Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Matheology § 300
Posted:
Jul 16, 2013 1:16 PM


mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> On Monday, 15 July 2013 23:52:48 UTC+2, Ralf Bader wrote: >> mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: > On Monday, 15 July 2013 18:23:40 >> UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > >>> The infinite set of naturals is nothing else than all finite sets of >>> naturals. > >>Ten years of intense study of the subject, > > has lead me to very simple results that everybody could understand: > > Modern logic says, for ever n: line L_n of the list > > 1 > 1,2 > 1,2,3 > ... > > contains less naturals than the whole list. That is correct.
No, it is wrong. It is wrong that "line L_n contains less naturals..." and it is wrong that "modern logic" would say so.
> But modern > logic is unable (or unwilling) to consider all lines.
This is wrong.
> Neverthelss set > theory presumes that all lines exist. So mathematicians should be able to > evaluate this assumption, namely: all lines.
"All lines" is not an assumption.
> The list contains more > naturals in all lines than in every line. Inclusion monotony, however, > proves that all lines cannot contain more than every line. Simple as that.
No. You prove your stupidity.
> And even simpler perhaps: Cantor proves by means of definable diagonal > numbers that the definable reals are uncountable. But the definable reals > are countable.
No. Cantor did not prove what you phantasize.
> And the simplest contradiction is this: If set theory is correct, then the > deal with the devil will leave you blank. But it would not leave me blank. > I would maintain at least one $. So I am not as stupid as set theorists.
I don't know whta you are talking about.
Ten years of intense study of the subject, as documented in all the crap you piled up in newsgroups and elsewhere, and still not even the slightest grasp of the most elementary basics of the subject. You are so incredibly stupid.



