Virgil
Posts:
4,480
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a not so serious non-mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 6:18 PM
|
|
In article
<8d7c949d-4cdb-472e-aeef-8a84e6bb6390@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 31 Jan., 10:49, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2c0c03e1-d70b-484c-997b-76bd1397d...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > WM <mueck...@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.
>
> 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)+....
--
|
|
