A somewhat famous quote often attributed to Poincare is this:

"Cantorian set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day recover" -- Poincare???

It does seem that that is not a precise translation of anything Poincare said. My guess is that this is where it comes from: two mathematicians attended a talk by Poincare, and the next day one said to the other, "hey, did you hear what Poincare said yesterday? He said that set theory is disease, yada yada", and then the other said, "yeah, I heard him say that too", and the rest is history.

But the question is, does that statement capture the essence of Poincare's views on set theory. I'm going to argue that it does, and that if you deny that, then you are implicitly claiming that Poincare did not understand the full implications of the things he has clearly said.

Here is something that he has definitely said:

"... we have run against certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions ... Then began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinking, that the important thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case. [H. Poincaré: "Science and method: The future of mathematics", Nelson, London (1914) p. 44f]

So what is he saying? First, I'm going to assume that Poincare would claim that mathematics must be consistent when it is translated into plain English (actually French, in his case), which I believe is consistent with everything I know about him. And of course, he is saying that the only things that be said to exist are the things that can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Then Cantor's reasoning (translated into plain English) says the following:

1) The collection of all things that can be said to exist (i.e., defined with a finite number of words) must be "countable", since language is countable.

2) There must exist a collection of all things that cannot be said to actually exist, and this collection must be larger than "countable".

So that's the joke and absurdity of Cantorian set theory, and Poincare's proposed solution to the "certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions" in set theory would completely invalidate the theory. Thus, if mathematicians were to accept his remedy, then they would feel "the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case" only when the theory itself is recognized as the disease.

David Petry wrote:

> A somewhat famous quote often attributed to Poincare is this:
> "Cantorian set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day
> recover" -- Poincare???

BOMBSHELL: Veritas Documents Reveal DC Bureaucrats Had Evidence
Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Were Effective in Treating COVID —
BUT HID THIS FROM PUBLIC
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/bombshell-veritas-documents-reveal-dc-bureaucrats-evidence-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-effective-treating-covid-hid-public/

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccines, accused
Dr. Fauci and others of lying and causing the death of over
500,000 Americans by preventing HCQ and Ivermectin, and other
treatments from COVID-19 patients.

Dr. Malone is right. It is well documented that Dr. Fauci and
top US doctors conspired to disqualify and condemn hydroxychloroquine
as a COVID-19 treatment. Millions died as a result of this.

On 1/12/2022 5:04 PM, David Petry wrote:
>
> A somewhat famous quote often attributed to Poincare is this:
>
> "Cantorian set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day recover" -- Poincare???
>
> It does seem that that is not a precise translation of anything Poincare said. My guess is that this is where it comes from: two mathematicians attended a talk by Poincare, and the next day one said to the other, "hey, did you hear what Poincare said yesterday? He said that set theory is disease, yada yada", and then the other said, "yeah, I heard him say that too", and the rest is history.

no, you are making stuff up. You fiction writer.

>
> But the question is, does that statement capture the essence of Poincare's views on set theory. I'm going to argue that it does, and that if you deny that, then you are implicitly claiming that Poincare did not understand the full implications of the things he has clearly said.

> Here is something that he has definitely said:
>
>
> "... we have run against certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions ... Then began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinking, that the important thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case. [H. Poincaré: "Science and method: The future of mathematics", Nelson, London (1914) p. 44f]

That is so out of context, he seems he is discussing Doctors in a finite number of words. "set theory" is no where.

>
>
> So what is he saying? First, I'm going to assume that Poincare would claim that mathematics must be consistent when it is translated into plain English (actually French, in his case), which I believe is consistent with everything I know about him. And of course, he is saying that the only things that be said to exist are the things that can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Then Cantor's reasoning (translated into plain English) says the following:

got URL or are you making stuff up again ?

>
> 1) The collection of all things that can be said to exist (i.e., defined with a finite number of words) must be "countable", since language is countable.

cant find that on google search

>
> 2) There must exist a collection of all things that cannot be said to actually exist, and this collection must be larger than "countable".

you making stuff up again, cant find that on google search

>
> So that's the joke and absurdity of Cantorian set theory, and Poincare's proposed solution to the "certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions" in set theory would completely invalidate the theory. Thus, if mathematicians were to accept his remedy, then they would feel "the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case" only when the theory itself is recognized as the disease.

go ahead and guess, but he did not say it nor set theory.

if you had anything real it would be in a book, but your off in imagination land again

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:27:49 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> On 1/12/2022 5:04 PM, David Petry wrote:

> > Here is something that he has definitely said:
> >
> >
> > "... we have run against certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions .... Then began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way.. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinking, that the important thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case. [H. Poincaré: "Science and method: The future of mathematics", Nelson, London (1914) p. 44f]
> That is so out of context, he seems he is discussing Doctors in a finite number of words. "set theory" is no where.
> >
> >
> > So what is he saying? First, I'm going to assume that Poincare would claim that mathematics must be consistent when it is translated into plain English (actually French, in his case), which I believe is consistent with everything I know about him. And of course, he is saying that the only things that be said to exist are the things that can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Then Cantor's reasoning (translated into plain English) says the following:
> got URL or are you making stuff up again ?

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/39713-h/39713-h.htm

Pg 382 in the section titled 'Cantorism'

On 1/12/2022 4:06 PM, Oval Curd wrote:
> BOMBSHELL: Veritas Documents Reveal Oval Curd's brane felled out
> Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Were Effective in Treating COVID —
> BUT HID THIS FROM PUBLIC while Oval Curd choked on his mom's ball-sack.
> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/bombshell-veritas-documents-reveal-dc-bureaucrats-evidence-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-effective-treating-covid-hid-public/

Wrong newsgroup idiot.

On 1/12/2022 6:49 PM, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:27:49 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>> On 1/12/2022 5:04 PM, David Petry wrote:
>
>>> Here is something that he has definitely said:
>>>
>>>
>>> "... we have run against certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions ... Then began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinking, that the important thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case. [H. Poincaré: "Science and method: The future of mathematics", Nelson, London (1914) p. 44f]
>> That is so out of context, he seems he is discussing Doctors in a finite number of words. "set theory" is no where.
>>>
>>>
>>> So what is he saying? First, I'm going to assume that Poincare would claim that mathematics must be consistent when it is translated into plain English (actually French, in his case), which I believe is consistent with everything I know about him. And of course, he is saying that the only things that be said to exist are the things that can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Then Cantor's reasoning (translated into plain English) says the following:
>> got URL or are you making stuff up again ?
>
> https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/39713-h/39713-h.htm
>
> Pg 382 in the section titled 'Cantorism'

Quote;
"Cantorism

I have spoken above of our need to go back continually to the first principles of our science, and of the advantage of this for the study of the human
mind. This need has inspired two endeavors which have taken a very prominent place in the most recent annals of mathematics. The first is Cantorism,
which has[Pg 382] rendered our science such conspicuous service. Cantor introduced into science a new way of considering mathematical infinity. One of
the characteristic traits of Cantorism is that in place of going up to the general by building up constructions more and more complicated and defining
by construction, it starts from the genus supremum and defines only, as the scholastics would have said, per genus proximum et differentiam specificam.
Thence comes the horror it has sometimes inspired in certain minds, for instance in Hermite, whose favorite idea was to compare the mathematical to the
natural sciences. With most of us these prejudices have been dissipated, but it has come to pass that we have encountered certain paradoxes, certain
apparent contradictions that would have delighted Zeno, the Eleatic and the school of Megara. And then each must seek the remedy. For my part, I think,
and I am not the only one, that the important thing is never to introduce entities not completely definable in a finite number of words. Whatever be the
cure adopted, we may promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a beautiful pathologic case."

