Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: Matheology � 258
Replies: 53   Last Post: May 11, 2013 10:07 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 258
Posted: May 8, 2013 4:53 PM

In article
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 8 Mai, 21:45, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > On 8 Mai, 04:16, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > U {i=1,...,k} FISON(n_i) = FISON(m) where m = max{n_1, n_2, ..., n_k}
> >
> > > > But this identity breaks down when the index set does not have a maximal
> > > > element.

> >
> > > Or if the devil really exists.
> >
> > So that WM is claiming that for any set ofd naturals there must be a
> > maximal  member?

>
> Forget it! You will never understand what potential or real or
> possible or mathematical infinity means.

Certainly not as exemplified in WMytheology,
as there they are beyond comprehension.

But I understand standard mathematics well enough to both read and
critique proofs, and on occasion create proofs that are valid in
standard mathematics, both talents being missing to all known occupants
of Wolkenmuekenheim.

For example, WM claimed the standard mapping from the set of all binary
sequences to the set of paths of a Complete Infinite Binary Tree was a
real-linear mapping, which I disproved.

And then proved that that mapping could be made linear if one took the
field of scalars to be the finite field of two elements.

Thus demonstrating WM's incompetence at honest mathematics.
--