Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Markus Klyver Posts: 730 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

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:
>
>
> 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.

Date Subject Author
9/30/17 zelos.malum@gmail.com
9/30/17 FromTheRafters
9/30/17 Me
9/30/17 Me
9/30/17 Me
9/30/17 Me
9/30/17 Pancho ValveJob
9/30/17 Dan Christensen
10/1/17 bursejan@gmail.com
10/3/17 Markus Klyver