Oh, no, Bob, it is also certain that a genooine understanding of trig,
calculus, counting numbers, engineering and computer science will require a
foundational knowledge of infinity, for example, why 1+2+3+4+ ... = -1/12
;-)
Hardy saw this in the notes of Ramanujan (“The Man Who Knew Inf
The only thing that is certain about infinity is that it will remain a
theoretical abstract forever. ;-)
Bob S
On May 23, 2016, at 01:35 , Ali Lloyd
mailto:ali.ll...@livecode.com>> wrote:
Having fairly recently done a PhD in set theory, I can confirm that the
independence of the continuum hyp
Thanks, Ali! And Congratulations!
Ali Lloyd wrote:
>
> Having fairly recently done a PhD in set theory, I can confirm that the
> independence of the continuum hypothesis has not been refuted!
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.co
Having fairly recently done a PhD in set theory, I can confirm that the
independence of the continuum hypothesis has not been refuted!
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:50 AM Mick Collins wrote:
> (Try again, apologies for accidentally sending)
> ... typo
> When you said
> " 2^AJ=A(J+1)"
>
> I wonder if
(Try again, apologies for accidentally sending)
... typo
When you said
" 2^AJ=A(J+1)"
I wonder if you meant
"2^AJ >= A(J+1)"
To many that may seem like nit-picking, but it is a NIT. However, if you MEANT
what you wrote, then it is a YUGE NIT. It would mean that someone (Halmos?)
found an e
Doc Hawk,
I'm envious that you took a course from Halmos, but I question what is probably
a typo.
"Dr. Hawkins" wrote:
Well, which infinity? aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the
integers/wholes/natural
A1=2^A0, the count of the reals.
For that mater 2^AJ=A(J+1)
A1-A0=A1
Aj^n=Aj
A0 is als
Well then it's not infinite is it? So everything else falls flat after that. :-)
Bob S
On May 13, 2016, at 11:30 , Dr. Hawkins
mailto:doch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Let N be a finite positive number, may be real.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-liveco
Leave it to Hermann to pledge 2^(2^7)
Craig
-Original Message-
From: [-hh]
To: use-revolution
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2016 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: Positive Infinity forever
Richard H. wrote
> Well, which infinity? aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the
> integers/wholes/natural A
of the greatest. Hope his lectures were as excellent
as his books (but I read only three of these).
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Positive-Infinity-forever-tp4704632p4704642.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing l
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:18 AM, [-hh] wrote:
The following is correct math.
>
Always a *dangerous thing to say.*
>
> Let N be a finite positive number, may be real.
>
> • Infinity > N
> • Infinity = Infinity + N
> • Infinity = Infinity - N
> • Infinity = N * Infinity
>
> But all of you, who
Hermann.
Can it handle infinty^infinity? Of course, you need unicode to display the
answer.
Craig
-Original Message-
From: [-hh]
To: use-revolution
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2016 1:55 pm
Subject: Positive Infinity forever
The following is correct math.Let N be a finite positive number
ses an immediate crash of the
whole system. So pledge please ;-)
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Positive-Infinity-forever-tp4704632.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.
12 matches
Mail list logo