Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sigurdV last won the day on June 5 2013

sigurdV had the most liked content!


About sigurdV

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/01/1945

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Stockholm Sweden
  • Interests
    Philosophy of Logic and Language
  1. This is exciting! The search for the oldest civilisation of them all continues...We came from Africa so civilisations gets younger the farther away from Africa we get. Its not certain that the Nile Civilisation was the oldest; the Eufrat and Tigris system has been said to be older ... But I stick to my geographical argument. I really would like to know WHERE those eventual city remains are situated! There we should find the remains of the oldest culture ever! I cant wait to name it: The Sahelian Civilisation ;)
  2. The pressure and temperature needs sometimes to prevent water from becoming ice or gas in order for suitable conditions to exist. I agree on the point. Since conditions, on and in the close surroundings of the massive bodies within the solar system ARE such, THEN once in their formation period the conditions were NOT right... meaning theres a period of transition in which the surroundings of the body are suitable but the body in itself perhaps is too hot for life. How much is known of the conditions in the orbit of what was to become the orbit of The Earth? Was there only one planetoid sl
  3. Thank you for your patience! Now all preparatory work is done... The problem is that in order to be defined in all decimal places C need to be in the list and contribute with one of its decimals to the number C. The problem is in point three: Cantor must select one decimal each from the list containing ALL Real Numbers (according to the assumption) ... So one decimal must come from C as placed in the list but this decimal must be altered (according to the definition)! There is now a contradiction because C must contain a decimal,x, different from x itself. C does not exist. (QED) The
  4. Thank you! I always tend to forget some details: Its easier for the argument to restrict the set R to the numbers between 0 and 1. Also using binary numbers is a good strategy. 3 Cantor now defines a real number C by selecting the n:th decimal from the number F(n) and forms C by changing each such decimal: 0 to 1 and 1 to 0. 4 Since ALL numbers are supposed to be in the list then C must be in the list but for every number n the real number C differs in its n:th decimal from the n:th decimal of f(n), so C is not in the list after all! 5 A contradiction has arisen and the original assumptio
  5. (If you can find a quote on Cantors proof it would be nice... I didnt.) (1) Cantor starts by assuming a bijektion, f , between the set of Natural numbers, N , and the set of Real Numbers , R. That is equivalent to assume that ALL and any Real number can be found as a value f(n) of some Natural number n. And that is equivalent to an infinite list,L, of the pairs <n,f(n)>. The list L contains therefore all and any Real number. (According to the assumption.) (2) After arranging this situation Cantor aims to produce a real number C not in the list. Thereby producing the cont
  6. Hi! My point...(very hard to understand) is that the cantorian argument is that C cant be in the list AND... THAT MEANS that either C does not exist or... the list does not contain all real numbers! Since the list is supposed to contain ALL real numbers then C (as cantor defines it) MUST be in the list PROVIDED there really is a real number C. But if C is in the list there must be a natural number n wich is associated with C by the bijection . What decimal has C as the n:th decimal? Remember that at this moment in the proof you are not allowed to claim that C is NOT in the list! Surely the
  7. I read this with some pleasure. Thank you for a fair reading! As I said its late so I will say no more to night.
  8. Its late ... I didnt say anything about HOW long time water in the sun existed as a liquid. All I was interested in forcing you to admit that a huge volume at some consecutive moments in time were in a liquid form ouside EARTH! To put life together if all constituents are are close together need not take more than minutes... But I only use the sun as an amusing test volume. I think the volume in space becoming the earth at first sight is a more promising objekt. And here comes a card I kept up my sleeve: Lets return to the beginning of the cloud contracting into what will become our solar s
  9. A fair question:I think there were several places where temperature and pressure was right.How about in the middle of the Stellar cloud? I suppose it was cool and low pressured in the beginning... Are you saying that at no time during the formation of the proto sun the pressure and temperature in the center did permit water in liquid form?
  10. Why not? But only ONE at a time. So... With what disproved assertion do we start? Please quote BOTH assertion AND disproof.
  11. Paradigms die hard... Because so few takes its negation seriously! I predict it will take at least another twenty years until its settled that the probabilities for life to have its beginning in free fall is thousands of times higher than the probability for life beginning on planets ... Why dont you calculate the number of drops of water in free fall (in the zones where temperature and pressure was favourable) containing carbohydrates, each one a possible place for life to begin, and compare with the number of spots on earth where conditions were suitable for an equally long duration? ... On
  12. The first few sentences scared me away B)
  13. For some reason I got suspicious and wanted to check Cantors proof that theres more real numbers than natural numbers, but I didnt find it on Wiki. Maybe you can help? His idea is: (1) Making a list of decimal numbersen (2) Asuming that the list contains all decimal numbers (and natural numbers) (3) Then he constructs a decimal not in the list (4) But why doesnt he simply just put it first in the obviously unfinished list? Why claim theres more decimals than naturals? You can make a similar argument the other way surely? So I wanted to see how he argued...but as I said i didnt find his
  14. sigurdV


    Hi! Definition 1: Nothing= Its completed! There really should be nothing in/on the right side of the equality. Next we quote both sides and we get: Definition 2: "Nothing"="" ...As it should be; theres nothing WITHIN the quotes on the right side: Now we can do lots of identities: "nothing" = "not sigurdV" = Sancta Claus ...etc
  • Create New...