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: Irrefutable proofs that both Dedekind and Cauchy did not produce
any valid construction of the mythical "real" number

Replies: 2   Last Post: Oct 6, 2017 1:34 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
zelos.malum@gmail.com

Posts: 434
Registered: 9/18/17
Re: Irrefutable proofs that both Dedekind and Cauchy did not produce
any valid construction of the mythical "real" number

Posted: Oct 6, 2017 1:34 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Den torsdag 5 oktober 2017 kl. 19:18:52 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> On Thursday, 5 October 2017 09:47:24 UTC-4, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > Den onsdag 4 oktober 2017 kl. 20:52:33 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 14:43:39 UTC-4, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > > > Den tisdag 3 oktober 2017 kl. 19:16:15 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 12:32:26 UTC-4, Markus Klyver wrote:
> > > > > > Den fredag 29 september 2017 kl. 14:06:42 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > gilstrang@gmail.com (MIT)
> > > > > > > huizenga@psu.edu (HARVARD)
> > > > > > > andersk@mit.edu (MIT)
> > > > > > > david.ullrich@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich)
> > > > > > > djoyce@clarku.edu
> > > > > > > markcc@gmail.com

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those are not Dedekind cuts.

> > > > >
> > > > > Of course they are monkey!

> > > >
> > > > No, they aren't. They don't satisfy the axioms a Dedekind cut should satisfy.
> > > >
> > > > Den onsdag 4 oktober 2017 kl. 20:09:58 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:

> > > > > On Friday, 29 September 2017 08:06:42 UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> > > > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gilstrang@gmail.com (MIT)
> > > > > > huizenga@psu.edu (HARVARD)
> > > > > > andersk@mit.edu (MIT)
> > > > > > david.ullrich@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich)
> > > > > > djoyce@clarku.edu
> > > > > > markcc@gmail.com

> > > > >
> > > > > Dedekind Cut: A set partition of the rational numbers into two nonempty subsets L and R, such that all members of L are less than those of R and such that L has no greatest member.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any cut of the form
> > > > >
> > > > > (m, k) U (k, n) where m < k and k < n
> > > > >
> > > > > is EQUIVALENT to
> > > > >
> > > > > (-oo, k) U (k, oo) where k is not a rational number.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I can rewrite the cut (-oo, k) U (k, oo) as:
> > > > >
> > > > > (-oo,m] U (m, k) U (k, n) U [n, oo)
> > > > >
> > > > > Since my proof deals only with (m, k) U (k, n), it does not matter that the tail parts (-oo,m) and (n, oo) are discarded because those parts are not used or affected by the proof. The union (m, k) U (k, n) can be chosen as I please with any rational numbers assigned to m and n.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose that if you morons had actually tried to understand the proof, you would have noticed I set an exercise for you to complete which helps explain the proof.

> > > >
> > > > You forgot that a Dedekind cut must be closed downwards as well as upwards. Your sets fail this criteria.

> > >
> > > Rubbish. My sets do meet the criteria.

> >
> > They do not. 3.1 is in your cut, yes? Then -10000 should be in the cut as well, and so should 0.466468840107465. So your cuts are not Dedekind cuts.

>
> They do you idiot.
>
> (-oo,m] U (m, k) U (k, n) U [n, oo)
>
> is the cut. My proof deals only with the subset (m, k) U (k, n) which includes the cut. I specifically chose a subset to make the proof easier to understand, but you are extremely dense!


So 2=4 in your world?



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.