## Tuesday, April 23, 2013

### ... on reality of existence of numbers (and on Pythagoreans and Bruno)

1) ... on reality of existence of numbers (and on Pythagoreans and Bruno), 2) Reality of Numbers, but Not of Numeric Infinity, 3) Jamma starts giving examples! Yeah!

numberphile : do numbers EXIST

a) You missed a shade between Nominalism and Platonism, namely Aristotelianism. A Platonist would argue that any set of three objects has its threeness directly derived from Holy Trinity (if he is a Christian).

A true Nominalist would argue that any﻿ set of three objects is indeed a set of three objects if you call it that, but that the threeness of three sisters and the threeness of three dots on dice are not just physically separate, but the concept is only the same to us.

Whereas an Aristotelian would argue that any set of three things shares a basic threeness with any other set of three things.

A threeness which to a Christian Aristotelian is an image of Holy Trinity, but not necessarily a participation.

b) you do the mistake of calling "sqr root of two"* a number when it is a proportion and "sqr root of minus one" a number when it is an algebraic fiction.

Just because "sqr root of minus one" is a fiction does not mean "three" is a fiction.

*Sqr root of two is diagonal of a square compared to one quarter of circumference. And π is circumference of circle compared to its "diagonal" or diameter. These proportions are always the same, they are quite as reliable concepts as three, but they are geometrical and not arithmetical. They do not count separate quantities but measure continuous ones. Therefore the only exact value of them is precisely those names. Try to use it in arithmetic operations rather than geometric demonstrations, you need a value and that must be numeralised, that numeralisation is a fiction (because numeralising what is in itself not a number) and it results in an approximation. And in the sphere of physics and technology, where these claculations apply, approximation works.

related:

numberphile : root 2

Ha, first of all, Euclid and Aristotle were no Pythagoreans.

Second of all, Pythagoreans were pretty much a freemasonry.

But, mathematically, even if ratios are number to number ratios, they are not numbers.

A triangle 3-4-5 does not﻿ have three separate items on one side and so on, but here numbers are used as comparisons. And obviously comparisons can be divided into the continuum. Some are non-numeric ratios, like pi or sqrt of two.

That is pi or sqrt of two rationally defined.

Now, your problem is whether you can rationally define complex numbers.

Can you rationally define zero or minus﻿ one as numbers, even?

Of course you can "redefine number" as some try to redefine marriage.

But you can't make two men beget children and you can't make zero or minus one rational answers to rationally asked question "how many".

Giordano Bruno was burned for saying that﻿ each universe (what he called universes is what you would call solar systems, supposing each star to have exoplanets) had a soul and that God was the soul of our solar system, or in his words, of our universe, but another universe had another soul and therefore another God.

Both pantheism and polytheism in a baptised Christian.

And of course he did NOT prove any of these. Any more than zero has been proven a number.

aqua1993:
Pi and sqrt(2) are non-numeric ratios? What definitions are you using for number, ratios, and non-numeric? I see that in another post you seem to say that being able to answer the question "how many" defines it as a number. Alright. Let's define a unit length. We can copy this length and thereby ask "how many unit﻿ lengths is this segment?" Next, construct a square with a side of 1 unit length. Connect any of the two diagonals. How many unit lengths is this diagonal? sqrt(2), no?

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
Number: narrow definition "many"﻿ (as opposed to one). Broad definition: "one or many".

Ratio: relation of two quantities (discreet as numbers or continuous as lengths, weights, etc.) such that relation remains the same if both quantites are augmented or diminished by same *ratio*.

As such a ratio may be numeric and also fall between the numeric ratios.

"Adding" centimeter to centimeter may accidentally say "how many centimeters", but really "how big in ratio to the centimeter". Not nec. a #.

aqua1993:
As for pi, construct a circle with a radius of 1/2 unit length. How many unit lengths is the circumference? pi. I've outlined how to construct pi and sqrt(2) in such﻿ a way that answers your question "how many". So, why aren't pi and sqrt(2) numbers? Of course, I've assumed that we would agree on many things. If you disagree with anything I did, feel free to post a rebuttal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
Pi is not a number. The question "how many unit lengths is the circumference" is a malformed question. Pi would be the only correct response, but it is only by making it the repsonse to this malformed question that you make it a "number" at all.

