Virgil
Posts:
4,480
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 047
Posted:
Jun 30, 2012 4:03 PM
|
|
In article
<721e97d9-0279-42a4-8bf3-b785b7a66892@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 30 Jun., 16:15, "Mike Terry"
> <news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
> >
> > news:dc616208-952e-4f41-aeae-6a9ee3e03bcf@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On 30 Jun., 04:02, "Mike Terry"
> > > <news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> > > > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
> >
> > > > You are also true to form, in that you're simply claiming a result (that
> > x
> > > > resides between two *consecutive* intervals) without proof.
> >
> > > There is no other possibility. Everey interval and all endpoints are
> > > fixed if actual infinity is assumed. Tertium non datur.
> >
> > Rubbish.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > This result is wrong as with your I_n example. I could tell you that if
> > you
> > > > believe it to be true you should provide a proof,
> >
> > > No you should provide a position that is not between two consecutive
> > > intervals. If trying you would awake from your dreams.
> >
> > No - you are the one making claims,
>
> It is not a claim. We know that the real axis is linear and that some
> intervals are covered. So the remaining complement is divided in
> intervals between the covered ones.
But since there are uncountably many irrationals to start with, WM must
sow that only finitely many of them can ramain uncovered in order to be
sure that none of them can exist only as limit points of others and not
as endpoints of clusters.
So that WM's I_n's must cover a space over 9 times as long as the sum of
the I_n's lengths.
> If you cannot see that, then start with a ring
We star with standard mahematics, in which sound proofs are required,
not mere hand waving a la WM.
> Your claim is similar to the claim that a bijection between two sets
> will no longer be a bijection when infinitely many elements are in the
> game, like |N and |Q.
On the contrary, it is only in WM's theology ( or WMatheology, for
short) that no bijection can occur between |N and |Q, In standard
mathematics there are lots of bijections between them.
> Do you take the trouble to prove that?
WM, who has yet to provide any valid proof of his own claims, is now
badgering others to provide what he has not been able to provide himself?
Such arrogance is pitiful!
> No. You
> require those who claim that to prove their claim.
When someone claims that what has already been proved many times by many
mathematicians in standard mathematics is false, those who have seen
those proofs understandably will not accept contrary statements without
equally valid proofs.
Wm keeps making those contrary statements, but without any equally valid
proofs, and, far too often, without even an attempt at any proof.
Now it is up to WM to provide valis proofs of his claims, not merely his
usual hand-waving, because his claims are too silly to be accepted
without proofs.
--
|
|
