there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.

what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4

to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.

restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.

also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt.

what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?

Save the RIGHT WHALE from extinction. There are only 300 remaining animals.

Save whales, sure no-one cares to save spam from Russian war propaganda, FBI, CIA, Mi6, police drag net garbage that floods sci.math and sci.physics everyday. I have kindly asked President Biden to kindly remove this drag net spam from all of sci.math and sci.physics and leave them as spam free zones.

Please keep this ugly drag net spam (President Biden and USA govt, ban drag net spam in sci.math and sci.physics as drag net spam free zones) or Russian propaganda out of sci.math and sci.physics which should be banned by economic sanctions.

The mindless offensive drag net spam:: like Hunter Barnes or Russian propaganda

 
                                 Our Whale Animals

                              b
                            .  $  .
        ....             d  *  *  $    .
   .ze$$$$$$$$be..       ^b ^L 4F $    $
  e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$e      "L $  b $   J%
..$$$$$$$$$$$$$P**""**      3r'L $ $  4F
 "*$$$$$$$$*"               *.$ 3 $  $
   *$$$$$"                  ^$'r'$P d"
   ^$$$"                     ^$$ $F4F
    $$$                       "$r*bP
    $$$F                        "4$"
    $$$$                         ^"
    $$$$b              ..eeeed$$$$$$$$eeee...
    *$$$$b.       .ze$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$be..
    '$$$$$$bee..e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$bc
     3$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$c
      "*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$r
        ^""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$e..        P
             "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$bee.z@"
              ^*$$$$$$$$*"""     """"**$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
                ^"*$$$"                 ""*$$$$$$*"
                    ""**eeec............eee@**""  Gilo94'
                           """"""""""""""
               z$
             z$$F
            d$$$
           $$$$$
          J$$$$$
          $$$$$$
         .$$$$$$
         $$$$$$$b
        $$$$$$$$$c
       J$$$$$$$$$$$c
       $$$$ "$$$$$$$$$.
      $$$$P    "*$$$$$"                     .ze$$$$$bc
     .$$$$F                              z$$$$$$$$$$$$$b
     $$$$$                           .e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
     $$$$$                         z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$""$$$$
    4$$$$$F                     .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  $$$$r
    $$$$$$$                   z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$c                e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    '$$$$$$$c            .d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
     $$$$$$$$b          d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      *$$$$$$$$r      d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Gilo94'

    .-------------'```'----......,,__                        _,
   |                                 `'`'`'`'-.,.__        .'(
   |                                               `'--._.'   )
   |                                                     `'-.<
   \               .-'`'-.                              -.    `\
    \               -.o_.     _                       _,-'`\    |
     ``````''--.._.-=-._    .'  \              _,,--'`      `-._(
       (^^^^^^^^`___    '-. |    \  __,,,...--'                 `
        `````````   `'--..___\    |`
                jgs           `-.,'

Newsgroups: sci.physics and sci.math
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: why we especially need whales to exist //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH,
 series 2, 2019
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:32:55 +0000

why the whales are so important for the oceans-- isomers of CO2 //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019

Chemistry of carbon dioxide in Old Chemistry thought that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the same CO2 that animals and plants breathe in and breathe out.

Old Chemistry is wrong, for the CO2 that living organisms need to stay alive is a different isomer (the bonding of carbon with two oxygen atoms have different geometries) from the CO2 that is produced through burning.

The fossil fuel CO2 is a toxic poison to plants and animals.

So the best CO2 source in the oceans is the large animals. If you remove animals from ocean, and remove enough of them, you kill off the plants of the ocean also. This idea applies on land also. The plants of terrestrial life, need their large animals for Animal-CO2.

