Re: infinitely many nn's = infinite nn's?

George Dance wrote:
You might have noticed that some of the people "discussing" with you
keep mentioning the name 'Mueckenheim'. That was a new one to me,
since I'd never heard of the guy; but it sounded important, so I
decided to do a search.

You can find his posts in sci.math. He's been repeating the same
nonsense for a couple of years. He also has some wonderfully nonsensical
papers that he's posted to the arXiv.

Much to my surprise I found that he's not the
non-math crank I expected, but a published author.

He self-published his own book. He most definitely is a crank.

<quote>
Mueckenheim)

My goal is to show that there is no infinity (other than potential
infinity) at all. So we always remain in the finite domain. What
would
be the use of infinite natural numbers? What could you address by oo
=3D
1 + oo? My goal is to show that set theory is self contradictory, in
particular Cantor's claim of the infinite set of finite naturals.
This
goal is not difficult to achieve. There are several proofs. What is
much more difficult than I ever imagined is to have the set theorists
see and accept them.

By the way, a proof that the irrationals are not uncountable is
already
established by the observation that there is no pair of irrational
numbers which is not separated by a terminating rational number.

That's a good one. So, the fact that the rationals are dense implies the
reals are countable. I wonder how all the mathematicians missed that
theorem.

--
David Marcus
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a few questions for you was Re: 150 years without Gauss
    ... >>a) The decimal expansion of PI. ... the implicitely assumed actual infinity is quite ... > Irrationals do not have a useful decimal representation. ... > fictitious approach to the also fictitious notion of genuine continuum ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinitely many nns = infinite nns?
    ... There are never two or more reals "in ... I meant that there must be a sequence of irrationals -- without ... Let a, b, c and d be naturals such that a/b < c/d as rationals, then ... point out that this proof uses the assumptions of potential infinity, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: a few questions for you was Re: 150 years without Gauss
    ... > Now Blumschein, let's have it your way for a few minutes. ... the implicitely assumed actual infinity is quite ... Irrationals do not have a useful decimal representation. ... fictitious approach to the also fictitious notion of genuine continuum ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinitely many nns = infinite nns?
    ... every two irrationals, it would seem that the rationals and the ... Possibly at first glance, but that assumes that the number of rationals between two irrationals is the same as the number of irrationals between two rationals, which is distinctly not the case. ... There are never two or more reals "in a row" without others between them, regardless of their rationality or lack therof. ... Now, if we want to say that we are limited by potential infinity when mentally examining a structure with actually infinitely many elements, I would certainly agree that we cannot mentally examine the elements individually, but in the limit, where actual infinity either CAN be used, or at least predicted, there cannot be a y between ANY two x's. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: BigDecimal and trigonometrics
    ... Even though you can always find an irrational between two rationals and a rational between two irrationals, in a very strong sense, irrationals are vastly more numerous, and most definitely can't be enumerated by a set of strings. ... calculation of finite probablities and combinatorics, then probability, then the various types of infinity, then probability theory over these various infinite sets. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
Quantcast