Re: tommy set theory / cantor simplified and corrected

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:30:00 EDT, tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:46:45 EDT, tommy1729
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

David wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:27:27 EDT, tommy1729
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Aatu wrote :


tommy1729 wrote:
even cantor doubted there were things like
aleph_2
or aleph_3 and assumed C = aleph_1

Very true. He was led to these doubts upon
noticing
the diagonal
method is flawed as we can always just insert
the
diagonal to the
list. Alas, "cantor" was too much of a coward
to
publicly admit the
error his ways, singing all the way to the
bank,
and
thus we are left
with the swindle of set theory, sneakily
rotting
the
brains of poor
impressionable youths.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss
man
schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
s Logico-Philosophicus


hey thats quite a different opinion/reply than

David C. Ullrich.

and whats more , you are correct !!!

wiki for it ULLRICH HAHAHA

in biografies about cantor the same thing is said
just as Aatu pointed out !

you loose David.

besides this proves you are not a prof in
mathematics else you should have known this !!

This is pathetic - you don't even realize when
people
are putting you on. Hint: Aatu is making fun of
you
here.

everytime i write something you dont understand
like

" aleph_2 " " C = aleph_1"

you simply reply off topic and with venom like:

"dont talk about things you dont understand"

yet DAVID IS THE ONE WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND !!!

explain aleph_3 really exists ??!!!

and your " disproof " of my set theory is bogus
as
well.

Really? You should explain where the error is.

Just like you should have either explained what
was
wrong with my comments about the zeta function -
you
never quite got around to doing that either, just
kept repeating I was wrong.

Another hint: Nobody believes you when you say
things like that with no explanation.

i will be happy to see a correct disproof of my
theory , since i am an openminded man , but that
bogus wont do.

tell me something , honest ,

your not a real professor are you David ?

all those mistakes you posted corrected by me and
others

yes others too , like Aatu for example.

it cant be a coincidence hmm.

tommy1729


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

David C. Ullrich

i explained over and over again

Either you're lying or you have an incredibly bad
memory.
You stated some axioms for set theory. I showed that
your
version of set theory is inconsistent. You've said
I'm
wrong about that, but you have not said one single
word
about _what_ is wrong with my demonstration that your
set theory is inconsistent.

you just wont get it.


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

David C. Ullrich

cmon david

others accepted it because of dedekind cuts

lwalke3 accepted it

more or less explained to you

but you dont read explainations hmm ?

how come nobody agrees on your "disproof" (lol)

Actually every competent mathematician on the planet
knows "my" disproof very well. You conclude that
nobody agrees because nobody's said I'm right?
That's not it - nobody is interested in things
that they've understood for years.

in fact people like lwalke3 are saying my set theory is consistant even 99 % equivalent to pocket set theory

or are you going to call him a crank too ??

or will you try to debunk dedekind cuts ? lol

are we heading that direction ??

Of course not. I didn't say anything about dedekind cuts.

reminds me of neilist saying robert got " tricked" lol.

read some more books

i recommend brouwer dedekind riemann and matheyasevich

that is if you really are a prof else dont waste your time on it ...

i also noted you gave no critic whatsover to the OP of " set geometrie " ( snicker)


guess you consider set geometrie good math LOL

also i have posted links to prove my value in math

such as the sequences in the integer sequence pages ( OEIS )

And somehow that proves that your set theory is correct?

I've published thirty papers on mathematics. Does
that prove that I must be right?

and at least 2 proofs about the new concept of " deniel"

based on the work of Manjul Bhargava

who ?

a mathematician , david ; a real one.

tommy1729


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

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: tommy set theory / cantor simplified and corrected
    ... David C. Ullrich. ... wiki for it ULLRICH HAHAHA ... Aatu is making fun of you ... and your " disproof " of my set theory is bogus as ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: area of circle
    ... >> for at least motivation for what's below.) ... >> David C. Ullrich ... with set theory and giving proofs that could be checked by a machine, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Consistency and proof by contradiction
    ... David C. Ullrich ... My humble apologies for that: that was perhaps due to a confusion ... So, from 'If set theory is consistent, Q is not a theorem' can we ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Axiom of Pairing
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... I also thought that sets neither have nor do not have members. ... up-to-date work on actual set theory. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: tommy set theory / cantor simplified and corrected
    ... David C. Ullrich. ... and your " disproof " of my set theory is bogus ... but you dont read explainations hmm? ... how come nobody agrees on your "disproof" (lol) ...
    (sci.math)