The proper question with measurements is "what is the ratio" (either between two﻿ concerned measurements or between one concerned and one standard unit length).

And the correct answer to that correct question is: "pi is the ratio, and it is irrational."

snakedude517:
Wait a sec... if the sqrt of 2 is a irracional number how can it be represented by a fraction longEdge/shortEdge?

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
Because long edge and short edge are not necessarily related in a numeric way. On A4 format they are, ideally, not.

LostHisMarbles
Hans i see some of your comments and you're being kind of ridiculous. The current definition of number is not singularly defined by you. Why are you arguing for your incredibly archaic definition of it. Meanings and definitions change over time as new information is gained and changes.

All ratios are numbers, Pi is a number. Irrational NUMBERs﻿ are numbers. It is so much a number in fact it's part of a set called 'Real Numbers'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would call "real numbers" unreal numbers. They are however real ratios.

Excepting of course when they are in fact natural numbers.

"Meanings and definitions change over time as new information is gained and changes."

If that were so it would not be a gain of information. It would be a shift of wording in existing information. ONLY if definitions rest the same can informations duly augment.

I am not trying to "define the﻿ current" meaning, but to adhere to the Classic one (set by Aristotle).

aqua1993
I see what you're saying about ratios and measures, but I'm not buying that pi isn't a number. If i did buy into your ideas, then I would also say that 1 isn't a number. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8... and so on would also not be numbers. They are just ratios to the unit length. If I have 3 watermelons, then it's just a ratio of 3:1 with my unit watermelon. ﻿ Anyways, this doesn't really seem like a matter any of us will be able to settle decisively. It comes down to the arbitrary notion of number.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
When 2 is twice as long as the unit length, it is not a number but a length. It is in a numeric ratio to the unit length. Between numeric ratios to﻿ it (like 1:1, 2:1, 3:2) there are also non numeric ratios to it, like sqr rt of two or pi.

When 2 is twice as many as one single, then it is truly a number.

In "2 oranges" 2 is a number, in "2 cm" 2 is a numeric ratio.

Lauri Markkula:
So having children﻿ makes you married...?

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
Not the having them per se, but the purpose in advance of both begetting and raising them together in lifeling fidelity, expressed before one's relevant communities (above all Church, for Christians) by an act called wedding which includes a mutual promise.

Lauri Markkula:
What about the people who don't get children? What if either the man or the woman is sterile? What if the woman gets married after menopause? You can't get sterile men and barren﻿ women to beget children. Should we not ban marriage between them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
As to people who voluntarily sterilise themselves, the Catholic Church already considers that a mortal sin, and marriages contracted after such an illdeed are null and void, due to lack of intent.

As to women after menopause, the intent need not be lacking if for instance one were prepared to accept children begotten by miracle (Sarah, Elisabeth, St Anne the grandmother of Christ) or after reactivating ovaries by hormonal therapy, which sometimes has that effect.

numberphile : problems with zero

What about my radical solution: zero is NOT a number. It is perfectly good as a "numerical relative", like in addition/subtraction +/- zero means "same as previous, no difference", just as */: 1 in multiplication/division.

It is also perfectly good as a value, geometric or﻿ similar (most famously thermometers, perhaps) where "zero" as a value is very far from any real zero of whatever it is a value of.

But it is neither one, nor many, hence no number. Call it a number, you get these problems.

All here numberline fundies (and even﻿ Gaussians)?

No Roman Numerals fans?

No takers?

Appendix I, square root of two:

In arithmetic there is none such. Reason, square number and square root number are interrelated. Just as only even numbers are double numbers that have half numbers, so only square numbers can have root numbers.

