Aleph Not, Aleph Shaday

[Huiou_Theou]

Well, today is Saturday.

I put the public domain algorithm with python links on the PF.
My thread at PF now gets an “invalid link” when I try to access it.

I don’t believe I violated their rules in any substantive way.

I isolated all comments to non-religious remarks; the only link to CAF was for the tutorial to download and install of Python; which itself has only an isolated link to the algorithm again. Since CAF enforces single post links, and always has, there can be no issue of it leading to the religious meaning – unless someone specifically circumvents the security measures I put in place…

As I dedicated the algorithm to the “public domain”; there can be no issue with copyright. And as R3Dsolutions is not HIRING anyone right now or for quite some time, it can’t even be an advertisement.

Let’s see if Google caught this little burp before it disappeared:
Google of course has the old thread up and until my posting of data disclosed in this thread already (Nice to have a backup, eh?). Be sure to click the pointer to the cached image on the right, and find the “cached” link – and click it. That helps google notice that this is an important thing NOT to flush out of their cache:
search terms are somewhere in the url “http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ums&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a”
The URL probably won’t work for you, but the idea is in there somewhere…

The answer is NO; (or at least they aren’t publicly releasing it ). PF blocked Google before it got a chance to cache the post I made this morning – which is essentially listing what I have already shown here in this thread (with no religious remarks included.); Does anyone else smell an unethical double-standard?

I wonder, I don’t have a Google account – Though my old Carnigie mellon pal, Jimmy Kuffner, supposedly works for them now. I’ll have to see if I can look him up and have a conversation about Googles alternate caches. I of course can run my web browser through a Google cache even if Google’s spiders are blocked; and can consentingly give Google access to my caches.

I’m still interested in people’s opinions of how I ought to proceed. At this point, I have delivered all I am going to do on the subject to the PF. But that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in people’s opinions about the philosophy of having such a conversation later; or in help with dealing with the “looking for a way to hang me” moderators at PF.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Had some time, here ya go, Houiou Theou.

upstel.net/~rooster/v-salute.html

Turns out your informant was more correct than my memory.

Thanks Dave, I appreciate the link. I’m glad that MY memory is working for once.
What I find most stunning is how easily a person like you, or I might admit something like that – but on the Physics Forums, it’s like pulling teeth;
It seems like 25% of the people there have moderator power, and $6/hr babysitter attention span – and it’s serious overkill.

I am beginning to talk to people in private messages to see if I can make any friends.
I did predict the thread would be closed… OHM! OHM! OHMega-alpha-OHMega!
I don’t think this is salvageable, but I’m going to try anyhow.

So far, in just asking the question about where my algorithm goes wrong (eg: what number it doesn’t list), my first QUALIFIED respondent has said (paraphrase) – it’s obvious you can’t even enter the sqrt(2) in, so it can’t do it and it doesn’t appear you are interested in learning or in believing criticism is valid; (You have been told over and over and … )

(You saw the google thread ?? there weren’t enough responses for me to be told anything over and over…! eisegises! Gezhuntite! (sp??)
But this guy was cordial in his responses, and I DO respect that. He was almost as nice as you when you wiped me out on the meaning of Alleluia! ! )

I have tried to respond by pointing out something obvious (perhaps I’ll learn something un-obvious???!!) eg: If his argument prevents a proof/example, then WHY does Aleph Naught say there can be a 1:1 matching between counting numbers and counting numbers ?

I mean – not even all counting numbers can be entered into a computer either…

eg: 1–>1, 2–>2, 3–>3, 4–>4, … 100–>100, 101–>101, etc. etc. etc. and so forth.

It’s trivial, but isn’t it obvious to you that there are many really GROSSLY big counting numbers? Like, how about the one found by the expression 10100000000? (100 million zeroes after a 10…); It tends toward the idea (10**x) lim x->infinity.

