Virgil
Posts:
6,972
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Joel David Hamkins on definable real numbers in analysis
Posted:
Jun 22, 2013 11:45 PM


In article <d3df916a4cb848b094e84dcf9598e46d@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> 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.
Unless and until WM can show that that result does not follow from the assumptions on which it was based, which WM has not yet done, the "proof" remains a valid deduction from those assumptions and WM remains the liar.
> 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.
That proof, as every claimed proof outside of WM, is based on certain assumptions which WM has to disprove before he can claim to have falsified the conclusions of the proof.
AS yet, WM has not disproved any of the assumptions on which Zermelo's proof was based.
> A blatant lie! And in addition an intentional lie.
WM is not in a position to criticize anyone else for committing blatant and intentional lies, when he so often has done the same thing himself.
> > Over a century of lies, perversion, and nonsense.
Which alleged record WM himself has vastly exceeded in only a few years.
>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. But the union of any and every set of infinitely many FISONs contains every natural that is in even one FISON. And every natural is in infinitely many FISONs.
Even though WM claims that the union of the set of all FISONs does not contain every natural that is in any FISON, outsdide of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology it is the truth.
In order for WM's claims to be true, there would have to be at least one natural that is not in any FISON.
So which natural would that be WM? 

