On 19 Nov., 23:17, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote: > In article > <459031c5-2297-40d1-b71f-1f6f24545...@e25g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 19 Nov., 13:58, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 19, 6:28 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 19 Nov., 01:15, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Another is his habit of editing out (without any indication) > > > bits of posts he doesn't want to deal with. > > > > A third is the fact that while he insists that you make substantial > > > effort to understand his incorrect and ambiguous stuff, he makes > > > no effort to follow your posts.- > > > A very good answer. > > To which WM had no anywhere nearly as good a response. > > > So you can avoid any mathematical arguing. In > > addition you are a very good counterfeiter. Instead of the correct > > definition > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 (Cauchy) > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 (Cantor) > > you quote a crippled and not understandable formula > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 (Cauchy) > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 (Cantor) > > I do not see that either one of these minutely different forms above has > any significant advantage over the other.
You have again crippled my expression. Look into th original.
