On Friday, August 15, 2014 3:08:33 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > On Thursday, 14 August 2014 02:00:50 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > >> You don't think the provable non-existence of un-indexed rationals has > > >> any bearing on your claim?
> > > No. If this "provable non-existence" is accepted together with actual > > > infinity, then we have a contradiction. Why do you think this > > > contradiction would invalidated mathematical proof?
> > The provable non-existence to which I referred is the falsity of this > > formula: > > exists x c Q+: not(x c image(b))
> together with finished infinity. Therefore your approach is invalid.
You an Idiot. You think that the Fact that No Finite Set can Exhaust All Q means that NO Infinite Set can do so. Go Learn something, you Asshole.
> But you should consider the mathematical proof that I used. It seems you simply try to suppress it.
You Final Conclusion is Not Valid. How many time must how many people show you this?