i will show 1=2 thus maths ends in meaninglessness

[ladyjane]

i will show 1=2 thus proving colin leslie deans claim that maths ends in meaninglessness

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tar … s_from_one

The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into several non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball.

thus we have 1 ball being equal to 2 balls
thus 1=2

now colin leslie dean will go even further
this result depends on the axiom of choice

Unlike most theorems in geometry, this result depends in a critical way on the axiom of choice in set theory. This axiom allows for the construction of nonmeasurable sets

thus to get rid of the result you need to abandon the axiom of choice
but if you abandon it
a large amount of maths ends in meaninglessness

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonmeasurable_set

Disallowing the axiom of choice seems to many mathematicians to eviscerate functional analysis and point-set topology, since the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to a fundamental result of point-set topology, Tychonoff’s theorem, and also to the conjunction of two fundamental results of functional analysis, the Banach-Alaoglu theorem and the Krein-Milman theorem. It also naively affects the study of infinite groups to a large extent, as well as ring and order theory (see Boolean prime ideal theorem). However the axioms of determinacy and dependent choice, together, are sufficient for most geometric measure theory, potential theory, Fourier series and Fourier transforms, while making all subsets of the real line Lebesgue measurable

so colin leslie deans claim about the meaninglessness of maths stands

[Phillipus_Rex]

I’m going to show my bank this the next time they tell me I’m overdrawn.

[Xilivai]

Everything is meaningless unless you yourself add meaning to it. What are you trying to get at? That we shouldn’t use math because you have one little trick that can make 1=2? Math has saved peoples lives. I mean look around at the modern world. Everything you see has been made using math. But, you have a little trick that can make 1=2, thus making it meaningless.

[ladyjane]

That we shouldn’t use math because you have one little trick that can make 1=2? Math has saved peoples lives. I mean look around at the modern world. Everything you see has been made using math. But, you have a little trick that can make 1=2, thus making it meaningless.

I mean look around at the modern world. Everything you see has been made using math.

never believe something just because it works-there have been heaps of things that worked but the explanations why they worked where wrong

But, you have a little trick that can make 1=2, thus making it meaningless.

it is no trick -it is a fact of mathematics thus indicating as colin leslie dean has said maths ends in meaninglessness

Math has saved peoples lives.

so there is a mystery as colin leslie dean points out as how can that be when maths ends in meaninglessness

[Xilivai]

For one thing, I don’t believe in anything, I go by probability. The probability of math being benificial to humanity is extremely high. Look at our space programs, everything involed in it is based on math. Math is the reason the apollo 13 returned saftly to earth without any casualties. We use math to build shelters to protect us from nature. Ever think about how you got your little trick to work? You had to use math. If math is meaningless then so is your little rant. I’ve used math plenty of times to see how useful it really is, and untill you can come up with a beter system, I will continue using it.

[ladyjane]

For one thing, I don’t believe in anything, I go by probability. The probability of math being benificial to humanity is extremely high. Look at our space programs, everything involed in it is based on math. Math is the reason the apollo 13 returned saftly to earth without any casualties. We use math to build shelters to protect us from nature. Ever think about how you got your little trick to work? You had to use math. If math is meaningless then so is your little rant. I’ve used math plenty of times to see how useful it really is, and untill you can come up with a beter system, I will continue using it.

maths works but it ends in meaninglessness-there is a mystery as pointed out by colin leslie dean- if you dont find that interesting then why be on a philosophy forum

if you where around when they believed in a flat earth at the centre of the universe you would have gone along with the views simply because they worked
the Ptolemy’s system worked -and you would have believed it-but it was wrong

