Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Matheology § 127
Replies: 7   Last Post: Oct 26, 2012 1:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Brian Chandler

Posts: 1,899
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Matheology § 127
Posted: Oct 26, 2012 1:48 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Ralf Bader wrote:
[...]
> However, as you can see from
> http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=corrections&id=11892#
> the purpose of the whole thing is to obtain a notion which is unable to
> distinguish in any way between infinite sets of "numbers",
> whatever "numbers" may be here. And the inventor of the dull idea
> of "intercession" ridiculously believes...


Indeed. Mueckenhein's powers of confusion really are wasted: he could
surely have had a really successful career as a lawyer (or perhaps it
doesn't work like that in Germany).

Anyway, it can all be done so much more simply:

Theorem: All infinite sets can not [orthography sic] be distinguished
by sizing

Definition: A sizing is an attempt to mark off all elements of a set,
one at a time.
(We observe that sizing is a good way to distinguish the set of
primary colours from the set of days of the week. We also note that if
sizing fails on two sets, it cannot be used to distinguish them.)

Proof:
Any attempt to size an infinite set fails, because the process never
ends. QED


Brian Chandler



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.