Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: David Marcus on 4 Dec 2006 19:21 Han de Bruijn wrote: > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > [ exposition of WM's binary tree snipped: just look it up ] > > > If you don't understand this simple and clear exposition, then there is > > no hope that you will be able to think any further. > > Affirmative. It's not a difficult argument altogether. Care to restate it in your own words? WM just keeps repeating the same incoherent gibberish, e.g., relations involving fractions of edges. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 4 Dec 2006 19:24 Virgil wrote: > In article <1164816790.379338.139370(a)h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > MoeBlee schrieb: > > >Meanwhile, you are ignorant of even such basic set theory as > > > proving the existence of an identity function. > > > > I think of a correct proof, not of blowing hot air. > > Then how is it that you continually blow hot air but have never provided > a correct proof of anything? And few if any incorrect ones! Just as WM has his own meaning for the word "definition", he has his own meaning for the word "proof". Humpty Dumpty would be proud. -- David Marcus
From: Dik T. Winter on 4 Dec 2006 20:47 In article <1165253705.574953.82830(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> imaginatorium(a)despammed.com writes: .... > SUBROUTINE CHANGE(A, B) > IF(A .EQ. 25) A = B > RETURN > END > > Now try: > CALL CHANGE(25, 17) Depends entirely on compiler and OS. But whatever the result is, the above does not conform to even the Fortran 66 standard. -- 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 4 Dec 2006 20:50 In article <1165263838.656385.305770(a)l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> writes: > Eckard Blumschein wrote: > > Correct. There are people who extend the reals to include oo. > > Would you give an example of a text that does this? > > What we sometimes do is add two points (called 'oo' and '-oo') to the > real number system so that we have a different, extended system (which > is not a complete ordered field). But that does not meant that we > consider oo and -oo to be real numbers. In the one-point compactification of the real line or the complex plane a single point at infinity is added. But also in that case it is either a real nor a complex number. And again, the result is not a field, and also not odered. -- 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 4 Dec 2006 20:55
In article <1164975502.975778.75650(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de writes: > > Dik T. Winter schrieb: > > I see paths from the root to the nodes below the nodes below the tree. > > There is no "below the tree", since there is no "after the last digit" > in decimal or binay representations of real numbers. Sorry, I meant "paths fromt the root to the nodes below the nodes below the root". > > I have difficulty with the tree because your explanations are confused > > and sometimes contradictionary. > > Which one? Many. > > > No. Paths are only another notation for the reals in usual > > > representation and usual definition. > > > > You state that you are using limits with your infinite paths? > > Of course. The paths are nothing else but another way of denoting a > real number in binary representation. But in that case you are doing something non-standard. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |