
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 UTC8, 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 HausdorffBanachTarski. 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 nonmatheologian.
> > 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

