Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Mathelogy S 011
Posted:
May 21, 2012 4:27 AM
|
|
In article
<76a228c4-41f5-4c97-81cc-55596da284d1@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 21 Mai, 01:22, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <3d33b638-8015-4d84-9849-1dba3a358...@dg7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 20 Mai, 00:07, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > That work would be very worthwhile, if it can be done.
> > > > You tell us that the contradictions are glaring, obvious etc.
> >
> > > Do you need ZFC to understand Cantor's diagonal proof? No?
> > > My is the same. By aleph_0 borders of aleph_0 intervals around aleph_0
> > > rational aleph_0 intervals are created. (I cannot tell you any of
> > > them, but they are there like every well-ordering of the reals.) Some
> > > of them don't contain a rational number.
> >
> > WM goofs again: The only real intervals failing to contain a rational
> > are of length 0 with an irrational endpoint.
>
> There should be uncountably many such intervals of length 0. And they
> must be separated by rational numbers. That is a requirement of real
> mathematics.
Nonsense! No single real number, such as real intervals of length 0
represent, is required to be separated from itself by anything, at least
not in any normal form of mathematics.
What transpires in WM's matheological mish-mashes may differ.
--
|
|
