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.independent

Topic: NEWCOMERS to sci.math - PLEASE READ THIS
Replies: 5   Last Post: Feb 5, 2014 9:44 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Graham Cooper

Posts: 4,250
Registered: 5/20/10
Re: NEWCOMERS to sci.math - PLEASE READ THIS
Posted: Feb 5, 2014 9:44 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:46:11 AM UTC+11, Virgil wrote:
> In article <25956d3f-204b-4992-9da6-5a49467ff849@googlegroups.com>,
>
> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
>

> > Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 13:17:32 UTC+1 schrieb Port563:
>
>
>

> > > But the competent are around too, mainly in "Read-only" mode.
>
> > > So, post your questions or comments.
>
> >
>
> > Hi competent! Do you hold it possible that a real number can be defined by an
>
> > infinite definition?
>
>
>
> How does WM hold it necessary that each real number must have an
>
> individual finite definition?
>
>
>
> According to a standard definition of the real field, there must be a
>
> real number for each set of rational numbers that is bounded above.
>
> While different such sets of rationals CAN produce the same real
>
> number, they usually don't.




OK so:

R = { lub(X) | X e POW( { A/B | AeN & BeN } ) }









>
>
> And if WM claims that the set of reals must be countable, he must count
>
> them to prove it, not merely claim it, as there is nothing in any
>
> definition of reals that requires each real to have a (finite) name.




The SET of all R has been posted numerous times, the LIST you keep asking
for is not specified as there are oo permutations of computable reals UTM(NXN)



If YOUR proof of E(r) r>|N|

relies on the above game of legalise nonsense

you simply have no mathematical foundation for your truly bizarre claims
of transfinite sets > oo


>
>
>
> And everywhere OUTSIDE of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology there are
>
> more reals than such names.
>
>
>
> Beware of WM and his WMytheology!
>



I will appreciate WM's arduous work long before your preaching to the converted
that:


1 e CANTORSMISSINGSET <-IFF-> 1 NOT e 1stCOUNTABLESET
2 e CANTORSMISSINGSET <-IFF-> 2 NOT e 2ndCOUNTABLESET
...


somehow proves X>INFINITY


G. Cooper




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.