Re: A CHALLANGE TO CANTORIANS

David C. Ullrich wrote:

( and is being ignorent once more !! )

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:52:30 EDT, tommy1729
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

solve this equation

2^x = aleph_0

There is no solution to this equation. So what?

hint : 2^1729 is only finite and 2^aleph_0 is
aleph_1

What? Exactly how do you prove that 2^alph_0 =
aleph_1?

CMON DAVID . IT IS THE BASIC OF CANTOR SET THEORY AND VISION ON INFINITY

SURELY YOU MUST HAVE SEEN THAT BEFORE

EVERYBODY ON THE FORUM KNOWS ABOUT THAT

it is related to "uncountable set " "axiom of choice" "zermelo fraenkel" "continuum hypothesis"

and no it cannot be proven without accepting an axiom

but that is the WELLKNOWN viewpoint of cantor

JESUS YOU KNOW LESS THAN I EXPECTED !!

Again, even when you pretend to be "challenging" us,
the things you say are simply oozing ignorance.


NO YOU ARE THE IGNORANT FOOL

EVERYBODY HERE IS FAMILIAR WITH

2^aleph_0 = aleph_1

exept you !!!!!!!!!


hahaha

hahaha agian for ignorant ullrich

and trying to " project " his ignorence on me

projecting ; wiki for it.

tommy1729

ps if your going to say 2log(aleph_0) , you better
simplify that ...

Nobody's going to say that, because it makes no
sense.

you might have , since you even never heard of

2^aleph_0 = aleph_1

hahaha

your not even good enough to be a good crakpot ...

because they know what they are fighting against

and know the weaknesses of their opponents theories ...




maybe its aleph_-1 ? aleph_(root(2)-1)?

or aleph_i ?

hahahahaha

cantor "seems" to be incomplete

The arithmetic of cardinals is imcomplete, in the
sense
that not every equation has a solution. So what? Has
anyone ever claimed otherwise?

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

David C. Ullrich

stop the " ullrichism "

LADIES AND GENTLEMAN

ONE OF THE GREATEST CRITICS OF ME

AND DEFENDER OF CANTOR

HOWEVER HE DOES NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND ALEPH 0 OR ALEPH 1

HE DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HE IS DEFENDING !!!!

HAHAHAHAHA

typical for my critics :-)

tommy1729

ps : go whine to your lawyer and ask him to post another ode to you here on sci.math

and an apology too
.

Quantcast