Virgil
Posts:
9,012
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a not so serious nonmathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 6:18 PM


In article <8d7c949d4cdb472eaeef8a84e6bb6390@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 31 Jan., 10:49, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <2c0c03e1d70b484c997b76bd1397d...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@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. > > Is that your only escape? Call it however you like. Every initial > segment is a fraction  and this is continued without end.
But what makes you think that every sequence of real numbers has limit? > > Imagine I put it as a homework. What is the limit?
When WM can show that (1)^N for n in N has a limit, and every other well defined sequence has a limit, then he may ask again about "the limit" of ((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+.... 

