Carrock
Senior Members-
Posts
613 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Carrock
-
From some earlier post consigned to the outer darkness: An issue in these discussions is that IMO the definition of 'proof' has changed for the worse over the years. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried or a test applied to articles or substances [presumably theories too] to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality So the apparent discovery of superluminal neutrinos proved relativity in the archaic sense - no big deal even for relativity deniers. From some earlier thread, someone said gravity hadn't been proved. I doubt any astronaut would admit to disbelieving in gravitational theory but after a long duration stay on the ISS their actions suggest otherwise. They e.g. release a cup, expecting it just to float and not to fall, or they decide to float downstairs rather than do it the hard way. After a few days, usually without serious injury, their changed behaviour shows they have decided gravity has been sufficiently proved.
-
But it is enough to prove the bijection ? I don't think so. You said the set is unlimited.. so you must prove your "etc" part for the bijection to be complete.. go ahead.. (take the infinite time in the univers) If you're correct I'm sure you can define the properties of the largest finite number. I presume you checked every a before making that statement (and many others). Or is it only those who oppose you who must check every value?
-
Maybe a process using unlimited sets would make the (lack of a) problem with infinite sets clearer. You have the unlimited integer set 1,2,3,4... 2*1 is in that set as is 2*2, 2*3, 2*4 etc. The only problem would be if there was a maximum integer n, then 2*n would not be in the set. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is some integer n in that set, but not n+1...
-
Much earlier, Four D. Jones in the Daily Express had a similar idea. He ended up with an ice cube and a small snowstorm in the Sahara Desert. The only other exploit I remember was when Four moored a rowing boat to Land's End and towed Britain south for the winter. A technical success of course but it didn't end well. A good introduction to science for someone just learning to read....
-
Conspiracy theories. List those you think are true.
Carrock replied to mistermack's topic in Trash Can
I have absolutely no evidence for this, which is proof (see below, or not) that this is an extremely successful conspiracy by science deniers. It can't be a coincidence that as science has increased in importance the definition of 'proof' has changed for the worse over the years. There have been a lot of interminable threads on SF lately about the concept of proof. The success of the conspiracy is such that the old/obscure definitions have rarely been mentioned. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried or a test applied to articles or substances [presumably theories too] to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality So the apparent discovery of superluminal neutrinos proved relativity in the archaic sense - no big deal even for relativity deniers. From some earlier thread, someone said gravity hadn't been proved. I doubt any astronaut would admit to disbelieving in gravitational theory but after a long duration stay on the ISS their actions suggest otherwise. They e.g. release a cup, expecting it just to float and not to fall, or they decide to float downstairs rather than do it the hard way. After a few days, usually without serious injury, their actions show they have decided gravity has been sufficiently proved. -
A slight expansion. Unless the files are encrypted I doubt they would be inaccessible. A few computers implement UEFI in such a way that it's impossible to boot from an external device. However it's such a complicated standard that most implementations in practice are insecure. Any errors in my thinking?
-
There are also various free downloadable rescue disks e.g. https://lifehacker.com/5984707/five-best-system-rescue-discs , which can alternatively be installed on a usb memory stick and used to boot your computer and fix it or copy files.
-
Earn money from an abstract concept: Permit people, for a fee, to move a parking space from a crowded location to their car's normal location.
-
This is an interesting article with a poor headline. 'Astronomers do not witness birth of new star from stellar explosion' would be more accurate.
-
I can't find a good reference but triple point helium was used in the Apollo lunar descent engines so it's been around for a while.
-
I don't know where that quote came from, but I doubt if Kavanaugh were accused in court that the judge could dismiss all his testimony, without ensuring Kavanaugh would have any conviction quashed on appeal.
-
Are you implying that a universe containing aleph-one units of volume is possible? Reference please. Anything similar in maths would also be very interesting. Your construction produces a 2-D set of lines and these lines do not have lines for each point on them, which would require 3-D, then 4-D and ultimately at least aleph-one dimensions which is impossible. You can't connect these lines one after another in a 1-D line as that line would have an uncountably infinite length, which is impossible. I'm assuming all the points have to be discrete. I don't see any meaningful way of expanding a point into a volume. A more realistic question would be "Can a finite volume be doubled aleph-0 times, to become an infinite volume?" That finite volume would be increased by the factor 2^(aleph-null) which is aleph-one if you assume the continuum hypothesis. So aleph-one units of volume. I don't use trasfinite maths much so please excuse any imprecision in terminology.
-
Surely you cannot expand anything other than an uncountably infinite collection of points into a universe of infinite volume (though the same would be true for any positive volume). Other than the trivial copout to expand by adding a sufficient amount of enough new points to do the trick, of course. The author of http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html states the universe was spatially infinite 'before' BB. That's certainly possible but unknown. The problem is that he claims that each of the uncountably infinite points in that (finite or infinite) universe 'expanded' into a finite volume. That results in a universe with an uncountably infinite volume. Not possible.
-
This is actually a rather mediocre reference. You can't expand a 0 dimensional point into a volume, and you can't expand an uncountably infinite number of points into a universe of uncountably infinite volume. As you go further back in time towards the Big Bang, the observable universe occupied a smaller and smaller volume but that volume, according to any reputable theory, was never zero.
-
I was. Or wondering if he considered the cardinality of aleph-1 a bit nearer "Actual Infinity" than aleph-null and so on. Talking about cardinality seems a bit abstract for this thread. Do you believe that time will 'stop' at a specific moment in the future then? If it doesn't then the universe is becoming "Actually Infinitely" old. Which is less than infinitely old... Slow posting again.....
-
Everything I was going to post has been posted while I was composing my response... except which is 'Actual Infinity' supposed to be? The number of integers, the number of points on a line... etc
-
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity linked from the previous reference:
-
Presumably without the snake, Adam and Eve would have spent eternity naming all the animals. Who wouldn't be tempted by almost any chance of escape from that?
-
Not being a true genius and having someone to actually express ideas to isn't always great either.... (Thanks to Strange for finding the site.)
-
Is it possible to construct a large functioning Gyroscope?
Carrock replied to John Harmonic's topic in Classical Physics
There's a very large gyroscope conveniently to hand. Wait around a few tens of thousands of years and you'll see it precess. Locals call it 'the earth.' -
The Collatz Conjecture has been proved. What next??
Carrock replied to Antony Howard Stark's topic in Applied Mathematics
There have been some excellent suggestions earlier in the thread. I can't improve on those. However, it's worth emphasising that if you come up with a valid proof of anything on this forum, and someone copies it, you can easily prove prior publication. That's what really counts in science and maths. -
The Collatz Conjecture has been proved. What next??
Carrock replied to Antony Howard Stark's topic in Applied Mathematics
It seems to be the sort of paid for journal which 'reviews' papers and always passes them. I couldn't find anything specifically dodgy, but at less than one citation per paper it's not exactly a prestigious journal. -
Anti-evolution and un-natural selection
Carrock replied to joejama's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
The only major funder of such expensive experiments is the nuclear industry, but they're not going to fund any experiment that may not give the right answer. They spent a fortune years ago investigating whether, as all the major models predicted, a sufficiently small group of people exposed to gamma radiation within the legal limits would not have a statistically significant excess of leukemia. Not too surprisingly, all these models held up. Their other claim, from that investigation, that that exposure increased the recipients' life expectancy by 6 years, was never submitted to peer review. It was said that the anti nuclear lobby suppressed this result.....