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: § 531 What does § 529 show us?
Replies: 22   Last Post: Jul 30, 2014 3:23 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Ralf Bader Posts: 488 Registered: 7/4/05
Re: § 531 What does § 529 show us?
Posted: Jul 26, 2014 2:41 PM

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:29:41 -0700, mueckenh wrote:

> On Saturday, 26 July 2014 17:09:10 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:21:02 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de
>> wrote:
>>

>> > On Saturday, 26 July 2014 03:25:23 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>>
>> > > On Friday, July 25, 2014 2:09:24 PM UTC-7,
>> > > muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

>>
>> > > > On Friday, 25 July 2014 19:35:11 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>>
>>

>> >
>> > > > > Actually, AC Allows us to Perform Operation Without
>> > > > > Distinguishing them.

>>
>>

>> >
>> > > > Please perform operation.
>>
>>

>> >
>> > > I don't have Game of "Operation" with me now.
>>
>> > > So, maybe later.
>>
>> That's was a joke.

>
> You never said anything else. For instance here:

>>
>> The Guy who thinks A(x e N)f(x) = c implies f(N) = c,

>
> f(N) is your last hope? I never claimed it, neither did Cantor. Clown
> Martin did, but it is blatant nonsense.

No. You are too stupid to understand him.

> I claim that for every natural
> number that may be used to index a rational number we have infinitely
> many rationals numbers not indexed.
>
> I can even prove this: For every k in |N there exists an n0 in |N such
> that for every n > n0 the complete interval (n-k, n] c s_n.

And I can enumerate the rationals such that, for any even n, q_n = n-1/2.
Which means that, for even n, n-1/2 !e s_n, so a fortiori (n-k, n] !c s_n.
For other enumerations of the rationals your assertion is true. But in
any case it is irrelevant. Of course after "the first n rationals have
been enumerated" there remain infinitely many "not yet" enumerated and
infinitely many naturals "not yet used".

> Try to
> figure out what this means.

It means that again you vomited idiotic nonsense.

> The number of undefiled unit intervals (n,
> n+1] increases to every desired value,
> 10^100000000000000^10000000000000000, if we like. No chance for fools of
> matheology to convince any sober mind.

The "sober mind" would first of all note that he has no idea about the
subject, and he may leave it at that. Otherwise he has to learn something
and then he would realize that you are just babbling idiotic nonsense.

Date Subject Author
7/27/14 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/27/14 Jeff S.
7/27/14 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/27/14 Virgil
7/27/14 Jeff S.
7/27/14 Virgil
7/27/14 Brian Q. Hutchings
7/28/14 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/28/14 Virgil
7/29/14 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/29/14 Virgil
7/29/14 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/29/14 Jeff S.
7/29/14 Virgil
7/29/14 Virgil
7/30/14 Virgil
7/30/14 Tucsondrew@me.com
7/27/14 Virgil
7/27/14 Tucsondrew@me.com