Thank you for being rational. As you can now see, thinking infinitity as a quantity whatsoever is against any basic calculus teaching. Is different in...
This is naive set theory darling. Thank you for your opinions directly expressed on my communication skills. I am sorry you don't understand set theor...
This is the condition to CONSIDER the 'singleton'(I trust you on the term) as the number one, but not to DEFINE it. Numbers are defined by a postulate...
This is the 'singoletto'(I don't know the English word, kind of 'single set') not of a number. The cardinality and ordinality are not at all variables...
Define explicitly a quality without presuming a quantity man, if you can. You will find you can not, and since quantity presupposes a relation, insofa...
Exactly. Nonetheless this DOES NOT MEAN NOR IMPLY infinity IS a quantity. Is a relation. I will open a thread about it, because it is UNBELIEVABLE tha...
This is false. Sets are based on RELATIONS(between something, i.e. a set, and its elements. The empty sets have a relation such that no elements belon...
Actually there is a HUGE difference between what you are saying and the actual way in which us in logic prove things. Your ambiguous use of the term '...
Since you said correctly that in the definition of limit the notion of infinity is hidden in the quantifier I think you are not confusing the limit to...
Actually the method of tables rely on the interpretation of the logical connective, in regards to enunciative logic. Modus ponens is indeed a complete...
it is non sense 'partially undefined'. But not at all. Considering a collection as an object is not considering a collection as finite. Infinite sets ...
Your argument rely on a naive epistemology. In fact your argument, except for the imprecise definition of universe and the wrong definition of time is...
You need to clarify your thought on set theory, because saying there exists no infinite set is incredibly wrong. And saying that Is not even wrong: it...
Very deep question Amadeus. You found a great issue which many didn't see: the problem of spatiality of sensation. Many just presuppose they are mere ...
Not at all: the possibility of deriving something effectively is what distinguish what we know and what we can not say we know. If your contention wer...
You keep changing a lot your mind or at least the way you express your thesis. Maybe is a good sign. Any theories you like which produces theorems by ...
Quantities rely on a relation i.e. parts external to one another. I think you keep confusing the RELATION which infinity is and the RESULTS of an oper...
You presupposes universe is the parameters of our relation with it. This is anthrpocentrism and anthropomorphism. Furthermore, saying universe IS a qu...
This presupposes the vision of other frames, because if you have a vision of just one instant you can not say anything different except spatially. Thi...
Citing Kant's clear, unbelievably ignored, account on this topic «Whatever the content of our cognition may be, and however it may be related to the o...
NUMBERS ARE NOT SETS That is a condition whose first member is a very big, but rather vague, assumption. The second member of the conjunction, i.e. nu...
What about the identification of new axioms of infinity in mathematical logic? Do you consider them new or just derived from the preceding ones? And w...
Hume does not say that would be a NEW idea, but that it would not correspond to an effective sensation. Thus, being an exception to his established ge...
MATHEMATICAL, PHYSICAL, LOGICAL INFINITY This are the two argument you set forth. I explain why they are incorrect. Mathematical infinity is RELATIONA...
GREETINGS First, I want to thank Devan for this and eventually others comments, which are always guided by a true inquisitive interest and great respe...
First you argue something like: "All obey to speed of light" "Speed depends on time" "Everything depends on time as it obeys to the speed of light". T...
Speed is distance divided by the time IMPLIED TO RUN THAT DISTANCE. This is not the Time you were talking about(a series) and not only this considerat...
You are adding a causal relationship that there is not in mathematical series, and that is not a mere order: it implies a difference in physical state...
I think this is implicitly a definition of beginning similar to that of Kant in the Dialectic: «Beginning of a thing is the recognized difference betw...
Well, I would say: if you think beginning as a l o c a t i o n in a certain instant, and not of a recognized difference in reference to an identified ...
It is a very interesting question. I suggest to you a lecture: the first Antinomy(abut the beginning of the world or not) in the Critique of Pure Reas...
Comments