None the less, I “Andrew F. Robinson”, I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the UNLIMITED counting number exists … and I even know what all the digits are going to be … and I KNOW ALSO that the SAME algorithm on my computer using the decimal class in Python is CORRECT for even THAT number of digits. (Just don’t ask me to type them in, I get finger cramps easily…)

So, I’m thinking if he is going to argue my algorithm is invalid, then isn’t it legitimate for me to argue that Aleph Naught is invalid? (Bugbladder beast mathematics? OR )

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3007/tryagainak3.gif

Let me ask you this:
I am pondering if I should forward to him the beginning of the entry of sqrt of 2; because it is SOOOOO clear what I am doing – I can enter sqrt(2), just not all of it into my algorithm.

import sigfig
Enter a decimal signature:1
The index count is: 2
Enter a decimal signature:1…
The index count is: …2
Enter a decimal signature:1.4…
The index count is: …42
Enter a decimal signature:1.41…
The index count is: …1042
Enter a decimal signature:1.414…
The index count is: …401042
Enter a decimal signature:

Notice, the answer does not CHANGE digits, but it does grow with more information about the sqrt(2) that is entered. Isn’t that fair? If (2)**0.5 can have many digits, why not the index which counts it?

This guy is supposed to be a math genius and even writer of stickys.
There is no wrong answer, but as a random generator – would you indulge me in answering “send it” or “don’t send”?

What would Spock do in a forum of i’m-pure mathematics?


–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

And more saga…

I guess I am in decent company with respect to persecution. The same two people I have been trying to talk with over what they did to me are criticizing Marilyn Vos Savant (The woman with the HIGHEST IQ score in the WORLD) without taking into account the differences between how men and women approach problems.

Here on CAF, I am continuing to ask others to help me in navigating the social and logical argument issues of apologetic in the scientific fields.
So, before going live on PF again, I’d like to give people a chance to give me constructive criticism to avoid doing something apparently stupid apologetically.

I am attaching to this post a MarilynCasinoPack.py text file. It’s a game script.
(Use a text editor to read instructions, and be sure to rename the file without the .txt extension so python can run it – see above posts.)

The program is very relevant to the OP, though subtly. See the extensive program comments if you have doubt. ( If you swore off gambling for Lent, sorry about the temptation. I may be releasing another version after Easter anyway… check back… )

I am planning to show at least part of the program in the Marilyn thread to see how far the (?de?)mentors will go in order to not acknowledge even the SLIGHTEST bit that Marilyn might have a defensible case !!!

I think most people know there is a problem the moment the woman says (paraphrase) “A woman HAS A RIGHT to change her mind, even if EVERY time.”
But Marilyn’s Feminine logic takes it to a whole new level in the Casino games.
Eg: Her three shell game with a feminine (paraph)“change of mind” approach first debuted over 20 years ago. I didn’t respect her reasoning back then.

Don’t get me wrong, I NOW respect Marilyn very much – but those I am talking with apparently don’t and are interfering with me about the real question.

Today, I am of a different mind. For example I encouraged my niece to go to an all GIRLS college for her education. It is very plain to me that women do better in that type of environment, and esp. in their carriers after college.

I really DON’T feel bad that a woman who gets the absolute lowest score on the entrance exam / PSAT / NMSQ, etc. get’s admitted to colleges like Standford, or Oxford, etc. and absorbs from the scholarship pool ( even if it IS a multiple guess test that one doesn’t actually have to do the work on ).

I think scientists need to really STUDY communication skills (esp. between men and women) and strive for “improvement based outcomes” before they PUBLICLY go willy nilly ramming academic tradition down every woman’s throat. (Really, I mean it.).

That’s why I think it a mistake to say a woman who changes her mind has made a “common psychological mistake” without distinguishing between the way a woman approaches a problem, (and speaks with another woman AS woman to woman) – vs. a man judging her as just illogical psychology (eg: specifically judging the woman herself.)

