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:
Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Replies:
77
Last Post:
Mar 19, 2013 11:02 PM



Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 15, 2013 2:58 PM


In article <dbcefa81f04543af915219b87c9db590@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 15 Mrz., 02:51, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > > I'll pass on discussing this with you. I've had my fill of debating > > anything with you for a while. > > Your decision. Quite understandable. > > Nevertheless readers should know that the ZFaxiom of extensionality > requires a technique to identify (= distinguish from others) every > element of a set.
Misrepresentation, as usual! Such member by member identification is only required in determining whether two set descriptions describe the same set, which can often be done without a specific identification of any individual member of either set.
For example, as subsets of the reals, the set of prime naturals and the set of positive prime integers are provably the same set without having to identify (= distinguish from others) any individual element of either set description.
> For nonmaterial elements this means labelling (by > names, words, definitions).
It did not in the example above require the labelling (by names, words, definitions) of any individual member of either set discription.
> Since it is impossible for all elements of > an uncountable set we have a contradiction.
Except WM's alleged contradiction is seem above to depend on the truth of a demonstrably false claim.
***********************************************************************
WM has frequently claimed that a mapping from the set of all infinite binary sequences to the set of paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping. In order to show that such a mapping is a linear mapping, WM must first show that the set of all binary sequences is a vector space and that the set of paths of a CIBT is also a vector space, which he has not done and apparently cannot do, and then show that his mapping satisfies the linearity requirement that f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y), where a and b are arbitrary members of a field of scalars and x and y are f(x) and f(y) are vectors in suitable linear spaces.
By the way, WM, what are a, b, ax, by and ax+by when x and y are binary sequences?
If a = 1/3 and x is binary sequence, what is ax ? and if f(x) is a path in a CIBT, what is af(x)?
Until these and a few other issues are settled, WM will still have failed to justify his claim of a LINEAR mapping from the set (but not yet proved to be vector space) of binary sequences to the set (but not yet proved to be vector space) of paths ln a CIBT.
Just another of WM's many wild claims of what goes on in his WMytheology that he cannot back up. 



