Re: Relative Cardinality

mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> But that doe not imply a largest number and it does not imply that the
> numbers in the set of 10^100 numbers remain always the same. I know it
> is a heretic approach, but numbers can be created and can be abolished.
> This form of existence has not yet been defined. There are "numbers"
> however, which can never be created like floor(pi*10^10^100).

This has to be one of the crankiest paragraphs yet to come out of WM.
This makes it obvious that no arguing with WM will ever show him where
he went wrong. No mathematical reasoning will disprove WM's theory,
since he just takes numbers or ideas or whatever that prove him wrong
and can "abolish" them to make them "go away." He didn't even by his
own admission "define" this "existence," so whatever argument to be
presented can be made to "go away" by waving ones hands and conjuring
up some "nonexistence." And since it's not defined, you can't argue
with that of course.

So WM is either 1) pulling everyone's leg 2) schizophrenic.
Fortunately he is not a paranoiac (he's not convinced that the
mathematical establishment is out to get him and has already hired
italian hitmen to do the job) and thus seems totally harmless. If he
does teach mathematics, at least it will give the kids some real life
training in the fact that "what you hear from people (including
teachers) could in fact be total nonsense" and perhaps they'll learn to
check things instead of blindly believing them.

Jiri

.

Quantcast