Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 5:40 PM
|
|
In article
<09df559c-e16c-4d88-8b9f-8b5e1a7f1248@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.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 non-matheologians.
Unfortunately it is fact that the gang of WMytheologians is active
around the world and try to exert force upon non-WMytheologians.
> >
> > 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 non-members 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.
--
|
|
