Mathematics/science end in contradiction

[anne]

Hi You might find this paper interesting and controversial . It proves

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf


1)Mathematics/science end in contradiction - an integer= a non-integer. When mathematics/science end in contradiction it is proven in logic that you can prove anything you want in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermats last theorem

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction


2) The paper also proves in logic that all opinions are equally valid ie feminism is valid and anti-feminism is valid. Also the opinions for gay marriage are valid :for gay marriage and against gay marriage are equally valid

[A_Seagull]

Hi You might find this paper interesting and controversial . It proves

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf


1)Mathematics/science end in contradiction - an integer= a non-integer. When mathematics/science end in contradiction it is proven in logic that you can prove anything you want in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermats last theorem

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction


2) The paper also proves in logic that all opinions are equally valid ie feminism is valid and anti-feminism is valid. Also the opinions for gay marriage are valid :for gay marriage and against gay marriage are equally valid

Why do you think that 1 = 0.99999... constitutes a contradiction?

What is your logic of what determines a contradiction?

There is a simple proof that 1 = 0.9999....
there is no contradiction.....
what it 'means' is that there is no number that lies between 1 and 0.9999....

[Eodnhoj7]

Hi You might find this paper interesting and controversial . It proves

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf


1)Mathematics/science end in contradiction - an integer= a non-integer. When mathematics/science end in contradiction it is proven in logic that you can prove anything you want in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermats last theorem

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction


2) The paper also proves in logic that all opinions are equally valid ie feminism is valid and anti-feminism is valid. Also the opinions for gay marriage are valid :for gay marriage and against gay marriage are equally valid

Why do you think that 1 = 0.99999... constitutes a contradiction?

What is your logic of what determines a contradiction?

There is a simple proof that 1 = 0.9999....
there is no contradiction.....
what it 'means' is that there is no number that lies between 1 and 0.9999....

Actually if there is a proof that no number lies between 1 and .9999... the relation of numbers in the "proof" itself is a set of numbers that determines the connection.

The proof:

9/10,
9/10 + 9/100,
9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000,
...."

is necessitated by infinite continuity and is in itself not justified unless an infinitely recursive function becomes equivalent to a number in itself. If this is the case:

1) All functions are numbers (which are argue elsewhere); hence are quantifiable leading numbers to be both quantity and quality as observed in the "monadic numbers" thread.

2) The proof is never really defined unless "infinity" counts as a proof; which further necessitates all finite proofs as contradictions in the respect they do not continue.

3) Because the proof is premised on a continuum, a number will always be between 1 and .99999. "=" or "equality" is an observation of symmetrical seperation where equality itself acts as a boundary of inversion equivalent to "0" or "void" where one set of relative numbers (equation) inverts to a number and vice versa. All arithmetic functions in turn are quantity of 0 and unprovable, except through a continuum where the number and function are inseperable.




The proof can be "exact" but always will have infinite variations where the "proof" as "(x)(y)":

1. (x)-1+1, (x)-2+2, (x)-3+3, etc.
2. (x)1/1, (x)2/2, (x)3/3, etc.
3. etc.

Dually the proofs may be of infinite variation, thus necessitating the only number the lines between 1 and .999999 is "infinity".



The argument is rational.

[A_Seagull]

Hi You might find this paper interesting and controversial . It proves

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf


1)Mathematics/science end in contradiction - an integer= a non-integer. When mathematics/science end in contradiction it is proven in logic that you can prove anything you want in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermats last theorem

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction


2) The paper also proves in logic that all opinions are equally valid ie feminism is valid and anti-feminism is valid. Also the opinions for gay marriage are valid :for gay marriage and against gay marriage are equally valid

Why do you think that 1 = 0.99999... constitutes a contradiction?

What is your logic of what determines a contradiction?

There is a simple proof that 1 = 0.9999....
there is no contradiction.....
what it 'means' is that there is no number that lies between 1 and 0.9999....

Actually if there is a proof that no number lies between 1 and .9999... the relation of numbers in the "proof" itself is a set of numbers that determines the connection.

