You are not logged in.
we get a much nicer theory that allows us to do things. If you can't use your discrete system to preform science (and you can't)
Well I need not to do that, but at the very moment I use calculus, I only acknowledge it as a good approximation tool instead of fact.
Please prove that 1/a monotonically decreases (indeed, this is what you meant) on the nonnegative numbers
For gravity case, I can prove this.
What is gravity G at d=0? (Indeed here I assume /0 exists and I assume G=kMm/d*d holds for d>=0)
Then that gravity is not equal to any number, since if it is equal to G1, G1 goes with d1, and Gravity is the same as G1, but smaller than 4G1 obtainable. So from 0 to d/2, not monotunosly decreasing. G<4G, increasing
And secondly I can also prove G(0) is not smaller than any number
And conclusion is it is larger than any number, infinity.
"Not exactly, the law of gravity doesn't break. It's just that your formula, which follows Newtonian physics, is incorrect. It's an accurate approximation when you apply it to systems the size of planet or galaxies, but at the atomic level it is no longer accurate."
That makes the sense it breaks at micro level to me. Though I don't mean in macro level it is 100 percent accurate.
Yes in fact it is not correct even in macro level, but only in micro level do people find its incorrectness. And even it looks correct in macro level, it is doomed to show its incorrectness at micro level. It's like the last straw.
Pray tell, what do you mean by the word "theoretically"?
I mean in gravity formula when d=0 F=?
And another question, how much energy is needed to generate absolute zero degree?
Can you prove this? 1/0=infinity
Yes I can
through 1/a monotonically increases when a decreases, given a is non negative.
Thus 1/0 must be above any number because 0<a Again don't tell me you don't define 1/x when x is not 0, this problem happens in the context above.
"Do you deny their usefulness in mathematics? Do you deny that they have been used to solve problems, most notably in game theory?"
Very funny Ricky, I wish I don't mean to deny this, but could you possibly give out how real infinity is played in game theory? And probably it is the potential infinity at play. And again, game theory is only a theory, it doesn't mean reality. A use of infinity in it doesn't mean it exist in reality. Marginal price is prevalent in Economic theory, but it doesn't mean commodities can be cut to any small.
Why?
Because indefinite division is unabtainable through on-going finite cuttings.
Kant believes in general Zenon's paradox.
Since no one can give out when they finish counting infinite decimals, intuitionists don't believe this structure exists in reality. They have the reason to doubt if nature has ways to fiinish counting that too.
Again Ricky, find a philosophy of mathematics and do some reading, don't be so ignorant to think everybody agrees on your standard analysis textbook.
"then it would be a rather huge cosmic coincidence that things that work are founded on incorrect principles. I don't have enough faith to believe that to be the case."
Well I have, and I have given the example before and now. Microly anything is discrete, however macroly a simple formula describes the law more and more acurately.
Just to think you do not have pi when you have only ten water molecules at play, but the cylinder volume formula calculates well when you have tons of water molecules to form an approximate water cylinder in a glass.
"0/0"
Sorry it is Berkeley's paradox. This time you won't miss it.
I wonder is it a general rule that for integrating uv by part,
if shift v to d∫v gets the calculation even more complicated,
shifting u to d∫u will do the job??
I think pi/1 million will satisfy ganish's proposal.
(2+1/8)/100
=17/8/100
=17/800
6th is 1. perfect any power, isn't it?
"It just seems to me that many times in the past there were plenty of problems that were "un-defined" and we just added more definitions until we could do the problems. It's my understanding that Irrational, negative and Imaginary numbers we all rejected at one time, and yet no more. Why not do the same thing with 1/0? Create "ostentatious" numbers (my word)."
You really think the world in a simplified view like since Mr. Bush is president, everybody likes him.
Indeed, some mathematician accept surreals which includes infinity and infinitesimal, for real.
But the intuitionist only accept rationals.
Nevertheless, both of them are minorities, as you may guess.
In fact, a rational can mean two things, one is fraction, the other is simply ratio.
In the latter sense, 1/0 could happen theoretically, but in reality, it never did.
Just think of gravity formula G=kMm/r^2
If r takes zero, would the gravity be infinity? sure it would be.