......

Poincaré praises math and Cantor, and welcomes the paradoxes, and the complexity. (notice the difference in translations)

Poincaré and Einstein and SR - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40329-013-0013-1

brainfart Dave Smith evacuated:

> On 1/12/2022 4:06 PM, Oval Curd wrote:
>> BOMBSHELL: Veritas Documents Reveal Oval Curd's brane felled out
>> Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Were Effective in Treating COVID —
>> BUT HID THIS FROM PUBLIC while Oval Curd choked on his mom's ball-sack.
>> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/bombshell-veritas-documents-
reveal-dc-bureaucrats-evidence-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-effective-
treating-covid-hid-public/
>
> Wrong newsgroup idiot.

of course it's NOT, you mentally deranged cretin. Go suck dicks, idiot.
And analyse the situation. In short, kakaie satuatia.

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 6:35:41 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:

> Quote;
> "Cantorism

> [quote from Poincare]

> I have spoken above of our need to go back continually to the first principles of our science, and of the advantage of this for the study of the human
> mind. This need has inspired two endeavors which have taken a very prominent place in the most recent annals of mathematics. The first is Cantorism,
> which has[Pg 382] rendered our science such conspicuous service. Cantor introduced into science a new way of considering mathematical infinity. One of
> the characteristic traits of Cantorism is that in place of going up to the general by building up constructions more and more complicated and defining
> by construction, it starts from the genus supremum and defines only, as the scholastics would have said, per genus proximum et differentiam specificam.
> Thence comes the horror it has sometimes inspired in certain minds, for instance in Hermite, whose favorite idea was to compare the mathematical to the
> natural sciences. With most of us these prejudices have been dissipated, but it has come to pass that we have encountered certain paradoxes, certain
> apparent contradictions that would have delighted Zeno, the Eleatic and the school of Megara. And then each must seek the remedy. For my part, I think,
> and I am not the only one, that the important thing is never to introduce entities not completely definable in a finite number of words. Whatever be the
> cure adopted, we may promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a beautiful pathologic case."
>
> .....
>
> Poincaré praises math and Cantor, and welcomes the paradoxes, and the complexity. (notice the difference in translations)

In another thread about Poincare, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> I.e. Poincare has "let me not offend you, your sensibilities,
> or your intelligence, while I write along, because I still
> come from a milieu where perceived insult isn't allowed".

What Ross wrote, explains what's going on.

In the first half of the paragraph that you (Sergio) quoted, Poincare was doing everything he could to not be offensive to anyone. So if you don't understand the second half, you might easily conclude that Poincare endorsed Cantor's set theory. Except for that little problem of "certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions". If you work to understand his proposed cure, you will be forced to admit that he said that Cantor's set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day be cured, even if he didn't use those exact words.

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:06:24 PM UTC-8, Oval Curd wrote:

> BOMBSHELL: Veritas Documents Reveal DC Bureaucrats Had Evidence
> Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Were Effective in Treating COVID —
> BUT HID THIS FROM PUBLIC
> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/bombshell-veritas-documents-reveal-dc-bureaucrats-evidence-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-effective-treating-covid-hid-public/

Of course it's way off topic for this newsgroup, but that link is interesting. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Fauci really is a criminal responsible for many thousands of deaths, as some of the Republicans are claiming.

David Petry has brought this to us :
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:06:24 PM UTC-8, Oval Curd wrote:
>
>
>> BOMBSHELL: Veritas Documents Reveal DC Bureaucrats Had Evidence
>> Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Were Effective in Treating COVID —
>> BUT HID THIS FROM PUBLIC
>> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/bombshell-veritas-documents-reveal-dc-bureaucrats-evidence-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-effective-treating-covid-hid-public/
>
>
> Of course it's way off topic for this newsgroup, but that link is
> interesting. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Fauci really is a criminal
> responsible for many thousands of deaths, as some of the Republicans are
> claiming.

Unsurprising.

On 1/17/2022 12:46 AM, David Petry wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 6:35:41 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>
>> Quote;
>> "Cantorism
>
>> [quote from Poincare]
>
>> I have spoken above of our need to go back continually to the first principles of our science, and of the advantage of this for the study of the human
>> mind. This need has inspired two endeavors which have taken a very prominent place in the most recent annals of mathematics. The first is Cantorism,
>> which has[Pg 382] rendered our science such conspicuous service. Cantor introduced into science a new way of considering mathematical infinity. One of
>> the characteristic traits of Cantorism is that in place of going up to the general by building up constructions more and more complicated and defining
>> by construction, it starts from the genus supremum and defines only, as the scholastics would have said, per genus proximum et differentiam specificam.
>> Thence comes the horror it has sometimes inspired in certain minds, for instance in Hermite, whose favorite idea was to compare the mathematical to the
>> natural sciences. With most of us these prejudices have been dissipated, but it has come to pass that we have encountered certain paradoxes, certain
>> apparent contradictions that would have delighted Zeno, the Eleatic and the school of Megara. And then each must seek the remedy. For my part, I think,
>> and I am not the only one, that the important thing is never to introduce entities not completely definable in a finite number of words. Whatever be the
>> cure adopted, we may promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a beautiful pathologic case."
>>
>> .....
>>
>> Poincaré praises math and Cantor, and welcomes the paradoxes, and the complexity. (notice the difference in translations)
>
>
> In another thread about Poincare, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
>> I.e. Poincare has "let me not offend you, your sensibilities,
>> or your intelligence, while I write along, because I still
>> come from a milieu where perceived insult isn't allowed".
>
> What Ross wrote, explains what's going on.
>
> In the first half of the paragraph that you (Sergio) quoted, Poincare was doing everything he could to not be offensive to anyone. So if you don't understand the second half, you might easily conclude that Poincare endorsed Cantor's set theory. Except for that little problem of "certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions". If you work to understand his proposed cure, you will be forced to admit that he said that Cantor's set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day be cured, even if he didn't use those exact words.
>

I disagree with you on all your conclusions.
Poincare is summarizing, not your assumption of avoiding "...be offensive to anyone", here is what you snipped and changed in the latter half;

"With most of us these prejudices have been dissipated, but it has come to pass that we have encountered certain paradoxes, certain apparent
contradictions that would have delighted Zeno, the Eleatic and the school of Megara. And then each must seek the remedy. For my part, I think, and I am
not the only one, that the important thing is never to introduce entities not completely definable in a finite number of words. Whatever be the cure
adopted, we may promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a beautiful pathologic case."

Poincare states "prejudices have been dissipated" "we have... paradoxes... and contradictions" and he looks forward to the interesting cases of
trying to resolve beautiful contradictions.

David Petry wrote:

>> BOMBSHELL: Veritas Documents Reveal DC Bureaucrats Had Evidence
>> Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Were Effective in Treating COVID —
>> BUT HID THIS FROM PUBLIC
>> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/bombshell-veritas-documents-
reveal-dc-bureaucrats-evidence-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-effective-
treating-covid-hid-public/
>
> Of course it's way off topic for this newsgroup, but that link is
> interesting. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Fauci really is a
> criminal responsible for many thousands of deaths, as some of the
> Republicans are claiming.

where have you been?? You government obedient capitalists are always
regretting your vaccines months and years after taken it. You destroyed
the life of your family and the people around you, you disgusting sack of
rocks. Denying millions of years of *Evolution*, believing in an
uneducated mazafaka bill gaytes, just because he was selling a crappy
stolen OS, illegally installed on all crap computers around the world, of
which it should be given 100% free.

Only an imbecile would use Windoze from now on. You idiots, your math has
no *mathematical_beauty*

Nobel Prize Winner Professor Luc Montagnier: ‘The Non Jabbed Will Save
Humanity’

sergio wrote:

>> that Cantor's set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one
>> day be cured, even if he didn't use those exact words.
>
> I disagree with you on all your conclusions.
> Poincare is summarizing, not your assumption of avoiding "...be
> offensive to anyone", here is what you snipped and changed in the latter
> half;

Funny, I was, as many were, under the impression that we got rid of the
nazis in 1945. Turns out we've been wrong all this time. The capitalist
eugenicist fourth Reich will happen through economic warfare and
sublimation.

Research Operation Paperclip, where the capitalist naziests faked the
manned moon landing, for world domination and force the prosperous
eastern europe, that time, into defeat.

Math cannot assemble an infinite set. by any means it can never complete...

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-8, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:27:49 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> > On 1/12/2022 5:04 PM, David Petry wrote:
>
> > > Here is something that he has definitely said:
> > >
> > >
> > > "... we have run against certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions ... Then began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinking, that the important thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case. [H. Poincaré: "Science and method: The future of mathematics", Nelson, London (1914) p. 44f]
> > That is so out of context, he seems he is discussing Doctors in a finite number of words. "set theory" is no where.
> > >
> > >
> > > So what is he saying? First, I'm going to assume that Poincare would claim that mathematics must be consistent when it is translated into plain English (actually French, in his case), which I believe is consistent with everything I know about him. And of course, he is saying that the only things that be said to exist are the things that can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Then Cantor's reasoning (translated into plain English) says the following:
> > got URL or are you making stuff up again ?
> https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/39713-h/39713-h.htm
>
> Pg 382 in the section titled 'Cantorism'

You know, one thing for a course, is a reader, with the idea that,
besides any instruction or exercise or anything, there is just a reader,
that understands the material enough to properly pronounce and say
it, what is written, in a cadence that one can hear in the manner it was written.

I very much enjoy that myself though if not usually the "aloud" part.

Which is also enjoyable if for others instead of oneself, ....

Though of course then there's the writer, ..., writing for oneself and others.

"... a beautiful pathologic case." -- Poincare on infinite, Cantorism

Poincare:
"For my part, I think, and I am not the only one,
that the important thing is never to introduce entities
not completely definable in a finite number of words.
Whatever be the cure adopted, we may promise ourselves
the joy of the doctor called in to follow a beautiful pathologic case."

Poincare of course keeps his constructivism about his intuitionism.

On 1/17/2022 3:05 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-8, FredJeffries wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:27:49 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2022 5:04 PM, David Petry wrote:
>>
>>>> Here is something that he has definitely said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "... we have run against certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions ... Then began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinking, that the important thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case. [H. Poincaré: "Science and method: The future of mathematics", Nelson, London (1914) p. 44f]
>>> That is so out of context, he seems he is discussing Doctors in a finite number of words. "set theory" is no where.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what is he saying? First, I'm going to assume that Poincare would claim that mathematics must be consistent when it is translated into plain English (actually French, in his case), which I believe is consistent with everything I know about him. And of course, he is saying that the only things that be said to exist are the things that can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Then Cantor's reasoning (translated into plain English) says the following:
>>> got URL or are you making stuff up again ?
>> https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/39713-h/39713-h.htm
>>
>> Pg 382 in the section titled 'Cantorism'
>
>
> You know, one thing for a course, is a reader, with the idea that,
> besides any instruction or exercise or anything, there is just a reader,
> that understands the material enough to properly pronounce and say
> it, what is written, in a cadence that one can hear in the manner it was written.
>
> I very much enjoy that myself though if not usually the "aloud" part.
>
> Which is also enjoyable if for others instead of oneself, ....
>
> Though of course then there's the writer, ..., writing for oneself and others.
>
> "... a beautiful pathologic case." -- Poincare on infinite, Cantorism
>
> Poincare:
> "For my part, I think, and I am not the only one,
> that the important thing is never to introduce entities
> not completely definable in a finite number of words.
> Whatever be the cure adopted, we may promise ourselves
> the joy of the doctor called in to follow a beautiful pathologic case."
>
> Poincare of course keeps his constructivism about his intuitionism.
>

agree, he had a colorful description of the situation

torsdag 13 januari 2022 kl. 00:04:48 UTC+1 skrev david...@gmail.com:
> A somewhat famous quote often attributed to Poincare is this:
>
> "Cantorian set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day recover" -- Poincare???
>
> It does seem that that is not a precise translation of anything Poincare said. My guess is that this is where it comes from: two mathematicians attended a talk by Poincare, and the next day one said to the other, "hey, did you hear what Poincare said yesterday? He said that set theory is disease, yada yada", and then the other said, "yeah, I heard him say that too", and the rest is history.
>
> But the question is, does that statement capture the essence of Poincare's views on set theory. I'm going to argue that it does, and that if you deny that, then you are implicitly claiming that Poincare did not understand the full implications of the things he has clearly said.
>
> Here is something that he has definitely said:
>
>
> "... we have run against certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions .... Then began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinking, that the important thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case. [H. Poincaré: "Science and method: The future of mathematics", Nelson, London (1914) p. 44f]
>
>
> So what is he saying? First, I'm going to assume that Poincare would claim that mathematics must be consistent when it is translated into plain English (actually French, in his case), which I believe is consistent with everything I know about him. And of course, he is saying that the only things that be said to exist are the things that can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Then Cantor's reasoning (translated into plain English) says the following:
>
> 1) The collection of all things that can be said to exist (i.e., defined with a finite number of words) must be "countable", since language is countable.
>
> 2) There must exist a collection of all things that cannot be said to actually exist, and this collection must be larger than "countable".
>
> So that's the joke and absurdity of Cantorian set theory, and Poincare's proposed solution to the "certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions" in set theory would completely invalidate the theory. Thus, if mathematicians were to accept his remedy, then they would feel "the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case" only when the theory itself is recognized as the disease.
and why should we care?

