Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: David Marcus on 11 Dec 2006 06:01 Virgil wrote: > In article <MPG.1fe689f024ef9952989a47(a)news.rcn.com>, > David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: > > > Virgil wrote: > > > In article <1165778054.244969.226800(a)j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > > > > > In order to > > > > disprove this assertion you have only two ways: > > > > > > WM misses the point again. > > > > > > WE do not have to disprove anything about his assertion. > > > > > > If WM wishes to assert something and have his claim honored, HE must > > > provide a proof in support of that assertion. > > > > > > WM has not done so. > > > > I think WM has posted several proofs. The problem is that none of them > > are valid. > > > > > Ergo, we have every right to reject his assertion. > > > > Ditto. > > As a fine point, does one call something that is invalid a proof? > > I was under the impression it was not. I believe you are correct. -- David Marcus
From: Eckard Blumschein on 11 Dec 2006 06:25 On 12/10/2006 8:16 PM, mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > Eckard Blumschein schrieb: > > >> > Then why do you disagree with Cantor's results? >> >> This is a good question. > > I disagree with those of his results which are in error. Cantor knew > how to distinguish potential from actual infinity, that is more than > most discussers here can achieve, This is true. but he was not infallible. I would like to apologize for not realizing that you wrote Gauss brackets. Hopefully, I am nonetheless not as dull as Bob Kolker who suggested to purify the Orient from Islam by means of atomic bombs. Perhaps he did not even know that there are many muslims within Israel. I felt his view concerning Cantor's mental illness not less nazilike. Euthanasic crime killed many innocent people. When I try to merciless reveal in what Dedekind and Cantor were wrong, then I should perhaps also deal with E. Heine. Dedekind mentioned J. Tannery who also suggested to define an irrational number by giving all rational numbers which are larger and all rational numbers which are smaller than the real number to be defined (preface to Was sind..., VIII). I see the failure of so many mathematicians arisen from desire to make possible the impossible. Regards, Eckard > > Regards, WM >
From: Eckard Blumschein on 11 Dec 2006 07:07 On 12/11/2006 3:07 AM, Dik T. Winter wrote: In short, the "dummkopf" above is not German > but English. My dictionary only gives (American Slang) dumbhead. Maybe, dummkopf is rather an indication of German descent. Is Kolker an English word? In German, a Kolk is a hollow in a river bed, mostly behind obstacles like thick trees. A kolk is caused by a water vortex during flooding. Maybe, a Kolker was someone who filled such hollows with rubbish.
From: Dik T. Winter on 11 Dec 2006 07:43 In article <457D49EA.5050600(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> writes: > On 12/11/2006 3:07 AM, Dik T. Winter wrote: > In short, the "dummkopf" above is not German > > but English. > > My dictionary only gives (American Slang) dumbhead. Maybe, dummkopf is > rather an indication of German descent. www.m-w.com: Main Entry: dumm.kopf Pronunciation: 'dum-"kopf Function: noun Etymology: German, from /dumm/ stupid + /Kopf/ head : Blockhead > Is Kolker an English word? Not in Merriam-Webster. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
From: Bob Kolker on 11 Dec 2006 08:16
Eckard Blumschein wrote: > > When I try to merciless reveal in what Dedekind and Cantor were wrong, > then I should perhaps also deal with E. Heine. > Dedekind mentioned J. Tannery who also suggested to define an irrational > number by giving all rational numbers which are larger and all rational > numbers which are smaller than the real number to be defined (preface to > Was sind..., VIII). I see the failure of so many mathematicians arisen > from desire to make possible the impossible. There is nothing impossible about constructing the metric closure of the set of rationals regared as a metric space. Irrational numbers are the limit points of rational cauchy sequences that do not converge to rational numbers. Bob Kolker |