gabble
New Member
Posts: 24
Likes: 3
|
Post by gabble on Apr 28, 2023 20:50:28 GMT
From Mathematics ends in contradiction:6 proofs
Magister colin leslie dean
an integer(1)= a non-integer(0.999...) mathematics ends in contradiction
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdfor www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradictionmathematicians tell you that 0.999.. the 9s dont stop thus is not an integer ie is an infinite decimal.
but then say
because 1=0.999... then 0.9999.. is an integer
but that is a contradiction ie an integer= non-integer (1=0.999...) thus maths ends in contradiction With maths being inconsistent you can prove anything in maths ie you can prove Fermat’s last theorem and you can disprove Fermat’s last theorem gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/All-things-are-possible.pdfor www.scribd.com/document/324037705/All-Things-Are-Possible-philosophyyou can prove anything in mathematics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosionIn classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 28, 2023 21:10:10 GMT
From Mathematics ends in contradiction:6 proofs
an integer(1)= a non-integer(0.999...) mathematics ends in contradiction
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdfor www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradictionmathematicians tell you that 0.999.. the 9s dont stop thus is not an integer ie is an infinite decimal.
but then say
because 1=0.999... then 0.9999.. is an integer
but that is a contradiction ie an integer= non-integer (1=0.999...) thus maths ends in contradiction With maths being inconsistent you can prove anything in maths ie you can prove Fermat’s last theorem and you can disprove Fermat’s last theorem gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/All-things-are-possible.pdfor www.scribd.com/document/324037705/All-Things-Are-Possible-philosophyyou can prove anything in mathematics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosionIn classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion Show me wrong, if you can, but I claim that from two contradictory statements, nothing can be deduced; they cancel each other and provide no true knowledge. / I have read the Wikipedia article on the subject. I reject the arguments, but presently I have better things to do. sorry |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2023 21:45:30 GMT
From Mathematics ends in contradiction:6 proofs
Magister colin leslie dean
an integer(1)= a non-integer(0.999...) mathematics ends in contradiction
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdfor www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradictionmathematicians tell you that 0.999.. the 9s dont stop thus is not an integer ie is an infinite decimal.
but then say
because 1=0.999... then 0.9999.. is an integer
but that is a contradiction ie an integer= non-integer (1=0.999...) thus maths ends in contradiction With maths being inconsistent you can prove anything in maths ie you can prove Fermat’s last theorem and you can disprove Fermat’s last theorem gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/All-things-are-possible.pdfor www.scribd.com/document/324037705/All-Things-Are-Possible-philosophyyou can prove anything in mathematics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosionIn classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion In math analysis (unfortunately I don't remember by whom exactly) some definitions were accepted to be able to use functions. So, let's say 0+1=1 is almost the same as Ō+1=1, where Ō = (big number)/(quite less big number). Or in this: Lim(x→∞)1/x=0, or kinda where 1 and 0 are not static, but dynamic numbers, or function. Actually, this isn't something too wrong. As far as I know it comes from the idea of sets&functions. Let's say we've got a set of Natural numbers, and a set of elementary math actions as adding and equality. Then I got two options to write down "4" or to write down "2+2". Also, I may use variables to denote numbers for purposes. So, even ones bigger, than 10 equal 2n+8. Okay, but I also can write something like that n→n+1, mentioning, no matter how bigger n, there's n+1. That's the general idea of successors. Until we don't need to use strictly 1, 2, 3... we have half-logical notation, which is quite closer to our views. That's what is being used by 0.999... that is "equals to" 1. We could rewrite it in this way: Lim(x→{∞/∞};y→1)[x/y=1]. So, then x=y. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 29, 2023 15:47:13 GMT
To my non-mathematical professional self and kindred spirits: Here is a pie for the three of us. I do some measuring and then split it into three parts. Let's look at them: (1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3) = 1, an integer. Hence, you say, the 3 PARTS [or their digital/decimal forms, 0.33333"""+...] are an integer. ABSURD! three things are three integers/wholes, not one integer. [Pythagoras yells at us: you are confusing GEOMETRICAL/figure and ARITHMETICAL/counting numbers.]// A linguistic fallacy was committed; it is not the case that mathematics as such is self-contradictory; only people are.
|
|
