Transfinite Numbers and their pals

[Phil8659]

A number is no more than a name using the arithmetic method of recursion. Simple as that. Yet today, you find children being taught, and demanded to learn rubbish. Real numbers, whole numbers, imaginary numbers, transfinite and transcendental numbers. Put that into common grammar. Real words, whole words, imaginary words, transfinite words, and transcendental words.
Words, in of themselves, have no meaning. This type of so called philosophy, expressed by so called mathematicians, is no more that symptomatic of delusional minds. Delusions children are taught to parrot.

If names, in of themselves, had meaning, then they would be useless for information processing. Biologically, we are designed to "say way we see' i.e., construct conventions of names commensurate with objective reality. Teaching mythology is not what education is supposed to do.

We have four systems of grammar derived from binary recursion, Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Claiming that any member of that class has operands that the others do not have, is a delusion. All of them are effected by binary recursion. I.e. the symbol does not determine the convention, the convention determines the symbol set, and method of recursion.

[mickthinks]

A number is no more than a name using the arithmetic method of recursion. Simple as that.

No, it’s not as simple as that. There are numbers between 0 and 1 (and between every pair of consecutive whole numbers). You may wish to give them another label and to reserve “number” for the whole numbers or even just the counting numbers, or even just the numbers 1 to 9, but your idiosyncratic choice doesn’t challenge any mathematical facts.

[Phil8659]

A number is no more than a name using the arithmetic method of recursion. Simple as that.

No, it’s not as simple as that. There are numbers between 0 and 1 (and between every pair of consecutive whole numbers). You may wish to give them another label and to reserve “number” for the whole numbers or even just the counting numbers, or even just the numbers 1 to 9, but your idiosyncratic choice doesn’t challenge any mathematical facts.

Wow! So well educated as to believe the mysticism that numbers exist all by themselves.
As I said, you can draw all of mathematics in simple geometry. I show you even how to do arithmetic and algebraic series.

Names, and numbers are a name, do not exist by magic, nor do they, by magic mean anything, save by convention. The convention of using numbers, i.e., composed of digits, does not in anyway that they are produced by anyone's mysticism of preexistence.

Please do not bother people with your clear stupidity. Unlike the stupid writers of math books, who claim that you can write a series of digits to create a number, which they previously admitted produces a closed system, you can never write a number which is not a product of enumeration.

[mickthinks]

Numbers exist in the same way that ideas exist. I believe that the idea of ratios like the ratio between the lengths of the diameter of a circle and its circumference exist by themselves. You can argue that π doesn’t exist without circles, but circles exist by themselves, at least as ideas, don’t they?

As I said, you can draw all of mathematics in simple geometry. … you can never write a number which is not a product of enumeration.

Does geometry count as “enumeration” in your view? It doesn’t in mine, so I can’t make sense of what you are saying here.

[Age]

Numbers exist in the same way that ideas exist. I believe that the idea of ratios like the ratio between the lengths of the diameter of a circle and its circumference exist by themselves. You can argue that π doesn’t exist without circles, but circles exist by themselves, at least as ideas, don’t they?

As I said, you can draw all of mathematics in simple geometry. … you can never write a number which is not a product of enumeration.

Does geometry count as “enumeration” in your view? It doesn’t in mine, so I can’t make sense of what you are saying here.

NO one can. AS "phil8659" STATES, 'we' are ALL to stupid.

Also, and by the way, "phil8659" WILL NEVER EVER EXPLAIN NOR SHOW HOW 'it' CAN BE DONE, what "phil8659" CLAIMS you or it CAN DO.

And, this is BECAUSE what "phil8659" is 'TRYING TO' CLAIM, here, JUST DOES NOT MAKE 'sense', NOR CAN EVEN BE 'done'.

[Phil8659]

Numbers exist in the same way that ideas exist. I believe that the idea of ratios like the ratio between the lengths of the diameter of a circle and its circumference exist by themselves. You can argue that π doesn’t exist without circles, but circles exist by themselves, at least as ideas, don’t they?

As I said, you can draw all of mathematics in simple geometry. … you can never write a number which is not a product of enumeration.

Does geometry count as “enumeration” in your view? It doesn’t in mine, so I can’t make sense of what you are saying here.

Geometry is that grammar by which you establish a one to one correspondence between the hand and the elements of a thing, stop, go, stop, binary
And if you want to see how it is done, every operation of mathematics in its simplest geometric form, I posted that in my work on the archive.
So, if you do not know that an arithmetic identity is a one to one correspondence, while a geometric is a one to many, you might review that.
limit, relative difference, limit, what do you think a simple line is?

In my geometry demonstrations, you will find a lot which has never been demonstrated before, you can even draw logical operators as complex as you require.

Geometry can only teach you the principles of reasoning, by using your own hand. By your own hand you learn your own ability to think.

[mickthinks]

Geometry is that grammar by which you establish a one to one correspondence between the hand and the elements of a thing,

I recognise all those words, Phil, but you’ve assembled them into a sentence that makes no sense. I could say the same about most of your posts.

[Phil8659]

Geometry is that grammar by which you establish a one to one correspondence between the hand and the elements of a thing,

I recognise all those words, Phil, but you’ve assembled them into a sentence that makes no sense.

Words, in of themselves have no meaning. They acquire meaning by our participation in a naming convention. If you have not participated in the convention, i.e. acquired the knowledge required, then you cannot understand.
Have you done an indepth study of Plato, the founder of formal grammar, and Geometry, using your own hand?

[mickthinks]

Your words seem not to have acquired any meaning, Phil. I don’t believe Plato or geometry can help elucidate. I think you are the only participant in the naming convention you are following.

[Phil8659]

Your words seem not to have acquired any meaning, Phil. I don’t believe Plato or geometry can help elucidate. I think you are the only participant in the naming convention you are following.

Some people believe, but not all, that when one does not understand a thing, that they seek diligently for a teacher. The arrogant majority always believe that they know enough, and the world should stoop to their level of comprehension. Which is right, I do not know. I only know, that I believe we submit to instruction or waste our life in stupidity.

I do not know if you are endowed with mystic powers, or simply are aware of your limitations, but I found that I cannot tell what someone can teach me, prior to letting them teach. Your method certainly is a great saver of time.

[mickthinks]

… when one does not understand a thing, that they seek diligently for a teacher.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that it is the mathematics I don’t understand. I have studied maths under some of the very best teachers.

No, it’s you I don’t understand. Do you know of any courses in understanding Phil8659? Can I learn to navigate the convolutions of your mind on-line or do I need to attend college?