CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< [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: Tim Little on 22 Jun 2010 01:05

On 2010-06-22, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote:
> I've never heard of anyone having a delusion about mathematics
> before.

You must be from one of the other groups in this cross-posted thread.
Here in sci.math there are very few days in which such a person does
not post.

- Tim

From: Transfer Principle on 22 Jun 2010 01:10

On Jun 20, 7:09 pm, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com" <porky_pig...(a)my-
deja.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:59 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So 3.14.. is countable infinity wide, and has infinitely many digits of PI in order.
> > 3
> > 31
> > 314
> > ..
> > is countable infinity wide and has "as many as we wish" digits of PI in order.
> > BOY who said Porky Pig isn't still worth a laugh!
> I guess this is you everyone at sci.math laughs at (with exception of
> WM, of course). And you keep wondering why no one understands your
> point. In fact this is you who don't understand anything what people
> are trying to tell you.

It's possible for many people, including Herc and WM, to fully
understand ZFC, yet not accept it as a useful theory. Yet
Porky Pig jumps to the conclusion made by so many others,
namely that anyone who doesn't accept ZFC doesn't understand it.

> Apparently you have no math background

It's possible to have an extensive math background and yet not
accept ZFC as a useful theory.

> you don't understand the concepts of limits

Not everyone accepts classical analysis. There are other types
of analysis besides classical analysis, you know.

> infinity

There are many mathematicians, including finitists and
ultrafinitists, who don't accept the infinity of ZFC.

> have no clue what Cantor's proof is all about.

It is possible to know precisely what Cantor's proof is all
about and nonetheless reject a theory in which Cantor's
Theorem is provable. There are theories, including NFU, in
which Cantor's Theorem fails.

> you're not even qualified to be in this group at all.

One shouldn't have to accept ZFC as useful in order to be
qualified to post here. As Herc himself points out, this
group isn't called "sci.math.zfc"!

From: Nam Nguyen on 22 Jun 2010 01:15

Transfer Principle wrote:

> If one feels that uncountability is a useful concept, then
> one is free to use a theory such as ZFC in which the
> existence of uncountable sets is provable.

Sure.

> That same freedom
> should be granted to those like Herc who believe that
> uncountability is a useless concept.

Sure. He's free not to use ZFC for anything.

> He should be allowed to
> oppose Cantor's Theorem without five-letter insults.

Five-letter insult or not, he's not just opposing Cantor's
Theorem and he's not just opposing the whole FOL proof machinery:
he's inconsistent in reasoning! He either should accept FOL
proof machinery or disregard it entirely, but once he accepts
it he has to accept the proof of Cantor's theorem and that
has nothing to do with his seeing the theorem as useful or useless.

We should NOT support any kind of inconsistency in reasoning.

From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 02:49

On Jun 22, 3:15 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> Transfer Principle wrote:
> > If one feels that uncountability is a useful concept, then
> > one is free to use a theory such as ZFC in which the
> > existence of uncountable sets is provable.
>
> Sure.
>
> > That same freedom
> > should be granted to those like Herc who believe that
> > uncountability is a useless concept.
>
> Sure. He's free not to use ZFC for anything.
>
> > He should be allowed to
> > oppose Cantor's Theorem without five-letter insults.
>
> Five-letter insult or not, he's not just opposing Cantor's
> Theorem and he's not just opposing the whole FOL proof machinery:
> he's inconsistent in reasoning! He either should accept FOL
> proof machinery or disregard it entirely, but once he accepts
> it he has to accept the proof of Cantor's theorem and that
> has nothing to do with his seeing the theorem as useful or useless.
>
> We should NOT support any kind of inconsistency in reasoning.

What BS. I have made 3 main valid complaints on transfiniteness

1 the powerset proof is essentially
no box contains the box numbers (of boxes)
that don't contain their own box number.

You honestly think this is a great breakthrough?

2 the diag proof is essentially in general form
An AD(n) =/= L(n,n) -> An AD(n) =/= L(n,n)

it does NOT necessarily generate any new digit sequence

IN FACT

3 It takes 10^x reals to list every permutation of digits x digits
wide
So with infinite reals you can list Every permutation of digits
infinite digits wide. This is a concrete contradiction to the claims
of Cantor's proof.

It is not me getting it wrong. You won't even acknowledge these
facts in blind faith of ZFC.

From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 02:52

On Jun 22, 11:56 am, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/06/2010 11:41 AM, herbzet wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> herbzet wrote:
>
> >>> Herc is a troll who is HAVING A BALL jerking all the "smart guys" around.
>
> >> Or not. Herc is a paranoid schizophrenic, and subject to a variety of
> >> delusions.
>
> > None of which implies that he is not also a troll.
>
> >> What isn't clear is whether this Cantor stuff is a
> >> conventional misunderstanding, or yet another delusion.
>
> > It's the same old tired Cantor troll b.s.
>
> I didn't realise before how long this has been going on for.
>
> But I don't think he's a troll - he appears to have a genuine belief
> that the world's mathematicians have got this wrong. If it's a
> conventional misunderstanding, he might yet be persuaded that he is
> mistaken. But if, as I increasingly suspect, it's a delusion, then it
> will be immune to any kind of disproof. His behaviour here is consistent
> with his behaviour when discussing his other delusions - the closer you
> get to attacking his core belief, the more abusive he becomes.
>
> I've never heard of anyone having a delusion about mathematics before.
>
> Sylvia.

Your idea of knocking my core belief is calling me deluded

Herc