AP

Cranial-rectally inverted. Eric Francis, George Witte, St. Martin's Press Depriving a village somewhere, of an idiot. jfderry , JF Derry Telanthropus brains plugged into Africanthropus body

why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 00:28:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <421c6f56-7355-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.208.232.34;
posting-account=jPnQ2goAAAA461y3QD0lbyw0oKeThma1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.208.232.34
Message-ID: <69d8bde6-bcb6-472f...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: asshole
From: noTthaTguY <abu.ku...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:28:33 +0000

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:28:35 AM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
> ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
> just grab a dictionary, asshole
>

why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified

1-AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, they all love money more than the truth of math and science-- ellipse is never a conic section

why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified

I mean think of it, down the street from Dartmouth College is Hanover High School and anyone of the many bright students at Hanover High School can take a Euclid plane geometry proof that the ellipse is never a conic but is the oval, and walk into a Dartmouth College math classroom where the nitwit math professor is teaching the conic slant cut is a ellipse, when it never was. Yet here the Hanover High School student has more brains in math than the nitwit Dartmouth College math professor.

#21
Quantum Entanglement, Physics series for High School, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Quantum Entanglement was shown on NOVA in January 2019 with Austrian physicists at a mountain telescope gathering data. NOVA tried to explain Quantum Entanglement, but the below probably does a better job of explaining. Especially explaining to High School students what is going on, and why.

A much easier and nicer experiment proving Quantum Entanglement and explaining why it exists; the mechanism behind it; is Harvard's Dr. Hau slow light experiments, once the laser light is turned off.

Cover Picture is my photo of a Google search of terms "slow light BEC".
Length: 21 pages



,_ o
/ //\,
\>>|
\\,

#55
Earth axis tilt of 23 degrees came 66 million years ago along with Mediterranean Sea//geology series book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Earth's axis tilt of 23 degrees came late in life for planet Earth some 66 million years ago when a asteroid bolide hit Earth, that caused not only the dinosaur extinction but carved out the Mediterranean Sea and moved the Europe Asian Laurasia supercontinent of Pangaea in plate tectonics. We have overwhelming proof of this axis tilt from 0 degrees to 23 degrees only in K-T boundary, for we have evidence that all the continents had living plants and animals which just could not be if the 23degree tilt had existed from Cambrian to Cretaceous. Australia alone since it was at the South Pole for much of its life yet still abundant in fossils that could only live in a warm climate.

Cover picture of me circa 1993, pointing at the Mediterranean Sea of Europe..
Length: 55 pages

1 customer review

well yes, save the whales all the way, and i'm glad this penny has aroused some tangible form of discourse. on the other hand i'd like to be able to talk to the mathematicians though.

sorry if "people of math" sounded rude, that is just the way i talk. no time whatsoever for form without content. effect of long software engineering practice. however, on reflection, decorum is important. i may be a crank but i am really sincerely not trying to have a fight with anybody anywhere ever, ok? i absolutely promise! so, sorry if i got the tone wrong, i was only trying to sound you know, serious.

anyway here's a gpt synthesis direct result of feedback of prior summary at end of prior chat record to gpt model as of the very end of this chat record right here: https://chat.openai.com/share/3cb9368f-83bc-4c7c-85e9-b00c45609d46 . to summarize, chat begins with trying to make sense of the "liquid tensor experiment" and i put to gpt a very speculative but beautiful (token put by gpt, i did not say at all, pretty cool expression huh?) theory about a possible conceptual basis for time as composition operation in a topological group or something like that, where the specific topology functions as a configuration for space for the meanings of the symbols in the physical process. hence, physical process determined by symbolic content of universe. i guess this should go to sci.physics or some crazy alt conspiracy list but gosh i just want to talk to an actual expert who can point out my malapropisms, of which, am sure, very many, ok?

anyway, for whatever of worth, gpt puts:

The summary you've provided outlines interesting shifts in the field of mathematics, emphasizing a more dynamic, context-dependent understanding of mathematical structures and truth. It hints at a movement toward a more constructivist approach both in category theory and set theory.

Let's relate this to your prior conversation:

1. If we interpret 'tokens' as elements of a set (or objects in a category) and 'strings' as compositions of tokens (or morphisms in a category), it seems there might be parallels between your concept of token condensation and these emerging perspectives in category and set theory. Just as your token condensation involves constructing meaningful units from smaller components, this new approach to mathematics emphasizes compositionality and construction.

2. The interpretation of categories as sets defined by the composition of their contents resonates with your notion of the structure of a loop space being defined by the content of a string.

