DayMares & The Value of Things

Tuesday, April 29, 2014 9:36:39 AM

DayMares

Do you ever have daymares ?

Maybe you call them something else;

Like an Anxiety Attack or Dark Fantasy,

Or A Betrayal Fantasy !

A Betrayal Fantasy is a Masturbation Fantasy in which The Principle Fantasy Character suddenly turns against You !

This sort of thing is common in Schizophrenics, in which their Inner Voices say The Most Disturbing, Disrespectful, ‘Self’ Depreciating Insults & even Suggestions of Suicide or Criminal Acts against others.

Anyway.

A Daymare is usually just a run away thought that has dark connotations. It’s an Unpleasant Train of Thought(s that pound away inside your head & you can’t get rid of them.

For some time; i have been making & leaving ‘BookMarkers’ in Library Books. These are little pieces of Artwork, Collages, Geometrical Doodles or Whatever, Cut & Clipped so that they look like ‘Bookmarkers’ rather than scraps of Art.

i have often wondered what becomes of them.

The Intent is that they just remain in The Book until someone else checks in out, then they either leave it there, or take it out & keep it.

Both of which are acceptable.

Some years ago; i was checking out some books & The librarian had figured out that i was doing this, & had been removing them from my returned books & was keeping them in a box under The counter !!!

i told her that this was a violation of The ( my ) intent, & i don’t know if she kept doing it or Not.

The Worst Case Scenario; ( which was The source of my recent Daymare, which included an epiphany of ‘Value’; occurred recently. )

The Worst Case Scenario is where The Librarian that is checking The book in, discovers The Bookmarker & Either Summarily Discards it ( Throws it away ) or puts it in The Lost & Found, where it will never be Returned to me or anyone else.

What becomes of things in The Lost & Found ?

Again; The Worst Case Scenario is that The ‘UnClaimed’ Items would be Discarded, Thrown Away.

The Daymare consisted of this thought.

The Time Limit for The Bookmarker in The Lost & Found is reached & The Head Librarian is throwing all these items away, when another librarian comes along & wishes to ‘reclaim’ some of The items, including my bookmarker.

And The Head Librarian Says ‘No!’ you can Not. They =Have to Be= Thrown Away.

This is The Epiphany Part !

The Reason that they Have To Be Thrown Away is because they don’t have an Owner. The Library, As an Institution of lending books, Can Not ReAssign Ownership to these Item. The Library does Not have The Cultural or Legal Authority to Do This.

All Items that are ‘UnOwned’ must be Discarded ( Thrown Away ) !

Even though this Bookmarker has The Equivalent Uniqueness of Any ‘Great’ Work of Art, Many of which are Considered Irreplaceable or Priceless; They Possess those ‘Properties’ because someone ‘Owns’ them.

The Bookmarker does Not have an ‘Owner’ which makes it ‘Worthless’.

The Qualities of It’s Artness are completely Irrelevant.

Which is entirely Consistent with The ‘Art Market’ which assigns Great Value to Many Works of Art; When you would Think ( Mistakenly ( Apparently ) ) that The Artness of The Works of Art are what makes them Valuable. But that would mean that a Simple Poster ( High Resolution Reproduction ) would have The Same ‘Value’ as The Original, But this is Clearly Incorrect.

It’s The Ownership of The Original Painting that gives it it’s Great Value.

This is another Argument for why i Believe that People are about as smart as fish.

There is something deeply wrong with our ‘Belief’ that Humanimals have The Ability to ‘Think’.

Humanimals merely Act.

They Express ‘Behaviours’ which are Instigated or ‘Caused’ by Conditioning & ElectroChemical Interactions in our Nervous Systems.

The Illusion of ‘Thinking’ never enters into any of it.

Are there ‘Beings’ that can ‘Think’ ?

If so; They are Not People. They are something else, that often look like people.

Sometimes they look like something else completely; Like Cats or Flies.

New ( ? ) Evidence that NASA has Flying Saucer Technology ( ! ) With New Supplement !

 

i’m beginning to think that all of NASA is a Hoax.

The Hardest ( & Only ) thing to really dispute is The launching of The many rockets that have gone into space. That would be a good trick— eh!

But once things are ‘in space’ everything becomes painfully easy to fake.

- -

One of The Many things that troubles me is how spacecraft are supposed to be ‘sling-shoting’ around planets.

There are many variables to this; But in The Best ( easiest ) case scenario, A planet like Earth is moving along it’s orbital path, & a space probe is coming up behind it.

The Space Probe has it’s own ( Rocket Propelled ) velocity & as it approaches The Earth, it speed up as The Earth’s Gravity Well is Pulling on it. Likewise; The Probe is pulling Back on The Earth & The Earth Slows down a tiny, tiny bit, & it begins to fall into The Sun a little tiny bit.

