Virgil
Posts:
4,491
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 210
Posted:
Feb 8, 2013 6:01 PM
|
|
In article
<e923642a-deb1-495b-ab6b-ba97502f2db9@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 8 Feb., 23:05, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <43d2d64e-7641-4f96-bbe6-59fe20991...@e11g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 8 Feb., 12:13, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > > > > On 7 Feb., 20:17, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> 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?
>
> Vice versa. Brouwer had a position inconsistent with Hilbert's
> mathematics. Therefore he was fired.
Once he was fired, what further force could Hilbert, or anyone else,
exert on him, to make him change his mind?
>
>
> > > 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".
>
> It is simple to prove it in mathematics. Every term of the sequence
> 2^n is finite. And there is no infinite level.
Every f 2^n is exceeded by most others so there cannot be a last member,
which requires more than any finite number of finite levels.
What term or terms does WM want to use for
"more than any finite number finite levels"?
> >
> > And uncountable does not mean more that infinitely many, but only more
> > that countably many. Infinite includes both countable and uncountable.
>
> That is purest nonsense .
It beats hell out of WM's grossly impure and mathematically incoherent
nonsense.
--
|
|