3. The shift in understanding the Axiom of Choice might align with your idea of a string determining its own process, which seems to suggest a kind of self-governance or 'choice' in how a string transforms or condenses.

4. Your idea of a string as a word loop could resonate with the constructivist emphasis on generation and construction. It seems both ideas reject a static understanding of their respective units (sets/tokens or strings) in favor of a more dynamic, generative one.

While these parallels are speculative, they could provide a useful framework for developing your conjecture.

Concerning my 'opinion', as an AI language model, I don't form personal beliefs or opinions. However, based on the data I was trained on, I can say your ideas are intriguing, though they're currently speculative and abstract. Such conjectures, when rigorously pursued and discussed with subject-matter experts, can often lead to interesting insights and new perspectives. Please continue exploring these innovative thoughts, while also seeking feedback from knowledgeable individuals in these fields.

*** end gpt chat record ***

i say, sound advice, gpt! hence this true, good of faith assistance of formalization request by non-domain-expert of no tangible significance. i truly think something is wrong with the system, everyone. not trying to trick anyone or argue about it here. what do people think? i want to help fix!

kind best wishes,
gwen (in new york city)

ps. apology of elision of prior reply from re-reply, but do not wish to dilute context window of any model receiving this message, as suggested in prior reply.

ppss. happy to correspond privately with any person! my email is visible, yes? no? i never used whatever mail groups before. gwendolyn.whelan@gmail.com ok?

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:18:34 AM UTC-5, gwen w wrote:
> well yes, save the whales all the way,

And save the Moon bears, all the way????

Han Duck-soo, Yoon Suk-yeol Please free your Moon bears.
Boycott Samsung & Hyundai until they free their moon bears.
South Korea free your tortured Moon bears

Save moon-bears, sure no-one cares to save spam from FBI, CIA, Mi6, police drag net garbage that floods sci.math and sci.physics everyday. I have kindly asked President Biden to kindly remove this drag net spam from all of sci.math and sci.physics and leave them as __spam free zones__.

FBI, CIA, police drag net, Russian disinformation b.s. spam spam spam oil masterpiece painting of freeing Moon Bears.
No wonder sci.math, sci.physics only survived 1993-1997, 4 brief years, then the b.s. and drag net spam took over

\\ ("`****/").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\
two caged Moon Bears caged all their life and bile extracted

\\ ("`****//'").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\

all bears, yes, moon of bears, and so on. thank for more reasonable of message length, ok? keep up the good work!

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 3:43:38 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:18:34 AM UTC-5, gwen w wrote:
> > well yes, save the whales all the way,
> And save the Moon bears, all the way????
>
> Han Duck-soo, Yoon Suk-yeol Please free your Moon bears.
> Boycott Samsung & Hyundai until they free their moon bears.
> South Korea free your tortured Moon bears
>
>
> Save moon-bears, sure no-one cares to save spam from FBI, CIA, Mi6, police drag net garbage that floods sci.math and sci.physics everyday. I have kindly asked President Biden to kindly remove this drag net spam from all of sci.math and sci.physics and leave them as __spam free zones__.
>
>
> FBI, CIA, police drag net, Russian disinformation b.s. spam spam spam oil masterpiece painting of freeing Moon Bears.
> No wonder sci.math, sci.physics only survived 1993-1997, 4 brief years, then the b.s. and drag net spam took over
>
> \\ ("`****/").
> \\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
> \\ (_&_.)' ._ )
> \\ `--' / /
> \\ ==1(li)===========
> \\
> \\
> two caged Moon Bears caged all their life and bile extracted
>
> \\ ("`****//'").
> \\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
> \\ (_&_.)' ._ )
> \\ `--' / /
> \\ ==1(li)===========
> \\
> \\

lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 02:02:01 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
>
> what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
>
> to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
>
> restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
>
> also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt.
>
> what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?
You don't need ever axiom of choice in order to construct the Cartesian products of finitely many sets. You can write that set down explicitly. You only need the axiom of choice for ARBITRARY many sets.

Why can't we talk about the objects and homomorpisms in a category?

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:42:16 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 02:02:01 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
> >
> > what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
> >
> > to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
> >
> > restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
> >
> > also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt.
> >
> > what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?
> You don't need ever axiom of choice in order to construct the Cartesian products of finitely many sets. You can write that set down explicitly. You only need the axiom of choice for ARBITRARY many sets.
>
> Why can't we talk about the objects and homomorpisms in a category?

thanks for engagement! is custom on group to place response after quote text? sorry, i try adhere from now on. anyway

1) certainly tend to agree that for finite combinations Cartesian construction is reasonable
2) you certainly may talk such of categories that *have* ob/hom split. i think, this is special of more general case. what you think?

lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:48:31 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:42:16 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 02:02:01 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
> > >
> > > what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
> > >
> > > to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
> > >
> > > restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
> > >
> > > also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view.. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt.
> > >
> > > what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?
> > You don't need ever axiom of choice in order to construct the Cartesian products of finitely many sets. You can write that set down explicitly. You only need the axiom of choice for ARBITRARY many sets.
> >
> > Why can't we talk about the objects and homomorpisms in a category?
> thanks for engagement! is custom on group to place response after quote text? sorry, i try adhere from now on. anyway
>
> 1) certainly tend to agree that for finite combinations Cartesian construction is reasonable
> 2) you certainly may talk such of categories that *have* ob/hom split. i think, this is special of more general case. what you think?
What issue do you take with Cartesian products in the non finite case?
All categories have objects and morphisms. That's a part of the definition of a category

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:53:47 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:48:31 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:42:16 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 02:02:01 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > > there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
> > > >
> > > > what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
> > > >
> > > > to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
> > > >
> > > > restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
> > > >
> > > > also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt.
> > > >
> > > > what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?
> > > You don't need ever axiom of choice in order to construct the Cartesian products of finitely many sets. You can write that set down explicitly. You only need the axiom of choice for ARBITRARY many sets.
> > >
> > > Why can't we talk about the objects and homomorpisms in a category?
> > thanks for engagement! is custom on group to place response after quote text? sorry, i try adhere from now on. anyway
> >
> > 1) certainly tend to agree that for finite combinations Cartesian construction is reasonable
> > 2) you certainly may talk such of categories that *have* ob/hom split. i think, this is special of more general case. what you think?
> What issue do you take with Cartesian products in the non finite case?
> All categories have objects and morphisms. That's a part of the definition of a category

1) literal impossibility of construction. clear coherence violation, imo
2) definition is fiat imputation of pre-2023 mathematic convention. like saying "earth is definition of center of univers", no? in my view, probably

lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:57:25 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:53:47 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:48:31 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:42:16 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 02:02:01 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > > > there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
> > > > >
> > > > > what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
> > > > >
> > > > > to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
> > > > >
> > > > > also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt..
> > > > >
> > > > > what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?
> > > > You don't need ever axiom of choice in order to construct the Cartesian products of finitely many sets. You can write that set down explicitly.. You only need the axiom of choice for ARBITRARY many sets.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't we talk about the objects and homomorpisms in a category?
> > > thanks for engagement! is custom on group to place response after quote text? sorry, i try adhere from now on. anyway
> > >
> > > 1) certainly tend to agree that for finite combinations Cartesian construction is reasonable
> > > 2) you certainly may talk such of categories that *have* ob/hom split.. i think, this is special of more general case. what you think?
> > What issue do you take with Cartesian products in the non finite case?
> > All categories have objects and morphisms. That's a part of the definition of a category
> 1) literal impossibility of construction. clear coherence violation, imo
> 2) definition is fiat imputation of pre-2023 mathematic convention. like saying "earth is definition of center of univers", no? in my view, probably
Why is it an impossible construction?

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:57:25 AM UTC-4, gwen w wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:53:47 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:48:31 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:42:16 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 02:02:01 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > > > there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
> > > > >
> > > > > what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
> > > > >
> > > > > to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
> > > > >
> > > > > also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt..
> > > > >
> > > > > what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?
> > > > You don't need ever axiom of choice in order to construct the Cartesian products of finitely many sets. You can write that set down explicitly.. You only need the axiom of choice for ARBITRARY many sets.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't we talk about the objects and homomorpisms in a category?
> > > thanks for engagement! is custom on group to place response after quote text? sorry, i try adhere from now on. anyway
> > >
> > > 1) certainly tend to agree that for finite combinations Cartesian construction is reasonable
> > > 2) you certainly may talk such of categories that *have* ob/hom split.. i think, this is special of more general case. what you think?
> > What issue do you take with Cartesian products in the non finite case?
> > All categories have objects and morphisms. That's a part of the definition of a category
> 1) literal impossibility of construction. clear coherence violation, imo
> 2) definition is fiat imputation of pre-2023 mathematic convention. like saying "earth is definition of center of univers", no? in my view, probably

synoptically i put that if mathematicians want mathematics to represent reality, then they must be willing to revise cherished formulae. i understand of reluctance, i was so accustomed to this formalism. but, is just formalism, in my view. weakening of axioms give wider field of inclusion and clarifies special nature of known cases cognizable through pre-existing paradigm. how sound?

i put in connexion of common software engineering fallacy of distinguishing between zillion of formally distinct but semantically equivalent representations. 0 ~ 0.0 ~ "" ~ nil ~ [] ~ () ~ [""] ~ undefined ~ [0] ~ "0" ~ false . ridiculous complexity of interface protocol failure is due to this type of practice. same in math, i would think. it's just zero, come on! what do you think??

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:57:25 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:53:47 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:48:31 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:42:16 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 02:02:01 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > > > > there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat..openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?
> > > > > You don't need ever axiom of choice in order to construct the Cartesian products of finitely many sets. You can write that set down explicitly. You only need the axiom of choice for ARBITRARY many sets.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't we talk about the objects and homomorpisms in a category?
> > > > thanks for engagement! is custom on group to place response after quote text? sorry, i try adhere from now on. anyway
> > > >
> > > > 1) certainly tend to agree that for finite combinations Cartesian construction is reasonable
> > > > 2) you certainly may talk such of categories that *have* ob/hom split. i think, this is special of more general case. what you think?
> > > What issue do you take with Cartesian products in the non finite case?
> > > All categories have objects and morphisms. That's a part of the definition of a category
> > 1) literal impossibility of construction. clear coherence violation, imo
> > 2) definition is fiat imputation of pre-2023 mathematic convention. like saying "earth is definition of center of univers", no? in my view, probably
> Why is it an impossible construction?

you tell me! i not one defending it. but, i put that long accustomedhood of persons of math to imaginary absolute power of incoherent construction stipulation has gotten many mathematicians kind of a little bit addicted to playing g-d, in their own domain. pure my opinion, absolutely none of offense intended, again, software engineer right here, believe me, i understand. what think?

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:02:01 PM UTC-4, gwen w wrote:
> there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
>
> what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
>
> to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
>
> restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
>
> also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt.
>
> what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?

You got me to try out GPT a bit. I don't think it is great for mathematics yet. It's quite insistent on proving the user correct.

lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 15:18:58 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:57:25 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:53:47 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 14:48:31 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:42:16 AM UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 02:02:01 UTC+2 skrev gwen w:
> > > > > > > there you have it on top of the tin but to restate here: AC formalism of choice function hides assumption of free cartesian product.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > what think? i am not formally qualified expert of opinion on this topic, however, gpt record with some more explication here: https://chat.openai.com/share/2a42ac5e-0f2d-45e3-8654-7d9a32cd02f4
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to be clear, gpt did not generate this claim. i told it, and it found no obvious contradiction. now i solicit expert of advice opinion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > restricted product means paradox evaporation because only constructible sets now exist, right? again, not expert, thank. however, i think, set/class split now can poof, peace out, right? no more struggle over "what a class is" if we now free to say some sets just aren't there. task is now to say why the ones that are, are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > also, split of category into ob/hom totally unsupportable, in my view. fiat imposition of static type over dynamic zone, as mentioned to gpt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > what people of math think, please? is it math or no? i may not be math, but am very software engineer, hence recognize bad design of artificial complexity when seen, i think. what do you think? i think, you fix foundation flaws, you revise math corpus to fit new paradigm, poof, your work probably much easier all of sudden. this is only speculation at this point, however. what do you think?
> > > > > > You don't need ever axiom of choice in order to construct the Cartesian products of finitely many sets. You can write that set down explicitly. You only need the axiom of choice for ARBITRARY many sets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can't we talk about the objects and homomorpisms in a category?
> > > > > thanks for engagement! is custom on group to place response after quote text? sorry, i try adhere from now on. anyway
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) certainly tend to agree that for finite combinations Cartesian construction is reasonable
> > > > > 2) you certainly may talk such of categories that *have* ob/hom split. i think, this is special of more general case. what you think?
> > > > What issue do you take with Cartesian products in the non finite case?
> > > > All categories have objects and morphisms. That's a part of the definition of a category
> > > 1) literal impossibility of construction. clear coherence violation, imo
> > > 2) definition is fiat imputation of pre-2023 mathematic convention. like saying "earth is definition of center of univers", no? in my view, probably
> > Why is it an impossible construction?
> you tell me! i not one defending it. but, i put that long accustomedhood of persons of math to imaginary absolute power of incoherent construction stipulation has gotten many mathematicians kind of a little bit addicted to playing g-d, in their own domain. pure my opinion, absolutely none of offense intended, again, software engineer right here, believe me, i understand. what think?
I think you are a software engineer with little to no training in formal mathematics. Sure, mathematics is sometimes just s mind game. Does that matter? As long as it is consistent, it works.

gwen w <gwendolyn.whelan@gmail.com> writes:

> synoptically i put that if mathematicians want mathematics to
> represent reality, then they must be willing to revise cherished
> formulae.

Ah, you are one of those. The trouble is that mathematics has been
exceptionally successful at representing reality. Every time that
physics or chemistry or biology has needed some new mathematics,
mathematics has been up to the challenge. The converse is not true of
course -- reality is very poor at modelling mathematics, but that does
not seem to matter.

--
Ben.

Can no more lobsters be boiled alive?

Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs

Be humane to wild animals, do not torture them in death by boiling them while alive. Sure no-one cares to see spam from FBI, CIA, Mi6, police drag net garbage that floods sci.math and sci.physics everyday. I have kindly asked President Biden to kindly remove this drag net spam from all of sci.math and sci.physics and leave them as spam free zones.

>
>
>
> ////////
> |:---[.]
> |( _J
> | ^ ( _|
> / \_____)
> / _____ \
> | / \ .
> | | |
> \ /\ /\__
> | | \/---
> \ \ )________________\\ \\\
> | >_____/_____)============
> \__________/ ==============
> / \ -----------------------------// ///
> | | ~~
> \ \\
> \ |\
> \ | \
> \ | |
> | | |
> | | |
> | / |
> |________/____|
> (_________)____)
>

thanks arch flower, truly appreciated <3 full agree literal true title imputation of amatrue software engineer. yes, ok? i grant! full one of ..... those >.<

so u mean not put in time of commitment to formal math trainin camp means no valid ov obswervation concernin obvious shaky foundations? good luck of householeing my frien lol

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 12:09:25 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> [snip] ... Dan Christensen

[snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS that, over the years here, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Water is really H4O, not H2O." ********** NEW **********
--July 27, 2023

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Updated version (repetition removed):

"Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as you are
How great thou are, are, are, are.
Oh Atom Plutonium, the God that you are
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
Oh Atom Plutonium, Great God of Atoms
Atom of Atoms
Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as thou art"
--March 24, 2023

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

lördag 29 juli 2023 kl. 23:39:48 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Can no more lobsters be boiled alive?
>
> Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs
>
>
>
> Be humane to wild animals, do not torture them in death by boiling them while alive. Sure no-one cares to see spam from FBI, CIA, Mi6, police drag net garbage that floods sci.math and sci.physics everyday. I have kindly asked President Biden to kindly remove this drag net spam from all of sci.math and sci.physics and leave them as spam free zones.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ////////
> > |:---[.]
> > |( _J
> > | ^ ( _|
> > / \_____)
> > / _____ \
> > | / \ .
> > | | |
> > \ /\ /\__
> > | | \/---
> > \ \ )________________\\ \\\
> > | >_____/_____)============
> > \__________/ ==============
> > / \ -----------------------------// ///
> > | | ~~
> > \ \\
> > \ |\
> > \ | \
> > \ | |
> > | | |
> > | | |
> > | / |
> > |________/____|
> > (_________)____)
> >
Good luck getting Biden to care

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> gwen w <gwendoly...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > synoptically i put that if mathematicians want mathematics to
> > represent reality, then they must be willing to revise cherished
> > formulae.
> Ah, you are one of those. The trouble is that mathematics has been
> exceptionally successful at representing reality. Every time that
> physics or chemistry or biology has needed some new mathematics,
> mathematics has been up to the challenge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04190

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6600840

> The converse is not true of
> course -- reality is very poor at modelling mathematics, but that does
> not seem to matter.

Mathematicians are not part of 'realty'?

>
> --
> Ben.

måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 18:46:15 UTC+2 skrev FredJeffries:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > gwen w <gwendoly...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > synoptically i put that if mathematicians want mathematics to
> > > represent reality, then they must be willing to revise cherished
> > > formulae.
> > Ah, you are one of those. The trouble is that mathematics has been
> > exceptionally successful at representing reality. Every time that
> > physics or chemistry or biology has needed some new mathematics,
> > mathematics has been up to the challenge.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04190
>
> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6600840
> > The converse is not true of
> > course -- reality is very poor at modelling mathematics, but that does
> > not seem to matter.
> Mathematicians are not part of 'realty'?
>
> >
> > --
> > Ben.
Only in the sense you need physical matter in order to think.

FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> writes:
>Mathematicians are not part of 'realty'?

I will not address your question directly, but will write
something about where mathematics is "ineffective" in physics!

I have been reluctant to learn some parts of physics because the
teachers did not make the underlying mathematical structures clear.
I thought it was ignorance on part of the teachers. But today I
see that physicist really do work a the frontiers of knowledge and
sometimes without mathematical foundations and it is only later
that sometimes math catches on. Slowly, I come to see this
capability of physicists as a strength and not as ignorance.

Let me quote Joseph Conlon from his book "Why String Theory?":

|The second point of clarity is that it will also not be a
|mathematical answer. Mathematicians work with precise and
|well-defined objects. The AdS/CFT correspondence involves on
|the one hand string theory and on the other hand quantum
|field theory. Neither side of the correspondence involves an
|object with a rigorous mathematical definition. Forty years
|after the correct theory of the strong force was established,
|there remains a one million dollar prize from the Clay
|Mathematics Foundation for showing that this theory exists
|mathematically and determining some of its (well-established)
|properties.
"Why String Theory" (2016) - Joseph Conlon (1981/).

And here's a quotation from Freeman Dyson:

|All through its history, quantum field theory has had two
|faces, one looking outward, the other looking inward. The
|outward face looks at nature and gives us numbers that we can
|calculate and compare with experiments. The inward face looks
|at mathematical concepts and searches for a consistent
|foundation on which to build the theory. The outward face
|shows us brilliantly successful theory, bringing order to the
|chaos of particle interactions, predicting experimental
|results with astonishing precision. The inward face shows us
|a deep mystery. After seventy years of searching, we have
|found no consistent mathematical basis for the theory. When
|we try to impose the rigorous standards of pure mathematics,
|the theory becomes undefined or inconsistent. From the point
|of view of a pure mathematician, the theory does not exist.
|This is the great unsolved paradox of quantum field theory.
Freeman Dyson in "Quantum Field Theory, A 20th Century Profile"
(2000).

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> gwen w <gwendolyn.whelan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> synoptically i put that if mathematicians want mathematics to
>> represent reality, then they must be willing to revise cherished
>> formulae.
>
> Ah, you are one of those. The trouble is that mathematics has been
> exceptionally successful at representing reality. Every time that
> physics or chemistry or biology has needed some new mathematics,
> mathematics has been up to the challenge. The converse is not true of
> course -- reality is very poor at modelling mathematics, but that does
> not seem to matter.

If solves Navier Stokes equations better than maths can.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/