Closed Intervals with Infinite Endpoints: Explained

  • Thread starter Organic
  • Start date
  • Tags
    intervals
In summary: So, in summary, we can see that the concept of complete or all-encompassing sets is meaningless in the context of infinitesimal and infinite elements. This leads to the need for non-Euclidean mathematical systems like Complementary Logic, which go beyond the limitations of traditional Euclidean-based systems.
  • #71
ok, organic. you've stated your goals and your steps and your main theorem. so far, so good. this would be quite an undertaking.

as for your main theorem, what is x? is it an information "system", a set of information, etc.?

you might find this idea interesting. the claim is that the universe contains almost no information:
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/nihilo.html

i already think that (almost) no model of x is x. I'm just taking for example a model for gravity and gravity. what about metamathematics (model theory, set theory, logic)? it is a model for mathematics and it is (part of) mathematics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Any Model is on x and never the x.

For example: To eat the cake is the x, but to speak on eating the cake is a model of eating the cake (a x-model).

In mathematics "Eeting the cake" = "Actual infinity".

Shortly speaking, no theory can deal with Actual infinity, but can use a model of it, which is potential infinity.

Also, the main player on this stage is first of all the symmetry concept.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
i think there can be a finite model of absolute infinity. no one is saying that the model for infinity is infinity i don't think.

now, before you launch into a discussion on that, you still haven't really integrated our feedback into what you're doing, which makes us giving feedback less purposeful. and the feedback was this: define information or leave it undefined but describe examples of it and gives ways to contruct new information from old information as how it is done in geometry and set theory.
 
  • #75
i did a text search for the word "information" and didn't see a definition or a scheme of what is or is not information. therefore, the reader does not really know what your theory applies to. we all have a kind of intuitive sense of what information is but in order to be considered a mathemtical theory, or a philosophy of mathematics theory, information has to be defined or at least how to get new information from old information (with a collection of what some information is) has to be done. otherwise, it will be impossible to prove any statement about information in a rigorous way.

maybe I'm just missing it. if you did this, please point out the specific page number and line number where you define or give an inductive definition of information. i see the word information used on the pages you listed but nothing resembling a definition. a definition or inductive definition is necessary in order to prove anything about information in a mathematical theory. you may want to start with the dictionary definition of information and try to turn that into a mathematical definition. however, the words used in your definition must also be defined or inductively defined. you may also want to look at information theory and see how they define it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

by "inductively defined," i mean that if you don't define information, or words used in your definition of information, you should give a few examples of information and then give a list of ways to construct new information from old information. if you use other words, like entropy or information clarity degree, or symmetry, then the same applies to those words because they have either no common definition or a definition that depends on context.

why do you have to define (inductively or not) words?
1. in order to prove something about those words
2. if not, you run the risk of "abusing language" such as but not limited to changing the definition or implied meaning of words in mid article or even mid sentence.
 
  • #76
My Definitions are given by the structures themselves.

The words and the sentences around them just giving an extra explanations
to what is already given by structures.

Shortly speaking, my definitions are "structure oriented".

If you understand this, then look again at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATheory.pdf starting from page 7 until the end, thank you.

The beauty in my theory is: the structures are the definitions and the examples.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
A definition for information:

A product of a mutual influence between, at least, two different things.
 
  • #78
Originally posted by Organic
My Definitions are given by the structures themselves.

The words and sentences around them just giving an extra explanations
to what is already given by structures.

Shortly speaking, my definitions are "structured oriented".

If you understand this, then look again at pages 7 and this time go until the end, thank you.

