Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: David Marcus on 18 Nov 2006 11:46 Franziska Neugebauer wrote: > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > David Marcus schrieb: > > > >> > > > I see. But recently you used the word "completed infinity". > >> > > > >> > > I don't think I ever said that. Do you have a quote? > >> > > >> > Here it is: > >> > >> In the below post, I was just trying to paraphrase what you are > >> saying. > > > > Please don't try to paraphrase what I said, because I don't believe > > that you understand it sufficiently. > > This is due to your conceptional weakness. > > [...] > > >> I didn't say I would say that or that I understood what you were > >> trying to say. > > > > The question was whether you "ever said that" it. I hope this > > question as been settled now. > > > >> In fact, I don't know what you you mean by the phrase. Did you > >> really misunderstand what I wrote? > > > > There is no misunderstanding possible. You refuted Lester's > > interpretation, by proposing to have a better one: > > > > "That doesn't seem to be what WM is saying. He seems to be saying that > > the notion of a completed infinity leads to either absurdities or > > contradictions. Perhaps he thinks the way to avoid these absurdities > > is to only consider things that can be physically produced." > > > > I [k]now that cranks never admit having made an error. > > Introspection? > > > But do you think that obvious lies like this are a way to reach your > > aim?> > > I cannot spot any lie. Thanks. It seems WM's grasp of English (among other things) is weak. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 18 Nov 2006 12:04 mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > David Marcus schrieb: > > > In the below post, I was just trying to paraphrase what you are saying. > > Please don't try to paraphrase what I said, because I don't believe > that you understand it sufficiently. So in most cases you will fail to > repeat my ideas. Please quote only full sentences. Unfortunately, none of your full sentences make any sense. > > I didn't say I would say that or that I understood what you were trying > > to say. > > The question was whether you "ever said that" it. I hope this question > as been settled now. Are you intentionally being silly? You were saying that I had used the phrase myself, and so must know what it means. If I say, "Peter says fiddlebok", does that mean I know what "fiddlebok" means? > > In fact, I don't know what you you mean by the phrase. Did you > > really misunderstand what I wrote? > > There is no misunderstanding possible. You refuted Lester's > interpretation, by proposing to have a better one: > > "That doesn't seem to be what WM is saying. He seems to be saying that > the notion of a completed infinity leads to either absurdities or > contradictions. Perhaps he thinks the way to avoid these absurdities is > to only consider things that can be physically produced." > > I now that cranks never admit having made an error. But do you think > that obvious lies like this are a way to reach your aim? What aim is that? > > > > > Why does it > > > > > make you believe that there is an infinite initial segment 1,2,3... ? > > > > > > > > Sorry. I don't understand. "1,2,3,..." is the set of natural numbers. > > > > You just wrote a few lines above that the natural numbers "go on > > > > forever", and I agreed to it. You seem to be asking me why I believe the > > > > set of natural numbers goes on forever. But, we just agreed that was > > > > true. So, what are you asking me? > > > If it only goes on forever without being completet anywhere, then there > > > is no chance to find out whether all natural numbers are sufficient to > > > enumerate all real numbers or not. > > I don't know what you mean by "completed anywhere". > The completed initial segment contains every natural number. > Another segment contains not every natural number. Let's recap. We agreed that the natural numbers go on forever. You then asked me why I believe that there is an infinite initial segment 1,2,3... I said I didn't understand the question: you seemed to be asking me why I believe the natural numbers go on forever (something we both agreed to). You now say that "completed infinite initial segment" means it contains every natural number. I still don't know what you mean. When I say "natural numbers", I'm not excluding any natural numbers. And, the natural numbers go on forever. So, I still don't understand what you are asking. What else do you think I believe? -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 18 Nov 2006 12:10 mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > David Marcus schrieb: > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > No. The hidden errors can better be recognized at the roots. > > > > Perhaps, but irrelevant. If you can't find the "hidden errors" in the > > modern formulations, a likely explanation is that the "hidden errors" > > have been removed in the process of changing the formulations. > > Regardless, if the "hidden errors" are still there, your only hope of > > convincing people is to point to them in the formulations that they > > know. > > The most fundamental hidden error is that sets are described a > potentially infinite (going on for ever) but taken and treated as if > they were actually infinite. As I just said, you need to point to the errors in the formulations that people currently use. If the error is "treating sets as if they are actually infinite", please state what the error is using modern terminology and/or give an example using modern terminology. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 18 Nov 2006 12:22 Franziska Neugebauer wrote: > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > Franziska Neugebauer schrieb: > >> mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > >> > {1,2,3} is the collection of, and a convenient expression to write > >> > {that we are talking about, the numbers 1 ,2, and 3. > >> > >> What are we talking about, when we write > >> > >> { } > >> > >> ? > > > > The same as when we write > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, WM > > I would like to suggest the name "finished emptiness" for that. We could simply agree that all symbols, letters, numerals denote emptiness. This would mean that all posts in this thread are empty. Perhaps it would be a fitting end to the discussion. It seems rather perverse to insist that some symbols be replaced by blanks. We aren't allowed to use whatever symbols we want? -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 18 Nov 2006 12:30
mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > Dik T. Winter schrieb: > > Again, no answer. > > If you cannot understand this answer, then we should stop here. I assure you that no one is insisting that you continue to post. I think everyone will agree that what you have already posted adequately describes your position. -- David Marcus |