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 ]
Martin Shobe

Posts: 1,469
Registered: 3/11/12
Re: ? 533 Proof
Posted: Aug 2, 2014 9:45 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 8/2/2014 4:19 PM, mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> 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.


This is ambiguous. Do you mean "Every finite initial segment is a proper
subset of N.", or "There is something in N that isn't in at least one
initial segment."?

In either case, your argument doesn't show that there are no bijections
between N and Q+.

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

Nothing else is in N. But you were the one who labeled thinking that N
isn't a finite initial segment of N as unmathematical. I just want to
know what you think is unmathematical about it.

>>> 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.

I notice that your attempt to prove it is an ad hominem.

>>> 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.

Whatever your opinion is, it's still proven.

> A proof is a convincing argument. Your argument will not convince anybody without matheological indoctrination when being contrasted with mine.

So you don't know what a proof (in mathematics) is. That explains a lot.

Martin Shobe




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.