Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: David Marcus on 4 Feb 2007 15:38 Virgil wrote: > In article <1170582481.992415.182840(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > Every potentially infinite set is finite. > > False by any standard definition of finiteness. What definition of > finiteness does WM claim? How do you know it is false? What definition of "potentially infinite" are you using? -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 4 Feb 2007 15:39 mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > On 4 Feb., 17:33, Carsten Schultz <cars...(a)codimi.de> wrote: > > > Who would have guessed this! And in it you prove that 1=4? > > Usually I do no longer read your writings. I wonder how we can get WM to do this for everyone. -- David Marcus
From: Virgil on 4 Feb 2007 16:19 In article <1170613036.529240.105150(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > On 4 Feb., 17:33, Fuckwit <nomail(a)invalid> wrote: > > On 4 Feb 2007 08:14:30 -0800, mueck...(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is 4 in mathematics? > > > > In axiomatic set theory it's (usually) the set > > > > {0, 1, 2, 3}. > > That is circular. What is 3, what is 2, wat is 1, what is 0, what is > the empty set? > > > > But 4 contains IIII --- not 0,1,2,3. > > > > No. As you can see, 4 has exactly the elements 0,1,2,3. IIII is only > > an element of 4 if IIII is either 0,1,2 or 3. > > That is set theory, not mathematics. Only to those like WM for whom set theory and mathematics are separate and non-overlapping, To mathematicians, set theory is a part of mathematics. > > No, you misinterpret me. Since WM deliberately misinterprets virtually everyone, he is hardly in a position to object to being misinterpreted himself.
From: Michael Press on 4 Feb 2007 16:22 In article <m81cs2tbhltioufsj2ahtchq7lc6qu0m3p(a)4ax.com>, G. Frege <nomail(a)invalid> wrote: > Man soll den Tag nicht vor dem Abend loben I looked this up and found the meaning. How does mid-sentence capitalization work? Is this verse? -- Michael Press
From: Virgil on 4 Feb 2007 16:27
In article <MPG.20300e437f666b9e989c3d(a)news.rcn.com>, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > In article <1170582481.992415.182840(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > > > Every potentially infinite set is finite. > > > > False by any standard definition of finiteness. What definition of > > finiteness does WM claim? > > How do you know it is false? What definition of "potentially infinite" > are you using? "Not finite" where "finite" of a set is Either I. A set is finite if it has a natural number as cardinality, presuming the set of natural numbers has been defined as a minimal inductive set. Or II. A set is finite if every injection to itself is a surjection. |