On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-5, WM wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 15:55:47 UTC+1 schrieb Dan Christensen: > > On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 2:21:29 AM UTC-5, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > > Why do we really need those real non-constructible numbers, if it is impossible to express them exactly except only by constructible numbers or as meaningless notation in mind only? > > > > > > > BKK and his fellow cranks and trolls here seem to believe, as an article of faith or religious dogma, that they can achieve everything in science and engineering that we can now do in real analysis using only a subset of the real numbers. > > We can prove that not more is possible. >
Makes no sense, Mucke.
> > Good luck with that, guys, but you are destined to fail. Your complete lack of any real progress after all these years (decades in some cases) should convince of you that. > > It convinces us of the fact that set theory can cause real brain damage. Of course you cannot be healed. But discussions like these are very helpful in convincing normal people including young students that set theory is really detrimentalto clear thinking.
Brave words for someone who time and again has claimed to have found inconsistencies in set theory, but could not prove it in using the axioms of set theory as would be required. Just silly diagrams and a lot of hand waving.
And forget about set theory and real analysis, Mucke -- did you ever manage to prove that 1 =/= 2 in your goofy number system? First things first, as they say.