Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 200
Posted: Jan 26, 2013 6:04 PM

In article
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 26 Jan., 23:32, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>

> > > Aside: Of course this nonsense shows already that set theory is such.
> > > A limit is  the continuation of the finite into the infinite. But that
> > > is not used in my proof.

> >
> > I know of no such definition of any limit process.

>
> That does not prove anything.

Unless you can prove your claim it does.
> >
>
> >
> > > You are not well informed. Read my proof again (and again, if
> > > necessary, until you will have understood, if possible): In analysis
> > > you calculate the limit. This limit contains numbers or (in the
> > > reduced case of my proof) bits 0 and 1. The number of theses bits is
> > > the cardinality of the limit.

> >
> > Then, according to WM,  lim_(n -> oo) 1/n must have infinitely many bits.

>
> Of course, for instance if written as the seqeunce that here is
> abbreviated as 1 - 0.999... or as 0.000...

But WM does not allow infinitely many bits in Wolkenmuekenheim.

So perhaps WM does occasionally venture into the real world.
--