> In article > <email@example.com>, > WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> Matheology ? 108 >> >> The main part of the paper is devoted to show that the real numbers >> are denumerable. The explicit denumerable sequence that contains all >> real numbers will be given. The general element that generates the >> sequence will be written as well as the first few elements of that >> sequence. That there is one-to-one correspondence between the real >> numbers and the elements of the explicitly written sequence will be >> proven by the three independent proofs. [...] It is also proven that >> the Cantor?s 1873 proof of non denumerability is not correct since it >> implicates non denumerability of rational numbers. In addition it is >> proven that the numbers generated by the >> diagonal procedure in Cantor?s 1891 proof are not different from the >> numbers in the assumed denumerable set. >> [Slavica Vlahovica and Branislav Vlahovic: "Countability of the Real >> Numbers"] >> arXiv:math.NT/0403169 v1 10 Mar 2004 > > While I have not yet analysed their alleged proof, I find that at least > one of their counterarguments to Cantors first proof to be flawed. > > > And I have no doubt that WM will soon post references to papers in > which someone has trisected an arbitrary angle, squared a circle and > duplicated a cube.
While a trisector will not solve the problem he asserts to solve, he may and in some cases does provide approximate solutions which are quite clever. A trisector's work may have mathematical content and should not be mixed up with Mückenheim's totally clueless and idiotic scrap.