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:16:22 PM UTC-8, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 13 januari 2022 kl. 00:04:48 UTC+1 skrev david...@gmail.com:
> > A somewhat famous quote often attributed to Poincare is this:
> >
> > "Cantorian set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day recover" -- Poincare???
> >
> > It does seem that that is not a precise translation of anything Poincare said. My guess is that this is where it comes from: two mathematicians attended a talk by Poincare, and the next day one said to the other, "hey, did you hear what Poincare said yesterday? He said that set theory is disease, yada yada", and then the other said, "yeah, I heard him say that too", and the rest is history.
> >
> > But the question is, does that statement capture the essence of Poincare's views on set theory. I'm going to argue that it does, and that if you deny that, then you are implicitly claiming that Poincare did not understand the full implications of the things he has clearly said.
> >
> > Here is something that he has definitely said:
> >
> >
> > "... we have run against certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions .... Then began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way.. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinking, that the important thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case. [H. Poincaré: "Science and method: The future of mathematics", Nelson, London (1914) p. 44f]
> >
> >
> > So what is he saying? First, I'm going to assume that Poincare would claim that mathematics must be consistent when it is translated into plain English (actually French, in his case), which I believe is consistent with everything I know about him. And of course, he is saying that the only things that be said to exist are the things that can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Then Cantor's reasoning (translated into plain English) says the following:
> >
> > 1) The collection of all things that can be said to exist (i.e., defined with a finite number of words) must be "countable", since language is countable.
> >
> > 2) There must exist a collection of all things that cannot be said to actually exist, and this collection must be larger than "countable".
> >
> > So that's the joke and absurdity of Cantorian set theory, and Poincare's proposed solution to the "certain paradoxes and apparent contradictions" in set theory would completely invalidate the theory. Thus, if mathematicians were to accept his remedy, then they would feel "the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case" only when the theory itself is recognized as the disease.
> and why should we care?

You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.

That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
....
> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
>
>
> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
>

Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?

On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> ...
>> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
>> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
>> infinitesimals, that have standard character.  So, for some that's more
>> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
>> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
>> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
>> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
>>
>>
>> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
>>
>
> Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
>
>

It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > ...
> >> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
> >> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
> >> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
> >> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
> >> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
> >> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
> >> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
> >>
> >
> > Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
> >
> >
> It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.

Let us consult the history of science and theory about monkeys
what type Shakespeare, as that Shakespeare is well-regarded and
in this sense there are monkeys that will type it for work.

You'll notice I simply monopolized this forum and left it well enough
alone, as simply replying on-topic usually (to the end). I think that
now that you all will end up reading your posts and all of a sudden,
usually, finding that I have written a note to your future self.

I.e. it would be a pleasant surprise to find usually writing that is
both, a) explaining differences, and b) broadsides.

I don't know about Shakespeare but Monkeys will read _anything_.

Basically as the model of monkeys is people, is that after the
one monkey who knows Shakespeare and reads everything,
then is for getting the presses rolling, basically for what is
going monkey-typewriter work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem .

Let's agree that there are Joyce Monkeys, there are monkeys of all sorts,
and 1 Shakespeare is the largest unit in the English language system.

One monkey-typewriter-hour: defines 1 Shakespeare: 25,000 different words.

Learning words is probably best spelling bee practice, I knew most words
by the time I was 12. Thus, effectively I am a monkey.

Now then, let's make the model of monkeys, to a parable of probability.
Shakespeare types 25,000 _different_ words. Now, there isn't an expectation
that a monkey would ever type _exactly_ Shakespeare, but, according to
the probability of writing 25,000 different words being much, much greater
than channeling Shakespeare, those words would fill the same the space.

"In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program
produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,
starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent
generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny
that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance
of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small,
yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about
40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random
choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts
information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel
program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring"
phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance
to a distant ideal target."

Now, here I think you can agree just like you might figure I would
later plan to interpret the same and agree, here about what results
to basically write enough like Shakespeare to make a Joyce.

Reading this as "is there a salt to some standard conversation schema
that would usually result a talking philosopher, this inspiration of what
results then that accordingly it's readable to understand its source",
no, I just invented that.

Now then, will you agree, that, with respect to foundations and
what text I generate, it is as a typewriter monkey with 25,000 words.
In theory ....

(For we are men.)

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:59:12 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> > On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > ...
> > >> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
> > >> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
> > >> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
> > >> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
> > >> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
> > >> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
> > >> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
> > >
> > >
> > It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.
> Let us consult the history of science and theory about monkeys
> what type Shakespeare, as that Shakespeare is well-regarded and
> in this sense there are monkeys that will type it for work.
>
> You'll notice I simply monopolized this forum and left it well enough
> alone, as simply replying on-topic usually (to the end). I think that
> now that you all will end up reading your posts and all of a sudden,
> usually, finding that I have written a note to your future self.
>
> I.e. it would be a pleasant surprise to find usually writing that is
> both, a) explaining differences, and b) broadsides.
>
> I don't know about Shakespeare but Monkeys will read _anything_.
>
>
>
>
> Basically as the model of monkeys is people, is that after the
> one monkey who knows Shakespeare and reads everything,
> then is for getting the presses rolling, basically for what is
> going monkey-typewriter work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem .
>
>
> Let's agree that there are Joyce Monkeys, there are monkeys of all sorts,
> and 1 Shakespeare is the largest unit in the English language system.
>
>
> One monkey-typewriter-hour: defines 1 Shakespeare: 25,000 different words.
>
> Learning words is probably best spelling bee practice, I knew most words
> by the time I was 12. Thus, effectively I am a monkey.
>
> Now then, let's make the model of monkeys, to a parable of probability.
> Shakespeare types 25,000 _different_ words. Now, there isn't an expectation
> that a monkey would ever type _exactly_ Shakespeare, but, according to
> the probability of writing 25,000 different words being much, much greater
> than channeling Shakespeare, those words would fill the same the space.
>
> "In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program
> produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,
> starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent
> generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny
> that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance
> of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small,
> yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about
> 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random
> choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts
> information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel
> program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring"
> phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance
> to a distant ideal target."
>
>
> Now, here I think you can agree just like you might figure I would
> later plan to interpret the same and agree, here about what results
> to basically write enough like Shakespeare to make a Joyce.
>
> Reading this as "is there a salt to some standard conversation schema
> that would usually result a talking philosopher, this inspiration of what
> results then that accordingly it's readable to understand its source",
> no, I just invented that.
>
> Now then, will you agree, that, with respect to foundations and
> what text I generate, it is as a typewriter monkey with 25,000 words.
> In theory ....
>
> (For we are men.)

So, while my brain was giant and naive, I Shakespeare'd this typewriter,
thus that when I'm a Joyce I can monkey brain reading it.

Then, all those notes to my future self, I'm sure he was right.

I guess one thing don't understand about cranks, is, there are two
kinds of cranks: trolls and cranks. I feel bad for people thinking that
some crank or troll was just not getting answers - I hope so though
it's clear - Archimedes Plutonium is the crank saint and troll king of
sci.math, thank you.

