Positive Infinity forever
The following is correct math. Let N be a finite positive number, may be real. • Infinity > N • Infinity = Infinity + N • Infinity = Infinity - N • Infinity = N * Infinity But all of you, who play with that divine number: • Infinity - Infinity is NOT consistently definable. Trying that causes an immediate crash of the whole system. So pledge please ;-) -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Positive-Infinity-forever-tp4704632.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
Hermann. Can it handle infinty^infinity? Of course, you need unicode to display the answer. Craig -Original Message- From: [-hh] To: use-revolution Sent: Fri, May 13, 2016 1:55 pm Subject: Positive Infinity forever The following is correct math.Let N be a finite positive number, may be real.• Infinity > N• Infinity = Infinity + N• Infinity = Infinity - N• Infinity = N * InfinityBut all of you, who play with that divine number:• Infinity - Infinityis NOT consistently definable.Trying that causes an immediate crash of thewhole system. So pledge please ;-)--View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Positive-Infinity-forever-tp4704632.htmlSent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___use-livecode mailing listuse-livecode@lists.runrev.comPlease visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:18 AM, [-hh] wrote: The following is correct math. > Always a *dangerous thing to say.* > > Let N be a finite positive number, may be real. > > • Infinity > N > • Infinity = Infinity + N > • Infinity = Infinity - N > • Infinity = N * Infinity > > But all of you, who play with that divine number: > > • Infinity - Infinity > is NOT consistently definable. > > Well, which infinity? aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the integers/wholes/natural A1=2^A0, the count of the reals. For that mater 2^AJ=A(J+1) A1-A0=A1 Aj^n=Aj A0 is also "countable"; A1 and higher are not. Yes, I really took a course on that, from the master himself (Halmos) -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
Richard H. wrote > Well, which infinity? aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the > integers/wholes/natural A1=2^A0, the count of the reals. Craig N. wrote: > can it handle infinity^infinity? Of course, you need unicode to display the answer. Richard, I mean A0, and yes Craig, A0 and A1 are members of Unicode. For the advanced computation rules Richard cited, Kevin has first to introduce the "LiveCode continuum hypothesis". Perhaps right after the pledge is done? For the moment it is good enough that the integer 8 is followed by aleph zero (A0). Let him a possibility for stepping up, I am willing to accept the LC continuum hypothesis, that is to back one more pledge. But NOT 2^myLastPledge (which would be $340282366920938463463374607431768211456). === Richard H. > Yes, I really took a course on that, from the master > himself (Halmos) He was one of the greatest. Hope his lectures were as excellent as his books (but I read only three of these). -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Positive-Infinity-forever-tp4704632p4704642.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
Leave it to Hermann to pledge 2^(2^7) Craig -Original Message- From: [-hh] To: use-revolution Sent: Fri, May 13, 2016 4:04 pm Subject: Re: Positive Infinity forever Richard H. wrote > Well, which infinity? aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the > integers/wholes/natural A1=2^A0, the count of the reals. Craig N. wrote: > can it handle infinity^infinity? Of course, you need unicode to display the answer. Richard, I mean A0, and yes Craig, A0 and A1 are members of Unicode. For the advanced computation rules Richard cited, Kevin has first to introduce the "LiveCode continuum hypothesis". Perhaps right after the pledge is done? For the moment it is good enough that the integer 8 is followed by aleph zero (A0). Let him a possibility for stepping up, I am willing to accept the LC continuum hypothesis, that is to back one more pledge. But NOT 2^myLastPledge (which would be $340282366920938463463374607431768211456). === Richard H. > Yes, I really took a course on that, from the master > himself (Halmos) He was one of the greatest. Hope his lectures were as excellent as his books (but I read only three of these). -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Positive-Infinity-forever-tp4704632p4704642.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
Well then it's not infinite is it? So everything else falls flat after that. :-) Bob S On May 13, 2016, at 11:30 , Dr. Hawkins mailto:doch...@gmail.com>> wrote: Let N be a finite positive number, may be real. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
