Virgil
Posts:
6,993
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 5:40 PM


In article <09df559ce16c4d888b9f8b5e1a7f1248@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 31 Jan., 16:35, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@math.okstate.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:30:12 0800 (PST), david petry > > > Because people here don't object to his "philosophy". > > To "prove, once and for all" is not *philosophy*.
WM has yet to "prove, once and for all" anything that mathematicians in genera, those free from the corruptions of WMytheology, do not accept.
> Unfortunately it is fact that the gang of matheologians is active > around the world and try to exert force upon nonmatheologians.
Unfortunately it is fact that the gang of WMytheologians is active around the world and try to exert force upon nonWMytheologians.
> > > > The problem is that WM's version of the technical > > details is always nonsense. > > From the standpoint of a nutcake every cake without nuts is nonsense. > Try to follow the discussion here and learn, if you can, what you have > missed hitherto.
We have also managed to miss many other of the world's ills, but do not feel bereft because of it. > > It is possible to colour the complete infinite Binary Tree by > colouring a countable set of paths. Therefore it is impossible to > distinguish more than countably many paths by infinite sequences of > digits (here is a small gap in the argument, but you should be able to > conclude from binary paths on decimal representations).
Every such countably infinite set of such paths proves existnce of at least as many nonmembers as members by the very proof of its countability. > > > His arguments about > > binary trees are simply _wrong_. Wrong in basic > > simply ways, > > alas, you cannot point to any mistake.
Those who are willfully blind, as WM is, will fail to see what everyone else cannot avoid seeing. 

