Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

In article <1172057694.525048.317530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 20 Feb., 22:18, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1171971859.370048.181...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,


Remember Burali-Forti, Russell, Skolem, Banach and Tarski: They all
had a proof that set theory is wrong.

They may all have had proofs that some particular form of set theory was
'wrong', but where did any of them ever have a proof that all forms of
set theory must be wrong?

That, admittedly, is new.

It is so new that it does not even exist.


It is the binary tree to which you, as far
as I remember, ascribed different sets of paths according to how one
is looking at it. This is obviously a contradiction in every set
theory.

It was not one binary tree, but a variety of differently defined binary
trees that had different properties in accord with the differences in
their definitions.

The calculus of Leibitz and Newton, being based on undefined
infinitesimals, was "wrong" in a way, too, but that has since been fixed.

So why does WM continue to claim ( without proof, or even evidence) that
whatever was once "wrong" with set theory is incapable of being fixed?

Everything will be fixed with no doubt. You fixed it by stating that a
unique set of nodes in a tree with unique structure yields different
sets of paths.

I said that a binary tree can as correctly be defined by its set of
paths as by its set of nodes.


Others will fix it in their way, perhaps with some more
conjuring ticks like unaccessible cardinals and hyper unaccessible
ordinals to avoid the immediate impression of naiveté.

WM's conjuring tricks, however, are not sufficient to destroy any part
of mathematics, including mathematical set theories, since WM is
incapable of providing any of the essential proofs of his claims.
.

Quantcast