Date: Mar 23, 2013 12:54 PM Author: fom Subject: Re: Matheology § 224 On 3/23/2013 10:29 AM, WM wrote:

> On 23 Mrz., 14:38, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

>> On 3/23/2013 3:26 AM, WM wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>> On 22 Mrz., 23:33, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On Mar 22, 11:10 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>>

>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 22:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>>>>> On Mar 22, 10:42 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>>

>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 22:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 10:14 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 22 Mrz., 21:33, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>>>>>>> <snip>

>>

>>>>>>>>>> this does not mean that one can do something

>>>>>>>>>> that does not leave any of the lines of K

>>>>>>>>>> and does not change the union of all lines.

>>

>>>>>>>>> That is clear

>

> Here he tries to cheat the readers. My statement was: That is clear

> because my proof rests upon the premise that actual infinity is a

> meaningful notion.

>

>>>>>>>> So stop claiming your proof

>>>>>>>> means you can do something

>>>>>>>> that does not leave any of the lines

>>>>>>>> of K and does not change the union

>>>>>>>> of all the lines.

>>

>>>>>>> My proof is this: IF there is an actually infinite list of FISONs as I

>>>>>>> devised it, THEN all lines can be removed without changing the union

>>>>>>> of the lines.

>>

>>>>>> You have shown that any FISON and all preceding

>>>>>> FISONs can be removed

>>

>>>>> given the premise that set |N, the union of all FISONs, is "more" than

>>>>> every FISON.

>>

>>>>>> You have agreed that you have not shown you can do

>>>>>> something that does not leave a FISON

>>>>>> and does not change the union of all the lines

>>

>>>>> Yes. And you have approved my proof. But we know both that the result

>>>>> is wrong

>>

>>>> No, we both agree that the result is correct

>>>> And we both agree that the result does not

>>>> lead to a contradiction.-

>>

>>> So you believe that we can remove all lines without changing the

>>> union?

>>> Remarkable.

>>

>> It is not about belief

>

> It is. Otherwise the accepted proof should force him to accept the

> result too.

You really do not understand.

In your desire to banish what you perceive to be

"bad" mathematics, you have created some incomprehensible

methodology directed solely at Cantor's diagonal argument.

Even worse, you fail to distinguish that argument from the

philosophical positions that introduce "all" real numbers

into mathematics.

Out of a desire to defeat that argument, you ran out and

compiled any set of statements that seemed to justify your

own beliefs. You use those statements like a political

activist. This becomes particularly unattractive when

you start applying "the means justifies the ends" in your

techniques.

Sadly, this is just *not* mathematics.

I asked you some time ago why you do not simply educate

yourself on constructive mathematics and engage in

discussions on the nature of that mathematics. What I

received for that suggestion were insults.

I do not like mocking you. I had once been badly flamed.

I did not understand it. But, I actually had an original

formal theory. I had been unable to defend it because I

did not know certain historical elements from the

philosophical developments. So, I actually bothered to

go learn.

That is what you need to do. This is not about "belief".