The Almagest is the only surviving comprehensive ancient treatise on astronomy. Babylonian astronomers had developed arithmetical techniques for calculating astronomical phenomena; Greek astronomers such as Hipparchus had produced geometric models for calculating celestial motions; Ptolemy,however, claimed to have derived his geometrical models from selected astronomical observations by his predecessors spanning more than 800 years, though astronomers have for centuries suspected that his models’ parameters were adopted independently of observations. [12] Ptolemy presented his astronomical models in convenient tables, which could be used to compute the future or past position of the planets.[13] The Almagest also contains a star catalogue, which is an appropriated version of a catalogue created by Hipparchus. Its list of forty-eight constellations is ancestral to the modern system of constellations, but unlike the modern system they did not cover the whole sky (only the sky Hipparchus could see). Through the Middle Ages it was spoken of as the authoritative text on astronomy, with its author becoming an almost mythical figure, called Ptolemy, King of Alexandria.[14] The Almagest was preserved, like most of Classical Greek science, in Arabic manuscripts (hence its familiar name). Because of its reputation, it was widely sought and was translated twice into Latin in the 12th century, once in Sicily and again in Spain.[15] Ptolemy’s model, like those of his predecessors, was geocentric and was almost universally accepted until an equally systematic presentation of a heliocentric geometrical model by Nicolaus Copernicus.

[Xilivai]

Life works but it too also ends in meaninglessness. Back when we thought the world was flat, I wouldn’t say I “believed” it was, but more or less the probability of it being flat with the technology we currently had would be pretty high. The thing with probability is one variable can dramatically change it. Now I don’t mind you showing how you can make 1=2(That part is interesting), just when you add the word meaningless, it changes the whole conversation to math having meaning or not. Also you referring to colin in every post doesn’t help.

[ladyjane]

Now I don’t mind you showing how you can make 1=2(That part is interesting), just when you add the word meaningless, it changes the whole conversation to math having meaning or not.

1=2 is a contradiction so maths end in self contradiction so it ends meaninglessness no trick but a fact of maths

[Xilivai]

Meaning is subjective. When I count things, the meaning is to figure out how much of one thing i have. When I measure a piece of wood to build something, the meaning is to get the correct measurements to build a base structure. When I cook and I need to measure the amount of water or other substances… I could go on but I’m pretty sure your aware of this stuff. Math isn’t nessacarilly meaningless, it just has some faults that get overlooked.

[namelesss]

@Xilivai

Also you referring to colin in every post doesn’t help.

Thats his own name.
He loves to impregnate the internet with it.
I guess that he doesn’t know that “he who blows his own horn is usually a solo act!” -Confucious
*__-

[Xilivai]

@ladyjane

maths works but it ends in meaninglessness-there is a mystery as pointed out by colin leslie dean- if you dont find that interesting then why be on a philosophy forum

If your objective is to get me interested, why do you appear to try and attack mathematics? It would be more benificial to get a bunch of people interested then find a way that we can fix it, instead of attacking it and getting nowhere.

[Xilivai]

@namelesss

@Xilivai

Also you referring to colin in every post doesn’t help.

Thats his own name.
He loves to impregnate the internet with it.

Well I really don’t care. I’ve read plenty of lady janes post’s, so there is no need to tell me. Anyways, do you have a say in this?

[ladyjane]

Math isn’t nessacarilly meaningless, it just has some faults that get overlooked

the paradox is not due to a fault in maths
the pradox results from accepted maths
and it shows 1=2 which means math is in contradiction ie it ends in meaninglessness -even though you can cook your dinner with it

[namelesss]

@Xilivai

@namelesss

@Xilivai

Also you referring to colin in every post doesn’t help.

Thats his own name.
He loves to impregnate the internet with it.

Well I really don’t care. I’ve read plenty of lady janes post’s, so there is no need to tell me. Anyways, do you have a say in this?

I say whatever the fuk I do wherever I do. I don’t need your approval. If you don’t like what I say, ignore it.

[Xilivai]

Well lets put the whole meaninglessness aside for a second, shall we? I realize that everything is meaningless so this part I don’t really care about. The mystery on the other hand of why it works in reality if certain maths contradict intself is the interesting part that I want to try and understand.

@nameless

I say whatever the fuk I do wherever I do. I don’t need your approval. If you don’t like what I say, ignore it.

I was simply saying your wasteing your breathe(Or thought), assumeing you have a limted amount. As to the question at hand, your post is of no use.