I believe with Pythagoras that irrational CAN be right. (If you don’t believe me, Google site: physicsforums.com “Marilyn Vos Savant”
and then search the thread for “psycho”(?sp?) by a mentor there. Please don’t prejudge him. This isn’t over.)

I’d like to give kudos to the moderators here on CAF (which NOTE: are equivalent in power to the MENTORS on PF) – here they don’t generally judge people’s psychology in a thread setting; eg: I mean, they tell us (and rightly so) – attack the premise, not the person.

If you disagree with me, well – I can accept that. But I’m just not the kind of man who likes to see a woman double teamed in public and berated for her psychology.

I think men and women can come to a consensus about these things; It is better for a woman to go to an all women’s college, it is legitimate to accept a low scoring woman into an ivy league college (with honors and scholarship in preference, even, to other boys). But most of all, in the MarilynCasinoPack.py – I want to demonstrate that being able to change one’s mind increases the number of winners in the world.

Play the three shell game; see what I mean. Marilyn maintains that if someone removes an empty shell from a three shell game AFTER a woman has chosen a shell, that letting her change her mind is appropriate in order to increase the odds.

Note: a shell game of three shells is 1/3 chance of winning.

Now, as a man – I’m SIMPLY NOT going to dispute with Marilyn that being able to change her mind after seeing a loosing shell INCREASES the chance of winning.
(The PF mentors are dangerously close to doing so.)

The first time I saw the game, I didn’t fully do the women change their mind thing – psychic power – whatever. Rather, I took a coin, and flipped it to decide between the two remaining shells; and I THOUGHT I had distinguished the moot communication point in her statements.

Sure enough, 1 out of 2 shells by coin toss is 50/50 odds of winning.

But, I do value NOW that affirming Marilyn is right; she said nothing wrong – eg: when a woman changes her mind between two shells – the ODDS are higher than 1/3 that she will win a prize.

But, this is also a-priori odds vs. a-posteriori odds, and that’s what I’m trying to discuss on PF.

Please, if you tell me this issue is the same as the philosophy question “If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to see it, does it make a sound?”

I will respond, “No it isn’t a moot point”; When you told me the question, I saw a tree in my imagination – and my auditory circuits registered an imagined sound.

Now WHERE DO YOU get the right to call me a NOBODY??? That’s a gratuitous insult. (That, my friend, is the problem with having a high IQ as man or woman.)
–Andrew.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

And more saga…

I guess I am in decent company with respect to persecution. The same two people I have been trying to talk with over what they did to me are criticizing Marilyn Vos Savant (The woman with the HIGHEST IQ score in the WORLD) without taking into account the differences between how men and women approach problems.
…
I believe with Pythagoras that irrational CAN be right. (If you don’t believe me, Google site: physicsforums.com “Marilyn Vos Savant”
and then search the thread for “psycho”(?sp?) by a mentor there. Please don’t prejudge him. This isn’t over.)
…
But most of all, in the MarilynCasinoPack.py – I want to demonstrate that being able to change one’s mind increases the number of winners in the world.

Play the three shell game; see what I mean. Marilyn maintains that if someone removes an empty shell from a three shell game AFTER a woman has chosen a shell, that letting her change her mind is appropriate in order to increase the odds.

Note: a shell game of three shells is 1/3 chance of winning.
…
But, I do value NOW that affirming Marilyn is right; she said nothing wrong – eg: when a woman changes her mind between two shells – the ODDS are higher than 1/3 that she will win a prize.
…
I will respond, “No it isn’t a moot point”; When you told me the question, I saw a tree in my imagination – and my auditory circuits registered an imagined sound.

Now WHERE DO YOU get the right to call me a NOBODY??? That’s a gratuitous insult. (That, my friend, is the problem with having a high IQ as man or woman.)
–Andrew.

Well that was rather long winded. The result that Marylin gives is very well known to anyone who has looked at probability in a college course and completely rejected by over 10,000 idiots who read her article (including 1,000 PhDs).

