|
|
Re: another boring critisism of Cantor's Theorem
Posted:
Apr 1, 2004 3:55 PM
|
|
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<406C382B.1090303@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
> Do not worry just because I am only one engineer who ventures telling
> the huge crowd of professional mathematicians why Buridan's donkey is a
> symbol of an old mistake.
>
> Detlef Mueller wrote:
>
> >>My reasoning is quite simple. You may occupy as many numbers as you
> >>like.
> >
> > Ok. So I take every real number on the way from 0 to 1,
> > formaly: M={x|0<x<1}.
>
> When I wrote occupy I did not mean one person is entitled to occupy all
> seats of the whole train.
>
>
> >>The notion 'infinitely' means: I still can provide much more empty
> >>possible positions besides these numbers as well as between two of them.
> >
> >
> > So, then give me one real number between 0 an 1 not beeing in M.
> > You can't - per definition of M.
>
> M is not a number.
>
> >>Compactification is an illusion as is the attepmt to limit the infinite.
> >>
> >
> > Everything in our heads is illusion.
>
> I meant, not the largest number of numbers can be made really dense.
>
>
> >>Why is criticism of Cantor's theorem so boring?
> >>
> >
> > My reason is:
> > Because I see absolutly no contradiction.
>
> That is the point. Those who are trying to refute it by means of the
> same means constitution it will perhaps not have any chance.
> Nonetheless, I consider it pretty unlikely that so many students are
> just too stupid as to formally grasp the tenets. Over some decades, I
> did not meet so many dense students. So I rather suspect those whose gut
> feeling does not agree might be correct.
> By chance, my own objections coincide despite they arose from
> observation of a plurality of quite different imperfections.
>
>
>
> > I see that one could do mathematics avoiding
> > infinity and achieving exactly the same results in
> > the statements wich can be formulated in both
> > models.
>
> Are you aware that avoiding infinity implies avoiding zero?
>
>
> > I see everything fitting perfect without inner
> > contradictions with infinitly sets. every so called
> > "contradiction" comes out to simply beeing
> > something contraintuitive for someone. In the most
> > cases this doesn't contradict _my_ intuition!
>
> Yes, you are a jolly poor fellow.
>
>
> > So I am bored about beeing offended by people
> > thinking their intuition is "right" and mine is
> > "wrong".
> >
> > For an example: the behaviour of a gyroscope is
> > in my opinion contraintuitive. But I have to admit
> > a failure in my intuition if I see it doing strange
> > things. Maybe, if dealing with gyroscopes a time, my
> > feeling about this woult adjust.
Obviously gyroscopes would be counterintuitive
to not only mathematicians, but also to physicists
psychologists, and even to ALL idiot *Europeans*.
They are the *only* measuring devices on the
*entire planet*, that you need four and *exactly*
four *real* dimensions to make them work.
>
> I never came across to a bundle of so many contradictions and
> imperfections which simply fitted into the drawer of contraintuitive
> behavior. Do not misuse the suspicion of wrong intuition as an excuse
> for lazy accepting presumably wrong basics of theory.
>
>
> Eckard
|
|
