In article <666594c4-502c-4ed8-8f46-3764b13095e9@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 14 Dez., 05:54, Owen Jacobson <angrybald...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2011-12-13 12:33:54 +0000, WM said: > > > > > > > > > On 13 Dez., 08:24, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > >> But Cantor's proofs are still valid proofs, at least everywhere but in > > > > > Not in mathematics. > > > > You appear to be using the word "mathematics" (I assume as shorthand > > for "mathematical logic") in a novel way. > > No, I use it in the following sense: > > I claim that every FISON is finite and I ask whether more natural > numbers than can exist in any FISON can exist in a set of many or more > FISONs. You should already know that the answer to your question is "YES"! > > I cannot see in all terms > a_k = 10^1 + 10^2 + ... + 10^k > of the sequence (a_k) any hint for the possibility of an aleph of > natural numbers.
Then you are deliberately being blind.
On the contrary, I see that everybody is outside of > mathematics
You certainly are.
> who claims that there are more natural numbers in a set > of terms than are in any of the terms,
There are more natural number in the set of terms {{1}, {2}, {3}} than there are in any of those terms in the set, so what is your problem? > > > The key feature of this systems is that the strings we manipulate under > > it *have no intrinsic meaning* - > > Mathematics has an intrinsic meaning. > And if your strings have lead you to the result that there are more > natural numbers than any natural number can indicate, i.e., there are > m natural numbers with m > n for every natural n, then your strings > have lead you astray.
On the contrary, it is WM's strings that are all tangled up. > > And please, do me the favour and do not ask me where the > error lies.
We already know! The error lies in WOLKENMUEKENHEIM.
> I am not interested in a system that, according to its > result, has been proven in conradiction with mathematics.
Neither are we, but it is the case that your Wolkenmuekenheim system has repeatedly been shown to be in contradiction with what the vast majority of mathematicians call mathematics, but you have yet to show that infinite sets are in any way in contradiction to what the vast majority of mathematicians call mathematics. --
