Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SBHX who wrote (387)	12/15/2000 9:48:19 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

The well ordering theorem is proved by "negation" (assume there was not, then you prove that any real number can be either equal, larger or smaller than itself, contradiction, QED) no need for the axiom of choice, but when you got into set theory and deal with sets that contains themselves, you are frozen without the axiom of choice. (g). As for ordering dimples, there are different sets of dimples; lone dimples within a set of fully detached chads, single dimples in otherwise untouched ballots (why bother and vote?), and a "presidential" dimple, in association with an admixture of dimples and variously detached chads. The logic of ordering varies according to each set. No axiom of choice necessary, I would say that any logician would tell you discard set one and accept all "presidential dimples" on the rest. As for the theory of numbers corollary, poor Cantor must be turning in his grave seeing people only treating "Alef 0" as a measure for all "possible" voting intents, he would have liked you to go to at least "Alef 1", and he would be happy to prove that there are at least "Alef 0" and no more than "Alef 0" of "Alef n"'s. (g), obeying the inductive rule "Alef n" < "Alef n+1". Gee, it has been some time since I had to handle these concepts... I wonder how useful would Cantor's theory be in analyzing the market? Zeev