On Dec 8, 4:40 pm, WM <mueck...@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.
ZFC can't even represent the integers. It represents the natural numbers, but fails at the very first generalization of the natural numbers i.e. the integers. Never mind the rationals, irrational, transcendental, imaginary etc. And some say that we can do "all of mathematics" in ZFC??? Every test of dependence of an unanswered question results in ZFC being independent (impotent) of the question. Godel and Cohen wasted years just to prove ZFC can't do dittley-squat.
ZFC is great in one aspect: showing how pitiful published Logic and metamathematics really are. The editors are like Bashar al-Assad dropping chemical weapons on those who disagree with his rule.
The emperor has no clothes. The rulers are as corrupt as the rules of the world - from Bush to al-Assad.
> 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. In analysis the very same sequence has the > (improper)imit oo.http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=12607 > If analysis is based upon ZFC then we have a contradiction. If > analysis is not based upon ZFC then ZFC is irrelevant for mathematics. > > Regards, WM