Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory

On 18 Jul., 01:28, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:30 am, WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 16 Jul., 23:36, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

True mathematics needs no formal and no informal axiomatization. The
reason is that true mathematics is not arbitrary. For instance sinx/x
= 1 for x = 0.

Of course, you have your own definition of "true mathematics".

It is just that what can be proved without axioms, namely proved by
experiment.

You've not shown any "experiment" that "proves" that the set of real
numbers is countable.

Every experiment shows that there are no infinite sets.

The DEFINITION of 'function' does not require the terms 'domain' and
'range'.

Why then does a function require it?

What does "require" mean? Evey function HAS a domain, but the
DEFINITION of a function does not require mentioning that fact

You are wrong. A function defined without domain is not a function.
The function f(x) = x cannot be "proved" to have any domain.

Regards, WM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantors Theory
    ... reason is that true mathematics is not arbitrary. ... For instance sinx/x ... Every experiment shows that there are no infinite sets. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantors Theory
    ... reason is that true mathematics is not arbitrary. ... For instance sinx/x ... If a function is defined to have no domain, then nobody can prove that ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantors Theory
    ... infinite sets; the criterion becomes vacuuous. ... It is not stringent ... but also not without reason. ... In MatheRealism the problem is solved. ...
    (sci.math)