It’s a simple probability experiment. If P(X) is the probability of X being right, then

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2) = 1/3
• P(door 3) = 1/3

If you choose door 1, then

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2 & door 3) = P(door 2) + P(door 3) = 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3

Then door 3 is revealed as being empty. Thus,

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2 & door 3) = P(door 2) + 0 = 2/3

Since P(door 3) is removed from the guessing, this actually becomes

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2) = 2/3

Thus, by switching from door 1 to door 2, you have increased your odds of winning from 1/3 to 2/3. Note that it is an increase in winning by 50%, but the overall odds of winning is 2/3 compared to 1/3 with staying.

I do not believe this argument has anything to do with the way men and women think about problems or any type of gender arguments. It has entirely to do with people rejecting the actual solution because it is not intuitive at all.

You can read more about this at Wikipedia’s article, The Monty Hall Problem.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Well that was rather long winded. The result that Marylin gives is very well known to anyone who has looked at probability in a college course and completely rejected by over 10,000 idiots who read her article (including 1,000 PhDs).

It’s a simple probability experiment. If P(X) is the probability of X being right, then

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2) = 1/3
• P(door 3) = 1/3

If you choose door 1, then

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2 & door 3) = P(door 2) + P(door 3) = 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3

Then door 3 is revealed as being empty. Thus,

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2 & door 3) = P(door 2) + 0 = 2/3

Since P(door 3) is removed from the guessing, this actually becomes

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2) = 2/3

Thus, by switching from door 1 to door 2, you have increased your odds of winning from 1/3 to 2/3. Note that it is an increase in winning by 50%, but the overall odds of winning is 2/3 compared to 1/3 with staying.

I do not believe this argument has anything to do with the way men and women think about problems or any type of gender arguments. It has entirely to do with people rejecting the actual solution because it is not intuitive at all.

You can read more about this at Wikipedia’s article, The Monty Hall Problem.

This is the first Ive seen of this little puzzle

I feel this is a perfect answer, although there may exist real influence not completely in view at logical glance where chance and preferred outcome is in motion.

I will introduce 2 players.

Player A

Player A feels an intuitive sense that a history of 3 absolute optional choices throughout
life with 1 guess have in fact produced a negative outcome.

Player B

Player B feels an intuitive sense that a history of 3 absolute optional choices throughout life with 1 guess have in fact produced a positive outcome.

The challenge in guess represents a cumulative history of experience in such a proposition. The history in resultant is not impervious to odds with respects to the influence towards described and appointed mathematical perimeters.

The momentum of a fantastic prize justifies an appropriate consideration of history where,
the outcome in chance is further enhanced in expressing the perimeter, opposed to chance itself.

So…Player A…feels that the perimeters in the equation throughout history shows a bias
toward making the wrong choice when presented with the 3 door option…The logical course of action would be to detour from the logical approach in changing doors, and therefore in keeping with perimeter expression , hold on door number 1.
If…the prize was not substantial and was in equality with a set of mean average choice in the history of guess at three options…the change two door number 2 would be logical. The choice however in my view must be considered in the context of value in the car and historical data which in fact is not removed from the scheme in play

Reverse approach for player B…the intuitive winner would switch doors in the event of this grandiose prize…

I will say though…I would have to have pretty extreme notions of a good or bad history…but for sure…the wise approach is to include a fair consideration…

If you’d had good luck all day in everything and a history in mind of great luck where 3 options or the like were in challenge…your prob wrong or at least in a given circumstance of 1000 contestants with a perfect journal of history…the positive outcome in above approach would be in advantage…

The occasion is not indifferent to history I wouldn’t think and provides for logical approach where the outcome far exceeds the norm

In truth how would above under perfect circumstance be any different then the continuance of doubling down For player A …and vice versa

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well that was rather long winded. The result that Marylin gives is very well known to anyone who has looked at probability in a college course and completely rejected by over 10,000 idiots who read her article (including 1,000 PhDs).

