Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: Han de Bruijn on 19 Oct 2006 04:12 David Marcus wrote: > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > >>MoeBlee schrieb: >> >>>First you say the notion of 'rational relation' (whatever that means) >>>"cannot be expressed by mathematical notion". Then you challenge me to >>>say what part of your proof is in conflict with set theory. What is the >>>notion of 'rational relation' that "cannot be expressed by mathematical >>>notion"? Are defining a certain relation in set theory or are you >>>definining a relation you claim not to exist in set theory? >> >>Meanwhile there are many who understand the binary tree. Perhaps you >>will follow the discussion, then you may understand it too. > > But, no one seems to understand your binary tree. Please state your > claim and its proof using standard terminology and words that you > clearly define. For example, use the terminology that Halmos uses in > "Naive Set Theory". If you don't like that book, then pick a book you > like and tell us what it is. There are many readers here who DO understand Mueckenheim's binary tree. And no, binary trees will not be found in Halmos' "Naive Set Theory". Because it's too naive, I suppose .. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 19 Oct 2006 04:14 David Marcus wrote: > Bohmian Mechanics is a deterministic theory that avoids the measurement > problem, satisfies Bell's Inequality (as do all theories of quantum > mechanics), agrees with all experiments, and doesn't produce negative > probabilities. So, it seems to be a better theory than the one you > constructed. Sure. Let's go back to the dark ages of Newtonian Mechanics. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 19 Oct 2006 04:16 David Marcus wrote: > And, Bohmian Mechanics is non-relativistic. Of course it is. Let's go back to the dark ages of Newtonian Mechanics. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 19 Oct 2006 04:22 Bob Kolker wrote: > The are mathematical systems we know for sure are consistent since they > have finite models. For example Just Plain Old Group Theory. No > contradictions can be inferred from the group postulates simpliciter. True. And that is because the axioms of group theory actually serve as a _definition_ of what a group _is_. Right? > Unfortunately we cannot do the same for arithmetic. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 19 Oct 2006 04:25
Bob Kolker wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote: >> >> True. And you haven't seen any binary tree either. > > Bullshit. One can trivially construct finite binary trees. To "see" one > is to think one. We can think binary trees as simply as we can think of > a triangle with one of its sides removed. Three points, two sides. V for > victory. Did I say that _you_ haven't seen any binary tree? I thought this was a response to David Marcus, who hasn't seen any, it seems. Han de Bruijn |