The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 210
Replies: 24   Last Post: Feb 12, 2013 1:12 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 210
Posted: Feb 8, 2013 5:05 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
WM <> wrote:

> On 8 Feb., 12:13, Alan Smaill <> wrote:
> > WM <> writes:
> > > On 7 Feb., 20:17, William Hughes <> wrote:
> > ...
> > >> In classical set theory the accessible numbers are listable
> >
> > >> Note from the Wikipedia quote
> >
> > >> > Constructively it is consistent to assert the
> > >> > subcountability of some uncountable collections

> >
> > > Of course, the intuitionists accepted this nonsense, perhaps forced by
> > > the matheologians.

> >
> > What a joker!
> >
> > You tell us that you do not know Brouwer's opinion on this question,
> > but here you are telling us what intuitionists accept.

> I know Brouwer's opinion very well But I do not discuss with you about
> that opinionb because you turn every word in my mouth.

That words seem to turn in WM's mouth does not man that anyone other
than WM himself is responsible for such turnings.

> > WM is inconsistent.
> >
> > As for intuitionists being "forced" into taking up a
> > position inconsistent with classical mathematics by classical
> > mathematicians ...
> > a classic absurdity.

> No. Hilbert fired Brouwer from his most prestigious position with the
> Annalen.

How would that force Brouwer into taking up a position INCONSISTENT with
classical mathematics? For someone weaker than Brouwer it might well
have forced that persons to ACCEPT the consistency of classical
mathematics, but certainly not the reverse.

WM's think tank has sprung another leak.

> That is only one example. The matheologians are in possession
> of the academic keys. To tell them the truth can be very dangerous for
> a man who is young and striving for an academic carrer. I am not in
> danger to loose my post, although some special guys like Bader or
> Rennenkampf have in fact revealed the abyys of their stupend stupidity
> by fighting in written letters for my dismissal.
> And here is a not very important but very interesting example: In
> MathOverflow I am not welcome. Everything is immediately deleted.
> Therefore, in June 2010 I put a question under cover.
> mber-begin-and-when-did-it-end-closed
> This question got several positive votes, more than 2k views, and a
> very good answer. It remained open for 9 month.
> Why has it been closed? On April 28, 2011 I reveiled my authorship

And now everyone reviles it?

Once one has earned as bad a reputation as you apparently have earned
there, it may take a long time for that reputation to fade.

> They most aggressively suppress every deviating opinion.

> Could an intelligent man or woman who observes that all levels of the
> Binary Tree are crossed by a finite number of distinct paths really
> believe that there are uncountably many, where uncountable means much
> more than infinitely many?

While each "level" individually may be only finitely crossed, it is
wrong, or at least deliberately misleading, to say that all of
infinitely many of them are collectively only "finitely crossed".

And uncountable does not mean more that infinitely many, but only more
that countably many. Infinite includes both countable and uncountable.

At least outside WMytheology.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.