The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: A more stupid Italian mythmatician exists? Peano was a moron of
galactic proportions.

Replies: 10   Last Post: Oct 3, 2017 12:36 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Markus Klyver

Posts: 702
Registered: 5/26/17
Re: A more stupid Italian mythmatician exists? Peano was a moron of
galactic proportions.

Posted: Oct 3, 2017 12:36 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Den lördag 30 september 2017 kl. 14:28:13 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> He also thought of his ridiculous set theoretic construction of natural numbers. I can't think of anything more illogical and absurd given that his ordinals ASSUME the prior existence of natural numbers:
>
> 0 = {}
> 1 = { {} }
> 2 = { {}, { {} } }
> 3 = { {}, { {} }, { {} , { {} } } }
>
> It didn't occur to Von Neumann that his ordinals assume the unit which already includes substantial machinery to construct starting from nothing. Essentially, all it does is count empty sets, but in order to count, one must already have natural numbers for which prior construction is required.
>
> This aside, several new rules have to be implemented to make the nonsense work. For example, if one tries to do arithmetic from inference, say add 0 and 1, there are two approaches:
>
> [A] 0 + 1 = {} + { {} } = { {}, { {} } } = 2
>
> [B] Since [A] does not yield the correct result, the addition is redefined as a 'rule' in terms of Peano arithmetic which is the most laughable idea ever produced by an idiot Italian mythmatician called Giuseppe Peano. It is hard to think of anyone more stupid that Peano and his juvenile axioms. Ironically, much of mainstream theory is based on this illogical rubbish:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD-pfSNdSs
>
> Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored.
>
> Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics.
>
> gils...@gmail.com (MIT)
> huiz...@psu.edu (HARVARD)
> and...@mit.edu (MIT)
> david....@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich)
> djo...@clarku.edu
> mar...@gmail.com


You can define power sets without having naturals. Also, your set theory is bad. The union of {} and { {} } is { {} }. Also, the constructions works perfectly fine without infinite sets.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.