Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: § 534 Finis
Replies: 4   Last Post: Aug 14, 2014 2:35 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: 1,518
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

mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de writes:

> On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 17:02:30 UTC+2, Martin Shobe wrote:
<snip>
>> Yet from that you conclude, "No enumeration with Q+ is possible.".
>> (Which is about N, obviously.)

<snip>
> My proof shows that all natural numbers leave rationals without index
> in Cantor's asserted complete bijection. This is undisputable truth.


Yet all you do is prove a trivial theorem about a sequences of sets of
rationals and then invite people to "examine himself whether he is
willing to believe that nevertheless all rational numbers can be
enumerated"[1]. This implied conclusion is your main purpose. You should
have made that the theorem in post 533[1], but you couldn't. You can't
even write it out in what you once called "the correct way"[2], much
less derive it, in connected steps from the theorem you can write out.
You are doing mathematics by innuendo.

[1] Message-ID: <06f21aae-caae-4be6-8764-9d05f5e3c717@googlegroups.com>
[2] Message-ID: <8aaff1fe-9ffe-4153-b84e-83b650527dac@googlegroups.com>
--
Ben.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.