In geometry there is one. As two squares can be any ratio to each other, they can be the ratio of 2:1. In that case the sides are in a ratio of square root of two to one. And as any paper lover knows, there is paper where the rectangular sides of same paper are that ratio.

Now, square root of two is often given as 1.414... and that obviously only applies to geometry, since arithmetic offers no inbetweens between 1 and 2.

It is also as obviously an approximation, because it is an irrational geometric ratio. And it is irrational because in arithmetic 2 is no square number.

But since it is a question of geometry, it is purely conventional, and apt to confuse it with arithmetic, to give that approximation in decimal fractions. If we use feet, the fractions are given in duodecimals.

One square has side one foot, and obviously the surface one square foot. What is the side of a square the surface two square feet?

The rough approximation offered by using whole inches would be 17 inches or one foot and five inches. It gives a square of 289 square inches. One square inch too many, since two square feet are 288 square inches.

A little finer, use lines as well, twelve lines to the inch just as you have twelve inches to the foot.

(1 ft, 4 in, 11 li)2 = 203 li*203 li = 41,209 li2 which is nearly two square inches too little.

If England had had the older French system, there would have been also 12 points to the line.

1 ft, 4 in, 11 li, 7 pt = 2443 pt is the nether approximation.

2444 pt is obviously the upper one.

If one square foot = 2,985,984 pt2, then two ft2 = 5,971,968 pt2.

Square the two approximations, you will get 5,968,249 pt2 for the nether and 5,973,136 pt2 for the upper one.

And as square root of two is irrational, there is no exact number of subdivisions of the foot that can be exactly the answer. But that does not really matter practically, since the points are closer together than one milimeter. The approximation is more exact than the thickness of an ordinary pencil./HGL

Appendix II, "irrational numbers" are non-numeric ratios between numeric ones (table, two examples)

greater numeric
ratio
non-numeric
ratio
lesser numeric
ratio
4:1> π >3:1
32:10> π >31:10
315:100> π >314:100
3142:1000> π >3141:1000

2:1> sqrt (2) >1:1
15:10> sqrt (2) >14:10
142:100> sqrt (2) >141:100
1415:1000> sqrt (2) >1414:1000

Appendix III, proof sine, cosine, tangent are not numeric per se

You recall the Amerindian chief Sohcahtoa?

OK, there are angles for which all of these are numeric ratios, like the narrowest angle of the Egyptian triangle:

SOH, Sine = Opposite/Hypothenuse = in this case 3:5
CAH, Cosine = Adjacent/Hypothenuse = in this case 4:5
TOA, Tangent = Opposite/Adjacent = in this case 3:4

And now there are some math wizzes who will know what I do not know, how great this angle is in degrees.

But as obviously there are triangles with clearly non-numeric ratios. Sine or cosine of 45° is inverse ratio to sqrt (2), since it is a side size (simplest form) 1 to another side which to it has the ratio known as sqrt (2). And 30° will have a sine 1/2 but a cosine or a tangent involving sqrt (3). And these, as previously said, have no reality in arithmetic, properly speaking, in the science of odd and even, of prime and compound, of triangular or square or pyramidic or cubic numbers. They belong to the other branch of pure mathematics, known as geometry.

Added app. II and III on Ascension Day, 9-V-2013./HGL

Continued on:

... on Mathematics and Semantics
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2013/06/on-mathematics-and-semantics.html

## Friday, April 12, 2013

### ... on Human Chromosome II, and Divine Creator's Honesty, to a RC Evolutionist

Excerpt from All Comments on "How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists"
on pariskillton's channel

OK, you are a Roman Catholic.

So am I. Or - better - I am a Roman Catholic. But one of us got wrong what RC means, or at best, Pius XII in HG made room for this debate. By giving a dispensation﻿ to what you just said, what I am claiming has always been legitimate for RCs.

I am, namely, a YEC.

"YEC are Protestants and Trent condemned Protestant heresies" - Sure, such as denying sacrifice of the mass, 72 books (vs 66, or for that matter 73 vs 66 if you count Baruch separate) but not YEC.

