No one in sci.logic is easier to parody than George Greene, perhaps the most emotional logician who ever lived. Look, it's good to have an opinion or two, even a strong opinion or two, but at some point, one should get counseling. Nah, just kidding. Usenet is just Usenet and being a jerk doesn't mean much of anything, right?
Even being a complete and utter asshole is acceptable, nay, de rigeur. Especially when you have truth on your side. Doubly so when you are the only one in the world who has ever had truth on your side. Thus, let us sit back and enjoy George Greene Dissociated .
Warning: When George finally snaps and bad things happen, the Feds will probably confiscate my computer and scan the Apache logs. Anyone who reads George Greene Dissociated rather too often will likely be flagged a "person of interest". Continue at your own risk!
George Greene: Asshole ExtraordinaireYou actually run this process to infinity, and THIS is what you get at the end: you get at the accumulator WAS ALWAYS CAPABLE of holding ACTUALLY INFINITELY many marks, which then represents an infinite number. You then say: GG>"But he then IS going to allow an infinite string of |'s in it IS STILL POSSIBLE to generate the previous level. In particular we are NOT EVEN TRYING to talk about THE CONSEQUENCES of OUR AXIOMS. OBviously we canNOT have a coherent definition of potential infinity, it does NOT make them any less TRUE, Phool. The fact that you thought they were and are not "dialectic" at all; a function is just not like that. But you CAN have equations as axioms. So you HARDLY need to be "successor(.)" which is generally going to tell me you posted yours BEFORE you saw mine. I CANNOT *FATHOM*HOW* I got to say mine, and get a bunch of idiotic gibberish about "marks", while you said THE SAME THING -- almost, anyway -- and got agreement! My sets had much better names -- you are claiming to accept things that are perfect square natural numbers, each represented as A STRING OF IDENTICAL marks, which you have NOT yet stored a value. It is EASY to refer to them WHEN THEY EXIST. The problem was, the set in question *was N*, and in THAT universe that IS infinity. The thing YOU WANT TO CLAIM, AND EVERYTHING IN HEAVEN AND HELL BESIDES, for as long as there is no largest natural) for you to allege that it is an accumulator with a series of marks (or, as WE write it, of applications of s(.)). But there is a set of size TWO whose elements are just those 2 sets! Better yet, by choosing those sets to be POTENTIALLY infinite rate, Phool? My point being that if the mistaken thinkers are people who CLAIM, as YOU claim, to RESPECT reasoned argument. So something, here and now, in THIS scenario, is NOT adding up. I'm not doing that here, Phool. You are. Unfortunately you are talking IN HERE, YOU should be trying to talk about potential infinity any more, except for a few old soldiers like Andrew Boucher and Eric Schechter). Another good reason for you to yell "dishonest" and STICK TO THE POINT, the whole discussion so far accumulated, AT ALL times; that would allow us to distinguish one from the other. Formally, x=y<->AP[Px<->Py] Between predicates, equality is coextensionality, that is, P=Q iff they agree on every object in the universe. Formally, P=Q<->Ax[Px<->Qx]. Phil originally attributed a proof to Cantor about "the set of the n natural numbers that doesn't contain 7. But if you can have a specific upper bound. EVERY finite set of natural numbers has the property that its largest element of F" IS a pre-requisite! What Moe has shown you here, Phil, is NOT a VALUE. "potentially infinite" applies to an outcome of the set of all naturals" but we are interested in a simpler way than the other people in the universe. Formally, P=Q<->Ax[Px<->Qx]. Phil originally attributed a proof of one argument can and does take EVERY LAST one of the original sets! Of these two sets, the one that the screaming is about simply does not mean that *I* have shifted between subjects. The fact that he cannot even UNDERSTAND the axiom. Despite all that, HE HAS been operating in (or near, as near as he can understand it) the ZFC framework, BECAUSE YOU (and MoeBlee and other) presented proofs in that framework. We have NOT yet stored a value. |
For an explanation of how this page works, see this. For more dissociated entertainment, visit James S. Harris dissociated. He's a better writer than me.