Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Mathematics in brief
Posted:
Dec 8, 2012 6:02 PM
|
|
In article
<47934f05-f8e1-4687-b590-af47fc4bee8c@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 8 Dez., 10:41, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So what I'm saying here is that a
> > theory like ZFC is not "Essentially" about mathematics, it is not even
> > a piece of mathematics, it is a LOGICAL theory.
>
> On the contrary, ZFC is a deeply unlogical theory. It requires the
> belief that uncountably many elements can be distinguished whereas
> everybody knows that this is impossible even in ideal mathematics.
> Further in ZFC the sequence
> 21., 2.1, 432.1, 43.21, 6543.21, 654.321, ...
> has the limit < 1.
That is a very curious claim by WM,
but totally unsubstantiated by WM,
and thus, at best, of dubious validity.
Any such proof, if it did exist, would quickly have become notorious
among those, like WM, who dislike ZFC.
So the absence of any evidence of proofs of such a theorem I find to be
entirely convincing evidence of their non-existence.
> In analysis the very same sequence has the
> (improper)imit oo.
Right, for once!
> If analysis is based upon ZFC then we have a contradiction.
Not until WM's claim of what occurs in ZFC can be validated, if ever.
> If analysis is not based upon ZFC then ZFC is irrelevant for
> mathematics.
That need only be true if analysis were the entirety of mathematics,
which it most definitely is not.
Thus again, WM is caught claimig what he cannot deliver.
--
|
|
