On 8 Dez., 09:47, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <8b96b15b-71f0-4c15-aabd-5887fd7aa...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 7 Dez., 22:35, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <e903ef43-fcb6-43f7-8ce3-e61c725ff...@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 6 Dez., 21:29, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <a70f6b2c-c9a2-426d-9da4-70ad9785b...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > A unit lenght 1 times aleph_0 is what? > > > > > > Nonsense! > > > > > A unit times aleph_0 is aleph_0. > > > > That presumes that Aleph_0 is amenable to some sort of multiplication > > > and division. > > > > A claim that requires proof, as Aleph_0 is not a member of any of the > > > sets of numbers for which multiplication is defined, and is not a unit > > > of measure, like yards or metres, that can be halved or doubled > > > meaningfully. > > > -- > > > Try to learn set theory, for instance here: > >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/GU/GU11.PPT#355,28,Folie28 > > For WM to think that I, or any other mathematician, would look to any > publication because he endorses it, much less one that is apparently > written by him, to learn anything about set theory in particular or > mathematics in general, is a totally unwarranted exhibition of > arrogance.
You could have learned that 1*aleph_0 = 2*aleph_0. But obviously you do not like that in the present context. Therefore you prefer to argue ad hominem.