CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
in [Math]
|
Prev: Anders, Ebihara Re: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #180; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: combinations of additive and multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #181; ATOM TOTALITY
From: |-|ercules on 20 Jun 2010 13:57 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > Kindly > act like > you understand what is going on. Looks like your subconscious got my message. [Herc] Do I have a point or not? I'm sure you all follow my meaning, but go on full offensive anyway and don't acknowledge what I MEAN. But will it filter through to George's conscious realm. Can he paraphrase my argument per se? He's the only mathematician on usenet who actually does see other perspectives, but his vanity could be an issue acknowledging the point that defeats his Cantor views. Herc
From: Daryl McCullough on 20 Jun 2010 14:08 So what's really going on here, in the minds of several people, is that Herc is a complete ignoramus, and is mathematically incompetent, and the reason he can't accept Cantor's theorem is because he lacks the patience, intelligence, mathematical training, and reasoning ability necessary to follow a simple mathematical proof. In Herc's mind, something very different is happening. Cantor made a bogus proof, and for whatever reason, many mathematicians were bamboozled into believing that it was correct. Ever since then, logic students have been brainwashed into accepting this bogus proof, and are either unable or unwilling to see it as nonsense. They don't want to rock the boat, or they are too timid to question authority, or they are just sheep who believe anything they are told by the "experts" regardless of how nonsensical. (You can replace "Herc" by "WM" here, and you get essentially the same two alternate explanations of what is going on.) People arguing with Herc are in essence attempting to come up with a convincing case that Herc is a complete mathematical incompetent. (And here's the tough part) The argument that Herc is an incompetent has to be convincing to Herc, himself. This is an almost inconsistent requirement. If Herc is incompetent (which he certainly seems to be) then how can you possibly convince HIM of that fact? You can give him arguments, but by assumption, he is incompetent at recognizing valid arguments (if he could recognize valid arguments, he wouldn't be disputing Cantor's proof). My conjecture is that it is completely impossible to make a dent in the convictions of people like Herc and WM. It doesn't help to give a valid argument to people incapable of recognizing valid arguments. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: |-|ercules on 20 Jun 2010 14:29 > You on the other hand are an unknown geek maths student twerp who recites texts for every > question given to him. I should add, the only reason anyone reads anything you write is because you begin every post with the recognized mantra CANTOR PROVED THAT.... Take that away and you're just another dimwit, ironically you'd be a smarter dimwit if you stopped beginning every post with CANTOR PROVED THAT... but it gets everyone on sci.math listening. Herc
From: George Greene on 20 Jun 2010 15:59 On Jun 20, 2:29 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I should add, the only reason anyone reads > anything you write is because you begin > every post with the recognized mantra CANTOR PROVED THAT.... This is NOT TRUE, dumbass. YOU are the one who re-invoked Cantor. YOU decided to call this an attack on Cantor. That forces us to remind you of the existence OF THE PROOF. Seriously, people should Google the contents of this newsgroup for the word "Cantor". They will discover that we basically went over 2 years WITHOUT IT UNTIL YOU RETURNED.
From: Graham Cooper on 20 Jun 2010 17:17
On Jun 21, 5:59 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jun 20, 2:29 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I should add, the only reason anyone reads > > anything you write is because you begin > > every post with the recognized mantra CANTOR PROVED THAT.... > > This is NOT TRUE, dumbass. > YOU are the one who re-invoked Cantor. > YOU decided to call this an attack on Cantor. > That forces us to remind you of the existence OF THE PROOF. > Seriously, people should Google the contents of this newsgroup > for the word "Cantor". They will discover that we basically went over > 2 > years WITHOUT IT UNTIL YOU RETURNED. So you did learn something 2 Years ago! But you still can't answer how wide is a set? Herc |