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



Re: NEWCOMERS to sci.math  PLEASE READ THIS
Posted:
Feb 5, 2014 9:44 PM


On Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:46:11 AM UTC+11, Virgil wrote: > In article <25956d3f204b49929da65a49467ff849@googlegroups.com>, > > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hsaugsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 13:17:32 UTC+1 schrieb Port563: > > > > > > But the competent are around too, mainly in "Readonly" 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



