Re: CONWAY VS CANTOR

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:32:18 EDT, tommy1729
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

tommy1729 wrote:

and john conway disproves cantor with his
surreal
numbers !!!!
...
i know , he doesnt see it that way...

but accidently thats what he has done :-)

some would call that proof bye contradiction if
you
accept both...


The fact that Conway defines addition of ordinals
differently to Cantor
does not "disprove Cantor".

only because of an added "definition" which is
artificial , else it would have.

secondly there can only be one truth , not two.

Wow. You don't even understand what a _definition_
is.


yes i do cmon man !!!!
this is rediculous

so bye the methods and logic of proof bye
contradiction , cantor looses.

if conway disliked cantor he would have left out
that remark and rather considered it a

counterexample to cantor.

and then people would have agreed.

No, if Conway had claimed that his stuff proved
Cantor was
wrong people would be rolling on the floor laughing
at
the fact that he was just as ignorant as some
crackpot
you'd find on the internet.

so its fear being laught at , rather than the truth hmm

a SIMILAR thing happended to gauss , when he was thinking about non-euclidian geometrie

he was afraid people would rediculize him for it , calling him a crankpot and harming its reputation !!!

therefore he pretended he accepted euclidian geometrie ...

but he didnt , and actually that made him on the greatest mathematicians EVER.




You might as well say that p-adic numbers disprove
arithmetic
because 2 is smaller than 1 in Z_2.

NO NO no you might not!

that's like saying 9 = 1 mod 8 and 7 = 7 mod 8
and 1 is smaller than 7 so 9 is smaller than 7.

you are confusing number theory with set theory and
infinity !!!!

number theory is consistant and cantor is not , so
you cannot compare , and certainly not in that
childish way.


give a usefull application of anything using
cantor
instead of surreals ,
calculus (divergeance , measure 0 or 1 , limits
)
and other set theories
??

This doesn't make any sense to me.


you dont want to see the obvious connections of
measure theory to infinity hmm

whats a matter ? dont know calculus or measure
theory ?
or any other set theorems ??

what a coincidence !!! (sarcastic)
probably because it doesnt match up with cantor hm.

why not ?? if cantor is so "hot" and so usefull ,

why doesnt it make sence if i ask for an application
??

dont you understand that simple question ?

pretending to be dumb ?

indeed , using cantor ( for applications ) doenst
make sence , ill give you that.

therefore cantor is wrong.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/
birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College,
Dublin 2, Ireland


and a phonenumber doesnt change the mistakes of
cantor, despite looking good below a post.

tommy1729


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CONWAY VS CANTOR
    ... but accidently thats what he has done :-) ... some would call that proof bye contradiction if you accept both... ... The fact that Conway defines addition of ordinals differently to Cantor ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: CONWAY VS CANTOR
    ... The fact that Conway defines addition of ordinals ... does not "disprove Cantor". ... contradiction, cantor looses. ... probably because it doesnt match up with cantor hm. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: CONWAY VS CANTOR
    ... The fact that Conway defines addition of ordinals ... does not "disprove Cantor". ... so bye the methods and logic of proof bye contradiction, ... probably because it doesnt match up with cantor hm. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: CONWAY VS CANTOR
    ... The fact that Conway defines addition of ordinals ... does not "disprove Cantor". ... you dont want to see the obvious connections of measure theory to infinity hmm ... probably because it doesnt match up with cantor hm. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Infinity......
    ... since 1) leads LOGICALLY leads finally to ... see logics and not cantor's reasoning, make us infer 3) from 1) and I ... Since it is only in Zuhair's mangled logic that the contradiction ... or at least stated as Cantor stated ...
    (sci.math)