Now, in general, it is often heard that if such and such a piece of evidence is rejected, that makes the creator deceptive.

I fully grant that if God had created star light light beams for stars that never existed and that we see by the light beams star explosions from before they could start existing, or if God had created dino bones,﻿ that would be deceptive.

But if those deceived are not all and every observer, but only some interpreter, God is no more deceptive than by writing the Bible by which the ones who want to deceive themselves do deceive themselves if﻿ they are for instance Protestants proving Christ did not found a visible Church or Jews proving Christ is not the Christ.

God did put those pieces of evidence into the Bible, these people interpreting the Bible (66 books or corresponding OT) are deceived, and yet God is not their deceiver.

Because God did not chose how they would interpret those things.

How does this apply to Human Chromosome II corresponding to Chimp Chromosome xiii and another Chimp Chromosome?

First of all, a fusion at a very specific place will not do it. There are, excepting that fusion, 13 other chromotypal or karyotypal dislocations, plus hundreds of thousands of loci mutations. Not sure whether that means "on the human side" or "overall on both sides at the shortest between human and chimp".

So, human chromosome II looks like not exactly chimp xiii plus chimp z, but human II looks rather like (chimp z° + chimp xiii)*13 translocations*100.000 loci mutations.

Not exactly as if﻿ God had given very clear either deceptive or true evidence that human chromosome II resulted from a fusion of ancestor*(chimp z + chimp xiii).

God can have created chimp z and chimp xiii modelled loosely, very loosely, on human II.

But obviously God did foresee what evolutionists would do of this, as well as what Heliocentrics would do - leading at length to Distant Starlight problem - with the phenomenon they call parallax.

Now, studying the chromosomes or the﻿ parallax is hardly the main occupation of ordinary man. As for those who do study them, often in hope of contradicting Genesis or Joshua, God can have said: "mundus decipi vult, ergo decipiatur".

Your observation about what God would be deceptive would actually be more at its﻿ place when it comes to observations more commonly seen by men, even without special study hopes and agendas: like sunrise at morning or sunset at evening. Are you sure that Heliocentrism does not equal a deceptive God who plants deceptive evidence?

I think that was Pope Urban VIII's own argument against Galileo. He was not one of the judges, since he had been insulted in Dialogo.

Hey...Here we discuss with OTHER people. This is not your﻿ personal blog!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was discussing with the guy on the video. Feel welcome﻿ to respond to what I was writing, I will discuss with you too.

trinitymike

the video is >5 years old and I HIGHLY doubt Dr. Miller even comes to Youtube to watch his own videos let alone looks at the﻿ comments here; you want to discuss with him? email him at his office...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do﻿ you have his email?

DocumentaryHub

''I was discussing with the﻿ guy on the video.'' Did﻿ he respond?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As yet I have not gotten the info through to him yet. Do you happen to know the university, so I can﻿ get the email?

Btw, feel free to discuss my points too, since they are directly related to content of video.

°chimp z, I could for obvious reasons not call it chimp x or chimp y, since x and y are already taken for sex chromosomes.

## Sunday, April 7, 2013

### ... to two videos of Zinnia Jones.

I "If you think I am wrong, that just means I am right ..."* - Well, you are right on that one. I disagree with you, ergo you are right people disagree with you. Are you very sure every Christian who brought up the prophecy of people disagreeing with the Bible actually means the fulfilment of that prophecy is the primary evidence for Christianity?

The Bible actually predicts lots more. "They will hate you and persecute you" - wait that was not the Bible, word of God, but Jesus, Word of God with capital W who predicted that.

Now, neither Quran nor Confucius predicts universal persecutions against Ummah or Confucian nation. And none of them has been under attack everywhere except nooks and crannies of middle of nowhere, everywhere important, for 280 years on a row, like Catholic Christians from 33 to 313 (oh, sorry, Armenia went from persecution to acceptance in 301), nor has either of them taken its actual headquarters in the headquarters of its persecutors.

