In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 Dez., 09:47, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <8b96b15b-71f0-4c15-aabd-5887fd7aa...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/GU/GU11.PPT#355,28,Folie28 > > > > 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 > > arrogance. > > You could have learned that 1*aleph_0 = 2*aleph_0.
Anything worth learning about mathematics I would prefer to learn from far more reliable sources than WM has proved to be, since there is no way to tell which parts of what WM teaches are true and which are not other than by going to more reliable sources anyway. > But obviously you do not like that in the present context. Therefore > you prefer to argue ad hominem.
That one argues against what WM claims is hardly evidence that one is arguing ad hominem. particularly when, as in the present instance, one has produced perfectly valid mathematical points contradicting WMs claims.
WM claims that his model, which demonstrably fails to have three "angles" is a triangle. At least if, as in Euclid and since, an angle consists of a point called the vertex point and two rays emanating from it, is a triangle.
I point out that his model fails to satisfy every standard definitoin of being a triangle. And WM calls my argument an ad hominem.
But it is obvious that his calling it so is the only ad hominem involved. --