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: another boring critisism of Cantor's Theorem
Replies: 88   Last Post: May 3, 2004 6:56 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 ZZBunker Posts: 940 Registered: 12/6/04
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

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

Date Subject Author
3/29/04 Craig Feinstein
3/29/04 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
3/29/04 A N Niel
3/29/04 Craig Feinstein
3/29/04 Will Twentyman
3/30/04 Robin Chapman
3/30/04 Jose Carlos Santos
3/30/04 David McAnally
4/3/04 Richard Sabey
3/31/04 Jesse F. Hughes
3/31/04 Lee Rudolph
3/31/04 Jesse F. Hughes
3/31/04 Eckard Blumschein
3/31/04 Jesse F. Hughes
3/31/04 Lee Rudolph
3/31/04 Jesse F. Hughes
3/31/04 Detlef Mueller
4/1/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/1/04 Detlef Mueller
4/1/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/1/04 Herman Jurjus
4/2/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/2/04 Hermann Kremer
4/5/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/6/04 Hermann Kremer
4/7/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/2/04 Hermann Kremer
4/6/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/1/04 ZZBunker
4/1/04 David McAnally
4/1/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/1/04 Robin Chapman
4/1/04 Hermann Kremer
4/2/04 Eckard Blumschein
3/31/04 Robin Chapman
3/31/04 Hermann Kremer
4/1/04 Jesse F. Hughes
4/1/04 Hermann Kremer
4/1/04 Eckard Blumschein
3/31/04 Thomas Nordhaus
4/1/04 Detlef Mueller
4/1/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/1/04 Hermann Kremer
4/2/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/2/04 Jesse F. Hughes
4/1/04 Justin Davis
4/2/04 Eckard Blumschein
4/2/04 Robin Chapman
3/31/04 David McAnally
3/31/04 David Petry
3/31/04 Torkel Franzen
4/2/04 David Petry
4/2/04 Torkel Franzen
4/1/04 Rupert
4/2/04 David Petry
4/2/04 David C. Ullrich
4/3/04 Torkel Franzen
4/3/04 David C. Ullrich
4/4/04 David Petry
4/4/04 Daryl McCullough
4/5/04 Rupert
4/5/04 David Petry
4/6/04 Rupert
4/6/04 Rupert
4/7/04 David Petry
4/7/04 Rupert
4/9/04 Herman Jurjus
4/9/04 Rupert
4/13/04 David Petry
4/13/04 Rupert
4/14/04 David Petry
4/14/04 Rupert
4/14/04 Rupert
4/16/04 Herman Jurjus
4/16/04 Rupert
4/22/04 Eckard Blumschein
5/3/04 Herman Jurjus
4/6/04 Herman Rubin
4/6/04 David Petry
4/7/04 Rupert
4/7/04 Rupert
4/5/04 David C. Ullrich
4/6/04 Herman Rubin
4/3/04 Rupert
3/31/04 Ted Hwa
3/29/04 David Manheim
3/29/04 Jesse F. Hughes
3/29/04 Lee Rudolph
3/29/04 Jesse F. Hughes