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 16, 2013 5:31 PM


In article <131116fe780043398285f54c32cb4473@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 16 Mrz., 15:42, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 3:06 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > A name is a finite sequence of letters that two or more persons have > > > agreed upon to be used for a given object. This object may be material > > > or immaterial. > > > > How typically chauvinistic of you. > > Why? i did not say it must be an German name.
Your WMytheology is far more chauvinistic than your Germanness. > > > > So my granddaughter is not naming when she points to a dog and utters > > a certain sound which no one can write down but we can mimic. > > If at least one other person understands, then she is naming the dog. > But material objects need not be named, Showing, pointing etc, is > sufficient  contrary to immaterial objects like numbers. > > > > So Socrates never named anything. > > > > So most of the human beings who have ever lives never named anything. > > You try delibertely to misunderstand.
WM makes it far too easy to misunderstand, if fact he is frequently almost impossible not to misunderstand.
> Is that why you have no > arguments to defend matheology  that nonsense that you sell as > mathematics? >
It is our mathematics, which you mislabel a something else, which dominates in the current world of mathematics, and the sort which you are perpetually purveying, but are too poor a mathematician to sell, which is in the extreme minority.
***********************************************************************
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. 



