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: § 534 Finis
Replies: 30   Last Post: Feb 22, 2015 8:14 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 10,821
Registered: 6/8/11
Re: � 534 Finis
Posted: Aug 6, 2014 2:24 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:

> On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 17:15:26 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:49:59 AM UTC-7,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >

> > > Up to every desired n and q_n. Alas they belong to a finite initial
> > > segment. Infinitely many follow. The infinite is never completed.

> >
> >
> >
> > You try to Show a Contradiction in Set Theory

> I have shown a contradiction between set theory and mathematics.

WM has only shown conflicts between set theory and WM's worthless
world of WMytheology. But as no one but WM ever uses WMytheology , WM
is the onyone ever upset by it.

Between standard set theories like ZF or ZFC and standard mathematics
(free of any WMytheology) there is no such conflict at all.

That WM pretends that his own wild weird wacky worthless world of
WMytheology really is proper mathematics does not make it so.

> > so you take True Statements and Mix them with False Statements. In Set
> > Theory, there does Not Exist any Infinite Sets that are Not "Complete".
> > There simply ARE Infinite Sets. We Understand that you do Not like this
> > Concept, but it is No way in Contradiction with the Other Axioms. You are
> > free to Use a System with No Infinite Sets.

> Set theorists cannot be convinced by me

Mathemtaicians, whether nfintists or finitists, cannot be convinced by
WM's claims because so many of his claims are false in both worlds.

> Uncountability is a consequence of completeness of countable sets.

It is a conequnce of the "completeness" of all sets.
A set does not exist without an unambigous criterion for membership in
it. WM's abiguous creations whose membership criteria are intentionally
vague do not qualify. er

> Many set
> theorists don't like to know that in set theory infinity sets have to be
> complete.

Just of unambiguous membership. If ever one cannot tell whether some
well-defined x is a member of y or not then y is not a set.
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

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.