doggy pile this for great justice!
Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip
Australia Like in America few prominent writers or artists in Australia were connected with the Decadent movement. The only Australian decadent poet Colin Leslie Dean has struggled to find an audience; this is perhaps because according to some Australian critics, i.e. C.J. Dennis Australia is a country of wowser and culturally detest the art forms of the fin de siècle. Colin Leslie Dean poems are very emotional they challenge conventional notions of decorum by using and abusing such tropes and figures as metaphor, hyperbole, paradox, anaphora, hyperbaton, hypotaxis and parataxis, paronomasia, and oxymoron. Deans poems produce copia and variety and cultivates concordia discors and antithesis – Dean uses these strategies to produce allegory and conceit. Deans work has been described as"Paraphrasing Baudelaire “When you think of what [Australian] poetry was before [Dean ] appeared and what a rejuvenation it [will undergo] since his arrival when you imagine how significant it would have been if he had not appeared how many deep and mysterious feelings which have been put into words would have remained unexpressed how many intelligent minds he...[will being into]...it is impossible not to consider him as one of those rare and providential minds who in the domain of [poetry] bring about the salvation of us all...”(“Victor Hugo Selected poems Brooks haxton Penguin Books 2002 p.xv) with his groundbreaking poems who knows which new Ko ‘Lin or kohl'in al-deen
what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see
0.888...
and
0.999....
and while you are at it
integer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer
"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.
The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"
1 is an integer
0.888.. is not an integer
0.999.. is not an integer
thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction
bear in mind we are told by science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."
but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"
so basically
without science knowing what life is
then dead and alive have no meaning
biology science dont even know what life is-how ironic they study life but dont know what life is
that is why biology is not a science
1) Gödel’s 1st theorem
a) “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)
note
"... there is an arithmetical statement that is true..."
In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven
But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless
If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"
but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless
same goes for true maths statement if he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true then his theorem is meaningless
"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from
within itself, then it is inconsistent.”
But we have a paradox
Gödel is using a mathematical system
his theorem says a system cant be proven consistent
THUS A PARADOX
Godel must prove that a system cannot be proven to be consistent based upon the premise that the logic he uses must be consistent . If the logic he uses is not consistent then he cannot make a proof that is consistent. So he must assume that his logic is consistent so he can make a proof of the impossibility of proving a system to be consistent. But if his proof is true then he has proved that the logic he
uses to make the proof must be consistent, but his proof proves that
this cannot be done
THUS A PARADOX
what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see
0.888...
and
0.999....
and while you are at it
integer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer
"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.
The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"
1 is an integer
0.888.. is not an integer
0.999.. is not an integer
thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction
1) Gödel’s 1st theorem
a) “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)
note
"... there is an arithmetical statement that is true..."
In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven
But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless
If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"
but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless
same goes for true maths statement if he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true then his theorem is meaningless
felltoearth wrote:Wasn’t there already a thread about that somewhere?
what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see
0.888...
and
0.999....
and while you are at it
integer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer
"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.
The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"
1 is an integer
0.888.. is not an integer
0.999.. is not an integer
thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction
jane wrote:Hi felltoearth
while OlivierK is answering my point
perhaps you could address dean
on Godel1) Gödel’s 1st theorem
a) “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)
note
"... there is an arithmetical statement that is true..."
In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven
But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless
If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"
but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless
same goes for true maths statement if he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true then his theorem is meaningless
I’m not a mathematician so no I can’t.
If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"
but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless
what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see
0.888...
and
0.999....
and while you are at it
integer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer
"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.
The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"
1 is an integer
0.888.. is not an integer
0.999.. is not an integer
thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest