Re: This Month's Thought on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1

From: Keckman (keckman_at_welho.com)
Date: 10/05/04 

Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:08:00 +0300

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:50:21 -0400, Will Twentyman
<wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote:

> Keckman wrote:
>
>> On 4 Oct 2004 07:42:01 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 1+1+1+1+...=(infinite amount or finite number)
>> But math today says that there is oo amount of 1 in that queue
>> allthough the sum is finite.
>
> No, the branches of math you are probably referring to say that queue is
> not made of finitely many operations, so not allowed.
>

Ok, it said that the queue is then made of infinitely many operations.
And guess what i'm counting there? The bigness of the number.

If there is infinite numbers in this queue:
1+1+1+1+....
then it is infinite and the sum is infinite.

The sum is the number that belongs to N.

The branches of math i'm referring is you and all those who think there is
infinite amounts of numbers in N because of Peano's axioms, but that is not
true. No one have prooved that from Peano's axioms follow that there even
exist that kind of thing as infinite or that numbers in set of Naturals
are that.

I say there isn't. That queue is allways finite allthough how long ever.
Everything is relative. Doesn't matter how many numbers we have in some
set there can allways be more. But it still finite. How fuckdsölfjing
boring to try to tell obvious thing.

Please read conversation between me and Randy Poe and try to understand.

And if there is any who has get the point of what i have said and agree,
please say it here. If there is not any i will be suprised.

I think i will not continue this conversation anymore. Not because i feel
that
i lost, but because i feel this is hopeless. Even in mathematics many
people see
just what they want and need to see againts any obvious fact. 

-- 
Petri Keckman
Quantcast