Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 200
Replies: 40   Last Post: Jan 29, 2013 7:33 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 15,340
Registered: 1/29/05
Matheology § 200
Posted: Jan 26, 2013 3:24 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



Matheology § 200

We know that the real numbers of set theory are very different from
the real numbers of analysis, at least most of them, because we cannot
use them. But it seems, that also the natural numbers of analysis 1,
2, 3, ... are different from the cardinal numbers 1, 2, 3, ...

This is a result of the story of Tristram Shandy, mentioned briefly in
§ 077 already, who, according to Fraenkel and Levy ["Abstract Set
Theory" (1976), p. 30] "writes his autobiography so pedantically that
the description of each day takes him a year. If he is mortal he can
never terminate; but if he lived forever then no part of his biography
would remain unwritten, for to each day of his life a year devoted to
that day's description would correspond."

This result is counter-intuitive, but set theory needs the feature of
completeness for the enumeration of all rational numbers. If not all
could be enumerated, the same cardinality of |Q and |N could not be
proved.

However recently a formal contradiction with the corresponding limit
of real analysis could be shown:
http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=12607
and here
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/medium/download/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/publikationen/forschungsbericht_2012.pdf
on p. 242 - 244
The limit of remaining unwritten days is infinite according to
analysis whereas Fraenkel's story is approved by set theory.

Nevertheless, matheologians deny every contradiction. One of them,
Michael Greinecker (as a self-proclaimed watchdog, and bouncer in
MathOverflow
http://meta.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1296/crank-post-to-flag-as-spam/#Item_0
an interbreeding of Tomás de Torquemada and Lawrenti Beria) stated:
"there is no contradiction. Just a somewhat surprising result. And
there is no a apriory reason why one should be able to plug in
cardinal numbers in arithmetic formulas for real numbers and get a
sensible result."
This means the finite positive integers differ significantly from
the finite positive cardinals or, as Cantor called them, the finite
positive integers. Well, maybe, sometimes evolution yields strange
results. But if they differ, how can set theory any longer be
considered to be the basis of analysis?

Regards, WM

For recent paragraphs of matheology look here:
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf


Date Subject Author
1/26/13
Read Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: WMatheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: WMatheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: WMatheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
William Hughes
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
William Hughes
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
William Hughes
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
William Hughes
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
William Hughes
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
William Hughes
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/28/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/28/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/28/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/29/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/29/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
J. Antonio Perez M.
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology § 200
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/27/13
Read Re: Matheology � 200
Virgil

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.