Virgil
Posts:
4,674
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 4:49 AM
|
|
In article
<2c0c03e1-d70b-484c-997b-76bd1397daa4@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.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 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.
--
|
|
