On Dec 28, 5:13 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <01f18004-18e2-429a-b93b-bbbde1129...@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com>, > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hancher, the "puke parrot" bit is largely for comedic effect, yes it > > seems clear that you do actually read the attempts of others to > > develop frameworks and structures of what would be developments in > > mathematics, but it is as well clear that you definitely have a > > penchant for tearing down said arguments without building them up. > > It is the duty of every mathematician to tear down such bad mathematics > as is thrust upon him or her. > > And both you and WM thrust a lot of it here. > --
Cantor's nested intervals theorem <-> Finlayson's EF as counterexample Cantor's antidiagonal argument <-> Finlayson's EF as counterexample continued fractions <-> Finlayson's EF as counterexample Cantor's indicator function theorem <-> Finlayson's symmetrical mapping as counterexample Zuhair's binary tree theorem <-> Finlayson's BT = EF as counterexample Cantor's powerset theorem <-> Finlayson's powerset as order type as successor construction, and a dialetheic ur-element Russell's negated correlates <-> Finlayson's note on statement of structurally true languages irrationals uncountable <-> Finlayson's "A function surjects the rationals onto the irrationals"
I've been busy. And, that's not bad mathematics.
Now, I am very interested in:
a) results standardly establishing uncountability b) applications solely due transfinite cardinals
Basically, that's with the notion that this symmetry between limit ordinals has particular results for the diagonal arguments and may well be a general consideration about them, and particularly a generally unique result about them, and then, that applications solely due transfinite cardinals would be of incredible interest for the possibility they might advance science in, say, physics.