|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 3:15 AM
|
|
On 31 Jan., 01:51, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> david petry <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:58:25 PM UTC-8, Toni...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> How in the world can a serious MATHEMATICIAN _claim_ that something written in a book/paper has proved "once and for all" that so and so and then, later, he whines he has no expertise, interest and etc. in the paper/book's claims TO DO SO??
>
> > The word "proof" has two meanings:
>
> > 1) Informally, a proof is a compelling argument using the
> > intuitively understood reasoning that we have acquired from our
> > experience in the real world. It is entirely possible that that
> > intuitively understood reasoning has never been completely and
> > accurately formalized.
>
> > 2) A purely formal construct that is inspired by the informal notion
> > of proof but may not be an entirely accurate model of that informal
> > notion.
>
> > When we debate the question of whether ZFC has accurately captured
> > our intuitive notion of what a proof is, we must rely on the first
> > definition. It is reasonable for mathematicians to get involved in
> > such a debate.
>
> WM has bigger fish to fry.
>
> He thinks that he's proved ZF is inconsistent,
Why depend on my arguments? ZFC, at least, has been proven
inconsistent, if 2 is not 1.
Remember Hausdorff-Banach-Tarski. There we start from the statement V
= 1 and find after applying some equivalence relations V = 2.
Thereby it is completely irrelevant whether "unmeasurable point sets"
are involved or not. What counts is simply the first and the second
statement. Therefore ZFC has been proven inconsistent already - at
least for every sober non-matheologian.
>
> I don't know if that's what he's doing on p. 112, mind you, but at
> least sometimes, he is presenting what he mistakenly believes is a
> valid, mathematical proof.
I apply the rule that in mathematics identical exercises have to yield
identical results.
In analysis the continued fraction
((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+...
with the approximations
1
0,1
10,1
1,01
101,01
10,101
1010,101
101,0101
...
has the (improper) limit oo. In ZFC the sequence yields the limit < 1.
Everybody who is not wearing blinkers can recognize here that ZFC is
not compatible with mathematics. Small wonder that a sober
mathematician accepts that argument until he is reminded, after a
while, by some colleagues that they are of different opinion and he is
not a recognized expert of matheology.
Regards, WM
|
|
