On Oct 28, 1:03 pm, Tonic...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:49:32 PM UTC+2, JRStern wrote: > > Are there any such published? > > > I can see in the archives here it's a common topic, and I have my own > > > crackpot theories which certainly overlap a lot of the more popular > > > objections. > > > I don't want to prove or assert or reject any statement about the > > > countability of reals, I just want to consider the validity of the > > > diagonalization argument. > > > Has anybody put that out in a refereed journal or a respectable > > > publisher? Even if it's just a prettier rejection of crank theories, > > > it would seem worthwhile. > > > Thanks, > > > J. > > Ask for Herc (Cooper), WM and other glorious local cranks who think (just > a figure of speech) they have debunked Cantor, his theorems, his proofs > and his theories. > > Of course, the only peer reviewed papers "against Cantor" could exist, SO > FAR, in a journal abiding by the rules of Sumo in Tokio, Japan, and not by > the rules of mathematics. > > Tonio >
Thanks Tonio,
I should reciprocate the favor of mentioning my theories with a cite of your famous formula to make infinity even bigger!
[TONICO] Then I choose the number 0.a_1a_2a_3...., where a_i = 0 if the i-th number in your list had zero in its i-position, a_i = 1 otherwise. TADAAAA!
That's what real number theory is based on! Believe it or not!
But really, if you want something peer reviewed just take an established theory and add a clock or something and put some ZFC equations in it! CONTINOUS <<OBJECT>> always get's rave reviews!
