> On 3 Jun., 04:37, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > > You apparently do not understand it at all. WM has posted this stuff for > > years in the German newsgroup on mathematics, in German. Moreover, he > > has two books about mathematics on his name, in German.
On Jun 3, 3:26 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > And both say, in effect, about the existence of actual infinity, what > Kant said about the proof of the existence of God: These assumptions > (proof of God, axiom of infinity) are as ridiculous as a merchant who > would try to improve his balance by adding some zeros behind his > result.
That is not something that can legitimately be said in any mathematical context. In the first place, WE DON'T prove that infinity exists. WE JUST HAVE AN AXIOM of infinity. YOU CAN USE THE DENIAL OF THAT AXIOM and talk about A FINITE universe IF YOU LIKE! NOTHING IS STOPPING you! Except maybe for the fact that IF you allow EVERYthing to have a successor that is distinct FROM ALL SMALLER things, then THERE FACTUALLY ARE an infinite number of things and that assuming otherwise LEADS TO CONTRADICTIONS, EVEN IN YOUR impoverished logic.
> I would be glad if a court would have to decide about my position > based on the binary tree and my further arguments.
It has. You've been convicted. Unanimously.
> Kant, at his time, > had to stop his lectures about religious topics by order of his > Prussian King. But I am sure that all this Cantor-nonsense would burst > like a bubble filled with foul gas once the public got to know what > crap has to be paid by the taxpayer.
The public doesn't know shit about math, and if you are at a public university and taxpayers are paying YOUR salary, well, be careful what you wish for. Come the day.