In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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: > >
> > > > 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.
I am not aware that the Banach-Tarski model of geometry has ever successfully been imbedded in ZFC.
And until WM can establishes that the Banack-Tarski theorem can be stated and proven in ZFC, it poses no problem to ZFC, and even then would pose no problem in ZF. > > 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.
Meaning only in Wolkenmuekenheim. > > > > > 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)+...
That does not appear to be in the form of a continued fraction at all.
a1 + 1/(a2 + 1/(a3+ 1/(a4 + 1/(...))) is the form of continued fraction that we use here. --