But simply, simply, the gravity law breaks when r is small. Nature doesn't allow paradox.
I am just stating the first part of my article recently submitted to philosophy of science, I hope them like it.
1/0 if existed, it would be infinity.
But infinity is paradoxy. So 1/0 couldn't exist.
However, derivatives mean 0/0. (google Berkley Newton)
I think every country could split by parts with different pure ethnicities under the similar logic that Kosovo could split.
It is a dilerberate spot trying to weaken Slovia countries in order to weaken influence of Russia.
This is my point.
Kosovo was a state of Yogaslovia, and the Albarnians (forgive my typo) who lived their increased their poplulation by both a higher rate of birth and illigal immigrants from neighboring country Albania, which was less developed in that time. Under the new president, the conflicts between Albarnians and majority Serbians were no longer downplayed, he treated the rebels of Albanians harshly. And then in 1999, US president Bill Clinton called for punishment on South Slavia's (formerly Yogaslavia) "humanitarian crisis". And the war was launched. And you know who won. The president of South Slovia was brought to international jail in Holland. And he went to court all by himself, without a lawyer. After so many trials that couldn't bring him down, he finally died in jail by official cause heart attack.
That the Earth rotates around the Sun is not a theory
Well I should point out it is not a fact, but definately only a view point simpler than that the Sun rotates around the Earth, which is true as well. Think about it.
They just shoot a question whenever they need to, and then leave.
3. Odor is caused by the "special gel"
The odor is actually caused in somewhere else, in the upper back mouth.
Anyone who says this has not smelled decaying teeth. It may be a source as well, but it is not the only source.
____________________________________
This might not be exhaustive, but clearly the upper palley smells much worse than the tongue for most people. And this is enough. Regarding the teeth problem, brushing the tongue wouldn't help either.
You may be a good critic on my words, but you lost the main point.
"5. Immune systems in bodies without bacterial become autoimmune.
Simply put, when the immune system has no foes to attacks, it attacks friends.
Again, until positive evidence is put forth, this claim can be dismissed. If it were true, then doctors would be idiots for setting up sterile quarantines.
"
___________________________
Well, these was seen in a discovery documentory. Some one researched the common traits of alergic patients, and found most of them were raised in very clean environment. I did see this documentory, but again, I cannot give exact source. Neither does my library has medical archives.
I just suggest guys you put dig upto your upper jaw with your finger and smell the gel for yourself, and use a finger of another hand to scratch a little bit of your tongue. Compare and guess improve which can help you acheive a better breath.
True, some one doesn't have that gel, and true some one need to see the dentist before fixing the breath a minor problem, but for those of you do have the gel and with healthy teeth, you examine it for yourself. And you control your own wallet, not some salesperson or some science paper.
Hi guys. I just submitted one article to philosophy of science. Basically I argue arbitary fraction cannot exist.
Then I am sorry the original source isn't with me right now.
However I did provide a self examination - probe your upper jaw for its smell and do the experiment yourself. Have you done that before your denial on my statements?
Someone just throw the browned tasty chicken legs onto the grass to feed pigeons.
I mean, the cooked chicken legs. Pigeons eat that for lunch in boston common.
It is like we have monkey meat for lunch.
hmm... gross?
"The tongue has evolved to take such beatings. I'd like to see some evidence suggesting that brushing your tongue increases the risk of "loss of taste"."
evidence of any food that has the same beating as the tongue brush?
Evidence?
A discovery programme I watched sometime ago
""You mean the soft pallet? Can you provide a link to this "special gel"?"
It was Scientific America, 1-2 years ago.A simple "no" would suffice.
"
What if I find this article in the library??? Would you applogize, Ricky??
"Brushing anything violently is bad"
-so far all the "tongue brushes" are much harder than the tongue, let alone for the bare sensor cells. So brushing tongue is a violent action.
""when the immune system has no foes to attacks, it attacks friends." is a total fabrication. Only dysfunctional immune systems do such things."
-yes, but when an immune system has nothing to do, it can easily turn to a dysfunctional one.
"You mean the soft pallet? Can you provide a link to this "special gel"?"
