On 9 Feb 2001 06:46:46 -0800 Jon Runge <integer@crosswalkmail.com>
writes:
> Regarding: Mathematics and Physics from Genesis to Revelation
>
> PART THREE
> In absolute truth and logic "1 + 1 = 2 is relatively true" is
> replaced by four equally true, and yet uniquely individual,
> statements, i.e.,
>
> 1. "+ 1 + 1 = + 2 is true in absolute truth",
> 2. "- 1 - 1 = - 2 is true in absolute truth",
> 3. "+ i + i = + 2 i is true in absolute truth", and
> 4. "- i - i = - 2 i is true in absolute truth."
>
> where the letter "i" represents imaginary one, or the square root of
> minus one. For example, observe that "1 + 1 = 2 is true in absolute
> truth" only when counting with positive real numbers is part of a
> COMPLETE, absolute (or eternal) four fold expression for counting in
> the complex plane.
>
> The failure to recognize this absolute four fold symmetry in logic
> and in truth is one reason for saying that THE MATHEMATICAL LOGIC OF
> THIS WORLD IS INCOMPLETE, AND ABSOLUTELY INCONSISTENT. Using one
> way of counting when three other ways of counting are equally valid
> is arbitrary and logically incomplete. This is one source of the
> logical "incompleteness" in Godel's theorem.
This section demonstrates formidable ignorance of elementary arithmetic
and advanced number theory. It foolishly confuses "+" as the symbol for
addition with the symbol for positive numbers, when this latter is
relevant. It is not usually, for an unsigned number is always taken to be
positive. There is a parallel confusion about "-", which, however, is
always necessary to indicate negative numbers. As a consequence,
1+1=2
is absolutely and unambiguously true for all who have a clear
understanding of mathematics and are not tacitly assuming a possible
modular arithmetic, whereas
-1-1=-2
ambiguously represents
(-1)+(-1)=(-2)
(-1)-(+1)=(-2)
None of this has any relevance to Goedel's theorems or their extensions,
nor to man's fallen state, nor to the current logical competence of the
redeemed. I can understand why folks thought the original posting was a
joke, for it is hard to imagine anyone so wrongheaded. It sounds like
something that might be posted April 1.
A major portion of the other parts depends on trying to understand
technical terms as if they meant what the terms mean in the vulgar
tongue. This is why Relativity Theory is properly Invariententheorie in
some of Einstein's documents. As a wag remarked, not understanding any of
the questions helps one to know all the answers.
Dave
PS Regarding the reference to modular arithmetic, my first equation would
become (with the label subscripted)
1+1=2 modn
where n represents any positive integer. This equation is false if n=1,
but true if n>1. Also, while subtraction works in all modular arithmetics
(there are potentially an infinite number of them), there are normally no
negative numbers.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 09 2001 - 16:25:51 EST