The beauty in my theory is: the structures are the definitions and the examples.

it sounds like you're trying to get away with defining in your article information by context. in other words, the term is meant to be "defined" by the words around it. this isn't a rigorous definition. the one you just gave is closer to an actual definition.

is the sentence, "yes" an example of information?

how about the formula (x->(y<-> ? it's not a "well formed formula" but would it be considered "information" because it is about five different things? btw, what is a thing? a set? a letter? a symbol?

under your definition, the sentence "yes" is not information whereas "(x->(y<->" is information. i just want to clarify what information is. there is no such thing as a wrong definition; only good and useful definitions or bad and useless definitions.

i can see how "x is x" is information because it is about two differnent things: x and is.

seems that there are at least two kinds of information: sensical information and nonsensical information. there would probably also be degrees in between which suggests an application of a fuzzy approach. there could be a "sense indicator" S so that if x is information then S is a map from the collection of all information to [0,1] such that S(x) is in [0,1] and S(x)=0 means that x is devoid of any sense (perhaps this is total entropy) and S(x)=1 means x is totally sensical (perhaps this is total negative entropy). then you can develop some conditions on what kinds of S's are actual sense indicators because something that makes sense from one perspective may not make sense from another perspective.

the sensical indicator would have nothing to do with the truth of the information, it would just measure how "grammatically correct" the information is.

seems like there should be a definition of "more information" and "less information." a kind of relation between different information resembling subsets and supersets.

my main point here is to just say that defining a word by context simply won't do in a rigorous theory. however, your recent definition is much better. in order to be a mathematical theory, you should define what kinds of things you're considering. a thing is perhaps as general as you can get and goes way beyond math (unless mathematical existence is physical existence, that is).

you'll need a definition of "product" and "mutual influence" where those words don't depend on the definition of "information."

i want to reiterate that i already believe your main theorem without any work: no model of a system is the system, so you may not have to go through all the trouble you're going through.

however, from that, you conclude radical claims about transfinite objects. firstly, it is totally unclear how that follows from "no model of x is x" and secondly, in order to really convince anyone that 150+ years of set theory is wrong, you have to show where the error is. these are short and long term goals, respectively. for now, please just speak about my questions for clarification of what information is and is not, what kinds of "things" you're talking about, what "product" means, and what "mutually influence" means. my main question about "mutually influence" is that i don't see how saying, "the force of gravity acting on two masses M and m is given by the function F(M,m)," shows an influence between the force of gravity and the formula itself. the influence you must be talking about is on some kind of linguistic level because the formula does not influence what the formula refers to (emperically speaking).

to shorten this down for you, maybe just talk about the following things in your next post:
1. is "(x->(y<->" information? (there is no right or wrong answer here)
2. what is "product"
3. what "things" are you talking about (the word "anything" should be used delicately here)
4. what is "mutually influence"

thanks
 
  • #79
"One picture = 1000 words"

Don't you see how rigorous are my structures?
you'll need a definition of "product" and "mutual influence" where those words don't depend on the definition of "information."

I already gave an example for this in page 8 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATheory.pdf
 
  • #80
...the formula does not influence what the formula refers to ...
In any formula is x-model, the infuence is by x.

SASs can link between x-model and x.

Maybe this is the most fundamental SASs property.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
About the transfinite numbers, I already gave you my answer.

I'll write it again, but this time i use |Q| instead of |N|.

Rseq is actually both R and Q.

( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NewDiagonalView.pdf }

The way Rseq is constructed is equivalent to both |Q| and 2^|Q| (or |P(Q)|).

This is the reason why we get this result (2^aleph0>=aleph0)={}

Form one hand Rseq is |P(Q)|( =[...000,...111) ).

From the other hand Rseq is |Q| ( = The length of each given sequence ).

Please tell me why it is so hard for you to understand the above?

Let us say it again:

Cantor's diagonal fails because he deals with the wrong input, which is |Q|*|Q|.

By the way Rseq is constructed, for the first time since Cantor we deal with the right input, which is |P(Q)|*|Q|.

By doing this we find that (2^aleph0>=aleph0)={}.

Therefore transfinite universes do not hold.

Again, Rseq is both R AND Q.

More then that:

If Rseq is [...000,...111] then it means that Cantor's diagonal input (which is ...000) does not exist.

Therefore no input --> no output --> no any information to establish the transfinite universes.

More then thet:

|P(Q)| exists iff P(Q)=[...000,...111)

Therefore there is no such a thing like all (or complete) infinitely
many objects.

And when there is no such a thing, transfinite universes do not hold.

Again, |Q| is a "never ending story", therefore words like 'all' or 'complete' cannot be related to |Q|.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
one thing that had me confused is that when you meant page z, i mistook that for page z of the document and not the page with that z listed at the bottom. so i will go through it again.

