Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Franziska Neugebauer <Franziska-Neugebauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:40:51 +0200
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
> You do not find, in any intellect, the answer to the question: Is P >
> pi or not, if P is that number which you get by exchanging the 10^100
> th digit of pi by 7.
Not at present.
In standard mathematics there is a 10^100th digit of pi. Therefore the
question you presented was, is and will be a mathematical valid or
meaningful question. The currently unknown value of the 10^100th
digit does not render your question worthless, only the answer is not
known.
In Mueckenheim mathematics the 10^100th digit is purported not to exist.
Provided that it does not exist you are asking for a property of a
non-existing thing (the digit). Smart people don't do that.
Second objection: When in the future the 10^100th digit becomes known
standard math will stay correct. Mueckenheim math, however, will
falsely purport that the 10^100th digit does not exist
even though its value is then known.
F. N.
--
xyz
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- References:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: David Kastrup
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: mathematician salaries
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|