Date: Dec 8, 2012 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 170
On 8 Dez., 09:47, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 7 Dez., 22:35, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <e903ef43-fcb6-43f7-8ce3-e61c725ff...@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > On 6 Dez., 21:29, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <a70f6b2c-c9a2-426d-9da4-70ad9785b...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > > A unit lenght 1 times aleph_0 is what?
> > > > > Nonsense!
> > > > A unit times aleph_0 is aleph_0.
> > > That presumes that Aleph_0 is amenable to some sort of multiplication
> > > and division.
> > > A claim that requires proof, as Aleph_0 is not a member of any of the
> > > sets of numbers for which multiplication is defined, and is not a unit
> > > of measure, like yards or metres, that can be halved or doubled
> > > meaningfully.
> > > --
> > Try to learn set theory, for instance here:
> For WM to think that I, or any other mathematician, would look to any
> publication because he endorses it, much less one that is apparently
> written by him, to learn anything about set theory in particular or
> mathematics in general, is a totally unwarranted exhibition of
You could have learned that 1*aleph_0 = 2*aleph_0.
But obviously you do not like that in the present context. Therefore
you prefer to argue ad hominem.