> - - -

if i may digress for a moment; It has amazed me for sometime now that The planets are in stable orbits, What Chaos theory teaches us is that if you have a ’Stable’ system of any kind, The tiniest perturbation will throw everything out of kilter & The planets should fly out of their orbits, spin off into ellipses & eventually fall into The Sun. What appears to be happening that countermands this, Is that there are so many of these perturbations in The Solar System, They somehow even each other out. But Still— All of The Planets should have much more Devious Elliptical Orbits, & Once only one of them ( In The Inner Solar System ), Become Reasonably & Expectedly Perturbed; It would quickly throw everything else out of Kilter. ( ? ) So what is The Explanation i am offering as to why this isn’t so ? It’s Because we’re living in a Fractional Reality Universe ( A Screen Saver Universe, & this is one of The Many Smoking Kippers that are intended to Enlighten The Attentive 3rd Grader. In The Final Installment of The Matrix, It was suggested that The Humans in The Battery Pods would be given a choice of whether they wanted to live In or Out of The Matrix— This choice; Would be given to those that ‘Realized’ that they were ‘Maybe’ living in a Matrix, Which they would have discovered by their own resources. )

- - - <

So The Earth is Falling into The Sun a tiny little Bit, & The Space Probe has now been accelerated a tiny bit from The Gravity Well of The Earth, & also it’s Taken a little of The Forward Momentum of The Earth as it’s moving forward, although, for The Probe to have caught up with The Earth from Behind, it may be argued that it must have already had sufficient momentum to do that. But lettuce consider that it did gain a little momentum more.

But — When The Probe passes The Earth or Deflects off in a new Direction— Depending upon how close it got to Earth, The Closer its approach, The more Deflection it would have Enjoyed—

…All of The Above Arguments are Reversed. All of The Momentum that The Probe gained from The Gravity Well would be Lost Leaving The Gravity Well.

So that leaves The Momentum that it supposedly gained from The Forward Momentum of The Earth’s Orbital Path.

Wouldn’t The Earth then Steal Back this Momentum as their roles are now reversed. The Probe would then Slow down & The Earth would Speed up.

What if The Probe Deflected off at a Right Angle ?

The Gravity Well Advantage would be lost just a surely,

But what would happen to The Forward Momentum Advantage ?

If it somehow managed a perfect 90˚ Deflection, all of it’s ‘Forward’ momentum would be lost. It would be Canceled out to get That Right Angle Turn. Forward Advantage only counts as forward.

Maybe it would be easier to visualize if NASA was claiming that The Probe could Slingshot around The Planet, Head off in a 180˚ Angle, & retain the Forward Momentum that was somehow inverted to sped off in The exact opposite direction.

That is crazy talk.

So if The New Direction is only 90˚, The Probe would have been much more naturally inclined to continue moving forward & off at a slighter Angle, say 30˚ from The Direction of The Earth’s Forward Momentum.

If it was 0˚, Then The Cancelation would be Pure, & The Probe would then have all & only The momentum that it had when it approached The Earth from Behind. If it took off at an Angle, Some of that momentum would be lost in that Direction or from The Earth Simply swallowing up a little of The Probes Forward or Angular Momentum from it’s ( The Probes ) Tiny Gravity Well.

Only a Change in Direction would be Achieved.

- - -

What does this mean ?

If all these space probes aren’t doing this, what is going on ?

How could it all be a Lie ?

Indeed.

How could it all be a Lie.

- - -

What if NASA knew that these Slingshots were impossible, but they had some Anti-Gravity Technology from Crashed Flying Saucers, But they didn’t want to tell everyone about that, for a variety of Reasons, & they also knew that a few bright high school student would figure out that The amount of fuel to get to The Outer Planets would be deeply prohibitive, So they ( NASA ) needed to make up some kind of ‘Excuse’ as to how they could Send Probes to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn & beyound, with Essentially No Fuel being Expended. ( ? )

- - -

Some of The Reasons that ‘They’ ( Who Know The Truth, or Their Version of The Truth ) are trying to keep The Damp Masses for The Certainty of Knowing that Aliens have been Visiting Us.

 

a) We are their Property. Like Chattel; Chickens or Soy Beans. They are Harvesting our Souls, Which they use as Currency.

b) The Elemental Technology related to Anti-Gravity would allow anyone handy with Screwdriver or Ban-Saw to Build Horrifically Powerful Weapons that they would surely get into terrible Mischief with !

c) Humans; When compared to The Aliens, Lack True Consciousness. We are less than Insects compared to their Intellect & Ability to ‘Be Aware’. Never mind all The ESP Crap, Simply being Aware of Where we are ‘Now’ is Quite Beyound our tiny Brain’s Synapses to Comprehend. Plus; Their Natural ‘Senses’ Far surpass ours. Our ‘Reality’ is something like 2% of What they Experience.

d) Their Gawds are 100% Manifest as compared to our ‘Hidden’ Gawds, Which may be ( According to & Comparing their Mythical Histories with ours ) is because they were Never Kicked out of Their Garden of Eden. They are Gawd’s Favorites.

e) The Layers, or Tiers of Aliens, Angels, Ghosts, Gawds, Pixies & Shadows Demonstrate with Undeniable Certainty that We’re all living in A Fractional Reality Superimposition on The Surface Irregularities of a Bran Flake; Which Prophecy & Scientific Observations have corroborated that it’s about to be Eaten.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

 

Supplement ( A :

Wikipedia’s Gravitational Assist Article

So i ( belatedly ) read The Article in Wikipedia on Gravitationally Assisted Orbital Dynamics or Pertaining to The Sling Shot Effect;

And it seems =Plausable= that what NASA & Other Rocket Scientists are saying is that when A Space Probe or any Object comes into The Vicinity of A Planet; They Share Attributes.

