Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: David Marcus on 20 Nov 2006 19:35 Virgil wrote: > In article <MPG.1fcbf909c89f84c3989993(a)news.rcn.com>, > David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > > And, we can let "U.S." stand for the United States. Is this > > abbreviation/definition/whatever true or false, in your opinion? > > There is no point in trying to communicate with Zick, as he is not the > least bit interested in communicating. You are right, but I felt compelled to make one last post. Sometimes these urges are hard to resist. > Your best response to his blather is kill filing him. If I continue to have these unhealthy urges, I'll do that. -- David Marcus
From: Virgil on 20 Nov 2006 19:37 In article <MPG.1fcc0f25de5da233989996(a)news.rcn.com>, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > In article <1164058702.803070.89230(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > Further I defined it by means of the EIT as the > > > union of all initial subsets of N. > > > > What is the EIT? > > That's WM's Equilateral Infinite Triangle, i.e., the list with line n > having length n. Haven't you been paying attention? :) Then it must be an equilateral /right/ triangle if rows are horizontal and columns are vertical. So WM not only messes up set theory, he messes up geometry to boot. Unless it is spherical geometry, which does allow a "triangle" with 3 right angles. But then the edges would be finite. > > > > > > I use the language of mathematics. > > > > WM's version of "the language of mathematics" is somehow never > > compatible with ZF to ZFC or NBG or NF or any standard foundation for > > mathematics. He must have learnt it in Babel. > > Nor is it compatible with that of any historical mathematician, despite > his frequent quotes from Cantor's papers.
From: David Marcus on 20 Nov 2006 21:04 Virgil wrote: > In article <MPG.1fcc0f25de5da233989996(a)news.rcn.com>, > David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > Virgil wrote: > > > In article <1164058702.803070.89230(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > > > Further I defined it by means of the EIT as the > > > > union of all initial subsets of N. > > > > > > What is the EIT? > > > > That's WM's Equilateral Infinite Triangle, i.e., the list with line n > > having length n. Haven't you been paying attention? :) > > Then it must be an equilateral /right/ triangle if rows are horizontal > and columns are vertical. So WM not only messes up set theory, he > messes up geometry to boot. He seems to have trouble with arithmetic when the numbers get large, too. > Unless it is spherical geometry, which does allow a "triangle" with 3 > right angles. > > But then the edges would be finite. On second thought, I'm not sure if WM means EIT to include the w-th line or not. Not that it makes much difference. -- David Marcus
From: Dik T. Winter on 20 Nov 2006 22:04 In article <8m8pl2pj1icbeven2hq7rp4hq1rufqh1u2(a)4ax.com> Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: .... > Why are square circles unimaginable? They are not. With the Manhattan measure of the plane, each circle is a square. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
From: Dik T. Winter on 20 Nov 2006 22:15
In article <455C15B9.90504(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> writes: > On 11/16/2006 2:17 AM, Dik T. Winter wrote: > > What are the things that represent numbers? > > My humble trial to answer this question is: > > Infinite trees represent real numbers. > All nodes represent rational numbers. This clearly is a non-answer. I ask about the things that represent numbers. I do not ask about "real numbers" or "rational numbers". -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |