Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory

On Jul 23, 12:44 pm, WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23 Jul., 20:34, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

1
11
111
...

But your conclusion does not follow from first order logic applied to
the axioms of set theory. If you have a principle by which your
conclusion follows, then maybe we should try to find out what that
principle is.

My conclusion follows from mathematics. I think I stressed frequently
enough that it is your problem if something of your formalism is
incompatible with mathematics.

WHAT mathematics? By what mathematical principle? For now, put aside
the question of formalizing. Just please say what principle you are
using to reach your conclusion. You've made certain observations about
trees and lists that I agree with. But from what principle do you
claim that those observations yield your conclusion?

Also, I don't object to snipping (I do a lot of it myself), but I am
finding that you are snipping parts that are needed for me to
conveniently refer to certain specifics your posts. For example, just
here, I wrote "your conclusion", but now that conclusion to which I
referred is snipped from the context. (Maybe it's not your snipping? I
don't know, but many needed particulars are getting dropped somehow in
the quotes.)

Even a trijection should exist which is defined as a triple relation
(a(n), b(n), c(n)) with a(n) the initial sequence of the first column
with n 1's, b(n) the initial sequence of the diagonal with n 1's, and
c(n) the initial sequence of a line with n 1's.

c(n) is not defined for a line of length less than n.

c(n) the initial sequence of a line with n 1's, as I said. Why should
it be defined for another line?

Then please just give me your definition of the function c.

So your function
h on N by h(n) = <a(n) b(n) c(n)> is not properly defined.

Your nonsense is getting tiresome.

You did not understand that a line with n 1's has n 1's?

Please just define your function c.

I defined the matrix and the diagonal. Under those definitions, the
diagonal is not a subset of the matrix.

Then you gave a false definition.

I gave ordinary set theoretical definitions. If you prefer some other
definition for your own intention, then please give your definition.

A diagonal of a matrix is a subset of the set of all elements of the
matrix which I abbreviate as subset of the matrix. This diagonal is
also a subset of the set of all elements of the matrix which have
value 1.

Please define your matrix. Then please define the diagonal of that
matrix (the above is not a definition.)

So, you might now say what
your definition of the matrix and its diagonal are, because in any
ordinary mathematical sense, the diagonal is not a subset of the
matrix. Or perhaps, you have a loose notion of 'subset'.

A subset D of M is a set all elements of which are elements of M.

So please define your matrix and the diagonal of the matrix.

MoeBlee


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What happened to Jack Sarfatti?
    ... I referring specifically to the local gauge principle appled to ... It is one of the key organizing ideas of modern physics. ... relation of mathematics to physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What happened to Jack Sarfatti?
    ... I referring specifically to the local gauge principle appled to ... It is one of the key organizing ideas of modern physics. ... relation of mathematics to physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What happened to Jack Sarfatti?
    ... I referring specifically to the local gauge principle appled to ... It is one of the key organizing ideas of modern physics. ... relation of mathematics to physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • G. Spencer-Brown RH "proof": follow-up
    ... It is this "principle" ... golden age of mathematics (and science, music, human intelligence ... x/logx asymptote) than he is with proofs framed in terms modern ... shrinkage" left me no less bewildered. ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • Re: G. Spencer-Brown RH "proof": follow-up
    ... golden age of mathematics (and science, music, human intelligence ... x/logx asymptote) than he is with proofs framed in terms modern ... which follows if you accept his principle, ... He claims this follows directly from shrinkage. ...
    (sci.math.research)
Quantcast