On Nov 18, 8:04 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote: > In article > <a924b8a3-c051-4e91-a088-c9ee5167a...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > Matheology 154: Consistency Proof! > > > The long missed solution of an outstanding problem came from a > > completely unexpected side: Social science proves the consistency of > > matheology by carrying out a poll. > > > As recently reported (see matheology 152) > >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf > > mathematics and matheology lead to different values of the continued > > fraction > > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 (Cauchy) > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 (Cantor) > > It is not at all clear that these expressions represent any continued > fraction at all. >
One of the problems with attempting any discussion with WM is the fact that he is unable or unwilling to define anything. A second problem is that he will switch from a tolerably inexact notation (decimal digits with positions) to absolute nonsense. Nor will he agree to discuss things except using his latest form.
The idea that he is introducing complications because when he is clear it is obvious he is wrong is hard to resist.