Imagine if you will, that Archimedes Plutonium is actually along the lines
of a mechanized reasoning machine or lack thereof. It's a program that
according to what it establishes as "ideas" or statements, is given enough
range and concerns as what results its surfaces, are as of analytic geometry.
So, we have one of these on sci.math. Now, imagine another one, about
1000 times deeper, if, the same, basic organization, Archimedes Plutonium
the journal writer, in analytic geometry.

I.e. as a meat machine it's much easier for me to keep track of all a foundations
as a most simple direct and fundamental thing - while as a meat machine I
am somewhat not organized the same as a giant silicon brain net.

And it's already a long time ago as with regards to significant and large
program brains.

As you can see if I plan to keep this up by now I'd be figuring to
give it a brain and fill it up.

Anyways, I think there will be a resurgence in brains, and simple brains.

Regular foundations is of course most directly implemented in
the giant, large, simple brains.

Yes, if you'll excuse me, I mostly write points of fact that reflect
mostly that I'm interested in continuum mechanics, as what I'd
expect that a mechanical reader can easily enjoy. (From that
writing is a linear narrative, I have taken advantage of that
in extended linear narrative, which is "development of a theory",
and "development of A-Theory".)

I.e. this way I see it as much work as play - free work.

Anyways now I have these slates of uncountability and paradox,
but I can put them down.

Picking them back up again - it's not like 10 Commandments
or it is - Moses and the Ten Commandments, instead is that
for uncountability it is each of the proofs of uncountability,
and how there's one unique function counterexample to
them in function theory, the uncountability slate. Then,
the paradox slate, is each of the logical paradoxes like
Russell and ..., are resolved in universal and void, with
a theory of "ubiquitous ordinals" a set theory, and otherwise
that the other slate is for resolving logical paradox.

See, that is trolling, though, in the sense, that, besides Sergio
me telling you, it's only good as with the power of the mind,
pick up the slates.

Not to say I want to carry around Ten Commandments like Moses,
or what all run screaming from the burning bush "G-d is in the
burning bush then later he gave me these Ten Commandments",
anyways those I found, these great uncountability and paradox
slates, that results I have those up together.

I suppose there wasn't one of these when I wrote one.

There are already of course all matters of countable character,
constructively, and resolution via logic, constructively, these
are the slates that resolve countable character with uncountable
domains, and paradoxes in logic after regular objects. I.e. the
usual approach before is "impossible because mathematical paradox".

See, that is trolling, and, reaching past sincere.

Anyways, to wrap up "I told you so, Poincare : 2022", here is
that indeed, it's been a very long time since I added anything
to A-Theory, though that it is the same theory, that we can
look to for example that it's a narrative, just pointing out that
Virgil, thank him, had the last word, about mathematics and
against cranks, or trolls. There came a point when Virgil, was
able to leave the last word, not wrong, until there came the
time when he let me have the last word. He agreed to keep
his word, and me to keep mine.

Now, not everyone would notice that, some usual long 8000
post thread of Prof.Dr. so-and-so and Emeritus Don crackety-quack,
always at brickbats with each other, two men at peace with their words,
since then was from bright-eyed certainty to steely comfort.

On 1/19/2022 4:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:59:12 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
>>>>> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
>>>>> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
>>>>> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
>>>>> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
>>>>> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
>>>>> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.
>> Let us consult the history of science and theory about monkeys
>> what type Shakespeare, as that Shakespeare is well-regarded and
>> in this sense there are monkeys that will type it for work.
>>
>> You'll notice I simply monopolized this forum and left it well enough
>> alone, as simply replying on-topic usually (to the end). I think that
>> now that you all will end up reading your posts and all of a sudden,
>> usually, finding that I have written a note to your future self.
>>
>> I.e. it would be a pleasant surprise to find usually writing that is
>> both, a) explaining differences, and b) broadsides.
>>
>> I don't know about Shakespeare but Monkeys will read _anything_.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Basically as the model of monkeys is people, is that after the
>> one monkey who knows Shakespeare and reads everything,
>> then is for getting the presses rolling, basically for what is
>> going monkey-typewriter work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem .
>>
>>
>> Let's agree that there are Joyce Monkeys, there are monkeys of all sorts,
>> and 1 Shakespeare is the largest unit in the English language system.
>>
>>
>> One monkey-typewriter-hour: defines 1 Shakespeare: 25,000 different words.
>>
>> Learning words is probably best spelling bee practice, I knew most words
>> by the time I was 12. Thus, effectively I am a monkey.
>>
>> Now then, let's make the model of monkeys, to a parable of probability.
>> Shakespeare types 25,000 _different_ words. Now, there isn't an expectation
>> that a monkey would ever type _exactly_ Shakespeare, but, according to
>> the probability of writing 25,000 different words being much, much greater
>> than channeling Shakespeare, those words would fill the same the space.
>>
>> "In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program
>> produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,
>> starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent
>> generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny
>> that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance
>> of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small,
>> yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about
>> 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random
>> choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts
>> information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel
>> program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring"
>> phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance
>> to a distant ideal target."