It’s a simple probability experiment. If P(X) is the probability of X being right, then

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2) = 1/3
• P(door 3) = 1/3

If you choose door 1, then

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2 & door 3) = P(door 2) + P(door 3) = 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3

Then door 3 is revealed as being empty. Thus,

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2 & door 3) = P(door 2) + 0 = 2/3

Since P(door 3) is removed from the guessing, this actually becomes

• P(door 1) = 1/3
• P(door 2) = 2/3

Thus, by switching from door 1 to door 2, you have increased your odds of winning from 1/3 to 2/3. Note that it is an increase in winning by 50%, but the overall odds of winning is 2/3 compared to 1/3 with staying.

I do not believe this argument has anything to do with the way men and women think about problems or any type of gender arguments. It has entirely to do with people rejecting the actual solution because it is not intuitive at all.

You can read more about this at Wikipedia’s article, The Monty Hall Problem.

Hi Alberti!,

Excellent.

Yes, it was long winded. Part of that is due to my dealing with depression and medication. I’ll try to keep to shorter posts now that I have laid out the nuances in some detail.

You are correct, the question was rejected by many PHd’s, including some male deans at colleges who said things about Marilyn along the lines of her being an “embarrassment to academics” etc.

I don’t call these people idiots, (but I understand your expression ) for they have come into power , and real idiots don’t survive in power positions. That is part of what is going on at the physics forums which is upsetting; eg: the number of intelligent people in power who gang up mindlessly on others without so much as reading their argument carefully; or reasoning with them to teach.

It is easier to believe that colleges desperate for master’s thesis are purposely falsifying information in order to steal ideas, than to believe these people are idiots. There are many reasons, including military ones, to reduce certain ideas discussions’ in the international forums. There was, I believe, an espionage case within the last 10 years related to exactly this kind of leaking of military secrets. (not that I have any of those!)

Also – Some people WANT you to think they are idiots, and these people are called “Con artists” and cut-throats, and they laugh all the way to the bank.

Basically, there is an agreement going on “US v. THEM” with the moderators that is clearly leading to a situation where if someone of ignorance asks a question or makes a mistake – the moderators ignore it, and the post remains, and the thread eventually dies. But if someone actually says something intelligent, at least one of the moderators is going to have an adverse opinion and begin a destructive process.
I wonder if some of them are nothing more than teacher’s aids, sitting at boring jobs and using the computer… In psychology, an experiment on prision guard psychology was carried out – where some people were arbitrarily assigned the role of inmate, and others police. It was not expected how violent the experiment would go wrong after a handful of days of it running. (The experiment was stopped, and the ethics closely reviewed.) There is, I am sure, a temptation of moderators to take the “police guard” mentality position – when they are not trained in the danger of abuse of power.

To wit:
Notice, I didn’t ask this “micromass” anything in the Marilyn thread – I merely asked (did not condemn) a different moderator how he came to a certain black and white conclusion concerning Marilyn. But micromass has now invaded my space and is becoming confrontational again. Difusing the situation by submission will only lead to more of the same kind of re-enforced behavior.

What I find odd about Marilyn, is that my psychology teacher pointed out the vast majority of her detractors are men. ( and mostly, I think, it was because of how she phrased the answer.) Have you ever studied the differences in the mind between men and women concerning, for example, reactions to dangerous perceived situations for children? (It might be worth me looking it up if you haven’t).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

This is the first Ive seen of this little puzzle

I feel this is a perfect answer, although there may exist real influence not completely in view at logical glance where chance and preferred outcome is in motion.

Hi FurthurSuntime,
I am sure you are right; that’s part of why I got into the question on Marilyn in the first place. In the gambling program I wrote, the random generator is called the “Mersenne Twister core generator.” That generator by itself is something many people won’t even notice as a real but “hidden” influence.

As a quick aside (to you and to everyone); I’d appreciate feedback about my programming style and especially about how I commented the game, how readable the comments make it, and places I need to improve on. ( :sad_yes: ) You don’t even need to run the program, just download it into a text editor and read through it to be able to point out what parts of it are not well explained. Comments begin with the “#” character.

