Re: Cantor Confusion

In article <4579711E.10701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12/7/2006 9:23 PM, Virgil wrote:


Just try and refute:

Reals according to DA2 are fictitious

Reference to any statement, other than by EB or his ilk, to the effect
that "Reals according to DA2 are fictitious"

Cantors, Virgils and their ilk call this refutation.

EB makes a claim: Reals according to DA2 are fictitious

I ask for a reason to accept such a wild ass claim.
That is not an attempt at refutation but a request for justification.
The continuing absence of such justification is its own refutation.


Reals according to DA2 are fictitious

Repeating a falsehood does not make it any less false.

You may try and furnish a complete numerical address of any irrational
number. No chance!

What part of DA2 claims that reals are fictitious?

Unless EB can answer this question satisfactorily, his claim is false.

With fictitious I meant: They must not have a directly approachable
numerical address.

What is this stuff about "addresses"?

What rubric of mathematics demands that every "number" have a directly
approachable address?

Logic.

Explain ow "logic" demand that every "number" have a "directly
approachable address".

Pulling such claims out of thin air does not a legitimate argument make.


That may be so in engineering, but is nowhere writ in mathematics.

And what is so special about direct approaches. Lots of mathematical
theorems have to be approached quite indirectly, but are still valid and
important, despite that.

Since you are obviously unable to grasp abstract reasoning, imagine a
wooden folding rule. Because there is no place for pi and the like on
it,

Who says there is no place for pi on it?

One can locate pi on it as surely as one can locate 3 on it, given that
its scale goes from below 3 to beyond pi.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... Reals according to DA2 are fictitious ... In mathematics they are neither real nor unrefuted. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Cantor explained why he preferred his own definition. ... Cantor himself has shown with DA2 that they are not such field. ... defined by Dedekind cuts are uncountable". ... You might wondwer that there is no chance to define the reals at will. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Cantor explained why he preferred his own definition. ... You might wondwer that there is no chance to define the reals at will. ... Cantor made a false promise when he said the essence of mathematics just ... Do you still not yet understand why DA2 lets no room as to define the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... Reals according to DA2 are fictitious ... In mathematics they are neither real nor unrefuted. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Reals according to DA2 are fictitious ... I realized some of the modern logic symbolism I was seeing around ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast