
Re: Joel David Hamkins on definable real numbers in analysis
Posted:
Jun 22, 2013 5:14 PM


On Saturday, 22 June 2013 20:35:16 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> In the last hundred years there have been great advances in Logic
O yes, very similar to the advances in Sodom and Gomrrha short before destruction. Undefinable numbers, uncountable alphabets, unspeakable languages.
> For example, ZFC and ZF + AD. Mathematicians us both of these systems, since they relate to different problems.
They relate to no problems. Why have modern logicians such a bad reputation in all serious sciences? Because they are known to accomplish nothing  like a very bad streetlamp, which enlightens only its own lamppost and nothing else.
> Neither one is "Right" or "Wrong".
Zermelo's proof that every set *can* be wellordered is wrong. A proof that every set has a wellordering or that "every set exists as a wellordered set" would be different. But he did explicitly prove that every set can be wellordered. A blatant lie! And in addition an intentional lie. Otherwise he simply could have used the claim / axiom: There exists a wellorder for every set. But that would be easy to recognize as false claim.
> >> You see: Not the present Fools and Cranks of logic are speaking here, but a profound expert of logic. >
> Whose ideas have been amended and surpassed by over a century of research.
Over a century of lies, perversion, and nonsense. Such that the pupils of this mess cannot even recognize that every FISON is finite and the union of a set with its subsets cannot yield more than the set. Regards, WM