If you do choose to run the game script, perhaps you might also tell me how I could have made it more entertaining… ( ) I plan to give more programs away in the future, but I want them to be well received rather than forced.

forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=13156&d=1330392679

I will introduce 2 players.

Player A

Player A feels an intuitive sense that a history of 3 absolute optional choices throughout
life with 1 guess have in fact produced a negative outcome.

Player B

Player B feels an intuitive sense that a history of 3 absolute optional choices throughout life with 1 guess have in fact produced a positive outcome.

The challenge in guess represents a cumulative history of experience in such a proposition. The history in resultant is not impervious to odds with respects to the influence towards described and appointed mathematical perimeters.

You’re speaking about the three shell game (thanks!)… I am also interested in the 20x dice throw problem; Does this match your idea of ‘B’ 's kind of feeling of an underlying process?

physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3768909&postcount=85

[Marilyn Vos Savant thread. See link immediately above]
You can’t guess a set of digits in “advance”, and have it happen to that many places of precision, without it statistically finding a crook, or rigged dice. I Could, for example, take the random sequence on the right – and be safe in assuming that never in my lifetime I would see that exact sequence repeated in a gambling casino IN THAT ORDER. (I don’t gamble that much, but ask people who do… THEY would remember if they saw a streak of 1’s 20x long; That part is psychology. )

The momentum of a fantastic prize justifies an appropriate consideration of history where,
the outcome in chance is further enhanced in expressing the perimeter, opposed to chance itself.

I call that the gambler’s addiction !

In truth how would above under perfect circumstance be any different then the continuance of doubling down For player A …and vice versa

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “doubling down”; but what I do see is that a gambler who’s numbers show a high correlation with the desired outcome are some how related to the underlying process of “randomness”.

I understand “Randomness, or chance” to mean that one “does not know/predict” the cause. Not knowing doesn’t necessarily mean that a person can not know.

With Aleph naught, for example, I have the opinion that perhaps the author confounded “absence of proof” with “proof of absence”; eg: a vernacular example – “if jumping rope is all fun”, that doesn’t mean that “all fun is jumping rope”; However people (and the author of Aleph one ???) often appear to gloss over such mistakes. I think in part the reason is that often such propositions are in fact identites: “a is b” therefore “b is a”; again “The state is Oregon” is compatible with “Oregon is a/the State”.

Returning to your observation:
I think, in the movie “Rain Man”, with Dustin Hoffman playing an autistic savant is an excellent example of “Person B”. (or maybe even Dustin Hoffman himself as an actor…)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Multimedia stimulation…
Everybody loves this Raymond !!!
youtube.com/watch?v=PywldvsL63c&feature=player_detailpage

Excellent Marilyn:

QuoteCollection.com

Wie wir leben und lieben ...

www.quotecollection.com

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=picture+"Marilyn+vos+savant"&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hFu&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&biw=951&bih=538&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=y1GMCZXfZSu2rM:&imgrefurl=http://www.quotecollection.com/author/marilyn-vos-savant/2/&docid=SS_p0jwoBaqYfM&imgurl=http://www.quotecollection.com/author-images/marilyn-vos-savant-2.gif&w=286&h=331&ei=zO1PT7_JMcSsiQKO9M20Bg&zoom=1

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well, I think I have my basic answer – now. The question revolves around the idea of where does the money come from for the site, and where does the influence come from to attack certain positions gratuitously?

The first thing I’d like to note, is that the original code presented on this thread is now in circulation; and it’s a matter of time (GRIN) before people of sufficient academic background begin to consider it earnestly; I don’t have, for example, someone like Marilyn to give it a kick-start into a widely read public setting.

The second thing I’d like to note is how far the moderators are (and are NOT) going to attack Marilyn on the Physics forums. I’d like to note the smartest (to my inspection) of the moderators, Hurkyl, has broadened his views from earlier on in the thread and is someone who’s integrity is starting to show.

