|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 3:34 AM
|
|
On 31 Jan., 01:58, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <397a90fb-2e3e-411f-ae40-2365cadd1...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > I have developed a new proof-technique, namely proof by ignorance
>
> That is hardly new for Wolkenmuekenheim, but has been the ONLY standard
> there for years.
Thinks are easy if things are easy.
Consider a box with a dozen different pralines. If I take three out of
the boxh and return it to you, you can decide which I did not take out
by looking at the remaining ones.
Consider a Binary Tree. When I remove or colour some paths, you can
decide which are remaining by looking at the uncoloured paths.
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/GU/GU12c.PPT#361,34,Folie 34
And finally consider a Binary Tree with uncountably many paths. When I
colour a countable set of paths, then you have to decide by looking at
the remainings which paths have survived.
And since you do not see anything, you have to show your true colours,
namely either confess that your idea of uncountability with respect to
the Binary Tree was wrong, or show that you are a determined
matheologian who is not able to learn.
Regards, WM
|
|
