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 § 285
Replies: 84   Last Post: Jun 15, 2013 6:05 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 285
Posted: Jun 13, 2013 7:24 PM

mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 23:51:52 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:43:37 PM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de
> > wrote:
> >

> > > On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 18:09:05 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >> Why prove anything else on that obviously broken basis?
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > You haven't proved that! You claim your algorithm is such a proof, But
> > > > it fails.

> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Then name a q or an n where my algorithm fails. Formal proofs based upon
> > > nonsense axioms are not acceptable, since I just disprove this nonsense
> > > formalism and the axioms which it is based upon.

> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Choose any q e Q.
> >
> > For you algorithm to work, we have to be able
> >
> > find a step n_1 where that 1/2 of the rationals
> >
> > less than q are well-ordered, a step n_2 where
> >
> > 2/3 of the rations less than q are well-ordered,
> >
> > and so on for all numbers in form of n/n+1.

>
> Same requirement could be required and not be satisfied in the process of
> enumerating the rationals. Never 2/3 of all rationals less than q are
> enumerated. That's just what I wanted to show.

> >
> > This will never happen in you algorithm,WM's false claim is that a union of well-ordered sets must be well-ordered. It is this provably false assumption on which WM's false argument depends.

WM claims that unioning sequences of well-ordered sets,
for example, unioning {-1}, {-2,-1}, {-3, -2, -1}, ...
will force the resulting infinite union, such as {...,-3, -2, -1}, to be
well-ordered.

To refresh WM's weak memory, an ordered set is only well-ordered when
every of its non-empty subsets has a least/smallest member according to
the overall ordering of the ordered set.

(i.e., every non-empty subset of {...,-3, -2, -1} including {...,-3,
-2, -1} itself must have, at least according to WM's claim, a most
negative member).

To repeat, WM claims that, because it is a union of an increasing
sequnce of well-ordered finite sets, every non-empty subset of {...,-3,
-2, -1}, including the set itself, must have a first/most-negative
member.

I challenge WM to provide us with any first/most-negative member of that
set of all negative integers, { ...,-3, -2, -1}.

Or, for that matter, of any infinite set of negative integers.

> >
> > so you never well-order all rationals in their
> >
> > order of magnitude.

>
> And this will never happen in countaing the rationals. Thanks.

The rationals have been "counted" many times without every becoming
well-ordered in their standard order.
--

Date Subject Author
6/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13 Virgil
6/11/13 JT
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13 Virgil
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13 Virgil
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13 Virgil
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13 Virgil
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/13/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/15/13 Virgil
6/15/13 Tanu R.
6/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/13 Virgil
6/15/13 Virgil
6/14/13 Virgil
6/13/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13 Virgil
6/13/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/13 Virgil
6/11/13 Virgil
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Scott Berg
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/13/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Virgil
6/11/13 LudovicoVan
6/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13 LudovicoVan
6/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Virgil
6/13/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/13 Virgil
6/12/13 Virgil
6/11/13 LudovicoVan
6/11/13 Virgil
6/11/13 Tanu R.
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13 Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13 Virgil
6/11/13 Tanu R.
6/11/13 Virgil
6/11/13 Tanu R.