Like on CSI; Wherever you Go, Wherever you’ve Been; You Pick up Things, You Leave things. Carpet Fibers, Victims Blood or Hair, Smoke Residue, Mites or Ticks, Fabric Threads & so on.

With a Space Probe & Planet; It’s more like Directional Vectors, Momentum & Space Ghosts.

There’s a Toy that’s called Newton’s Cradle, Or whatever; that Consists of Usually 5 Silvery Balls, Each Hanging from 2 Strings; & All Touching, End to End; In a Line.

So you draw back one or two or some combination at each end in some clever combination, then let them go, so that they fall & bounce off one another.

The Lesson of this Toy is that when one of these Balls hits The Remaining Balls; 100% of The Directional Vector & Momentum are Transferred to The Ball on The Other End.

This is Quite Remarkable, & Not Exactly The Same Thing as What is Happening with Planets, Moons & Space Debris or Probes to The Outer Worlds; But it’s a reasonably good Stepping Stone for An Analogy to express What is or might be going on here.

Another Example may be what happens with a 100_lb. Girl Scout is hit in a Crosswalk by a 1_ton Hatchback. In this case; Not all of The Momentum is Transferred to The Girl Scout, because The Mass of The Two Variables is Different. The Girl Scout is only 5% of The Mass of The Automobile, So she is Only Thrown 5% of The Distance The Car would have Traveled in that Instant of Impact, & She in Turn Steals 5% of The Momentum of The HatchBack, so that it is Traveling Slightly Slower when it then Runs over her Several hundred yards along The Intersection.

Likewise; The Probe is Stealing some of The Planets Momentum as it Travels around The Sun.

All of The Gravitational Assistance is Lost as it Leaves The Vicinity of The Planet that it gained as it approached it.

The Wikipedia Article suggested that The Probe could pick up Twice ( 2x ) The Velocity of The Planets Momentum; In Relation to The Sun— So that The Probe is Now Orbiting The Sun Twice as Fast as The Planet, Plus The Momentum that it had as it approached The Planet.

i didn’t exactly follow this ( 2x ) Argument;

And The Article also failed to Recognize that While The Probe was Stealing Momentum from The Planet, The Planet was also Proportionately Stealing Momentum from The Space Probe.

Who is winning, & by how much?

The way that i’m comfortable in thinking about this is that The Space Probe & Planet come into this Dance with a Certain amount of Combined Momentum & Directional Vectors, & they Both Leave The Dance with Altered Momentum & Directional Vectors.

There is also another Example that i just thought of;

And this one consists of A Series of Spinning Magnets, that Play off one another. The Arrangement that i’m thinking of, consists of three Spinners in a row, each about a Sixteenth of an Inch from One Another; With Each Spinner Constructed with Three Arms ( Like a Starfish with Three Arms ) with a Magnet Attached to The End of Each Arm; So that they are All ( 9 ) Pointing ‘Outward’ with their South Pole, So that Each Arm Tip Repels Each of The Other Arm Tips.

This is Quite Interesting To Watch, as The Three Spinner will Transfer their Spinning Momentum to one another with very unexpected patterns. Sometimes Sharing just a little Momentum, sometimes transferring nearly all of it very suddenly !

But again; in this latter example, all of The Spinners have The Same Mass.

A Space Probe is A Lot Smaller than The Planet.

My Intuitive Understanding remains that The Space Probe is Going to Enter & Exit The Vicinity of The Planet, Unchanged. Everything Gained will be Lost as their Roles Reverse half way through their Encounter.

It seems to me that if this Sling Shot Effect actually worked The Way NASA says that it does; It would be Occurring all The Time in The Solar System, Just by Accident— & There would be a Huge Surplus of Smaller Objects, Asteroids & Meteoroids that are Zipping around The Sun, Slowly Depleting all of The Planetary Orbital Momentum from Planets, Leaving Nothing in Any Solar System but The Sun & A Few Thousand Very Fast Dust Particles after a few Billion years.

Thrid Version / There are No Irrational Numbers

Third Revisionist Version :

 

There are No Irrational Numbers.

By this i mean that In A Mathematical Reality;

They Don’t make ‘Sense’.

Everything in The Mathematical Reality has to Make Sense.

Everything Numerical, Symbolic, Logical or Allegorical that Doesn’t make Sense falls into The Mathematical Realm.

Jiggery Pokery; The Faux Logic, Batman/Riddler Logic, Joke Logic, Schizophrenic Narratives, Science Fiction, Theoretical Physics, Folk Wisdom, Children’s Judiciousness, The Prudence of Neanderthals, A Sense of Folly, Political Certainty, The Wonderland of Alice, or The Ring of Truth— All fall within The Province of The Mathematical Realm.

The Mathematical Realm can be Used to Prove any Desirable Thing.

The Mathematical Reality can only Prove True Things.

- -

The Tools of The Mathematical Reality however—

Includes Fractional Propositional Values; Which Allow that Arguments may be Presented in which Not All, or Any, Of your Axioms, Established Tautologies, Propositions, Postulates, Premises, Suppositions or Conjectures; Have a Truth Value of Less than Complete Certainty; Such that your Irrefutable Conclusion may only be slightly better than a Louisiana Whore’s Intuition.

- -

Arguments made within The Mathematical Realm are always Contributed with Undeniable Certainty.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

 

Some ( Not All ) of The Warning Signs of An Argument Created with The UnConfined Machinations from The Mathematical Realm of Jiggery Pokery are :

The Conclusion is Irrefutable.

Their Argument Explains Everything. It’s been noted elsewhere that any theory that takes into account all Observable Data is most certainly wrong, as some of The Observational Data is Always Wrong.

Their Argument/Theory includes Variables/Patches/Adjustable Parameters/WholeCloth ‘Constants’ or Other UnObserved or Untestable Conditions to Make it Viable.

Although Science Insists that A Good Scientific Theory is DisProvable; Many such Theories or Models Do Not Allow for Their Theories to Be Disproven. e.g.; No Matter How Unlikely or Improbable a Biological Artifact of Irreducible Complexity may be; It Must Necessarily have been The Result of Evolutionary Mutations, As there is No Other Organizing Principle that is ‘Allowed’. e.g.; No Matter How Many Additional Assumptions are Required to Make The Big Bang Theory Viable; They Must be True ( Dark Matter, Dark Energy & Expansionist Periods ) Because Orthodox Astronomers with Tenure have Decided that The Big Bang has already been too heavily Invested in.

The Proof is Convoluted; Consisting of Dozens or Hundreds of Steps Which Contain Terms that are Vaguely Defined, or if A Clear Definition is Requested; It is said to be Obvious, Childish or Too Complicated for you to Understand.

The Argument is Entirely Symbolic.

The ‘Plain English’ Jiggery Pokery Argument will contain numerous Well Worn or Imaginative ‘Fallacies’. This Encyclopedia of Fallacies is Incomplete, As Jiggery Pokery is always adding New Misconstructions, Inconsistencies, Wordplay, MisDirections or Regionally Defended Mythological Beliefs to This Catalogue.

 

i would like to offer a few ‘Rules of Thumb’ for Detecting The Validity of A Good Mathematical Reality Proof;

But i believe that All Logic is Bunk.

The Entire Point of ‘Real Logic’ in which only True Things can be Proven to Be ’True’; & Thus Provide The Creator or Witness of Such an Argument with An Undeniable Certainty of Some Truth— But Jiggery Pokery is Indistinguishable from Real Logic ( ! )

Just as The Best Liar nearly always tells The Truth, The Best, Most Convincing Jiggery Pokery Arguments use Their Tools of Nonsense Sparingly.

Finding The Nearly Invisible Subtle MisStep, Is The Onus of The Epistemologist.

The Bad Jiggery Pokery Arguments are easier to Spot.

But If The Mathematicians or Physicists, Clergy or Politicians hold Such an Argument or Proof close to their Bosoms, as they would a New Born Baby or Freshly Baked Pie; They will be loath to Recognize how Ugly their own Spawn may be to An Unbiased Railway Ticket Agent.

- -

An Additional Hindrance to Living in A Truly Logical World,

Is that Logic is Nearly Irrelevant.

We Live in a World of Pragmatic Solutions which usually only have to stick to The Wall until The End of The Day.

Physicists & Mathematicians like to Claim that they are Responsible for The Grandiose Bridges, iPods, SkyScrappers, Over priced Military Weapons Systems, Airliners, Elegant Tupperware, The Wide Expanse of Shoes & Scuba Flippers, Pharmaceuticals & Unappreciated Materials Sciences.

But all of these things were actually tinkered together by Engineers.

Engineers have a long history of making things that Fail Catastrophically; Upon Which The Engineers or Next Generation of Engineers, try something a little Different, Until it finally Works, Pretty Much.

Pharmaceuticals are Notorious for Squandering The Lives of Millions of Experimental Lab Animals as they Try Thousands of Found Compounds or Witches Potions on them; Looking for one that ‘Seems’ to Cure a Given Disease or Recently Recognized Personality Disorder.

- -

Reality is Holistic & UnDelimited.

Mathematics ( at it’s Best & Purist ) Is Digital & Bounded.

It is deeply laughable that it is such a well established folktale that Mathematics somehow ‘Define’ The Parameters of The Physical Universe.

 : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

What got me really going on this idea that there are No Irrational Numbers, & also; The Concept of Infinity is being horrifically misused in Mathematics—

Started Quite A While ago;

But more recently; i was reading a proof that Cantor created to prove that there were a class of UnCountable Numbers, Notably, Irrational Numbers.

To do this; He first requires that a List of All Irrational Numbers be Created ( Hypothetically ) & even more annoyingly;

That is; More Annoying than Creating something that can’t even Hypothetically being Created without addressing The First Elemental Issue that Such a List would be impossible;

Is that he Completely Blows Off The First Step of this List by Suggesting that it Be Created using ‘Some Clever Method’.

If you were going to create a list of All Irrational Numbers;

How would you Begin ?

First Tier : All Irrational Numbers that begin with .000…

that continues for Infinity, but ends with a 1, then a 2, then a 3, & so on.

When you get to 10, You’d Delete One Zero from The Prefix Infinite Series of Zeros, So that according to This Crazy Rule, After an Infinity of Itinerations, You’d have The Biggest Infinitely Large Number that would be Free of PreFixatory Zeros.

Would The Number right after The Decimal Point be a One or a Nine ?

So that The Biggest Infinitely Large Number would be .999… …999

Does that Make Sense ?

Can you Delete An Intermediate Zero from A Series of Infinite Zeros ?

- - -

The Problem with Creating a List of Irrational Numbers, Is that it can’t start out with Non-Irrational Numbers ( see below ), From a Non-Irrational Base; It will Never ( Not even after an Infinite Number of Itinerations ) Transit to An Irrational Number, Numbers ( Intermittently Distributed Irrational Numbers ), Or Reach The Beginning of a Series of Irrational Numbers, Never Returning to Numbers of A Finite Length.

Such a List would have to Start out with An Irrational Number & Then Proceed to Include Nothing But Irrational Numbers.

What is The First Irrational Number ?

.1000… …000 ( ? )

.2000… …000 ( ? )

.3000… …000 ( ? )

.4000… …000 ( ? )

…

i’m thinking that there would be something here on The End to Define it as an Irrational Number, But is that Possible in A Mathematical Reality ?

Can an Irrational Number have a Last ( Right Most ) Digit ?

i don’t think so.

So— How would you Keep The Irrational Window ‘Open’ ?

And Even so; If you Proceeded with this Series; They would never be Truly Irrational Numbers; they Would always be Finite Number with a ad hoc tail attached to them. Numbers like π would never appear on this list.

What if you Started with π, Removed The Whole Number 3…

That’s it.

i got it.

Start off with an Irrational Fractional Number like π-3.

.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939

Then remove The First Digit from each New Number.

.4159265358979323846264338327950...

.1592653589793238462643383279502...

.5926535897932384626433832795028...

.9265358979323846264338327950288...

.2653589793238462643383279502884...

.6535897932384626433832795028841…

Wouldn’t that Include all Irrational Numbers ( ? )

But Wouldn’t Cantor’s Proof that This Wouldn’t Include all Irrational Number Still Hold ?

Clearly; There is Something ( ? ) Wrong with Cantor’s Proof,

Or that you can Make a List ( By any Means ) of a All Irrational Numbers without applying Cantor’s Proof,

Or— There is something Wrong with Irrational Numbers Themselves.

- - -

What is worse; Is that by Introducing a Wondrously Elegant Jiggery Pokery Argument; He then goes on to Insist that This Hypothetical List of All Irrational Numbers ( Surprise Surprise ) Doesn’t Contain all Irrational Numbers.

 

Cantor’s Proof

 

The Objection that Cantor Proposed to Disallow this Series from Representing all of The Irrational Fractional Values in ( 0,1 ) was that if you first allow that The numbers on this Grid Represented Only those with An Infinite Series of Digits—

The Indices on The Left Represent some Arbitrary Run of Such Fractional Numbers somewhere along this Series. Also; Since Cantor’s Matrix is Arranged by Some Esoteric Rule, They do Not Appear to Be Sequential, As The Above Matrix is Arranged ( ! )

   

Cantor’s Proof uses The Argument of Contradiction;

Assuming that all such Infinite Strings for Any Given Value Does Exist,

So that all he has to do; Is Create Such a Number According to some Given Rule, Then Find that Number in The Series Matrix.

The Rule that he used to Create this New Arbitrary Number is to Pick some Arbitrary Spot along The Series; Such as ( τ+x1 ) & Then Mark off Each Digit Sliding off at a Diagonal from That First Position.

This Rule Generates The New Number : .806673692238…

Then he Simply Adds 1 to Each Digit, Creating : .917784703349…

Keep in mind that this Process goes off into Infinity ( To The Right ).

Now Then :

This Arrangement Assumes that for Every Point on ( 0,1 ),

It has a Position Indicated by The τ+xn Indices.

So that somewhere along this Continuum,

There Exists The Number .917784703349…

This seems extremely Obvious Doesn’t it ?

But Cantor Argues that This Number is Not on this Continuum ( ! )

The Notation of this Proof Calls each of The Indexed Numbers τ

& All of The Numbers Highlighted in The Diagonal as §.

- -

Keep in Mind also that this Rule has affected Every Number in this Matrix;

So that if we Assume that The Sequence of Digits .917784703349… must Exit somewhere along this Matrix Continuum, All we Have to do is Find that τ Indices.

Simple Enough ?

So we look through The List & Find one that begins with .917784703349.

We then go to The § along The Diagonal for this Discovered Number is 3, But in that Same Position of our Number, We’ve Changed it to a 4.

This Crazy, Completely Contrived Rule applies to Each Number we Find that Almost Matches our .917784703349… Number. In Each Case; The § Position Number will be off by 1 ( ! ).

So that our .917784703349… Doesn’t Exist Anywhere in This Matrix Continuum ( !! )

How could This Be ?

Cantor apparently believed, & Argued from this Contrivance that These Created Numbers Did Exist, As they Must ( Duh ! ) But they were ‘UnCountable’. ( ? )

i think that if any reasonable traffic cone were to look at this argument; Their Correct Conclusion is that this is a curious artifice of Jiggery Pokery, & is merely Gibberish.

Like All Arguments created with Jiggery Pokery; The Argument seems both Simple & Irrefutable. It is a little Convoluted; But Deep Thinkers are Used to that.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

You would think that any reasonably rational person would step back from that & say; ‘Hmmm, maybe your initial suggestion that it would be possible to create a list of all Irrational Numbers was seriously flawed, or maybe The Idea of Irrational Numbers itself is Flawed.

But no.

Instead; Mathematicians have universally accepted this proof & adopted The Idea that Some Infinities are Bigger than other Infinities.

i suspect that Mathematicians have so readily accepted this; Is because they are in complete denial or are just unaware that there is This ‘Alternative’ School of Logic that i Call Jiggery Pokery Logic.

The Kind of Logic that i call Fractional Propositional Logic can only be used to Prove True Things.

While Jiggery Pokery Logic can prove anything.

The Wondrous thing about Jiggery Pokery Logic is that it is Indistinguishable from Fractional Propositional Logic.

Just by Acknowledging that there is a Kind of Logic called Jiggery Pokery Logic & allowing that many Jiggery Pokery Logical Arguments are being passed off as Fractional Propositional Logical Arguments—

Proves that Logic is Bunk.

The Entire Purpose of Fractional Propositional Logic is to Prove things with Absolute Certainty; But this Simple & Direct Proof for Jiggery Pokery Logic Takes that away from Fractional Propositional Logic. You can Never be sure if your Argument is Really Fractional Propositional Logic or Jiggery Pokery Logic. You may believe that it’s Really Fractional Propositional Logic, But Mathematicians & Philosophers have been fooled many times in The Past.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Fractional Propositional Logic ( btw )

Is just like Classical Propositional Logic, Except that it’s Not Restricted by Arbitrarily Asserting that some Observed Conditional is 100% True or 100% False. There’s a lot of times when you’re Not sure or are unable to determine The precise Truth Value of your Antecedent or Succedent.

The Operators for Fractional Proposition work like this :

 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Returning to Irrational Numbers for a Moment :

i would suggest that it would be possible to Create a List of all Fractional Numbers using this series :

.0

.1

.2

.3

…

.9

.01

.11

.21

…

.99

.001

.101

.201

…

& So on.

This would Include All Fractional Values between Zero & One

Excluding One itself.

But they would all be Finite in Length.

It would Continue to Infinity, & Provide a Seamless Continuum of All Additional Points between any Two Specified Points.

 

It would Exclude All Irrational Numbers.

They’re Not needed.

 

The Problem then is that The ‘Idea’ of Irrational Numbers is Sooooo Easy to ‘Imagine’. You’re initial response is; Of course they Exist, How could they Not Exist ?

Like π for instance; It has been proven that π is Irrational !

 

Really.

If you Take A Circle on a Sheet of Paper & Try to Measure The Diameter ( which is Defined as a Given Length ) & then try to Measure The Circumference, You’re going to find that it’s very Difficult to Get a Good Measurement.

So then; You think; Let’s just imagine that A Circle is a Polygon with Infinite Sides! We can Easily Calculate The Circumference of a Polygon to any Desired Degree of Accuracy—

If we hold that A Circle is a Polygon with Infinite Sides, Which it is Not ( ! )

On The Simplest Level; You have to define The Radius of The Polygon from The Center to The Vertice or Middle of A Side; Both of Which are Wrong.

Neither can you Calculate Both Polygons, One for The Inside Limit & one for The Outside Limit & Average them out; Because both are going to continue to Infinity, By Passing The Correct Value.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

This Brings up The Problem of Series’ that purport to Create an Irrational Number that Corresponds to A Labeled or Otherwise Defined Value. The Series is =Designed= by Definition to continue on forever & ever. It is Not Created to Suddenly Stop when it finds The Correct Measurement.

Even when you have a Sigma Series that Converges on a Fixed Value; The Series will never Reach it. It will get closer & closer & closer & closer, without end.

There are also very hinky Series’ that seem to converge on a fixed value, but if you wait long enough, allowing The calculation to repeat it’s itineration cycle enough times, it will slip past it’s previously assumed fixed value.

One of The Principle Warning Signs of Jiggery Pokery, is Excessively &/or Convoluted Steps to Prove (x.

The Wikipedia Page that Professes to Reveal The Proof for The Irrationality of π is page after page of Dense Calculus Gibberish.

It would have been very nice if The Author were to Express The Proof in plain English, A Step by Step Recounting for An Attentive 5th Grader to Follow. But i very much Suspect that if you were to ask someone that ostensibly understood this Explanation that was provided; They Would claim that such a Plain English Translation would be Impossible.

But what seems most obvious to me; What Justification is given that Relates these proofs to π ? You’ve got your π, you’ve got The Proofs, why do you think one corresponds to The other ?

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Another thing that occurred to me; If you going to allow that it is possible to ‘Define’ Irrational Numbers—

Would it be possible to Define an Irrational Number like this;

.000… …001

That is; We have an Number that goes on to Infinity, But it’s Last Digit is 1. Of Course; A Number like this that goes on forever, doesn’t have a last digit. But if A Definition like this is Impossible, Then would this one also be Impossible;

.000… …010… …000…

You’ve got a number that starts out as Zeros; Goes on for Infinity, Then somewhere in The Middle, has a 1, then goes on for infinity with more zeros.

Can you do that ?

Would that Number have a Unique & Different Value than:

.000… …001… …000…

?

or even

.000… …020… …000…

Would that be an entirely Different Number ?

Would it be Greater or Lesser than The Number with a 1 in The Middle?

The Problem would be that it’s Not ‘Really’ in The Middle.

You can’t have a Middle to Infinity.

Which brings up The Problem of A Universe that has Existed for Infinity. Sure; We’re in A Universe that ‘Started’ only a few Billion Years ago, But if We’re in a Larger ‘SuperVerse’, Then this Infinite Universe Hypothesis holds.

In which case; The Universe should have achieved Conscious Perfection after an Infinity of Existence, But We’re here now after an Infinity of Existence. Where is The Perfection ?

Is this The Best, Most Perfect of all Realities?

Is it more Perfect than yesterday ?

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

The Fallacy of The Elegant Solution

i suspect that The Reason that Mathematicians believe that π is Irrational is that it doesn’t seem to have a simple elegant solution. Wouldn’t it be nice if gawd had provided this π ration with a nice simple fractional value ?

But it’s Not.

What if Numerator was a few billion digits long ?

There is No Way that you could ‘Measure’ that by any means.

You couldn’t even measure it if it were only a few dozen digits long.

So without an Elegant Solution Forthcoming; The Mathematicians created a New Kind of Elegant Solution, & Created all The Necessary Crazy Proofs to Prove it.

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

 

Proof

 

Lettuce assume that a/b = √2

For this a/b to be The Simplest Terms

Both a or b may Not be Even or Divisible by a Common Factor

 

√2 = 1.4142…

√2 = a/b               : a = 7  b = 5 : a/b = 1.4

            a & b are Wildly Approximated

            So that we can see how The Algebraics are Working ( ? )

2 = a² / b²             : 2 = 7² / 5² = 1.96 ( Pretty Close ( ? ) )

a² = 2 · b²             : 7² = 2 · 5² : 49 = 50

Given then that b² is 5² = 25

And 25 x 2 is 50; An Even Number;

Forced to be Even by Multiplication by 2

Then a² is an Even Number

Our Approximations make a² = 49

But if a² were 50 : a = 7.0710

But we’re also asserting that a is axiomatically a Whole Number

So that if This were to work out so that a² were to be a Whole Number

& (a would also be a Whole Number,

Then (a would be Necessarily Even,

Since any Odd Number Squared is Odd.

e.g.; 3² = 9

So there’s something of a Problem with ±7.0710 being Even.

- - -

But Never Mind that —

Let us then Arbitrarily Replace (a with 2·k ( or 2k )

k would then be 3.5

But for this to ‘Work Out’; k would have to be a Whole Number

But by working with Symbolic Algebraics;

These Fractions are Swept under The Carpeting !

- -

Returning to :

2 = a² / b²             : 2 = 7² / 5² = 1.96

2 = (2k)² / b²        : 2 = (2 · 3.5)² / 5² = 1.96

(2k)² = 4 · k²

2 = 4 · k² / b²       : 2 = 4 · 3.5² / 5² = 1.96

2 · b² = 4 · k²        : 2 · 5² = 4 · 3.5² : 50 = 49

b² = 2 · k²             : 5² = 2 · 3.5² : 25 = 24.5

 

Which Means that b²  must be Even by The Same Logic Expressed above ( 2 · x ) must be an Even Number.

