In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 19 Nov., 01:15, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 18, 8:04 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > <a924b8a3-c051-4e91-a088-c9ee5167a...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > Matheology 154: Consistency Proof! > > > > > > The long missed solution of an outstanding problem came from a > > > > completely unexpected side: Social science proves the consistency of > > > > matheology by carrying out a poll. > > > > > > As recently reported (see matheology 152) > > > >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf > > > > mathematics and matheology lead to different values of the continued > > > > fraction > > > > > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 (Cauchy) > > > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 (Cantor) > > > > > It is not at all clear that these expressions represent any continued > > > fraction at all. > > > > One of the problems with attempting any discussion with WM > > is the fact that he is unable or unwilling to define anything. > > I am convinced that you are intelligent enough to understand above > expressions.
I, on the other hand, am not at al convinced that WM is intelligent enough to understand above expressions.
At least not well enough to explain them to anyone else. > > > The idea that he is introducing complications > > because when he is clear it is obvious he is wrong is > > hard to resist. > > > That is my impression of your reaction. But in oder to test it, here > is the complete representation of the continued fraction C: > > C = (((...((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+... )+10^n)/10)+... > > Now take the reciproce and find 1/C = 0 or 1/C > 1? Which one is the > correct value?
Then C is NOT in the form of a continued fraction at all, at least not of any standard type.
And WM has provided no reason to suspect that the process has any limit at all