Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: David Marcus on 4 Feb 2007 17:50 Virgil wrote: > In article <MPG.20300e9b9f941d83989c3e(a)news.rcn.com>, > David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > > 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. > > It is not his reading that I object to but his writing. If people stop replying to him, I doubt he will continue to post. Of course, it means letting him have the last word. Or, you can reply to him, but you have to be more mathematical (symbols and such). He won't reply to that, apparently. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 4 Feb 2007 17:53 Virgil wrote: > 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. So, you would define "potentially infinite" = "infinite". That makes the most sense to me. But, it seems that WM has potentially infinite => finite. I wonder if he also has finite => potentially infinite. -- David Marcus
From: Fuckwit on 4 Feb 2007 19:26 On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:50:03 -0500, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > If people stop replying to him, I doubt he will continue to post. > But David, Virgil LOVES to argue with WM (it's not just the math). F.
From: David Marcus on 4 Feb 2007 20:03 Fuckwit wrote: > On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:50:03 -0500, David Marcus > <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > > If people stop replying to him, I doubt he will continue to post. > > But David, Virgil LOVES to argue with WM (it's not just the math). Well, then that's fine! -- David Marcus
From: Fuckwit on 4 Feb 2007 20:05
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:35:53 -0500, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > I guess you haven't read WM's book. > Right. And I certainly never will. F. |