural numbers is infinite (the tape is "endless"), the primary reason being that it can be put in a 1:1 correspondence with proper subsets of itself. 2. For any natural number k, there are an infinite number of further natural numbers greater than k. ("beyond ANY finite value no matter how high, there is an endless continuation") 3. Any particular natural number k is finite.
Here's where we disagree: kf says, that to conclude that "all natural numbers are finite is tantamount to saying that the endless tapes are endless but have only finitely remote points", and he rejects this conclusion. However, this is the conclusion we hold. Adding to statements 1, 2, and 3, above, we add
4. All natural numbers are finite.
Instead, kf says
by force of logic there is a remote zone beyond any arbitrarily large but finite row number. One that we can in effect secondarily model as transfinitely remote.
Now one can interpret this in two ways. If he means that for every k there are an infinite number of further natural numbers greater than k, then he is merely repeating point 2 above. However, he seems to mean something more. In Dave's language (minus the tape metaphor) kf seems to be asserting that 5. There exists a number X (or numbers) in the set of natural numbers such that for every natural number k, X is greater than k. X would then be a number in the "transfinitely remote zone", and would be an example of a natural number that is not finite. Given that kf says his conclusion follows by "force of logic", it would be appropriate to focus on simple statements such as I have presented in order to follow his logic. So, simple question to kf. Does statement 5 adequately represent, in mathematical language, what you mean when you say "there is a remote zone beyond any arbitrarily large but finite row number. One that we can in effect secondarily model as transfinitely remote." Aleta
DS, My point is that there are endlessly more onward members than any specific finite value as proved not merely asserted. Just one more is not enough. And in a context where symbols are loaded, answering y/n to a loaded question is not sensible. The difference in context has to be explained. And that is in part why I am looking to the concrete case to illustrate many features of the problem. If you cannot see why there are endlessly remote rows of the sequence beyond any finite k no matter how large on the primary sense of infinite, then there is a problem. Long before we parse: for all n there exists . . . and get into debates on the existential import of all vs there is at least one etc. Which goes all the way back to the issue that, suitably understood, there is validity yet to the classic square of opposition, cf the discussion at SEP. KF kairosfocus
466 KF This
0,1, 2 . . . k, k+1, . . . [Ellipsis of endlessness] . . . w, w+1, w+2 . . . w+g . . . [ mount on up to epsilon-zero etc]
is just non-sensical. You don't cross a line and get infinite values when counting up naturals one at a time. "mount on up to epsilon-zero, etc"? What? Followed by
where the interval (0,1) — open — can for contemplation be catapulted in to fill in between w and w+1 etc using mild enough infinitesimals and the 1/x hyp function, at least as an exploratory model. This seems to allow unification of the transfinite zone, at least as a suggestion to be looked at.
makes no sense either.
A key issue is the nature of ordinary mathematical induction which sets up a case 0 or 1 then hangs the chaining implication C-k => C-k+1, and infers therefrom to all cases in succession. Or sometimes the all in succession is presented as simply all cases. What actually is entailed operationally is a do forever successively incremented loop with finite stage increments. The implication with a running range stepping k to k+1 and hanging on a first case entails that. So, at some stage we have an ellipsis of endlessness and we point across what we cannot actually span in steps.
See, you have this notion that all of a sudden you're going to traipse into the infinite when incrementing step-by-step. And that just doesn't happen. As you've been told over and over.
In this context, when I hear complaints oh you are vague, I see that as such is given in the face of specific cases, explanations and terms, we are dealing with conceptual gaps that reflect a break between paradigms.
It would help if you used the accepted mathematical paradigm instead of interpreting it in your own way!!
What we have is that in the near, infinitesimal neighbourhood of 0, there is a cloud of values that by using y = 1/x as a hyperbolic catapult, can be projected to a transfinite, hyper real zone, including mile posts at whole number values. And by simple addition, such an infinitesimal cloud can be shifted to the neighbourhood of any particular value we please.
