The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Topic: Matheology § 300
Replies: 27   Last Post: Jul 9, 2013 2:53 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 300
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 4:20 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:

> On Sunday, 7 July 2013 23:45:46 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> >> You rather have proven that you don't know what logic is, and what a proof
> >> is. > Okay, WM Junior, you are saying the infinite should be just like the
> >> finite.

> So said Leibniz and subtracted series with infinite limits.

> > You and WM are the idiots for thinking so.
> Look at this simple piece of logic: If I remove a number ONLY after another
> one has been inserted, then even infinitely many transactions will NEVER show
> an empty set.

WM's excessively finitist WMytheology is far too restrictive and
self-contradictory to allow for a proper analysis of this problem.

Let WM answer this: If every insertion of a natural number into an
initially empty vase before noon is followed by its removal, also before
noon, as is the case here, which natural numbers does WM claim will
remain unremoved at noon?

And until WM can name such a natural number, he has no case.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.