Virgil
Posts:
7,005
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 4:49 AM


In article <2c0c03e1d70b484c997b76bd1397daa4@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> 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 UTC8, 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 HausdorffBanachTarski. There we start from the statement V > = 1 and find after applying some equivalence relations V = 2.
I am not aware that the BanachTarski model of geometry has ever successfully been imbedded in ZFC.
And until WM can establishes that the BanackTarski 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 nonmatheologian.
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. 