Cantor's diagonal fails because he deals with the wrong input, which is |Q|*|Q|.
actually, cantor's diagonal argument doesn't use |Q|*|Q| as input. it uses any set. so |P(Q*Q)|>|Q*Q|, for example.
 
  • #83
Thank you for your correction, but it does not have any influence on my argument that (2^aleph0 >= aleph0) = {}.
 
  • #84
Another interesting thing is the hierarchy of dependency of R in Q, and Q in N.

Please look at this example: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UPPs.pdf

These Unique Periodic Patterns are prime-like patterns,where any irrational number uses as its building-blocks.

This example perfectly fits my argument about the power of existence that can be found in the second part of this paper (please start from screen 5 of acrobat viewer): http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NewDiagonalView.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #85
More general.

Because any mathematical system is only an x-model (therefore an open system) it cannot talk about proofs, because they’re always can be changed (or even replaced) during paradigm’s changes.

When we have a paradigm’s change, a lot of old paradigm's results can become irrelevant.

Therefore, in my opinion, Math language has to use the words 'Current Result' (CuRe) instead of 'proof'.

Please look at this nice article: http://faculty.juniata.edu/esch/neatstuff/truth.html


By using strong words like 'proof', there is (in my opinion) a danger that we become scholastic and closed systems.

And closed systems find their death by entropy.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
Originally posted by Organic
When we find a 1-1 map between some point x to some R number, then if x in R then for any x in R, we can find some x0 < x OR some x < x2.

Therefore x0 OR x2 are always unreachable for any given x.

Let x0 be -oo(= inifinitely many objects < x).

Let x2 be oo(= inifinitely many objects > x).

No given x can reach x0 or x2.

Therefore x0 OR x2 must be the unreachable limits of any R number.

(x0,x] OR [x,x2), therefore [a,oo) OR (-oo,b] cannot be but half closed intervals.

Therefore the set of all R numbers (where R has a form of infinitely many objects) does not exist.


Shortly speaking, infinitely many objects cannot be related with the word all.

Fore clearer picture please look at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SPI.pdf

What does it mean to find a 1-1 map between some x and some R number? Any function mapping a single element set to R is necessarily injective, so it is either a redundant statement or it has some more meaning you aren't explaining.

next there is this x0 and x1 are not reachable by x. How does one 'reach' a number from another?

then x0 becomes -oo which then becomes a set of numbers. Do you still not understand why this needs rewriting? How can A number be -oo and be A set of infinitely many elements?

ANd in what way does it imply the Reals don't exist? Do you understand their construction as limits of cauchy sequences?

You've still not explained your private definition of the word all that means it is not realistic to talk about the set of all real numbers. give me a real number not in the set R.

matt
 
  • #88
Dear matt,

You take some of my posts in the beginning of this thread, but you first have to read what happened since this post, because maybe your questions have been answered in the next posts.

Please check it, thank you.
 
  • #89
Originally posted by Organic
Dear matt,

You take some of my posts in the beginning of this thread, but you first have to read what happened since this post, because maybe your questions have been answered in the next posts.

Please check it, thank you.

Yes, some of the questions were asked previously. None of your answers have helped illuminate the issue though.

In particular you still insist that by taking the finite strings of 01s and 'completing using the infinity axiom of induction' that you get a set in bijection with N via binary expansions of integers AND a set that contains all strings of 01's. This is patently wrong.

1. Only strings with a finite number of non-zero entres will be mapped to an integer.

2. There are strings with infinitely many non-zero entries.

3. The list has been proven by you to be 'not complete'

4. Induction doesn't allow us to do what you did, inparticular the existence of an inductive set doesn't allow us to construct a set of uncountable cardinality. It just asssures us that an infinite set will exist in our model. It is countable. Then we construct more infinite sets that are of strictly greater cardinality, but not by induction. You can do transfinite induction if you so wish, but I think we've had enough without abusing the axiom of choice as well.

