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: Mueckenheim's Theorema Egregium
Replies: 5   Last Post: Aug 19, 2014 12:35 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Mueckenheim's Theorema Egregium
Posted: Aug 19, 2014 9:46 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Monday, 18 August 2014 23:05:00 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> You agree that, given S(q) = 1 / (2 floor(q) - r + 1) and B(n) = S^n(1),

I agree that many bijections |N <--> Q+ have been defined.

> Q+ = image(B)
> B(p) = B(q) iff p = q
> for all n c N, exists q c Q+, q = B(n)

> > More is not intended.
> More than the above is not required.

In fact, in potential infinity more is nor required. But if actual infinity is assumed, then infinite sets can be exhausted. Then |N is exhausted before Q+.

This kind of infinity is required for Cantor's diagonal argument and for his "proof" of transcendental numbers.

His assuming of the complete set |N is identical with my assuming of the complete set |N. There is no rational argument denying my argument but accepting Cantor's. See the desparate attempts by YMB, ZeitGeist and others. You say you accept my result (and there you are the only correct one) but you deny to draw the consequences.

Regards, WM

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.