13957Re: Infinite primes-> a Turing Machine prime sieve that never stops?
- Nov 4, 2003--- In email@example.com, Roger Bagula <tftn@e...> wrote:
> The concept of "infinity"I don't know if "the concept of infinity" can be proven, but
> is a Platonic ideal.
> It can't be proven.
statements about transfinite numbers can be.
> It is a limiting axiomatic definition (asymptotic).Which is irrelevant to the philosophical argument.
> So arguing if such an such types of infinity
> exist , makes sense only if the limiting
> case is assumed to exist in the first place.
> Mathematics can be defined as two cases:
> 1) numbers where infinity is defined
> 2) numbers where no infinity is defined or definable as
> being a non-operational definition
> ( it crashes Mathematica, ha, ha... )
The number 3^100 cannot be represented exactly in most versions of C,
and pi cannot be represented exactly in any language I know of without
taking shortcuts. Does this mean neither exists?
> It is a philosophical distinction outside of normal mathematics.No, they're just plain false (and I believe that can be shown from
> Called since Gödel's time "metamathematical" statements/ arguments
> after it was realized that a philosophical threshold
> existed in certain kinds of proofs.
> Statements like :
> 3) Aleph1=2^Aleph0
> are outside of ordinary mathematics.
ZFC, though I wouldn't want to try from scratch).
Assume Aleph1=2^Aleph0. This implies that there is a mapping from the
Aleph1 real numbers onto the base 2 logarithms of the Aleph0 integers.
However, there are only countably many such logarithms (since there
are only countably many positive integers for them to be logarithms
of). This is a contradiction (and I'm sure it can be stated much more
formally). I would agree that the integers are a proper subset of the
base-2 logs of integers, just as the primes, perfect squares, and
numbers evenly divisible by 100 are proper subsets of the integers.
However, all those sets are countably infinite.
> The algebra of transfinites is really a form ofNot quite the case.
> metamathematics invented and outside ordinary mathematics.
> It has it's own axiom system and rules.
> The idea of an infinite prime would have to beTrue.
> in this context and not in the context of finite primes at all.
> A lot of people don't like it pointed out that irrational numbersdepend on
> a statement like 3)By whom? And which proof? The diagonal argument? Care to name
> being accepted as an axiomatic definition.
> Like Euclid's product proof,
> Cantor's proof of transfinites is also widely faulted in
> modern mathematics.
someone who faults it?
> The result is you get philosophicalSo if I asked you to design a plastic that would work in a world where
> and nearly religious in tone arguments
> in mathematical forms like these egroups.
> At first I didn't realize that it was that basic a
> "postulate" , "axiom"
> "definition", but it has become clear
> that it is.
> I really don't like to get in such discussions,
> since math people seem to ignore any philosophical issues by defining
> them away.
> Axioms and definitions are an answer to all their thinking problems?
> As a physical scientist ( chemist, physical scientist)
> I'm not bound by those rules in my thinking.
the electromagnetic constant was 1/1000 of its present value, you
could, without starting from scratch? That's about the equivalent of
what you're asking us to do.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>