Confucians were persecuted in Peking under Mao? Fine, they make Taiwan the new Confucian world. But St Peter went from Jerusalem where he was persecuted to Rome where he was persecuted and killed upside down on a cross. And so far the Moslems have never been persecuted in Mecca, nor does Christianity prophecy they will be that there.

Heard of strawman ...?

Funny thing is, I have been repeatedly persecuted as a gay person, not because I am gay, but because I am Christian. Not over in your place, but in gay friendly Sweden and gay friendly France.

Seems some people persecuting Christians will rather pose as - later repentant - gay bashers than admit they persecute Christianity. Is that because they are afraid of seeming to fulfill some kind of prophecy?

II Ouch ... "it is not inferior to support starving children in India to support starving children in America" he said** (yes, it's a he despite being dressed up as La Cage aux Folles) ... if you live in America it is. If you live in India the reverse is.

So you want to support children in India rather than children in America?

Right ... and for the reason that Salvation Army is "overtly homophobic" ... <sarcasm>*right*!</sarcams>

Now, if you have ever heard of the laws of Manush ... that is a collection where the word homophobia really has a meaning. You know that Krafft-Ebbing guy who wrote a lot of technical terms, including ones about your condition? Now, he considers a man letting himself be ridden by a woman as partly homosexual. He has not got it from the Bible. He may well have got such a hunch from the laws of Manush. Now, that may sound a bit homophobic to you. To me too. And, for the record, the laws of Manush are from *India*. Good luck finding a non-homophobic charity over there. Or actually I should not wish you good luck on that one, it was ironic.

A charity is there to give some comfort to the poor. If the poor are homophobic, including actively homosexuals in the personnel will hardly be to their highest personal and subjective comfort.

Now, if you want Western charities in India, there is of course Mother Theresa - the Missionaries of Charity are also helping homeless in Denmark, Germany and France (I have tried Kopenhagen, Hamburg, Marseille and Paris). Even US, possibly - as well as India. But you were against homophobic charities right? Now, Mother Theresa of Calcutta has been accused by some of modernism in some respects, but she hardly allowed lesbians among the sisters. Living among your own sex only for life is in the Catholic Church supposed to be an aid to chastity, not a temptation against it. I know, for a certain period certain people got away with the opposite. Sad story.

Actually one reason there are charities is so that homosexuals and other people who might make people ill at ease if giving them food directly should be able to give alms anyway.

But of course, you do have a point that it is one's own choice whether to give to a charity rather than to another.

It is even one's own choice whether one gives to a charity or gives personally - in part depending on time and opportunity.

Some employees are not allowed to give either money or food or coffee to beggars while on work.

Some have a queer feeling when around beggars. And so on.

So, some people are left with little opportunity other than giving to charities when it comes to giving alms, if they want to give such at all.

Precisely as some families have no big choice for homeschooling, but the choice between a municipal school and leaving children illiterate (as if that were a totally bad thing), and by many legislations one of those options is cut off in theory. Though some parents manage to send their children to school every day when legally required to and see how they manage to remain illiterate anyway. Just a few teachers watching the carreer as illiterates with a few more worries.

But basically, one is naturally as free to give alms personally as one is to homeschool.

But the injunction to give charities to India rather than America, and that for the precise reason to avoid giving to "overtly homophobic" charities ... give me a break!

And the trolly problem is such a sham philosophy.

One man dying accidentally is less of a calamity than five people dying accidentally.

One innocent man actively killed by one other is less of a crime than this other man actively killing five innocent people.

But killing one innocent is not allowed to do in order to save five innocent from a pure accident any more than to save one from it.

So how come that neither the one man nor the five men on the tracks can move quickly away? How about getting to the track where the one or five can get away and blow the whistle so hard that they do and get all saved with any luck?

As for trying to fell so strong and big a man as to stop a train with his corpse, that is hardly realistic, and if he is mean he fells you onto the track while defending himself./HGL