5. Moreover you don't even define the inductive process that tells you how to add in the next successor element.

6. Repeating myself, but, you've demonstrated no countable, enumerable, listable, whatever, set of strings of 01's contains all of them. That is sufficient, albeit that your proof could do with a lot of tidying up (the infinite case does not follow from the finite case by induction!). But you then say the list you've made is all of them anyway. Can you really not see that that is a contradiction in itself? The error is not in maths, but in your assertion you've got a complete list.

Spurious example:

1 is the largest integer. Suppose N is the largest integer, N>1 obiviously, therefore N.N>N

is a contradiction unless N =1. Do you see where that went wrong or have i given you more ammunition?

You make an unsubstantiated (indeed incorrect) claim, deduce a contradiction, but conclude it was something else that was incorrect!

Matt
 
  • #91
Originally posted by Organic
Sorry but what is N.N>N ?

All what I clime is very simple: we cannot deal with x-itself, but only with
x-model, where x is infinity.

for example:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsLimits.pdf

Ok. N^2>N

The analogy is that in your New Diagonal Pdf you claim a contradiction based upon an assumption (that you have a complete list of 01 strings in bijection with N), and instead of deciding this assumption is incorrect (it is) that it is in fact the whole of Boolean logic which is at fault.

Above in the spurious example, the false assumption is that there is a largest natural number, not that 'it' is greater than 1. OK?

what is an infinity model? And if you post another pdf link can you seriously expect people to go and read it?
 
  • #92
  • #93
Against my better judgement I looked at the PTree thing.

What are yuo trying to say with it? Why must Cantor deal's argument deal with probability? In what fuzzy world are you thinking?

What is the Boolean tree of 01 sequences?

None of the sentences in the article are coherent as mathematical statements, and few are coherent as pieces of English.

It does not answer any of the criticisms of your argument about Cantor's Proof.

Simply put:

You must prove the assertion that the string of 0's and 1's that you construct 'using the axiom of infinity induction' contains all the strings of 0's and 1's. My assertion is that it does not as CAntor's proof shows, and as you yourself state (with a falacious proof). Further more you have not explained how the induction even works.
 
  • #94
There is no such thing like "a collection of all 01 sequences".

Because:

By using the word all, we are forcing |N|(=aleph0) to be the cardinal of all N collection.

By forcing the word 'all' on a collection on infinitely many objects, we come to contradiction.

The reason is:

Cantor's diagonal is already in the collection of 2^aleph0 infinitely many sequences, because it cannot cover the collection, so we must not add it to the collection.


Conclusion 1:

2^aleph0 > aleph0 because the diagonal cannot cover the collection.

Conclusion 2:

But because it cannot cover the collection he must be somewhere in the collection, therefore we must not add it to the collection.

But because nothing is added the collection we can find a bijection between 2^aleph0 and aleph0, and we come to contradiction.

It means that we can't force the word all on any collection of infinitely many objects.

There is no such a thing like a complete collection of infinitely many objects.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
Originally posted by Organic
But because it cannot cover the all collection he must be somewhere in the collection, therefore we must not add it to the collection.

Why not? Even if we add it, the collection will still not be complete. We can always find another element not in the collection.
 
  • #97
The fact that your constuction fails just means that your construction was bad. It doesn't mean that other constructions must also fail.
 
  • #98
Dont you see that by using ZF axiom of infinity on the power value of 2^x, x=aleph0 by standard math notation?
 
  • #99
You do realize that the axiom of infinity isn't an axiom that you can "use" on things. It's just a statement that the set of natural numbers exists. Nothing more.
 
  • #100
And without it aleph0 cannot be defined.

Therefore x (by standard math notations) cannot be but aleph0.

Therefore by standard math 2^x (where x is based on ZF axiom of infinity) cannot be but a collection of 2^aleph0 objects.

We must not ignore the meaning of the word infinite, which is "no finite" or "no end" (or "endless").

Therefore no collection of infinitely many objects can be a complete collection, because its fundamental property is not to include its end.

Because any infinite collection of infinitely many objects has no end, its cardinality is under the lows of probability.

And what is the base of this probability?

The base of the probability is first of all the value of base value n of n^aleph0.