[ladyjane]

The mystery on the other hand of why it works in reality if certain maths contradict intself is the interesting part that I want to try and understand.

now we can start the real work
as noted the problem arises from the axiom of choice
if we abandon it then the paradox goes away

Unlike most theorems in geometry, this result depends in a critical way on the axiom of choice in set theory. This axiom allows for the construction of nonmeasurable sets

is if you abandon AC to avoid the paradox
but keep it for other forms of maths
you have a situation where there is a contradiction in maths ie AC invalid
for one aspect of math but not invalid for other forms of maths
thus maths has a contradiction thus ends in meaninglessness

but then a lot of maths becomes unprovable

Disallowing the axiom of choice seems to many mathematicians to eviscerate functional analysis and point-set topology, since the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to a fundamental result of point-set topology, Tychonoff’s theorem, and also to the conjunction of two fundamental results of functional analysis, the Banach-Alaoglu theorem and the Krein-Milman theorem. It also naively affects the study of infinite groups to a large extent, as well as ring and order theory (see Boolean prime ideal theorem). However the axioms of determinacy and dependent choice, together, are sufficient for most geometric measure theory, potential theory, Fourier series and Fourier transforms, while making all subsets of the real line Lebesgue measurable

one central issue is in the definition of AC

math.vanderbilt.edu/~schecte … hoice.html

Axiom of Choice. Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S.

The controversy was over how to interpret the words “choose” and “exists” in the axiom

To understand this axiom better, let’s consider a few examples.

* If C is the collection of all nonempty subsets of {1,2,3,...}, then we can define f quite easily: just let f(S) be the smallest member of S.
* If C is the collection of all intervals of real numbers with positive, finite lengths, then we can define f(S) to be the midpoint of the interval S.
* If C is some more general collection of subsets of the real line, we may be able to define f by using a more complicated rule.
* However, if C is the collection of all nonempty subsets of the real line, it is not clear how to find a suitable function f. In fact, no one has ever found a suitable function f for this collection C, and there are convincing model-theortic arguments that no one ever will. (Of course, to prove this requires a precise definition of "find," etc.) 

The controversy was over how to interpret the words “choose” and “exists” in the axiom:

*[b] If we follow the constructivists, and "exist" means "find," then the axiom is false, since we cannot find a choice function for the nonempty subsets of the reals.[/b]
* However, most mathematicians give "exists" a much weaker meaning, and they consider the Axiom to be true: To define f(S), just arbitrarily "pick any member" of S. 

note it is only by watering down the meaning of words that AC remains valid
for
If we follow the constructivists, and “exist” means “find,” then the axiom is false, since we cannot find a choice function for the nonempty subsets of the reals

if AC is false then the tarski paradox vanishes but so does a lot of maths-which might help you cook dinner

[Xilivai]

I think I get what your saying, but I have only skimmed through it. I’m getting tired so I’ll read your post fully and respond tomorrow.

[ladyjane]

I think I get what your saying, but I have only skimmed through it. I’m getting tired so I’ll read your post fully and respond tomorrow.

one thing to think about
1=2 being a contradiction is only a problem if you believe maths is consistent-this has not been proved so if you believe maths is consistent it can only be based on faith which is just like christians having faith in god

the fact might be that maths is inconsistent ie ends in meaninglessness as colin leslie dean claims then you trying to irradicate the paradox and make maths consistent is a wasted endevour and MANIPULATES THINGS IN ORDER TO CREATE A FALSE TRUTH

[Faust]

I am going to put a screwdriver through my temple.

[Xilivai]

@ladyjane

I think I get what your saying, but I have only skimmed through it. I’m getting tired so I’ll read your post fully and respond tomorrow.

one thing to think about
1=2 being a contradiction is only a problem if you believe maths is consistent-this has not been proved so if you believe maths is consistent it can only be based on faith which is just like christians having faith in god

the fact might be that maths is inconsistent ie ends in meaninglessness as colin leslie dean claims then you trying to irradicate the paradox and make maths consistent is a wasted endevour and MANIPULATES THINGS IN ORDER TO CREATE A FALSE TRUTH

Ok, I use math merely as a tool. I also think that not all of the rules of math are set in stone. Math to me is not a religion, as I have said earlier, I believe (Or try) in nothing. I kinda think I understand what your saying though.