Date: Jan 31, 2013 5:52 AM Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de Subject: Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician On 31 Jan., 10:49, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <2c0c03e1-d70b-484c-997b-76bd1397d...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

>

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 31 Jan., 01:51, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

> > > david petry <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com> writes:

> > > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:58:25 PM UTC-8, Toni...@yahoo.com wrote:

>

> > > WM has bigger fish to fry.

>

> > > He thinks that he's proved ZF is inconsistent,

>

> > Why depend on my arguments? ZFC, at least, has been proven

> > inconsistent, if 2 is not 1.

> > Remember Hausdorff-Banach-Tarski. There we start from the statement V

> > = 1 and find after applying some equivalence relations V = 2.

>

> I am not aware that the Banach-Tarski model of geometry has ever

> successfully been imbedded in ZFC.

>

> And until WM can establishes that the Banack-Tarski theorem can be

> stated and proven in ZFC, it poses no problem to ZFC, and even then

> would pose no problem in ZF.

>

>

>

> > Thereby it is completely irrelevant whether "unmeasurable point sets"

> > are involved or not. What counts is simply the first and the second

> > statement. Therefore ZFC has been proven inconsistent already - at

> > least for every sober non-matheologian.

>

> Meaning only in Wolkenmuekenheim.

>

>

>

> > > I don't know if that's what he's doing on p. 112, mind you, but at

> > > least sometimes, he is presenting what he mistakenly believes is a

> > > valid, mathematical proof.

>

> > I apply the rule that in mathematics identical exercises have to yield

> > identical results.

>

> > In analysis the continued fraction

> > ((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+...

>

> That does not appear to be in the form of a continued fraction at all.

Is that your only escape? Call it however you like. Every initial

segment is a fraction - and this is continued without end.

Imagine I put it as a homework. What is the limit? Do I have to accept

oo as well as <1 or even something in between, depending on what

mathematical tools are applied? By this trick every answer to every

homework has to be accepted. Well, I know, it has been so for nearly

one hundred years already. If the answer to 3 + 5 was 9, then the

pupil could refer to Banach-Tarski:

"Didn' t you mean marbles? Look, I have applied Banach-Tarski to one

of them and so have doubled it." You think, I should grade that very

good?

Regards, WM