Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:18:50 -0500

On 27 Sep 2004 12:40:25 -0700, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
exa) wrote:

>David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<0q1el09sqp48jp1pldn4nrq9i3p6ai8re0@4ax.com>...
>> On 26 Sep 2004 07:53:26 -0700, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
>> exa) wrote:
>>
>> >Here is a much more refined attack on Cantor's proof than what has
>> >lately occured in some threads that I have avoided:
>> >
>> >http://www.com2com.ru/alexzen/papers/Cantor/Fatal_Mistake_of_Cantor.html
>>
>> Refined. Right. He says he's _quoting_ the proof, but the version
>> of the proof that he gives actually _is_ wrong (although of course
>> he doesn't mention the actual error.)
>>
>> >Does Alexander Zenkin have a good point?
>>
>> What a stupid question.
>>
>
>Well, his paper seems to have been published somewhere, so I did not
>want to categorize his work either way. Do you mean that the journal
>is full of crackpots?

Uh, no, I meant that asking whether someone pointing out the
fatal flaw in a simple theorem has a good point is stupid.

You should really, um, ...

I didn't pay attention to much of those threads on Chaitin's
Omega. My impression was you were probably making some sort
of sense and the disputes were due to the fact that things
like "completely random" and "true for no reason" are not
well defined, so that A could say "this is true for no
reason", B could say that that's false, and what A meant
and what B meant could both be true. But lately, talking
about infinite decimals and related things, you've been
sounding totally incompetent and/or totally ignorant.
(I point this out just to suggest that you might want
to avoid looking that way, by avoiding discussion of
questions that you really have absolutely no understanding
of.)

>I've been told there are such journals, but its
>name looked kind of serious, I can't tell :)

Most of us don't decide whether a mathematical
argument is valid based on the name of the journal.

(Of course nobody knows all of mathematics, so
there are plenty of papers that any given person
is unable to evaluate for himself. But the topic
of the present "paper" is utterly elementary...)

>Cheers,

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor
    ... >> What a stupid question. ... like "completely random" and "true for no reason" are not ... sounding totally incompetent and/or totally ignorant. ... (Of course nobody knows all of mathematics, ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: OT Obamas Evolving Position on Iran
    ... Your question doesn't matter. ... There's no reason to answer a stupid question that doesn't ... Why not just answer it, yes or no, is Bush running for a third ... There was no reason to answer it, since it was 100%, inarguably unrelated ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: OT Obamas Evolving Position on Iran
    ... Your question doesn't matter. ... "a stupid question that doesn't matter", ... Why not just answer it, yes or no, is Bush running for a third term? ... There was no reason to answer it, since it was 100%, inarguably unrelated to ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Uninstall Office 2003 without original disk
    ... Probably for the same reason you asked a stupid question considering the ... MVP Microsoft [Publisher] ... >> JoAnn Paules ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)
  • Re: PARROTS OF THE SCI MATH TREE-(Solve real math 1/x-1/y = 1/z all infinite series for any
    ... all the rational infinite series which have been proven in the ... new book on mathematics to be out in a few days. ...  Do not ask a stupid question, you parrots like " What is rational" ... It's just that you're too afraid to answer them. ...
    (sci.math)