Doc Hawk, I'm envious that you took a course from Halmos, but I question what is probably a typo. "Dr. Hawkins" wrote: Well, which infinity? aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the integers/wholes/natural A1=2^A0, the count of the reals. For that mater 2^AJ=A(J+1) A1-A0=A1 Aj^n=Aj A0 is also "countable"; A1 and higher are not. Yes, I really took a course on that, from the master himself (Halmos) -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 -- -- Message: 8 Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 15:24:03 -0400 Sent from my iPhone > On May 13, 2016, at 6:03 PM, use-livecode-requ...@lists.runrev.com wrote: > > For that mater 2^AJ=A(J+ For that mater 2^AJ=A(J+1) ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
(Try again, apologies for accidentally sending) ... typo When you said " 2^AJ=A(J+1)" I wonder if you meant "2^AJ >= A(J+1)" To many that may seem like nit-picking, but it is a NIT. However, if you MEANT what you wrote, then it is a YUGE NIT. It would mean that someone (Halmos?) found an extension of ZFC that trumps (sorry) Cohen's independence of CH. Is that the case? > On May 22, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Mick Collins wrote: > > Doc Hawk, > I'm envious that you took a course from Halmos, but I question what is > probably a typo. > > "Dr. Hawkins" wrote: > > Well, which infinity? aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the > integers/wholes/natural > > A1=2^A0, the count of the reals. > > For that mater 2^AJ=A(J+1) > > A1-A0=A1 > > Aj^n=Aj > > A0 is also "countable"; A1 and higher are not. > > > Yes, I really took a course on that, from the master himself (Halmos) > > -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 -- ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
Having fairly recently done a PhD in set theory, I can confirm that the independence of the continuum hypothesis has not been refuted! On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:50 AM Mick Collins wrote: > (Try again, apologies for accidentally sending) > ... typo > When you said > " 2^AJ=A(J+1)" > > I wonder if you meant > "2^AJ >= A(J+1)" > > To many that may seem like nit-picking, but it is a NIT. However, if you > MEANT what you wrote, then it is a YUGE NIT. It would mean that someone > (Halmos?) found an extension of ZFC that trumps (sorry) Cohen's > independence of CH. Is that the case? > > > > On May 22, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Mick Collins wrote: > > > > Doc Hawk, > > I'm envious that you took a course from Halmos, but I question what is > probably a typo. > > > > "Dr. Hawkins" wrote: > > > > Well, which infinity? aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the > > integers/wholes/natural > > > > A1=2^A0, the count of the reals. > > > > For that mater 2^AJ=A(J+1) > > > > A1-A0=A1 > > > > Aj^n=Aj > > > > A0 is also "countable"; A1 and higher are not. > > > > > > Yes, I really took a course on that, from the master himself (Halmos) > > > > -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. > (702) 508-8462 > > > -- > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: positive infinity forever
Thanks, Ali! And Congratulations! Ali Lloyd wrote: > > Having fairly recently done a PhD in set theory, I can confirm that the > independence of the continuum hypothesis has not been refuted! ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
The only thing that is certain about infinity is that it will remain a theoretical abstract forever. ;-) Bob S On May 23, 2016, at 01:35 , Ali Lloyd mailto:ali.ll...@livecode.com>> wrote: Having fairly recently done a PhD in set theory, I can confirm that the independence of the continuum hypothesis has not been refuted! ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Positive Infinity forever
Oh, no, Bob, it is also certain that a genooine understanding of trig, calculus, counting numbers, engineering and computer science will require a foundational knowledge of infinity, for example, why 1+2+3+4+ ... = -1/12 ;-) Hardy saw this in the notes of Ramanujan (“The Man Who Knew Infinity” book and movie) and was convinced from this and other things that he was not a quack, but a genius. This and other wacky equations are used in physics (theoretical abstract?) Besides, "forever" is longer than a very long time. Bob S wrote: > The only thing that is certain about infinity is that it will remain a > theoretical abstract forever. ;-) ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode