CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS. May 2020
PAGES: ASSUME|DARK| FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|Map | RELATIONS|Transform |UP
A Nexus of Transformations
Unmitigated arrogance has always been with us.
Especially within the “Finite-Infinite” debates,
there has to be a better way.
Words can feel entirely abstract yet be specific.
Think never-ending, never-repeating: 3.1415+
In this chart, the words of one column
become the Janus-face of the other.
Background: There appears to be a reluctance among much of the academic community to engage infinity. It is fraught with historic difficulties and scholars have taken Max Tegmark’s attitude, “Retire the concept!” Renormalization and regularization are enough!
Notwithstanding, given its mathematical usefulness and even its long-standing historical value, we believe a better definition is in order. David Hilbert’s definition (On the infinite, David Hilbert, Westphalian Mathematical Society, Munster, June 4, 1925) is too limited; I would say that the finite and infinite are currents in a constant relation.
To that end, this page has been initiated so each page linked above will continue to be re-opened and updated. –Bruce E. Camber
Key Dates for this page, redefining, of the finite & infinite
This page was initiated on Wednesday, May 6, 2020.
Posted online for collaborations: Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Last edit: Wednesday, March 20, 2024
URL: https://81018.com/redefining/
Worldviews limit perspective 