The proof:

9/10,
9/10 + 9/100,
9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000,
...."

is necessitated by infinite continuity and is in itself not justified unless an infinitely recursive function becomes equivalent to a number in itself. If this is the case:

1) All functions are numbers (which are argue elsewhere); hence are quantifiable leading numbers to be both quantity and quality as observed in the "monadic numbers" thread.

2) The proof is never really defined unless "infinity" counts as a proof; which further necessitates all finite proofs as contradictions in the respect they do not continue.

3) Because the proof is premised on a continuum, a number will always be between 1 and .99999. "=" or "equality" is an observation of symmetrical seperation where equality itself acts as a boundary of inversion equivalent to "0" or "void" where one set of relative numbers (equation) inverts to a number and vice versa. All arithmetic functions in turn are quantity of 0 and unprovable, except through a continuum where the number and function are inseperable.




The proof can be "exact" but always will have infinite variations where the "proof" as "(x)(y)":

1. (x)-1+1, (x)-2+2, (x)-3+3, etc.
2. (x)1/1, (x)2/2, (x)3/3, etc.
3. etc.

Dually the proofs may be of infinite variation, thus necessitating the only number the lines between 1 and .999999 is "infinity".



The argument is rational.

Your argument (like most of your other posts) is entirely irrational. Your grammar is bad enough, but the way that you introduce technical words in a seemingly random fashion renders your posts as meaningless.

[Eodnhoj7]

Why do you think that 1 = 0.99999... constitutes a contradiction?

What is your logic of what determines a contradiction?

There is a simple proof that 1 = 0.9999....
there is no contradiction.....
what it 'means' is that there is no number that lies between 1 and 0.9999....

Actually if there is a proof that no number lies between 1 and .9999... the relation of numbers in the "proof" itself is a set of numbers that determines the connection.

The proof:

9/10,
9/10 + 9/100,
9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000,
...."

is necessitated by infinite continuity and is in itself not justified unless an infinitely recursive function becomes equivalent to a number in itself. If this is the case:

1) All functions are numbers (which are argue elsewhere); hence are quantifiable leading numbers to be both quantity and quality as observed in the "monadic numbers" thread.

2) The proof is never really defined unless "infinity" counts as a proof; which further necessitates all finite proofs as contradictions in the respect they do not continue.

3) Because the proof is premised on a continuum, a number will always be between 1 and .99999. "=" or "equality" is an observation of symmetrical seperation where equality itself acts as a boundary of inversion equivalent to "0" or "void" where one set of relative numbers (equation) inverts to a number and vice versa. All arithmetic functions in turn are quantity of 0 and unprovable, except through a continuum where the number and function are inseperable.




The proof can be "exact" but always will have infinite variations where the "proof" as "(x)(y)":

1. (x)-1+1, (x)-2+2, (x)-3+3, etc.
2. (x)1/1, (x)2/2, (x)3/3, etc.
3. etc.

Dually the proofs may be of infinite variation, thus necessitating the only number the lines between 1 and .999999 is "infinity".



The argument is rational.

Your argument (like most of your other posts) is entirely irrational. Your grammar is bad enough, but the way that you introduce technical words in a seemingly random fashion renders your posts as meaningless.

I am glad you read all my posts. I don't remember you.

The proof for 1 = .999999, requires an infinite arithmetic function for .9999 to occur, thus equating 1 to an infinite function in itself. One is basically equivalent to infinity in these regards.

.999999.... as infinite observes there is always some portion of .9999....9999.... that is not observed.

[Eodnhoj7]

Hi You might find this paper interesting and controversial . It proves

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf


1)Mathematics/science end in contradiction - an integer= a non-integer. When mathematics/science end in contradiction it is proven in logic that you can prove anything you want in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermats last theorem

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction


2) The paper also proves in logic that all opinions are equally valid ie feminism is valid and anti-feminism is valid. Also the opinions for gay marriage are valid :for gay marriage and against gay marriage are equally valid

Why do you think that 1 = 0.99999... constitutes a contradiction?

What is your logic of what determines a contradiction?

There is a simple proof that 1 = 0.9999....
there is no contradiction.....
what it 'means' is that there is no number that lies between 1 and 0.9999....

Provide the proof.

[A_Seagull]

Hi You might find this paper interesting and controversial . It proves

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf


1)Mathematics/science end in contradiction - an integer= a non-integer. When mathematics/science end in contradiction it is proven in logic that you can prove anything you want in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermats last theorem

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction


2) The paper also proves in logic that all opinions are equally valid ie feminism is valid and anti-feminism is valid. Also the opinions for gay marriage are valid :for gay marriage and against gay marriage are equally valid

Why do you think that 1 = 0.99999... constitutes a contradiction?

What is your logic of what determines a contradiction?

There is a simple proof that 1 = 0.9999....
there is no contradiction.....
what it 'means' is that there is no number that lies between 1 and 0.9999....

Provide the proof.

From Wikepedia:

x = 0.999 …
10 x = 9.999 … by “multiplying” by 10
10 x = 9 + 0.999 … by “splitting” off integer part
10 x = 9 + x by definition of x
9 x = 9 by subtracting x
x = 1 by dividing by 9
0.999... = 1

QED

[Eodnhoj7]

Why do you think that 1 = 0.99999... constitutes a contradiction?

What is your logic of what determines a contradiction?

There is a simple proof that 1 = 0.9999....
there is no contradiction.....
what it 'means' is that there is no number that lies between 1 and 0.9999....

Provide the proof.

From Wikepedia:

1) x = 0.999 …
2) 10 x = 9.999 … by “multiplying” by 10
3) 10 x = 9 + 0.999 … by “splitting” off integer part
4) 10 x = 9 + x by definition of x
5) 9 x = 9 by subtracting x
6) x = 1 by dividing by 9
7) 0.999... = 1

QED

Actually for point 5

9.000....01x = 9

6. X = .999...y. by dividing by 9.000...01.

with y being a random sequence observed by 9/9.01 to 9/9.001 to 9/.0001 to infinity.

7. .999 = .999...y


The proof you provide requires rounding, hence an inherent element of randomness occurs as there is no universal law where a quantity is required to be rounded without accounting for subjective choice.

[Logik]

Any axiomatic system cannot be the following 4 things simultaneously:

1. Recursive (e.g algorithmic/computable)
2. Sufficiently powerful to prove anything about the natural numbers.
3. Complete
4. Consistent

You can't have your cake and eat it to so, a choice exists: Which of the above properties are you willing to sacrifice when appealing to logic?

The dilemma presented above effectively means that adhering to the Law of non-contradiction is a subjective choice (sorry, Aristotelians!)

For I can CHOOSE (personal preference is all) to adhere to recursive, powerful and complete logical systems while accepting contradictions as a consequence of my choice.

The above is a general truth about all formal axiomatic systems - colloquially called "logic". Through deduction one can conclude that the same issues which plague logical formalisms also plagu foundationalist approaches to philosophy e.g Kant and most of his followers.

Further reading for the curious minds:
* Godel's completeness and incompleteness theorems.
* Church-Rosser theorems
* Turing's halting problem
* Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence

[A_Seagull]

Any axiomatic system cannot be the following 4 things simultaneously:

1. Recursive (e.g algorithmic/computable)
2. Sufficiently powerful to prove anything about the natural numbers.
3. Complete
4. Consistent

You can't have your cake and eat it to so, a choice exists: Which of the above properties are you willing to sacrifice when appealing to logic?

The dilemma presented above effectively means that adhering to the Law of non-contradiction is a subjective choice (sorry, Aristotelians!)

For I can CHOOSE (personal preference is all) to adhere to recursive, powerful and complete logical systems while accepting contradictions as a consequence of my choice.

The above is a general truth about all formal axiomatic systems - colloquially called "logic". Through deduction one can conclude that the same issues which plague logical formalisms also plagu foundationalist approaches to philosophy e.g Kant and most of his followers.

Further reading for the curious minds:
* Godel's completeness and incompleteness theorems.
* Church-Rosser theorems
* Turing's halting problem
* Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence

You can get rid of the first 3 of your listed 'properties', they are surplus to requirements of an axiomatic and logical system.

