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

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 ]
Virgil

Posts: 10,821
Registered: 6/8/11
Re: � 534 Finis
Posted: Aug 8, 2014 11:56 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <de985f2b-fef8-4590-b3a6-b07041399916@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Thursday, 7 August 2014 17:40:44 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> >
> > > I think the following: For all natural numbers I have shown that
> > > uncounted rationals remain.

> >
> > All Natural Numbers are Finite, too.
> >
> > Is N Finite?

>
> If infinity can be finished, then N is ""all natural numbers. I have assumed
> that and have shown that then rationals remain uncounted.




AS usual, WM's claimed proofs are not valid anywhere outside of
WM's worthless world of WMytheology.

While proofs valid in all standard mathematics that the SET of ALL
rationals can be well-ordered order-isomorphically to the SET of ALL
naturals (neither of which can exist as sets in WM's worthless world
of WMytheology) are valid everywhere outside of WM's worthless world
of WMytheology.

> But since it is
> impossible to identify remaining rationals


All of them are identifiable in standard mathematics, and none elude
well-ordering by

Once again, since WM is having so much trouble understanding it:

Each member of Q has UNIQUE representation as m/n, with m being an
integer, n being a positive integer, and with m and n having no common
factor greater than 1.
Order them by increasing values of abs(m)+n, and within equal values of
abs(m)+n by increasing values of m, if any.
Note that for positive m, m/1 has successor -(m+1)/1.
For any other form, m/n will have successor of form
(m + k)/(n - k) for some natural k with 0 < k < n.
This is a well-ordering of Q with a first rational, 0/1, and for each
rational a uniquely defined successor rational, and with no rationals
left out.
Thus each rational is now enumerated by the natural number marking its
position in the above well-ordering, everywhere outside of WM's
worthless world of WMytheology.

> the original assumption has been
> contradicted.



WM can contradict all he wants, but he alwasy fails yo prove his
conradictions valid anywhere in the wide wide world of mathematics
outside of WM's wee worthless world of WMytheology


> well established as reliable from hundreds of years of mathematics.)
> Therefore finished infinity has been contradicted. "All natural numbers" is a
> meaningless notion.


Not anywhere as meaningless as WM's wee worthless world of
WMytheology,






> So we must say: N contains every natural number. Since
> there is not a largest one, N is without end, we call it endless or infinite




> Correct, since there are not "all natural numbers".

Then WM must have been extraordinlarilyy careless with them the inside
his WM's worthless world of WMytheology since outside that worthless
world of WMytheology they are still all accounted for in N.

And until WM has produced and posted as complete and coherent a set of
axioms for his idiot version of a set theory as ZF or ZFC are for
standard set theories, he is in no positon to make claims about what
must hold or not hold in any such theory.

Put up or shut up!
--
Virgil
"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 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.