What? I'm sorry but your use of terms, your misinterpretations of common, accepted mathematical concepts, constructs and procedures and your inability to answer daveS's question after repeatedly being asked to do so makes this discussion extremely frustrating. I get that you think that either gradually getting bigger or gradually getting smaller eventually 'catapults' you into the 'transfinite' but that is just not true. Sets can be infinite, values arrived at by stepwise increments are not. If you want to deal with hyper-real numbers then you'd best do so properly and using standard arguments and notation. ellazimm
KF, All that typing, even including a PS on logical matters, but you still refuse to tell us which of:
1) ∀ n ∃ C P(C, n) 2) ∃ C ∀ n P(C, n)
you subscribe to! I was going to address some of your claims in #466, but it's so full of misconceptions, that's an overwhelming task. Sorry KF, it really is. Maybe I'll chime in later, but for now I'll leave it for others to respond to. daveS
Captcha has gone to images now! kairosfocus
EZ & Aleta: (& DS, attn HRUN . . . who needs to learn what has been pointed out several times but studiously ignored: that Mathematics sometimes advances by challenging the consensus so appeal to authority rather than the logic of structure and quantity, fails . . .), It seems I need to explain my perspective, providing my own summary of why I have concerns with the way the transfinite [Cantor's term of choice] has been discussed and operationally used. As a preliminary, please read 215 - 217 above . . . esp 217, and then . . . First, it is clear that this thread has long since established the main point in the OP, that there is a major problem in positing an endless past leading up to the present. Traversing the endless and completing such a traverse in finite stage steps is futile. Appealing to what is tantamount to it, is a fallacy. That's Spitzer's point in a nutshell. He is right, to end the endless is a self contradiction on the level of a square circle. The criteria for the one cannot be met while meeting the criteria for the other. And, the pink vs blue punch paper tape examples with rows of 5 +3 bit cells at 0.1 inch pitch make this issue concrete. Once the number of rows is endless, being punched into the tape all along its run, we can never advance to traverse the endless in finite stages. Run along the sprocket-holes sufficiently to get to ANY finite k, however large, and we face the problem that thereafter -- exactly because the tape runs on endlessly to the right hand side for convenience -- rows k, k+1 etc can be put into 1:1 correspondence with the un-moved but equally endless pink tape from rows 0, 1 etc. Endlessness is pivotal, and it provides an operational definition of what it means for the ordinal sequence of counting sets or numbers to run on without end and be transfinite. Let me illustrate for tapes: |0, 1, 2 === . . . k, k+1 [finite values] . . . ===> . . . |k, k+1 [finite values] . . . ===> . . . (matching 1:1) as well as for the set: {0,1, 2 . . . k, k+1, . . . } with w etc as successor in the transfinite zone: {0,1, 2 . . . k, k+1, . . . } --> w, w+1, w+2 . . . w+g . . . [ mount on up to epsilon-zero etc] [I quietly note on the surprise well above when the legitimacy of that continuation was pointed out: 0,1, 2 . . . k, k+1, . . . [Ellipsis of endlessness] . . . w, w+1, w+2 . . . w+g . . . [ mount on up to epsilon-zero etc] where the interval (0,1) -- open -- can for contemplation be catapulted in to fill in between w and w+1 etc using mild enough infinitesimals and the 1/x hyp function, at least as an exploratory model. This seems to allow unification of the transfinite zone, at least as a suggestion to be looked at. To see what this implies for descending from an endless past, simply reverse the tape. By logic, the same span now runs off to the LHS, and if the span cannot be traversed in 0.1 inch steps one way, it cannot be traversed the other way either. There is a major problem with worldviews that either have to pull a world out of non-being or else have to pull a world out of an endless, transfinite past to get to the present. In the course of such an issue being on the table, questions on the natural numbers and the claim that their span is transfinite but every particular natural number is finite and bounded came up. This has seemed at minimum paradoxical to me and much of the thread has circulated around this matter. A key issue is the nature of ordinary mathematical induction which sets up a case 0 or 1 then hangs the chaining implication C-k => C-k+1, and infers therefrom to all cases in succession. Or sometimes the all in succession is presented as simply all cases. What actually is entailed operationally is a do forever successively incremented loop with finite stage increments. The implication with a running range stepping k to k+1 and hanging on a first case entails that. So, at some stage we have an ellipsis of endlessness and we point across what we cannot actually span in steps. So, a lot hangs on the ellipsis of endlessness and the sub axiom of (often implicitly) pointing across it even though we may not span it in finite increment steps. And BTW, strictly, a sequence converging to a finite limit that is infinite is never actually completed absent "case infinity," it just converges closer and closer so it is useful to recognise that this never actually completes an endless process either. The moreso if the trend to the infinitesimal steps is such that the relevant series diverges, i.e. the set -- sequence -- of successive partial sums will at some stage exceed any arbitrarily large but finite value and thereafter will be forever beyond it, or else will oscillate without converging as does the sequence [-1]^n. Pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness is pervasive in modern mathematical praxis. So, long since it has been pointed out that there is a major difference between a sequence that is convergent on going to infinitesimal increments that beyond some member will always be within a delta neighbourhood of a limit, and one that diverges by increasing in finite stages, stepwise without limit so that it goes to endlessly large values. Zeno's paradoxes and kin have been off the table from the beginning. And it is relevant that the place value notation system is a disguised power series that goes on to endlessness, whether the focus is the fractional part or the whole number part. In this context, when I hear complaints oh you are vague, I se