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: 8   Last Post: Aug 14, 2014 1:33 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,972
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: § 534 Finis
Posted: Aug 13, 2014 3:45 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply writes:

> On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 00:53:41 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> > Could you please let us know what in the proof of § 533 deviates from
>> > classical mathematics or at least mathematics as you understand it?

Why did you not answer the point I raised, having invited it in the
first place? Is it because you can't? Your post "deviates from
classical mathematics" by not making use of the fact that

exists x c Q+: not(x c image(b))

is false as a direct consequence of facts you have already agreed to.
Why pretend to care what people think, when you have no intention of
answering the tough questions?

>> As I've said before, I have not problem with the theorem
>> in 533.

> Because you don't understand its implications: All natural numbers are
> shown to leave infinitely many rationals without index in Cantor's
> asserted complete bijection.

How curious that you can't write that out as a theorem, but instead have
to imply it:

"Everybody may impartially examine himself whether he is willing to
believe that nevertheless all rational numbers can be enumerated."

Why did you not prove the theorem that you really want: all rationals
can not be enumerated? That's easy to answer: because you can't write
it out without letting people know what you mean (or, possibly, because
you can't write it out at all). You have to prove a rather trivial
theorem instead, and invite people to speculate on the implications
where in fact there are none.


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.