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: ZFC and God
Replies: 15   Last Post: Jan 29, 2013 9:19 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Jesse F. Hughes

Posts: 9,776
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: ZFC and God
Posted: Jan 29, 2013 6:45 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:

> On 29 Jan., 03:11, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
>> > On 28 Jan., 21:36, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>

>> >> You still have to show that the diagonal itself has a terminating
>> >> decimal representation.  You can't just assume that it does.

>>
>> > I can prove that it does. The list does not contain infinite decimals.
>> > Every digit of the anti-diagonal is a (changed) digit of a terminating
>> > decimal. If you do not agree that the anti-diagonal is terminating,
>> > then you should find the border where its indices leave the domain of
>> > terminating decimals. Unless you can, we remain inside.

>>
>> Oops!  More mysterious disappearing text, WM!  Here, I repeat my
>> little hint regarding your inability to apply a definition:
>>
>>   > Now find out which of the digits of 0.777... that is constructed
>>   > of numbers of F has not a finite index k.
>>
>>   Not relevant to the definition at hand.

>
> You are too stupid to understand it. No question.
> But even if you consider an actually infinite diagonal, what would it
> help you. The diagonal of a list of terminating decimals can only
> differ at a finite position from an entry, simply because there are no
> further digits. So what does your "actually infinite diagonal" help.
>
>

>> Is it possible that you
>>   can't understand the definition itself?

>
> Is it possible that you are not accustomed to work in the domain of
> terminating decimals?

>>
>>   It's really very simple, isn't it?

>
> It is always simpler to believe in nonsense of matheology than to
> adhere to the given limits. And these limits restrict everything in
> the present discussion to terminating decimals.
>
> If you don't believe that this is possible, then find a first digit
> that surpasses this domain.


As I said elsewhere, I see no point in going in the same circles
here. Frankly, your incompetence is remarkable in this thread.
Imagine, a man who claims to understand mathematics well enough to
teach it at the college level honestly arguing that 7/9 is a
terminating decimal!

Shame on you, WM. Not for being stupid, but for proudly mistaking
stupidity for wisdom and for being in the classroom.

--
"Memoirists like Frey and Augusten Burroughs belong to the long list of
those who should never have stopped using drugs. The drugs might have
made Frey more interesting, or they might have killed him. Either way,
American literature would have benefited." --John Dolan, www.exile.ru



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.