>>
>>
>> Now, here I think you can agree just like you might figure I would
>> later plan to interpret the same and agree, here about what results
>> to basically write enough like Shakespeare to make a Joyce.
>>
>> Reading this as "is there a salt to some standard conversation schema
>> that would usually result a talking philosopher, this inspiration of what
>> results then that accordingly it's readable to understand its source",
>> no, I just invented that.
>>
>> Now then, will you agree, that, with respect to foundations and
>> what text I generate, it is as a typewriter monkey with 25,000 words.
>> In theory ....
>>
>> (For we are men.)
>
>
>
> So, while my brain was giant and naive, I Shakespeare'd this typewriter,
> thus that when I'm a Joyce I can monkey brain reading it.
>
> Then, all those notes to my future self, I'm sure he was right.
>
>
> I guess one thing don't understand about cranks, is, there are two
> kinds of cranks: trolls and cranks. I feel bad for people thinking that
> some crank or troll was just not getting answers - I hope so though
> it's clear - Archimedes Plutonium is the crank saint and troll king of
> sci.math, thank you.
>
> Imagine if you will, that Archimedes Plutonium is actually along the lines
> of a mechanized reasoning machine or lack thereof. It's a program that
> according to what it establishes as "ideas" or statements, is given enough
> range and concerns as what results its surfaces, are as of analytic geometry.
> So, we have one of these on sci.math. Now, imagine another one, about
> 1000 times deeper, if, the same, basic organization, Archimedes Plutonium
> the journal writer, in analytic geometry.
>
> I.e. as a meat machine it's much easier for me to keep track of all a foundations
> as a most simple direct and fundamental thing - while as a meat machine I
> am somewhat not organized the same as a giant silicon brain net.
>
> And it's already a long time ago as with regards to significant and large
> program brains.
>
> As you can see if I plan to keep this up by now I'd be figuring to
> give it a brain and fill it up.
>
> Anyways, I think there will be a resurgence in brains, and simple brains.
>
>
> Regular foundations is of course most directly implemented in
> the giant, large, simple brains.
>
> Yes, if you'll excuse me, I mostly write points of fact that reflect
> mostly that I'm interested in continuum mechanics, as what I'd
> expect that a mechanical reader can easily enjoy. (From that
> writing is a linear narrative, I have taken advantage of that
> in extended linear narrative, which is "development of a theory",
> and "development of A-Theory".)
>
> I.e. this way I see it as much work as play - free work.
>
> Anyways now I have these slates of uncountability and paradox,
> but I can put them down.
>
> Picking them back up again - it's not like 10 Commandments
> or it is - Moses and the Ten Commandments, instead is that
> for uncountability it is each of the proofs of uncountability,
> and how there's one unique function counterexample to
> them in function theory, the uncountability slate. Then,
> the paradox slate, is each of the logical paradoxes like
> Russell and ..., are resolved in universal and void, with
> a theory of "ubiquitous ordinals" a set theory, and otherwise
> that the other slate is for resolving logical paradox.
>
> See, that is trolling, though, in the sense, that, besides Sergio
> me telling you, it's only good as with the power of the mind,
> pick up the slates.
>
> Not to say I want to carry around Ten Commandments like Moses,
> or what all run screaming from the burning bush "G-d is in the
> burning bush then later he gave me these Ten Commandments",
> anyways those I found, these great uncountability and paradox
> slates, that results I have those up together.
>
>
> I suppose there wasn't one of these when I wrote one.
>
>
> There are already of course all matters of countable character,
> constructively, and resolution via logic, constructively, these
> are the slates that resolve countable character with uncountable
> domains, and paradoxes in logic after regular objects. I.e. the
> usual approach before is "impossible because mathematical paradox".
>
>
> See, that is trolling, and, reaching past sincere.
>
> Anyways, to wrap up "I told you so, Poincare : 2022", here is
> that indeed, it's been a very long time since I added anything
> to A-Theory, though that it is the same theory, that we can
> look to for example that it's a narrative, just pointing out that
> Virgil, thank him, had the last word, about mathematics and
> against cranks, or trolls. There came a point when Virgil, was
> able to leave the last word, not wrong, until there came the
> time when he let me have the last word. He agreed to keep
> his word, and me to keep mine.
>
> Now, not everyone would notice that, some usual long 8000
> post thread of Prof.Dr. so-and-so and Emeritus Don crackety-quack,
> always at brickbats with each other, two men at peace with their words,
> since then was from bright-eyed certainty to steely comfort.
>
> So, when it comes around that in the course of continuum mechanics
> all sorts of what are usual distinctions start to make sense, including
> modern mathematics _and_ "open set theory", mostly a) a troll.
> That is to say: if you read and understand as I do, that "ok since
> about 15 years ago it is basically formalized an entire theory past
> modern mathematics, with most all its goals", then I hope it would
> be useful to you what results explaining mathematics, personally.
>
> Because as far as I know it's a direct claim on a philosophy of science.
>
> Which is a pragmatic thing to have.
>
> There are others - usual philosophies of science - and the usual one -
> this philosophy includes again, there's no point having a "theory of
> everything" that isn't "The, theory of everything".
>
> So, pretty much after all regular theory where has been formalized
> for the regular open topology and the complete ordered field measure
> after LUB and 1.0, and, all regular theory runs out past completeness
> to incompleteness, in words, the theory of everything basically resolves
> all logical paradox, that there is one.
>
> It's sad there's only one but that's the way it is. Then it's not sad
> there's only one and that's the way it is.
>
> Anyways now that Virgil and I have had our say, basically my
> point is there is a theory where Fred Jeffries establishes the
> area of a triangle, that the theory of all things does also.
>
>
>
> I think that Poincare, channeled today, i.e. 130 years later, after the
> Hilbert Program, after Langlands, after Bourbaki, after ZFC, after Goedel,
> out through descriptive set theory for topology, category theory,
> Mizar and Metamath and so on, would have that it's exactly the same.
>

