Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Mueckenheim's Theorema Egregium
Posted:
Aug 19, 2014 12:35 PM


On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:46:50 AM UTC4, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: > 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+. >
Nobody here Cares about YOUR Potential Infinity. It a Concept that you have taken from the Past, and you have Perverted to the Point of Inconsistency.
So, from your last Sentence, we Have that N Bijects onto an Infinite Subset of Q+, but Not All of Q+. That is Really FUCKEDUP! Where and How did you get that One?
> This kind of infinity is required for Cantor's diagonal argument and for his "proof" of transcendental numbers. >
Ya, So? This kind of Infinity is Called by Mathematicians an Infinite Set. Some Theories have an Axiom which Postulates the Existence of an Infinite Set. No one has ever found a Contradiction, NOT EVEN YOU, between the other Axioms and the Existence of an Infinite Set. So, what the Problem?
> 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. >
You mean there is No Rational Argument that you will Listen to. Because, if you did, you have to Admit your Faults. And, you are far too Arrogant to do that. We All Know.
The Desperate Attempts are yours. We Accept the AoI to be a Valid Assumption. You Claim the Idea itself is Inconsistent. You Show NO Inconsistency, you only Introduce Assumptions that that Contradict the Existence of an Infinite Set and then Produce your "Inconsistency". It like when say that All Finite Sets can Not Exhaust, and since N is All Finite Number, N can Not Q. That's really Stupid.
> Regards, WM
ZG