However, the moderator micromass is systematically attempting to remove any posts where I defend myself or Marilyn, or EVEN comment about what another poster declares is “on topic”. But nothing which attacks me or Marilyn, no matter how off topic is being removed. (It is time, therefore, to leave that thread, alone …)

This is a good example:
physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3814201&postcount=122

That post was not deleted although my reply to it was (I asked for the originating post to be removed out of consistency, but have gotten no reply; if it happens in the future, I’ll note it… but this is pretty predictable! );

The obvious issue is that the post points to an article trashing Marilyn on a similar note to the OP (but on a point that Micromass has supposedly banned in his post #103)

btw: POST 103 – is the post where Micromass has chosen to remove my defense against posters frivolously attacking me on my knowledge of the infinitive verb in ENGLISH and many other languages too – but he lets the attacks against me, stand. (I suppose I should be flattered, he must be rather afraid/annoyed with me…!)

Nearly every chance he gets; Micromass is trying to give me warnings, which then lead to infractions, etc. And do me damage … However, I feel better now – as he is the ONLY one actually doing this. Everyone else has sort of gone silent on the issue…

My reply to the above mentioned NEW attack on Marilyn, (which has some validity), was as follows:

I haven’t read the book; but I enjoyed the review somewhat.
I’m an analogical thinker; with due care to false analogies.
I don’t know that non-Euclidean geometries have direct application; but I am well aware that by 1:1 correspondence that they can be useful. Consistency is what is most important.

I would love to see more detail on Savant’s actual argument; For I couldn’t help but notice that your friend did a bit of straw man reasoning with the binary and decimal banter. They aren’t inconsistent in the same sense that the Geometries would be.

Savant’s being unwilling to make a new edition of the book which takes into account peer objections is the largest issue that your friend truly has the rights on. That being said, care in attacking her would be prudent. Straw man arguments that are obvious will undoubtedly be noted by her fans; and give her grounds to disregard the critique.

Savant, even according to your friend – did locate a gap in the theory; although it may not have been her personal discovery ( I am unclear on the details ). …

Overall, if I understand the events your friend is describing – Marilyn was the catalyst which goaded one of the important four into CORRECTING the error/gap in the proof.

So, drivel isn’t exactly applicable … for without her “drivel” nothing would have been improved? But for a true mathematician, that’s what it is all REALLY about, isn’t it?

http://www.physicsforums.com/images/smilies/angel.gif

So, you decide – Is he being biased, or not? (I’d love to hear your opinion, even if it is against me… I really don’t mind. )

Perhaps I should start a new thread on the ethics of the site; but I’ll leave the question open here for the moment.

There are a few possibilities that cross my mind:

1. PF earns money from colleges which advertise through them; Hence they are tempted to use utilitarian ethics when it comes to providing a site which tempts colleges to advertise.
2. Student’s often cheat by using an internet site; Giving false answers catches cheaters.
3. Giving away solutions for free diminishes the need for colleges. In essence, being cruel to needy people would increase the number of people attending college to obtain the same information.
4. The site is funded by someone(s) wishing certain views in science to prevail; it is a front for a megalomaniac (or 10).
5. … OTHER??? (Perhaps mental immaturity in a few people who have power…, would a site like that pemit such people to have power…!? )

Shalom! Peace be with you…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Just an after-note:
The actual algorithm I listed will be considered by the mathematical community to list only “finite” reals; They do have a reasonable argument – but one which also has some flaws that I can see. I have actually found someone with enough patience to work through the problem – but not on the PF; rather on another site.

There is an issue of what constitutes (if I understood the vocabulary correctly) an open and closed set; and the point I was concerned about regarding the equality of 1.0 and 0.999999 also has a surprising side effect as I was concerned about at the start of the thread.