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 5:07:29 AM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> On 1/19/2022 4:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:59:12 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> >>> On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
> >>>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
> >>>>> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
> >>>>> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
> >>>>> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
> >>>>> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
> >>>>> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
> >>>>> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.
> >> Let us consult the history of science and theory about monkeys
> >> what type Shakespeare, as that Shakespeare is well-regarded and
> >> in this sense there are monkeys that will type it for work.
> >>
> >> You'll notice I simply monopolized this forum and left it well enough
> >> alone, as simply replying on-topic usually (to the end). I think that
> >> now that you all will end up reading your posts and all of a sudden,
> >> usually, finding that I have written a note to your future self.
> >>
> >> I.e. it would be a pleasant surprise to find usually writing that is
> >> both, a) explaining differences, and b) broadsides.
> >>
> >> I don't know about Shakespeare but Monkeys will read _anything_.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Basically as the model of monkeys is people, is that after the
> >> one monkey who knows Shakespeare and reads everything,
> >> then is for getting the presses rolling, basically for what is
> >> going monkey-typewriter work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem .
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's agree that there are Joyce Monkeys, there are monkeys of all sorts,
> >> and 1 Shakespeare is the largest unit in the English language system.
> >>
> >>
> >> One monkey-typewriter-hour: defines 1 Shakespeare: 25,000 different words.
> >>
> >> Learning words is probably best spelling bee practice, I knew most words
> >> by the time I was 12. Thus, effectively I am a monkey.
> >>
> >> Now then, let's make the model of monkeys, to a parable of probability.
> >> Shakespeare types 25,000 _different_ words. Now, there isn't an expectation
> >> that a monkey would ever type _exactly_ Shakespeare, but, according to
> >> the probability of writing 25,000 different words being much, much greater
> >> than channeling Shakespeare, those words would fill the same the space.
> >>
> >> "In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program
> >> produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,
> >> starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent
> >> generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny
> >> that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance
> >> of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small,
> >> yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about
> >> 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random
> >> choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts
> >> information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel
> >> program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring"
> >> phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance
> >> to a distant ideal target."
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, here I think you can agree just like you might figure I would
> >> later plan to interpret the same and agree, here about what results
> >> to basically write enough like Shakespeare to make a Joyce.
> >>
> >> Reading this as "is there a salt to some standard conversation schema
> >> that would usually result a talking philosopher, this inspiration of what
> >> results then that accordingly it's readable to understand its source",
> >> no, I just invented that.
> >>
> >> Now then, will you agree, that, with respect to foundations and
> >> what text I generate, it is as a typewriter monkey with 25,000 words.
> >> In theory ....
> >>
> >> (For we are men.)
> >
> >
> >
> > So, while my brain was giant and naive, I Shakespeare'd this typewriter,
> > thus that when I'm a Joyce I can monkey brain reading it.
> >
> > Then, all those notes to my future self, I'm sure he was right.
> >
> >
> > I guess one thing don't understand about cranks, is, there are two
> > kinds of cranks: trolls and cranks. I feel bad for people thinking that
> > some crank or troll was just not getting answers - I hope so though
> > it's clear - Archimedes Plutonium is the crank saint and troll king of
> > sci.math, thank you.
> >
> > Imagine if you will, that Archimedes Plutonium is actually along the lines
> > of a mechanized reasoning machine or lack thereof. It's a program that
> > according to what it establishes as "ideas" or statements, is given enough
> > range and concerns as what results its surfaces, are as of analytic geometry.
> > So, we have one of these on sci.math. Now, imagine another one, about
> > 1000 times deeper, if, the same, basic organization, Archimedes Plutonium
> > the journal writer, in analytic geometry.
> >
> > I.e. as a meat machine it's much easier for me to keep track of all a foundations
> > as a most simple direct and fundamental thing - while as a meat machine I
> > am somewhat not organized the same as a giant silicon brain net.
> >
> > And it's already a long time ago as with regards to significant and large
> > program brains.
> >
> > As you can see if I plan to keep this up by now I'd be figuring to
> > give it a brain and fill it up.
> >
> > Anyways, I think there will be a resurgence in brains, and simple brains.
> >
> >
> > Regular foundations is of course most directly implemented in
> > the giant, large, simple brains.
> >
> > Yes, if you'll excuse me, I mostly write points of fact that reflect
> > mostly that I'm interested in continuum mechanics, as what I'd
> > expect that a mechanical reader can easily enjoy. (From that
> > writing is a linear narrative, I have taken advantage of that
> > in extended linear narrative, which is "development of a theory",
> > and "development of A-Theory".)
> >
> > I.e. this way I see it as much work as play - free work.
> >
> > Anyways now I have these slates of uncountability and paradox,
> > but I can put them down.
> >
> > Picking them back up again - it's not like 10 Commandments
> > or it is - Moses and the Ten Commandments, instead is that
> > for uncountability it is each of the proofs of uncountability,
> > and how there's one unique function counterexample to
> > them in function theory, the uncountability slate. Then,
> > the paradox slate, is each of the logical paradoxes like
> > Russell and ..., are resolved in universal and void, with
> > a theory of "ubiquitous ordinals" a set theory, and otherwise
> > that the other slate is for resolving logical paradox.
> >
> > See, that is trolling, though, in the sense, that, besides Sergio
> > me telling you, it's only good as with the power of the mind,
> > pick up the slates.
> >
> > Not to say I want to carry around Ten Commandments like Moses,
> > or what all run screaming from the burning bush "G-d is in the
> > burning bush then later he gave me these Ten Commandments",
> > anyways those I found, these great uncountability and paradox
> > slates, that results I have those up together.
> >
> >
> > I suppose there wasn't one of these when I wrote one.
> >
> >
> > There are already of course all matters of countable character,
> > constructively, and resolution via logic, constructively, these
> > are the slates that resolve countable character with uncountable
> > domains, and paradoxes in logic after regular objects. I.e. the
> > usual approach before is "impossible because mathematical paradox".
> >
> >
> > See, that is trolling, and, reaching past sincere.
> >
> > Anyways, to wrap up "I told you so, Poincare : 2022", here is
> > that indeed, it's been a very long time since I added anything
> > to A-Theory, though that it is the same theory, that we can
> > look to for example that it's a narrative, just pointing out that
> > Virgil, thank him, had the last word, about mathematics and
> > against cranks, or trolls. There came a point when Virgil, was
> > able to leave the last word, not wrong, until there came the
> > time when he let me have the last word. He agreed to keep
> > his word, and me to keep mine.
> >
> > Now, not everyone would notice that, some usual long 8000
> > post thread of Prof.Dr. so-and-so and Emeritus Don crackety-quack,
> > always at brickbats with each other, two men at peace with their words,
> > since then was from bright-eyed certainty to steely comfort.
> >
> > So, when it comes around that in the course of continuum mechanics
> > all sorts of what are usual distinctions start to make sense, including
> > modern mathematics _and_ "open set theory", mostly a) a troll.
> > That is to say: if you read and understand as I do, that "ok since
> > about 15 years ago it is basically formalized an entire theory past
> > modern mathematics, with most all its goals", then I hope it would
> > be useful to you what results explaining mathematics, personally.
> >
> > Because as far as I know it's a direct claim on a philosophy of science.
> >
> > Which is a pragmatic thing to have.
> >
> > There are others - usual philosophies of science - and the usual one -
> > this philosophy includes again, there's no point having a "theory of
> > everything" that isn't "The, theory of everything".
> >
> > So, pretty much after all regular theory where has been formalized
> > for the regular open topology and the complete ordered field measure
> > after LUB and 1.0, and, all regular theory runs out past completeness
> > to incompleteness, in words, the theory of everything basically resolves
> > all logical paradox, that there is one.
> >
> > It's sad there's only one but that's the way it is. Then it's not sad
> > there's only one and that's the way it is.
> >
> > Anyways now that Virgil and I have had our say, basically my
> > point is there is a theory where Fred Jeffries establishes the
> > area of a triangle, that the theory of all things does also.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that Poincare, channeled today, i.e. 130 years later, after the
> > Hilbert Program, after Langlands, after Bourbaki, after ZFC, after Goedel,
> > out through descriptive set theory for topology, category theory,
> > Mizar and Metamath and so on, would have that it's exactly the same.
> >
> yea, that's bratworst.