It was Scientific America, 1-2 years ago.
Ricky, you just ignored the most important Proof 2.
And moreover, here comes Proof 3. The surface of the tongue is covered by mass taste sensor cells. Violently brushing it could result in loss in taste.
Proof 4. When not needed, always trying to kill bacteria isn't necessarily a good thing. Scientists have found the uproaring allergy cases in industrial contries may be the result for too strict cleaness. Simply put, when the immune system has no foes to attacks, it attacks friends.
Commercials always want to appear scientific, but actually many aren't.
Recently dent health industry start boasting a new toothbrush that can, not only brush teeth, but also brush tongue. Many brands claim that there are millions of bacteria in tongue that may cause odor and uncleaness of your mouth. But the truth is-your tongue is the Cleanest place in your mouth, where there is fewest bad bacteria. Just because a 3D video showing bacteria dots in the tongue doesn't mean you have to buy their overpriced and useless toothbrush to press it and make you sick every morning.
Proof? Number 1. The tongue is the source of saliva, and saliva can kill most of bacteria known to be harmful to humans. A emergency rescue book will tell you to spit some saliva to your wound when no medicine available. So, how can a place full of bacterica detergent the source of all bacteria?
Proof No. 2. The odor is actually caused in somewhere else, in the upper back mouth. 1/4 of humans have a special gel in this area to help filter the inhale after the nose. And this place, certainly, is the inner door to trap miscellaneous outside bacteria. More unfortunately, it has the least chance to receive saliva in the mouth. Many outside bacteria can multiply in this warm, wet and rich in food piece area and cause ordor.
You can do an easy experiment to verify my claim. Insert your finger into your mouth, palm facing up. And try to scrach a little bit of that gel in the roof. Yes there it is! And pull it out and smell. I guarantee you will smell the most disgusting thing in your life! I was almost dizzy when I smell mine.
The solution can come in various ways. You think it. You can brush that area but it could make you sick. Or you can raise your head when listering your mouth to take special care of that place, which is my habit.
BTW. If you haven't found that gel, it means you are among the fortunate people who normally don't need to worry about their mouth ordor.
Forget about the commercials, google truth.:D
" it's the only way that provides useful results"
Really? It seems the wrong method is the only method to describe the truth? Interesting. Still, I doubt the obsessive part to eliminate the residue error necessary or not.
"it can be proven that a set (we call them natural numbers) exists such that an "inductive property" covers all of them. This was Peano's 5th postulate."
Excuse me for a moment, on what basis does the ZCF and Peano's 5th postulate stand? Sheer logic? Or some unintuitive assumptions plus logic? Ironically, the assumptions themselves might be illogical. Hence, the whole rational may just start on an arbitary basis.
Why it needs to go so far as to distort a number as set of numbers in ZCF to get your "only" way to gain some results? Haven't you seen the absursity in it to introduce unnecessary clumsy assumptions similar to a white elephant?
And what is so wrong to go intuitive? After all, intuition observes the truth as best as possible. While arbitary assumption and definition coincide with the truth at best.
The link in 922 by thedude also tells few physicians believe in infinity and infinitesimal idealism. And they came up with results while disbelieving your only method. I guess at least they disagree with you, Ricky.
"But the way mathematics was constructed, was defined, they are not."
Yeah, mathematicians rather define something that has no reason to exist.
(I have a definition- I call a pair of numbers that each is larger than another and I call them George Pairs. I and my followers wrote textbooks, and don't care whatsoever that it can exist or not. How about this, Ricky?)
The set theory is just an excuse to hide a growing infinity into the definition of a number.
Mapping
On last page you have showed "mapping" from {1,2,3...} to {2,3,4,...}
But your only rational is to map 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4,..., you are using growing mapping and cannot control the whole set. Whereas I control the whole set and showed a different result.
Ricky you see, this is your problem. You always switch between a growing infinity and a static one:
Whenever someone challenges you the precision of something backed on infinity, you turn from growing infinity to static infinity.
And whenever someone (especially me) uses static infinity to challenge the internal logic bug of the static infinity itself, you turn to a growing method to "prove" your claim.