Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: mueckenh on 8 Oct 2006 04:38 David Marcus schrieb: > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > > David Marcus schrieb: > > > > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > > Hi, Dik, > > > > > > > > I would like to publish our result to the mathematicians of this group > > > > in order to show what they really are believing if they believe in set > > > > theory. > > > > > > > > There is an infinite sequence S of units, denoted by S = III... > > > > > > > > This sequence is covered up to any position n (included) by the finite > > > > sequences > > > > I > > > > II > > > > III > > > > ... > > > > > > What do you mean by "cover"? > > > > A covers B if A has at least as many bars as B. A and B are unary > > representations of numbers. > > > > Example: A = III covers I and II and III but not IIII. > > > > > But it is impossible to cover every position of S. > > > > > So: S is covered up to every position, but it is not possible to cover > > > > every position. > > So, your conclusion is that no finite sequence of I's will cover S. > Correct? > > Is this your entire theorem or is there more to the conclusion? My conclusion is: Either (S is covered up to every position <==> S is completely covered by at least one element of the infinite set of finite unary numbers <==> S is an unary natural) ==> Contradiction, because S can be shown to be not a unary natural. Or S is not covered up to every position by unary naturals ==> The positions of S are not defined ==> S does not exist. There is no actual infinity, but nly potential infinity, i.e., S is not complee but only has as many bars as you or anothe one can count. But as this example is very closely related to the vase just under discussion here, we should switch to that one. Regards, WM
From: mueckenh on 8 Oct 2006 04:44 Tonico schrieb: > Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de schreef: > > > > > Tonico schrieb: > > > > > > > It is nonsense, but it is the truth if infinity can be calculated. I > > > said it merely to show that actual infinity is not only a huge nonsens > > > but rather an infinite nonsense. > > > > And when you're debating with me (HdB). I'm on Mueckenheim's side > > in these matters. > > ************************************************************* > No wonder I confused between you two. You both use a lot of very weird, > non-mathematical mumbo-jumbo, just like Tonico, you have shown here that you don't know mathematics history and that you not even know present set theory concerning the most fundamental definitions and technical terms. So shut up and go to learn at least the most basic things. Then come back. Regards, WM
From: Tonico on 8 Oct 2006 05:51 mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de ha escrito: > Tonico schrieb: > > > Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de schreef: > > > > > > > Tonico schrieb: > > > > > > > > > It is nonsense, but it is the truth if infinity can be calculated. I > > > > said it merely to show that actual infinity is not only a huge nonsens > > > > but rather an infinite nonsense. > > > > > > And when you're debating with me (HdB). I'm on Mueckenheim's side > > > in these matters. > > > > ************************************************************* > > No wonder I confused between you two. You both use a lot of very weird, > > non-mathematical mumbo-jumbo, just like > > Tonico, you have shown here that you don't know mathematics history and > that you not even know present set theory concerning the most > fundamental definitions and technical terms. So shut up and go to > learn at least the most basic things. Then come back. > > Regards, WM **************************************************** LOL the first and LOL the second, and of course not the third. But hey, never mind: uneducated, stubborn trolls like yourself usually get pissed when somebody points out their nonsenses. It's fine, at least you "teach" maths and some lucky students are safe from the terrible, poisonous maths teachings from teachers that actually know maths. As they say: after Hitler succeeded to kick many of the great german mathematicians of that time out of their universities, Germany remained exxtremely poor in good mathematicians...and it still hasn't ricovered from that blow, unfortunately. Your dogmatic, quasi-religious position is a good proof of this, Mueck. Too bad....or not. Regards Tonio Ps About education, my boy: telling someone to shut up can hardly be seen as good education...ts,ts,ts.
From: Han.deBruijn on 8 Oct 2006 06:10 Dik T. Winter wrote: > I would say that all forms of mathematics are grounded on axioms (or dogmas > as you prefer to say). But contrary to dogmas, axioms can be negated to > get another form of mathematics. Dogmas are absolute truths, axioms are > only absolute truths within some realm of discourse. If it is so simple, where then come these heated debates (about the Balls in a Vase at noon) come from? And why then are some axiom systems so much more dominant than others? > In the same way in most countries it is an axiom that you should drive on > the right. But an Englishman would state, rightly, the right side is not > the right side to ride. I wish it were so simple. Han de Bruijn
From: Han.deBruijn on 8 Oct 2006 06:13
mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de schreef: > > But you cannot derive that the vase is not empty at noon from the > observation that its contents cannot decrease? A picture says more than a thousand words. Isn't it? http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2006/ballen.jpg Han de Bruijn |