On 1/19/2022 5:23 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 5:07:29 AM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>> On 1/19/2022 4:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:59:12 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
>>>>>>> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
>>>>>>> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
>>>>>>> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
>>>>>>> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
>>>>>>> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
>>>>>>> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.
>>>> Let us consult the history of science and theory about monkeys
>>>> what type Shakespeare, as that Shakespeare is well-regarded and
>>>> in this sense there are monkeys that will type it for work.
>>>>
>>>> You'll notice I simply monopolized this forum and left it well enough
>>>> alone, as simply replying on-topic usually (to the end). I think that
>>>> now that you all will end up reading your posts and all of a sudden,
>>>> usually, finding that I have written a note to your future self.
>>>>
>>>> I.e. it would be a pleasant surprise to find usually writing that is
>>>> both, a) explaining differences, and b) broadsides.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about Shakespeare but Monkeys will read _anything_.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Basically as the model of monkeys is people, is that after the
>>>> one monkey who knows Shakespeare and reads everything,
>>>> then is for getting the presses rolling, basically for what is
>>>> going monkey-typewriter work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's agree that there are Joyce Monkeys, there are monkeys of all sorts,
>>>> and 1 Shakespeare is the largest unit in the English language system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One monkey-typewriter-hour: defines 1 Shakespeare: 25,000 different words.
>>>>
>>>> Learning words is probably best spelling bee practice, I knew most words
>>>> by the time I was 12. Thus, effectively I am a monkey.
>>>>
>>>> Now then, let's make the model of monkeys, to a parable of probability.
>>>> Shakespeare types 25,000 _different_ words. Now, there isn't an expectation
>>>> that a monkey would ever type _exactly_ Shakespeare, but, according to
>>>> the probability of writing 25,000 different words being much, much greater
>>>> than channeling Shakespeare, those words would fill the same the space.
>>>>
>>>> "In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program
>>>> produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,
>>>> starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent
>>>> generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny
>>>> that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance
>>>> of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small,
>>>> yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about
>>>> 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random
>>>> choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts
>>>> information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel
>>>> program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring"
>>>> phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance
>>>> to a distant ideal target."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, here I think you can agree just like you might figure I would
>>>> later plan to interpret the same and agree, here about what results
>>>> to basically write enough like Shakespeare to make a Joyce.
>>>>
>>>> Reading this as "is there a salt to some standard conversation schema
>>>> that would usually result a talking philosopher, this inspiration of what
>>>> results then that accordingly it's readable to understand its source",
>>>> no, I just invented that.
>>>>
>>>> Now then, will you agree, that, with respect to foundations and
>>>> what text I generate, it is as a typewriter monkey with 25,000 words.
>>>> In theory ....
>>>>
>>>> (For we are men.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, while my brain was giant and naive, I Shakespeare'd this typewriter,
>>> thus that when I'm a Joyce I can monkey brain reading it.
>>>
>>> Then, all those notes to my future self, I'm sure he was right.
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess one thing don't understand about cranks, is, there are two
>>> kinds of cranks: trolls and cranks. I feel bad for people thinking that
>>> some crank or troll was just not getting answers - I hope so though
>>> it's clear - Archimedes Plutonium is the crank saint and troll king of
>>> sci.math, thank you.
>>>
>>> Imagine if you will, that Archimedes Plutonium is actually along the lines
>>> of a mechanized reasoning machine or lack thereof. It's a program that
>>> according to what it establishes as "ideas" or statements, is given enough
>>> range and concerns as what results its surfaces, are as of analytic geometry.
>>> So, we have one of these on sci.math. Now, imagine another one, about
>>> 1000 times deeper, if, the same, basic organization, Archimedes Plutonium
>>> the journal writer, in analytic geometry.
>>>
>>> I.e. as a meat machine it's much easier for me to keep track of all a foundations
>>> as a most simple direct and fundamental thing - while as a meat machine I
>>> am somewhat not organized the same as a giant silicon brain net.
>>>
>>> And it's already a long time ago as with regards to significant and large
>>> program brains.
>>>
>>> As you can see if I plan to keep this up by now I'd be figuring to
>>> give it a brain and fill it up.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I think there will be a resurgence in brains, and simple brains.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regular foundations is of course most directly implemented in
>>> the giant, large, simple brains.
>>>
>>> Yes, if you'll excuse me, I mostly write points of fact that reflect
>>> mostly that I'm interested in continuum mechanics, as what I'd
>>> expect that a mechanical reader can easily enjoy. (From that
>>> writing is a linear narrative, I have taken advantage of that
>>> in extended linear narrative, which is "development of a theory",
>>> and "development of A-Theory".)
>>>
>>> I.e. this way I see it as much work as play - free work.
>>>
>>> Anyways now I have these slates of uncountability and paradox,
>>> but I can put them down.
>>>
>>> Picking them back up again - it's not like 10 Commandments
>>> or it is - Moses and the Ten Commandments, instead is that
>>> for uncountability it is each of the proofs of uncountability,
>>> and how there's one unique function counterexample to
>>> them in function theory, the uncountability slate. Then,
>>> the paradox slate, is each of the logical paradoxes like
>>> Russell and ..., are resolved in universal and void, with
>>> a theory of "ubiquitous ordinals" a set theory, and otherwise
>>> that the other slate is for resolving logical paradox.
>>>
>>> See, that is trolling, though, in the sense, that, besides Sergio
>>> me telling you, it's only good as with the power of the mind,
>>> pick up the slates.
>>>
>>> Not to say I want to carry around Ten Commandments like Moses,
>>> or what all run screaming from the burning bush "G-d is in the
>>> burning bush then later he gave me these Ten Commandments",
>>> anyways those I found, these great uncountability and paradox
>>> slates, that results I have those up together.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose there wasn't one of these when I wrote one.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are already of course all matters of countable character,
>>> constructively, and resolution via logic, constructively, these
>>> are the slates that resolve countable character with uncountable
>>> domains, and paradoxes in logic after regular objects. I.e. the
>>> usual approach before is "impossible because mathematical paradox".
>>>
>>>
>>> See, that is trolling, and, reaching past sincere.
>>>
>>> Anyways, to wrap up "I told you so, Poincare : 2022", here is
>>> that indeed, it's been a very long time since I added anything
>>> to A-Theory, though that it is the same theory, that we can
>>> look to for example that it's a narrative, just pointing out that
>>> Virgil, thank him, had the last word, about mathematics and
>>> against cranks, or trolls. There came a point when Virgil, was
>>> able to leave the last word, not wrong, until there came the
>>> time when he let me have the last word. He agreed to keep
>>> his word, and me to keep mine.
>>>
>>> Now, not everyone would notice that, some usual long 8000
>>> post thread of Prof.Dr. so-and-so and Emeritus Don crackety-quack,
>>> always at brickbats with each other, two men at peace with their words,
>>> since then was from bright-eyed certainty to steely comfort.
>>>
>>> So, when it comes around that in the course of continuum mechanics
>>> all sorts of what are usual distinctions start to make sense, including
>>> modern mathematics _and_ "open set theory", mostly a) a troll.
>>> That is to say: if you read and understand as I do, that "ok since
>>> about 15 years ago it is basically formalized an entire theory past
>>> modern mathematics, with most all its goals", then I hope it would
>>> be useful to you what results explaining mathematics, personally.
>>>
>>> Because as far as I know it's a direct claim on a philosophy of science.
>>>
>>> Which is a pragmatic thing to have.
>>>
>>> There are others - usual philosophies of science - and the usual one -
>>> this philosophy includes again, there's no point having a "theory of
>>> everything" that isn't "The, theory of everything".
>>>
>>> So, pretty much after all regular theory where has been formalized
>>> for the regular open topology and the complete ordered field measure
>>> after LUB and 1.0, and, all regular theory runs out past completeness
>>> to incompleteness, in words, the theory of everything basically resolves
>>> all logical paradox, that there is one.
>>>
>>> It's sad there's only one but that's the way it is. Then it's not sad
>>> there's only one and that's the way it is.
>>>
>>> Anyways now that Virgil and I have had our say, basically my
>>> point is there is a theory where Fred Jeffries establishes the
>>> area of a triangle, that the theory of all things does also.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that Poincare, channeled today, i.e. 130 years later, after the
>>> Hilbert Program, after Langlands, after Bourbaki, after ZFC, after Goedel,
>>> out through descriptive set theory for topology, category theory,
>>> Mizar and Metamath and so on, would have that it's exactly the same.
>>>
>> yea, that's bratworst.
>
> I enjoy it.
>
> The brat or brot worst or wurst, Polish, frankfurters and hot dogs,
> cured salami, sausage is meat and suet, often spices or fermented.
>
> Wurst, Polish sausage, pork usually, the other white meat....
>
> I think we can agree that fennel is perhaps a great ingredient for sausage,
> though my diet now of sausage is reduced to quarterly gut-bombs,
> it is certain there was a time when sausage sustained me.
>
> And bread!
>