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 § 293
Replies: 44   Last Post: Jun 27, 2013 2:25 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 FredJeffries@gmail.com Posts: 1,845 Registered: 11/29/07
Re: WMytheology § 293
Posted: Jun 20, 2013 1:34 PM

On Jun 20, 9:40 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 20 Jun., 17:10, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Jun 20, 3:09 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > But, abracadabra, if you union the results of infinitely many unions,
> > > then you get the missing aleph_0 numbers.

>
> > No. You do not do infinitely many unions. That is nonsense.
>
> > You do ONE union.
>
> You seem to have not yet understood. But I  enjoy to explain it again,
> and again, and again, ...  because the story is incredible.
>
> Every set of the sequence
>
> 1,
> 1, 2
> 1, 2, 3
> ...
>
> is the union of all its predecessors and its last {n}.
>
> There are infinitely many sets, so there are infinitely many unions.
>
> None of these infinitely many unions yields |N, although every union
>
> After you pause, exhausted, since you failed to get |N but got only
> sets which a lacking aleph_0 natural numbers, you pray and do a last
> union.

A union of WHAT? You can't do a union unless you have a set of sets.
You
do not -- you only have a "sequence of sets". A sequence is not a set.
Speaking of taking the union of a sequence is gibberish. Treating a
sequence of sets as a set of sets is the work of a chowderhead, a
clown
or a charlatan.

If you "form" the set of elements of this sequence, then you do indeed
have something new supplied: the set of elements of the sequence.

But you muddle sets and sequences and sets of sets and sequences of
sets
and sequences of sequences of sets and output nonsense and announce
that
all wisdom begins with you.

Salt has a superficial resemblance to sugar so by your methods it
makes
no difference which I put in my coffee and which I put on my steak.

> This last union cannot supply anything new, because the union
> of a set with its subsets cannot yield a larger set. (And we know,
> none of the sets is |N. All sets are subsets of one set. Each of the
> sets is infinitely far away from being |N.) But your prayer has been
> accepted. The last union, you would not believe it, yields |N.
>
> I love this story!
>
> Regards, WM