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

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:37:29 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


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.

Sure he is a crank.


"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." (WM)


"This goal is not difficult to achieve"? Sure if one is completely
incompetent concerning mathematics --- sounds EXTREMELY reasonable!


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.

Well, they had to wait for Mückenheim (to come)!


F.

--

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinitely many nns = infinite nns?
    ... non-math crank I expected, but a published author. ... a proof that the irrationals are not uncountable is ... the fact that the rationals are dense implies the ... are as many spaces between pickets as there are pickets. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: infinitely many nns = infinite nns?
    ... Much to my surprise I found that he's not the non-math crank I expected, ... "Wolfgang Mückenheim is a classic crank. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: infinitely many nns = infinite nns?
    ... Much to my surprise I found that he's not the non-math crank I expected, ... "Wolfgang Mückenheim is a classic crank. ...
    (sci.logic)