Re: Answer to *** T. Winter

In article
<7f588dc2-e7c7-408d-b4ff-6c72508e838f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 4 Jul., 08:05, Brian Chandler <imaginator...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ralf Bader wrote:
*** T. Winter wrote:

In article <pcqum4dh0co7$.l0k3lwh9rsmi$....@xxxxxxxxxx> Herbert Newman
<nomail@invalid> writes: ...
 > ...  this spavined donkey ...

.... teaches mathematics and puts part of his nonsense in the exams to
his
students (the "explanation" of the binary tree), ...

bothers me quite a

And what are you doing about it? Trying to convince Mueckenheim of his
errors until he retires? You could look here:
http://www.stmwfk.bayern.de/Start_en.aspx
To wit: "The state of Bavaria, situated in the south of Germany, is proud
of
its universities offering both students and staff high educational
standards..."
Ask them how this is compatible with Mueckenheim's teaching activities at
one of those universities. Contact data are here:
http://www.stmwfk.bayern.de/Contact_en.aspx

I suspect that contacting officialdom will get nowhere at all.

Simply try it! Mr. Bader already has a good reputation as a devious
informant. You could obtain similar glory, in particular you could
obtain an adequate level as a disciple of your grand master Georg
Cantor, who was a talented intriguer. He tried to hinder scholars in
Germany to get professorships ­ not by officially stated and discussed
arguments, but by secret action without informing the belittled
scholars, just like Mr. Bader uses to do. Cantor at his times tried to
prevent Darwinism (alas, always without success).

But don't despair! You know, Darwins book appeared in 1859. Even now,
150 years later, there are more than enough people around who have not
yet comprehended it but believe in creationism, like Cantor did. I am
sure, even 50 years laer, there will be more than enough Fools Of
Matheology around, discussing transfinity in earnest within their
circles as if it was a grave theory of great importance and not
nonsense, disconnected from any useful application.

Much
more effective would be to create a critique web-site (in German of
course) such that anyone contemplating going to study or sending their
children to study at the Augsburg Whateverschule [capitalised because
it's supposed to be a German noun] will immediately find it. It needs
to be level-headed and nonabusive, but one of the wonders of the web
is the absence of n-pages of A4 limits, so of course it should include
a demonstration of the invalidity of some of his published "tree"
nonsense.


Yeeeeaaaaahhh, do so, pleeeeeeeze.

People must get informed. If possible, explain that in a manner that
is understandable not only by "the community" but by soberly thinking
intelligent beings.

Perhaps you will start in this way: Once upon a time, there was a man
who assumed that there are all real numbers and then proved that it is
impossible that there are all real numbers. But he did not conclude
that it is impossible that there are all real numbers, but he
concluded that there are different finished infinities.

That already must be convincing the non-community, mustn't it.

If you are less unfair than Mr. Bader, you will allow me to drop only
few lines on the intended ***. Here they are:

Take a countable set of infinite binary sequences as paths. Construct
a complete infinite binary tree from that set of paths. Nobody will be
able, when being shown the completed tree only, to define a path that
is not in that tree. Therefore there are not more than countably many
real umbers that can be defined by binary sequences.

So that WM claims that there exists a set which surjects onto the set of
all its subsets. That is not even true for finite sets, so why does WM
claim it to be true for infinite sets?

--
Virgil
.

Loading