The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: § 534 Finis
Replies: 12   Last Post: Aug 15, 2014 2:45 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,161
Registered: 5/24/13
Re: § 534 Finis
Posted: Aug 15, 2014 10:23 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Friday, August 15, 2014 3:08:33 AM UTC-7, 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?

> Regards, WM


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.