Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


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


Re: Matheology 203
Posted:
Feb 6, 2013 4:16 PM


In article <c0bf26e767c74ba596886374fefd4f48@ia3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 6 Feb., 17:41, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Unlike WM? Did I deny that??? > > > > You inserted in the quote "{{eg numbers like 0.9999...}}", which is > > seriously misleading. > > Sorry. But it is a well known fact that for every finite period there > is a base in which this period can be expressed as a single symbol. > > > > Thus your quote in no way contradicts Ralf Bader's observation  > > Brouwer in no way supports your claim that "There is no sensible way of > > saying that 0.111... is more than every FIS". > > > > In fact Brouwer says the opposite here  0.1111... is created, > > and it is *distinct* from any finite sequence. > > It is distinct, but it is not definable by creating it. Simply *try* > it. You must fail. Brouwer has been bisased by the general opinion > that 0.111... in fact is an infinite sequence. Nevertheless it is > wrong. But it has lasted several years until I have recognized it. > Let's see how long it will take you.
At least twice as long as it will take to get parallel lines to meet. > > > > > Of course. That's why no uncoutable sets exist.
But that only holds in WMytheology. And Brouwer doesn't live there. > > > > Brouwer did not believe that all infinte sets are countable  > > your claims in that direction are simply false. > > I don't know what Brouwer believed. I know what he wrote: Cantor's 2nd > number class does not exist. > > > > >> And in van Dalen, p 118, a letter from Brouwer summarising his thesis: > > >> "I can formulate: > > >> 1. Actual infinite sets can be created mathematically, even > > >> though in the practical applications of mathematics in the world > > >> only finite sets exist." > > > > > Brouwer obviously had not the correct understanding of what actual > > > infinity is, at least when writing that letter. Errare humanum est. > > > > I venture to suggest that Brouwer had a better grasp > > of these matters than yourself. > > Maybe. But may also be that you have not a good grasp of his grasp.
But Alan's grasp of Brouwer is still both finitely and infinitely better than WM's. > > Regards, WM 