How one can determine whether an axiomatic system is consistent or not is a moot point.

[Logik]

You can get rid of the first 3 of your listed 'properties', they are surplus to requirements of an axiomatic and logical system.

How one can determine whether an axiomatic system is consistent or not is a moot point.

Observe that while my argument was entirely descriptive (enumerating the various systemic properties of logical systems) you have opted in for a prescriptive argument. In doing so - violating the is-ought gap.

How and why have you CHOSEN consistency and why have you ignored the other three?

You claim that logical systems have "requirements" . Evidence required.

[A_Seagull]

You can get rid of the first 3 of your listed 'properties', they are surplus to requirements of an axiomatic and logical system.

How one can determine whether an axiomatic system is consistent or not is a moot point.

Observe that while my argument was entirely descriptive (enumerating the various systemic properties of logical systems) you have opted in for a prescriptive argument. In doing so - violating the is-ought gap.

How and why have you CHOSEN consistency and why have you ignored the other three?

You claim that logical systems have "requirements" . Evidence required.

Unfortunately your post makes no sense. It is as though you are stringing words together in a semi-random way, the result is entirely devoid of meaning.

[Logik]

Unfortunately your post makes no sense. It is as though you are stringing words together in a semi-random way, the result is entirely devoid of meaning.

That is one possibility.

The alternative hypothesis is that you lack significant amounts of necessary background knowledge to parse my sentences and extract the intended meaning.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

If you want me to explain it simply and in a way that you can understand you need to let me know something about yourself and your background.

[Logik]

Unfortunately your post makes no sense. It is as though you are stringing words together in a semi-random way, the result is entirely devoid of meaning.

I guess I can try again.

First - there is the prescriptivist vs descriptivist distinction ( https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2010/02 ... u-want-it/ ).

A descriptivist is somebody who describes - e.g states how things are.
A prescriptivist is somebody who prescribes - e.g states how things should be.

I am describing how logic is.
You are prescribing how logic should be.

I am describing that logic has (at least) 4 properties: recursiveness, provability, consistency and completeness.
You are prescribing that logic should have only one property: consistency.

Logic is the way it is. You insist that logic ought to be some other way.

In philosophy this is known as the is-ought gap ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem ).

You can get rid of the first 3 of your listed 'properties', they are surplus to requirements of an axiomatic and logical system.

Care to convince us why you think logic has "requirements" and where they come from? The very word "requirement" sure sounds very prescriptivist to me..

isought.jpg (12.91 KiB) Viewed 3059 times

[Eodnhoj7]

Any axiomatic system cannot be the following 4 things simultaneously:

1. Recursive (e.g algorithmic/computable)
2. Sufficiently powerful to prove anything about the natural numbers.
3. Complete
4. Consistent

You can't have your cake and eat it to so, a choice exists: Which of the above properties are you willing to sacrifice when appealing to logic?

The dilemma presented above effectively means that adhering to the Law of non-contradiction is a subjective choice (sorry, Aristotelians!)

For I can CHOOSE (personal preference is all) to adhere to recursive, powerful and complete logical systems while accepting contradictions as a consequence of my choice.

The above is a general truth about all formal axiomatic systems - colloquially called "logic". Through deduction one can conclude that the same issues which plague logical formalisms also plagu foundationalist approaches to philosophy e.g Kant and most of his followers.

Further reading for the curious minds:
* Godel's completeness and incompleteness theorems.
* Church-Rosser theorems
* Turing's halting problem
* Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence

Logic, as subject to choice, is spontaneous and subject to randomness. This is a law which may be spontaneously observed an infinite number of degrees.

Contradiction may actually be a foundational law of reason.

1. All the definitions of the above 4 laws are recursive. The recursion of recursion necessitate a cyclical nature as self referentiality for proof.

2. All proof, based on point 1, necessitates all numbers existing as cycles.

3. Completion is self maintainance as self referencing. That which is not complete must reference another axiom which is unprovable.

4. Consistency occurs where form and function is repeated, through points 1, 2 and 3. Point 4 exists through points 1,2,3 and hence itself. This argument is recursive, proof, complete and consistent while be open to expansion without contradiction.