Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Matheology § 049
Replies: 21   Last Post: Jun 28, 2012 2:27 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Re: WM's Matheology § 049
Posted: Jun 27, 2012 11:30 AM

On Jun 26, 3:56 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 26 Jun., 03:03, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 25, 2:02 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 Jun., 22:33, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 25, 12:05 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Take a circle (it need not be glowing) and as ask the examinee to mark
> > > > > > infinitely many intervals by infinitely many endpoints. Shuffle the
> > > > > > endpoints such that they slide along the circle in a completely
> > > > > > arbitrary way.

>
> > > > > Completely arbitrary? Not hardly.
>
> > > > If you wait long enough, it may happen that the endpoints reproduce
> > > > just my example of intervals I_n. At least it might happen, it cannot
> > > > be excluded (if the configuration is really real). And that's enough.

>
> > > You're the one who preaches about the rules used to create sequences
> > > and
> > > sets. In your problem you create the sequence of intervals according
> > > to
> > > a rule. Yet, in all of your subsequent discussion you completely
> > > ignore
> > > the rules used to generate the set.

>
> > And that prevents that you can pinpoint any point where the change
> > from countably many intervals to uncountably many intervals could
> > occur. By simply continuous sliding of points I defeat your tricks.

>
> nonsense!
>
> In the first place, WE neither need nor use any "tricks". We merely use
> standard mathematics and standard logic.
>
> On the other hand, WM DOES use tricks: All sorts of false logic,
> incomplete arguments claimed to be complete, and repetition of false
> arguments as if repeating them will mak them any les false.
>
>
>

> > Can you blame me of non-mathematical action?
>
> In a mathematical discussion, what need is there for your
> non-mathematics and anti-mathmatics?
>

> > No! If the configuration
> > of intervals I_n constructed according to the rules (that I have
> > specified), then it can also come into being by a continuous process.

>
> It has not yet been shown to come into being by any
> continuous process, nor has it been shown that, even if it could, that
> would make it behave in the impossible ways that WM claims it should.

Note his underhanded use of the term "continuous". I predict that he
is going to use that as a way to claim that the cardinality of the
number of intervals (or whatever) must be countable also in the limit.
He has just enough mathematical knowledge to be a danger to himself
and plenty of attitude to be a danger to others.

> > By the way, Archimedes is said to have received some dirty looks from
> > his contemporary scholars because he had proved his volume formulas
> > for cylinder, sphere and cone by physical bodies and water. They said
> > "proved" of course, in Greek of course. I think his method is better
> > than ZFC and the like. Truth can only be proved by comparison with
> > reality. And as my ring proof clearly shows truth is not with Cantor's
> > idea of countability.

>
> Your alleged "ring proof" may prove something, but does not prove that
> your own set of uncovered irrationals in [0, 1] is anything less that
> uncountably infinite, nor does it prove, though you keep claiming it,
> that every such uncovered irrational is the endpoint of some cluster.
>
> You have been shown many times how such uncovered irrationals can fail
> to be endpoints of any cluster, but have not yet refuted any one of
> those demonstrations.
>
> So one must conclude
>    that you cannot refute them, and
>    that they are valid, and
>    that your counter claims are false.
> --