Back to Home

UFO Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | UFO Discussion and Tracking | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
HTML Practice...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mark on December 11, 2001 20:47:00 UTC

So here goes a nice lengthy response...

>>>The idea that they swallowed is the definition of the limit. That definition is reasonable; it works; and as you know, is a fundamental part of the definitions of the derivative and the integral. No problem.>>The reciprocal of 0 is undefined. There is no way of defining it that does not lead to contradictions.>No. 'Undefined' does not mean 'infinite'. Come to think of it, though, that's not a bad idea. We should all agree that the term 'infinity' is undefined, and thereby disallow any use of the term. I would vote for that.>>Mark: But perhaps we can define "zero" within the context of George Cantor's transfinite numbers...(??)

Paul: I suppose you could do that. If you did, I am quite sure you would produce a number of antinomies, just as Cantor's definitions themselves did.>Mark: 1 - .9999999 = "almost zero but not just quite".>>What you are doing is confusing the notation


for the notation

.99999...>>The axiom of choice says something like, if you can come up with some algorithm for producing an element with ordinal number n+1, given the existence of an element with ordinal number n, then you can assume that such an element exists for any ordinal m>n. (Or something like that).

That is where I holler "W A I T a minute! You can't do that!" But all mathematicians do it anyway.>>As for physics, it appears at this point that everything in nature has a grainy texture if you get down small enough. Don't you think a grainy math might be better suited to physics than the smooth math with its troublesome singularities (infinities)? I rest my case.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins