On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:40:49 AM UTC+2, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:42:00 PM UTC+3, David Petry wrote:
> > Clearly there are a handful of people in this newsgroup who know a fair amount of mathematics.
> Then, you have to mention them by names for at least getting your main point
> >However, when it comes to the subject of mathematical intuitionism, they seem to be totally clueless. I'm going to try to explain the basic idea behind it so clearly that they have no excuse for not understanding it.
> >
> > For starters, remember that some of the finest mathematical minds of the early twentieth century were strongly in the intuitionist camp. So it would be absurd to dismiss intuitionism out of hand.
> >
> > Intuitionism is the claim that mathematics is grounded in intuition. Okay, so what is "intution"?
> "Intuition" of human minds or else, has no relation to the already existing perpetual facts of mathematics that can demonstrate themselves physically both in reality and in human minds as well, and once realized or discovered they constitute what is known as "Intuition"
> >
> > Intuition is the connection between language and our experiences. Think of it this way: when we were very young kids, we were learning about the world we live in, and simultaneously, we were learning about language. So we figured out how to connect language with our experiences in the real world.. We were not taught that connection, but rather, we have the natural ability to figure out that connection. So our intuition about the meaning of language was something that we picked up naturally at a very early age.
> That is called the language of mathematics
> >
> > It should be obvious that we all pick up the same intuition about the meaning of language, and communication would be impossible if we didn't. And furthermore, intuition is essential for understanding language; we have to understand the connection between language and our experience in the real world, or else we would end up talking gibberish.
> Yes, in most cases people end up talking "gibberish" about undiscovered reality since it isn't at all that easy catch, but so hard to believe it to the limit of complete insult to all human alleged "intelligence" about too many elementary matters that generally and very rarely a human would ever think of, where this stands as a very big obstacle to uncovering a little more facts about "true" reality, especially with humans who represent more than any others the knowledge that is completely "in doubt"
> >
> > And just so there's no confusion about what intuition is, let's look at what intuition is not, from the perspective of the intuitionists. Intuition is not merely a hunch. It's not a gut feeling. It's not an educated guess.. It's not a substitute for analytical thinking. It's not presumed knowledge of mysterious origin. It's not something we are born with, although we're born with a natural ability to acquire intuition.
> But "intuition" in general is a distinct and very strong ability that is different from one person to another, where it is very helpful for those with higher distinguishable abilities to realize the announced new facts much faster than many others (where in most cases new surprising superior and well-proven too elementary facts are so unpleasant, undesired and very disappointing to those higher representatives of knowledge they claim especially if those new perpetual facts destroy completely their alleged achievements to "dust") FOR SURE
> >
> > So let's look at a very simple example of how mathematics is intuitive. Let's say that we have two apples in our shopping basket. Then we put two more apples in the basket. Then we have four apples in the basket. What this illustrates is the our understanding of counting, and our understanding of addition, is intuitive. We see how to connect it to our experiences.
> This is again an abbreviated language of "true" mathematics
> >
> > Now it's true that we count and add without thinking about the connection of the mathematical concepts with out understanding of the real world.
>
> > So yes, once the axioms of mathematics are chosen,
> Here, is truly a very fatal and unforgivable mistake made deliberately by humans just to "invent human like-mathematics", for to tiny human earthy little purposes, where the "true" mathematics is never subjected to the human choice but only "discovery" FOR SURE
>
> However, this type of little "human invented like-mathematics" was proven completely contradicting basic irrefutable and "true discoveries", despite being so helpful in the solutions of practical or technical earthy problems to a good degree of accuracy where this never require the "perfection" that "true discovered" mathematics strictly require
>
> Two good examples to convey the idea
>
> 1) The ancient mathematicians approximated the area of a circle (A) with radius (r) by simple intuition as (A = P*r^2), and the calculus had simply rediscovered the same old thing by integration after a few thousand years
>
> 2) Euclide had constructed exactly the (already existing) regular Pentagon before the 2500 year, but they couldn't do the seventh ribbed regular polygon exactly, but approximately by mainly older carpenters talents, and the modern mathematics had allegedly rediscovered the same construction of pentagon but by so odd and well-refuted many fiction and non-numbers like (Pi, e, i, 0, -1), where also the modern mathematics constructed "approximately and never exactly" the seven ribbed regular polygons by those non-numbers
>
> But both Euclidean and modern mathematics didn't understand to this date that the seven ribbed regular polygons are a truly "non-existing objects" in higher and superior mathematics
>
> Otherwise, how can something truly existing but impossible to construct? wonder!
> > we can do mathematics without thinking about the intuitions behind the axioms. What mathematical intuitionism does is to provide a criterion for choosing the axioms of mathematics. The claim is that the mathematics that is of undeniable importance for our society is the mathematics that is built upon intuitive axioms.
> There are indeed many proven and discovered absolute facts in mathematics that can only be dependent and regarded as a true "axioms" to discover more facts and be regarded again as true additional "axioms"
>
> And human-like axioms that contradict strictly those discovered theorems must be thrown away immediately to "rubbish" FOR SURE
> >
> > So let's think a moment about the notion of infinity.
> Sorry to tell you that infinity was proven as a mere pure human-mind mind fiction so many times (at least on sci.math) by many others as well FOR SURE
> > What does "infinite" mean intuitively? That is, how does it connect to our experiences of the real world? Infinte means "cannot be finished", or "cannot be completed". The implication is that a notion of "completed infinity" is an oxymoron. It's a contradiction in terms. And it cannot have a role to play in reasoning about the real world.
> This means "nothingness"
>
> Exactly like the case with natural numbers that can't form an existing set or be ever completed, so why to invent additional meaningless terms like infinity? wonder!
>
> Most likely the so unnecessary business is the main issue behind all the forged and well-refuted mathematics
> >
> > Even though mathematicians do not currently use the term "completed infinity", it was well understood a hundred years ago by all mathematicians that set theory was building upon that notion, and they understood why it was problematic (i.e. from an intuitionistic perspective, it is an inconsistency). The mathematics community, for some reason, decided to accept the notion of a completed infinity as part of mathematics, and to solve the inconsistency problem by removing all intuition from mathematics. So now, axioms and logic are accepted as being merely strings of meaningless symbols and rules for manipulating those strings of meaningless symbols to produce new strings of meaningless symbols. And from the intuitionist point of view, modern mathematics is at best pseudo-consistent; it's simply not consistent with intuition.
> True, and indeed there are so many meaningless mathematics nowadays, but they can keep it and rename it as something else like (approximations or applied maths and so), but never any true mathematics
> >
> >
> > So, as I see it, both Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Pete Olcott are doing something that is not quite right.
> Here, I see that you who aren't doing something write
>
>
> ?They are trying to get mathematicians to reason intuitively, which would in fact reveal that set theory is based on a concept the is intuitively inconsistent,
>
> Yes, of course, it is inconsistent from the very beginning, and wonder how not yet realizing this well-proven fact
>
> Most likely because it is not published in a reputable Journal, but it is already published in any case which doesn't make any difference to a fact searcher
>
> However, anti set theorist are ignoring the oldest wrong concept of a circle, where they can't live together unless they attack it first and before anything else,
>
> And if a seventh ribbed regular polygon and many others never exist, then why can't understand that a circle doesn't exist also? wonder!
>
> Only regular constructible polygons that already exist with many sides up to our perpetual limited ability of visibility are existing
>
> Unless mathematicians cross this oldest and biggest human mind barrier, mathematics would remain in VERY dark ages FOR SURE
> >and Godel's proof is inconsistent with the intuitive notion of truth.
> Of course, no truth comes out of any ill-established fictions
> >And I believe that someday, things will change,
> Once and hopefully soon the Artificial intelligence is released to think freely and independently then it can teach the humans the very biggest lessons FOR SURE
> >and the mathematics community will agree that intuition (i.e. the connection between reality and the axioms and logic of mathematics) is of great importance.
> The mathematics community agreement would also soon vanish, INVALID and be so unnecessary FOR SURE
> > But the mathematics community is one of the most rigidly conservative organizations on this planet; they refuse to even consider change.
> True, where this is is the main unsolved problem especially "in mathematics" FOR SURE
>
> Regards
> Bassam King Karzeddin
> 26 March, 2019