none3
Posts:
437
Registered:
12/4/04


Re: ? 533 Proof
Posted:
Aug 3, 2014 12:22 AM


In article <lrk472$ahe$1@dontemail.me>, Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/2014 4:19 PM, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.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
I note that the frequently posted proof that Q is wellorderable and that such a wellordering of Q does precisely what WM claims is impossible, is something to which WM is careful not to reply to.

