
Re: another boring critisism of Cantor's Theorem
Posted:
Apr 1, 2004 3:55 PM


Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.unimagdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<406C382B.1090303@et.unimagdeburg.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={x0<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

