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: ? 533 Proof
Replies: 46   Last Post: Aug 4, 2014 8:39 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 640
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: ? 533 Proof
Posted: Aug 2, 2014 5:34 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply drivels and drivels:

> On Saturday, 2 August 2014 22:54:24 UTC+2, Martin Shobe wrote:

>> Less unambiguously, you can show that every finite initial segment of N
>> is not sufficient.

> And *if there is more in |N* than every finite initial segment,
> then the limit shows that even this "more" is not sufficient.

In N there is every IFS+N - same way that there is in every proper
segment in R there is another whole R.

> But who would confess his belief that |N contains more than every finite natural number (tantamount to every finite segment)? He would become ridiculous in mathematics because he cannot answer what this "more" should be.

More is just N because N = any IFS + N.

>> Therefore you must believe in something unmathematical.
>> What's unmathematical about thinking that N isn't a finite initial
>> segment of N.

> You are trying to cheat again and again.

And you are not trying BUT YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

> |N is not a finite initial segments but all finite initials segments or numbers.


> What else?

As many as you want as long they are below the number of 2^N (power set).

>>> It follows from the proof that every natural numbers fails. Enough for a mathematician.
>> Go ahead and prove that "the rationals cannot be enumerated by the
>> naturals" follows from "The number of unit intervals, each one
>> containing infinitely many rationals without index =< n, increases
>> infinitely".

> No problem. The fact already that you are trying to cheat would make every objective reader suspicious.


>>> For that "proof" you have to assume that every is tantamount with all. This, however, is a very naive way of thinking that infinite sets can
>> be exhausted like finite sets.
>> It's still proven.

> It is proven to be very naive.

Because you are not.

> A proof is a convincing argument.

And it needs to be formally RIGHT.

> Your argument will not convince anybody
> without matheological indoctrination
> when being contrasted with mine.


> Regards, WM

Fuck off, disusting person.

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.