This probability clearly can be shown here:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/PTree.pdf

Also the basic result of this probability can be shown as a complementary association between multiplication and addition (please look here):

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ASPIRATING.pdf


You say:
Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you can survive the odds beating you.
I say:
Before you attempt to explore the odds, be aware to the odds within you.
 
Last edited:
  • #101
Originally posted by Organic
We must not ignore the meaning of the word infinite, which is "no finite" or "no end" (or "endless").

This is your definition of the word. But this is not a mathematical definition of the word.

We can ignore all definitions except relevant mathematical ones. And the one you provided is most definitely not a relevant one.
 
  • #102
Originally posted by Organic
Before you attempt to explore the odds, be aware to the odds within you.

This isn't a very helpful quote...in order to be aware of the odds within oneself, you would have to explore the odds. Thus it would be impossible to follow this advice.
 
  • #103
the infinite set [0,1] has two "ends":0 and 1.

consider the sets x0:=Ø
and for n>0,
xn=xn-1&cup;{xn-1}.

a set y is considered finite if it can be put into 1-1 correspondance with an xn for some n&isin;N. otherwise, it is infinite.
 
  • #104
Originally posted by Organic
Dont you see that by using ZF axiom of infinity on the power value of 2^x, x=aleph0 by standard math notation?


This is very much abusing the idea of the axiom of infinity, which is i think equivalent to the existence of an inductive set. And it is also wrong.

You cannot induct on n to deduce things about aleph-0. This requires transfinite induction when we put ordinals in rather than cardinals. Which stats that for every successor ordinal... etc. You don't demonstrate the the veracity of the statement for all n implies it for the first infinite ordinal. And it isn't even clear what you are hoping to prove inductively.

Example:

let X be the 2 element set {0,1}

Take X(n) defined inductively by X(n) = X(n-1) \coproduct X, and X(1) = X

each X(n) is a finite set.

The limit, which i can define as the obvious filtered direct limit we will BY ABUSE OF NOTATION call X(aleph-0) is not finite, but by the axiom of induction as you want to use it, it must be! Just like you I am assigning a non-sensical meaning to aleph-0, unlike you I both define the induction and how to take the limit.


Go through your proof again, it is incorrect. It is seemingly the basis for your decision to develop your complementary logic - this boolean logic cna't deal with infinity stuff.

Why does it bother you that there is no largest number, that a list of the naturals will not terminate?

You say that one can not apply the word all to an infinite set. Let N be the set of Natural numbers. IN what way is it not complete? You can't just give a 'but it's not' answer, you must demonstrate that your assertions are meaningful by backing it up with evidence, or a proof or a definition. This is not philosophy.
 
  • #105
Matt,

You wrote:
This requires transfinite induction

Transfinite induction does not exist because if you force the system beyond its ability to be described by infinitely many objects, then you have no mathmatical tools that can deal with the actual infinity, which is the content of {___}.

1-1 map, or any other mathematical tool can work only among collections of finitely or infinitely many objects.

I'll be glad if you show me how you can use math tools and get an input, when you have {__} content as your information source.


As much as I see it no mathematical tool can deal with the content of {___}.

Therefore no meaningful input can be found and used beyond the potential infinity (a collection of infinitely many objects, which their fundamental property is not to include their end).

Aleph0 can be used only as a cardinal of N objects, where |N| value obeys the lows of probability, as I clearly demonstrate here:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/PTree.pdf
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

I Collection of finite unions of half-open intervals form an algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Open interval or Closed interval in defining convex function
Replies
4
Views
2K
B What kind of definition is this?
Replies
23
Views
2K
Zero velocity for a time interval, what about acceleration?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Piecewise Function: Intervals of Increase/Decrease & Extremes/Asymptotes
Replies
11
Views
2K
Intervals of Convergence- Power Series
Replies
11
Views
2K
Confusion with Relative Extrema and Intervals
Replies
7
Views
3K
I Correct understanding of confidence intervals....
Replies
22
Views
3K
A few questions to make sure I understand Fourier series
Replies
3
Views
1K
MHB Is the given function differentiable at the endpoints on the interval [0,5]?
Replies
4
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top