Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: Matheology § 258
Replies: 29   Last Post: Apr 27, 2013 7:43 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
ross.finlayson@gmail.com

Posts: 1,220
Registered: 2/15/09
Re: Matheology § 258
Posted: Apr 27, 2013 6:47 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Apr 27, 3:12 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7058d749-ce72-4a0e-9dd0-3d82f6554...@s4g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 27 Apr., 21:51, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > No one ever works with actual numbers in mathematics,
> > > they only work with names or numerals for numbers.

>
> > Therefore no one can prove uncountability.
>
> If one had to get hold of actual numbers to do mathematics, there could
> be no mathematics at all.
>
> And it is the axiom system for the field of real numbers which implies
> uncountability, not the naming of numbers.
>
>
>

> > > So why is working only with names a problem?
>
> > That is not a problem in mathematics. It is a problem for
> > matheologians.

>
> A type that exists only in WM's imagination, though he applies the term
> broadly to the vast majority of those whom everyone else calls
> mathematicians.
>
>
>

> > > > Infinite strings do not exist in the internet
>
> > > They do as named objects, as do numbers.
>
> > Yes, but not more than countably many.
>
> The evidence for uncountability does not rely on being able to name
> uncountably many individuals.
>
> There are more things in heaven and earth, WM ,than are dreamt of in
> your philosophy.
> --


But, didn't you just dream of them in your philosophy? Or, is your
theory incomplete, or inconsistent?

Having just put a name on all of them, congratulations: there's
more. Basically Burali-Forti: Ord is irregular.

Well-order the reals, via Fefermann V = L, the universe as
constructible has for each element: that's its own name. Are the
reals a set?

The evidence for uncountability relies largely on constructive
proofs. And, the arguments for uncountability of the reals don't
apply to EF the natural/unit equivalency function.

Arguments for uncountability of the reals don't apply to EF: putting
the elements of the unit interval in a row, while satisfying notions
such as continuity, has range R_[0,1].

Bring forth applications of transfinite cardinals. EF has application
as the unit line segment.


Regards,

Ross Finlayson



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.