Now both a & b are Even according to this Juggling Act,

But this all Assumes that a & b Start out as Whole Numbers;

And all of The Permutations that they Endure allow their SubDivisions to Remain Whole Numbers too.

Which They don’t.

Even if you were to somehow allow that these Conditionals were Met;

The Jiggery Pokery here is Only Asserting that (a or (b are Not Odd or Even. It is somehow insisting that (a or (b are Outside The Realm of Whole Numbers.

It seems far more Reasonable to assume that this ‘Argument’ is A Paradox of The Zeno Type; And that while it seems Reasonable; It tacitly asserts things that it shouldn’t.

e.g.: That If a² is a Whole Even Number; (a must be a Whole Number as Well. It was assumed that (a was a Whole Number at The Beginning of The Argument; But then Craziness set in.

- - -

On a More Obvious Level; Doesn’t this Argument Structure assert that all Square Roots are Irrational; Which is Clearly Wrong.

√36 = 6

- - -

√9 = 3

√9 = a/b               : a = 3  b = 1 : a/b = 3

9 = a⁹ / b⁹             : 9 = 3⁹ / 1⁹ = 19683

- - -

What if it was supposed to be :

9 = a² / b²             : 9 = 3² / 1² = 9 / 1 = 9

- - -

Oh! So 2 works for Everything.

So that The 2 didn’t come from The 2 in √2

It came from The Square of (x : √x

- - -

So if we try a = 6 & b = 2 : 6/2 = 3

It should still work ( ? )

√9 = a/b

9 = a² / b²             : 9 = 6² / 2² = 36 / 4 = 9

It Still Works !

 

:*’``’*:-.,_,.-:*’``’*:-.,_,.-:*’``’*:-.,_,.-:*’``’*:-.,_,.-:*’``’*

 

√16 = a/b = 4

a = 12 : b = 3

16 = a² / b²           : 16 = 12² / 3² = 144 / 9 = 16

Which Still Works.

- -

So shouldn’t this mean that √16 is Irrational ?

 

Lettuce Continue :

 

a² = 16 · b²           : 12² = 16 · 3² : 144 = 16 · 9 : 144 = 144

 

Then a² is an Even Number

144 is an Even Number.

a = 12

Which is also an Even Number.

- - -

Let us then Arbitrarily Replace (a with 2·k ( or 2k )

k would then be 6 : 2 · 6 = 12 : 12² = 144

- -

Returning to :

16 = a² / b²           : 16 = 12² / 3² = 144 / 9 = 16

16 = (2k)² / b²      : 16 = (2 · 6)² / 3² = 16

16 · b² = (2k)²      : 16 · 3² = (2 · 6)² : 144 = 144

16 · b² = 4 · k²      : 16 · 3² = 4 · 36 : 144 = 144

Divide Both Sides by 16 to Free up b²

b² = .25 · k²          : 3² = .25 · 36 : 9 = 9

 

But here; b² is supposed to be proven to be Even;

But .25 · k² doesn’t prove that.

What Happened ?

 

In The Original Proof for √2

a & b were supposed to be Whole Numbers that Weren’t Both Even,

But in our ReProof with √16—

Instead of Using The Simplest Fraction for 4, Which would have been 4/1; We Used 12/3, Because if we Used 1, when you use 1² in an Expression; Instead of getting a ‘responsible’ Answer; You’ll get 1.

If we Rework this with a = 4 & b = 1

We Get :

 

√16 = a/b = 4

a = 4 : b = 1

16 = a² / b²           : 16 = 4² / 1² = 16 / 1 = 16

a² = 16 · b²           : 4² = 16 · 1² : 15 = 16 · 1 : 16 = 16

Let us then Arbitrarily Replace (a with 2·k ( or 2k )

k would then be 2 : 2 · 2 = 4 : 4² = 16

- -

Returning to :

16 = a² / b²           : 16 = 4² / 1² = 16 / 1 = 16

16 = (2k)² / b²      : 16 = (2 · 2)² / 1² = 16

16 · b² = (2k)²      : 16 · 1² = (2 · 2)² : 16 = 16

16 · b² = 4 · k²      : 16 · 1² = 4 · 4 : 16 = 16

Divide Both Sides by 16 to free up b²

b² = .25 · k²          : 1² = .25 · 4 : 1 = 1

 

So here again; b² is supposed to be proven to be Even; And It’s Not.

The Original Proof is A Jiggery Pokery Argument that is Founded on The Confusion of The √2 which means √2 = (x

Which means that (x · (x = (x² = 2.

The Confusion is; Where did The 2 in (x² come from ?

Also; By Using Symbolic a’s & b’s; We’re never able to see if a or b is actually Even or Odd. The Algebraics tell us to believe if a or b is Even or Odd, When they are Not ( ! )