For reals which are the limit of an infinite sequence of digits*place values, the computer listing will be considered inadequate. For example, there is no such thing as an infinite integer, so it’s not possible to index it’s location in the output of the program by using an integer. Secondly, a set constructed as all chops of the number “pi” such as:

{ 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.1415, … }

Will be said to not contain “pi” unless the value is explicitly added to the set; and the reason given is that every step is finite, and the next step is finite – so all steps must in fact be finite.

However, when I try to do 1:1 correspondence based on the number of digits, I have found that there is a reasonable argument which shows that the number pi does not have to be in the construction, but it “can” be in the construction naturally as a consequence of listing all possible choppings, and threfore what is happening is that it is being defined out of the set by an assumption people are making that is un-necessary. (For example, a set is NOT a series – and series have integer indecies – which can’t be infinite… hence this has a tendency to prevent any sequence from containing PI, but it doesn’t stop a set with natural order imposed to have PI…)

I’ll list that proof, and it’s implications, when I have it worked out so that even a high school student can understand it… And I can make it clean and pretty!

This problem I have been shown doesn’t negate what I have done, but it does mean I have more to do.

I hope to be able to provide a more formal proof of the original issue (if it’s possible, and I still think it is!) that there is only one infinity in the mathematical sense that humans are capable of “computing” toward. (God, excluded… of course!)
–Shalom!

 

[Anselm33]

I have been having a mathematical (and therefore philosophical) conversation on a physics website about the idea of “infinities” beyond “infinities”, or Aleph One, Two, and so forth.
Of course, if I mention God There – my thread will be locked; and now I find myself being threatened with having a thread locked by someone who may have a serious conflict of interest when I am speaking about something purely mathematical but which was first given to me in High School in a movie which made comments about the pope, God, and how this aleph thing is tied up in a proof or another. I sometimes wonder if it is the Stalinist concept of God… or whatever.

This is one of those conversations I would normally have with my brother, John, for he is formally trained in those subjects.

But, I wonder sometimes if it is a sign from God that they chose the first letter of the Hebrew Alphabet for this particular subject. I forget the German’s name who attempted to name the first infinity “Aleph Not (0)” אֵ ; For that letter happens to be the “alpha” of “THE” alpha and the Omega; in Hebrew it just means “The”;

I recall thinking El-Shadday was “God almighty” – but it is really just “THE almighty” in literal translation.

Spock of Star Trek does a live long and prosper hand gesture which is HALF the letter “Shin” for “Shadai” – as in, “Almighty” in the blessings of Jewish Rabbis.
So, here I am having a conversation with something of a bully on a physics website about whether or not I can count all the real numbers. I think I can, I have been more than kind in listing out where an issue might be – and I find myself threatened to prematurely reveal the answer; when if the man was more patient I might even have given him a better answer; By now, those on this website know I don’t joke, and I don’t try to be cruel. But I really wonder, should I give this fellow a partial answer this early or not?

His exact words to me were: (one sentence, no copyright infringement possible – Google does know about it already…)
“Please give the algorithm in the next post or this thread will be locked. Don’t play games with us. micromass.”

St. Thomas, did, indeed argue about the existence of God and infinities. Could this be a sign I should demolish something like Aleph not? (No god, poly god, what god?)

But, aleph not – I think – really will be replaced by Aleph shadai; it’s just a matter of when. Perhaps leaving God out of it for the moment, (though I am no atheist…) is the appropriate approach, but what do you think, should I give this simple method to him right NOW to count every possible decimal number, or should I refine it first?
Is it appropriate to be bullied by someone and give the lesser of an answer when a better one might be yet found? (I am looking for friendship – and he is acting like a bully.)

Here is how I would count all the possible reals using counting numbers:
(Next post, so the proof will be here – uneditable except by CAF – first.
Google is sure to find it though… )

You’re referring to Georg Cantor, who used his formulation of set theory to give a rational basis for infinity. See Rudy Rucker, “Infinity and the Mind” and also Adam Drozdek’s article, "Beyond Infinity: Augustine and Cantor" and my blog,