Date: Mar 28, 2013 2:27 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 233
On 3/28/2013 7:48 AM, WM wrote:

> On 28 Mrz., 02:54, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>> In article

>> <32f47105-a873-44a0-bbcc-f744d1e71...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

>>

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

>>> On 27 Mrz., 18:26, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>>

>>>> IF a decimal tree containing a different path for every possible finite

>>>> decimal from 0 to 1 exists, it also must contain a path for every real

>>>> from 0 to 1.

>>

>>> And what says matheology about the existence of the set of every

>>> possible finite decimal path of the unit interval without any tree

>>> structure?

>>

>> Since WM is the only one speaking for matheology, he must answer his own

>> question.

>

> Matheology is the teaching of unnameable names and of actually

> infinite decimal farctions that nobody can apply (opposite to

> countably many names which define potentially infinite decimal

> expansions). That religion is not what I adhere to.

>>

>>

>>>> So that if WM denies existence of paths for those reals, he

>>>> automatically also denies the existence of any such trees.

>>

>>> I ask: What can be concluded, IF such a tree exists?

> And the foundation of matheology is that such a node-complete tree

> exists since the actually infinite set of all finite decimal

> expansions exist, namely the set of all rationals that end in a

> decimal period 000...

>

Neither your questions nor your crayon marks constitute

mathematics.

Aristotle is clear about the nature and use of categorical

quantifiers in demonstrations using a deductive calculus.

The development of mathematics is intimately bound with the

not-so-definite theories of science that you pretend would

fix mathematics. Complaints such as yours span the entire

history of mathematics and every repair to the system of

mathematical thought in response to those criticisms breeds

a new generation of loudmouths such as yourself.

As noted before, Berkeley's complaints about Newton's fluxions

provide the fodder for your complaints about Cantor's transfinite

arithmetic.

All of your questions demonstrate the same two things: ignorance

of logic and ignorance of mathematics.