Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Maths ends in self contradiction for 4 reason

shakuntala
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 2:39:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This work by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean proves maths ends in self contradiction for 4 reasons
https://www.scribd.com...

1) maths proves 1=0.999.. or a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.9999.. thus a contradiction in terms thus maths ends in contradiction
2) maths proves 1=1 thus maths ends in contradiction ie 1 heap of salt+1 heap of salt=1 heap of salt
3) ZFC axiomatic set theory is inconsistent as one of its axioms the axiom of separation bans impredicative statements but being impredicative itself it must ban itself thus maths ends in contradiction
4) maths cant tell us what a number is without circularity thus mathematics is meaningless
jh1234lnew
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 10:41:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 2:39:20 AM, shakuntala wrote:

2) maths proves 1=1 thus maths ends in contradiction ie 1 heap of salt+1 heap of salt=1 heap of salt

This is not what math states: math says that a + a = 2a, even though a equals itself.

4) maths cant tell us what a number is without circularity thus mathematics is meaningless

P1. You cannot define a number without invoking numbers
C. Math is meaningless

Does not seem like good logic to me.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 11:29:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just want to cover the remaining points here:

1) maths proves 1=0.999.. or a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.9999.. thus a
contradiction in terms thus maths ends in contradiction

1 /= 0.999... in any field of mathematics I am familiar with (1 only approximates 0.999), so that part is already incorrect. The second mistake is that 0.999 is not a 'non-fine number'. It's an irrational number. The number of digits required to express it is not finite, but the number itself is finite. So the conclusion that a finite number equals a "non-finite" number is incorrectly derived.

3) ZFC axiomatic set theory is inconsistent as one of its axioms the axiom of separation bans impredicative statements but being impredicative itself it must ban itself thus maths ends in contradiction

The axiom of separation is to do with the existence of subsets of an original set containing all elements with some given property (since the empty set is a valid subset). Can you elaborate on which part is impredicative?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 12:26:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 11:29:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
Just want to cover the remaining points here:


1) maths proves 1=0.999.. or a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.9999.. thus a
contradiction in terms thus maths ends in contradiction

1 /= 0.999... in any field of mathematics I am familiar with (1 only approximates 0.999), so that part is already incorrect.

That isn't correct, .999... does equal 1...it just seems peculiar because of the way fractions become repeating decimals, here's a pretty explanatory proof that 1 = .999....

1/3 = .333...
now multiply both sides by 3
1/3 x3 = .333... x 3
1=.999...

The second mistake is that 0.999 is not a 'non-fine number'. It's an irrational number.

No, it's just another way to represent the number 1.

The number of digits required to express it is not finite, but the number itself is finite. So the conclusion that a finite number equals a "non-finite" number is incorrectly derived.

The conclusion is that a finite number equals finite number.

3) ZFC axiomatic set theory is inconsistent as one of its axioms the axiom of separation bans impredicative statements but being impredicative itself it must ban itself thus maths ends in contradiction

The axiom of separation is to do with the existence of subsets of an original set containing all elements with some given property (since the empty set is a valid subset). Can you elaborate on which part is impredicative?

It isn't impredicative, all we have learned here is that, declaring yourself a leading erotic poet doesn't mean you know anything about mathematics.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 12:44:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Recognize that 1/3 doesn't approximate .333... it is exactly .333...

Do the division, .333... is the decimal equivalent of 1/3, multiplying both by three gives you 1=.999...

Or do it with 1/9:
1/9 = .111...
9/9 = .999...
1=.999...

It isn't complex, it is the simple mathematics of fractions and their division yielding repeating decimals, they are equivalent, just two ways of representing the number 1.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2014 2:39:20 AM, shakuntala wrote:
This work by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean proves maths ends in self contradiction for 4 reasons
https://www.scribd.com...

1) maths proves 1=0.999.. or a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.9999.. thus a contradiction in terms thus maths ends in contradiction

As said this is just 2 different ways of representing the same quantity. I had a debate on this maybe it will help. http://www.debate.org...

2) maths proves 1=1 thus maths ends in contradiction ie 1 heap of salt+1 heap of salt=1 heap of salt

I'm not aware of this. a+a=2a if a=1, 2a=2

3) ZFC axiomatic set theory is inconsistent as one of its axioms the axiom of separation bans impredicative statements but being impredicative itself it must ban itself thus maths ends in contradiction

I don't think anyone accepts that axiom any more. As is it is un-useful. http://en.wikipedia.org...

4) maths cant tell us what a number is without circularity thus mathematics is meaningless

Yes as proven by Goedel's incompleteness theorems. The thing is any system that can boiled down to a set of axioms can only summarize "truth" in accordance to that system.

Does not make Math meaningless just incomplete as is any man made tool for describing the reality we live in.

Again, I say there is no perfect tool. No one size fits all. The reasonable person will have an understanding of what tool to use and what those limitations are. Some people think science is the answer to everything, they impede knowledge and often reject the well described and known problems with Science. For one the problem with induction.

So they way we fix this in other disciplines of our life is we use a collection of incomplete tools, hoping the overlap covers the gaps in each single tool.

Numbers are abstract conceptual things. They have no real existence. They are not even like reality. Reality is quantized, a collection of discrete binary information. While numbers are continuous and progressively and inwardly infinite.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 6:01:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Again, I say there is no perfect tool.

I don't know about that, I'm thinking "Australia's Leading Erotic Poet" Colin Leslie Dean, is a perfect tool.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater