Bruijn: his evasions continue
- From: victor_meldrew_666@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:05:58 -0800 (PST)
On 16 Jan, 14:55, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Read the posters by Wolfgang Mueckenheim, and you will find plenty
of examples. His results are often _contradictory_ to standard
outcomes. But ah, now you will say that his findings are simply
wrong, huh? Yet, as far as *I* can see, WM is employing _legal_
mathematical machinery.
This says rather a lot about how far you can see.
Tell you what: Give a reference to a single post that you believe
employs nothing but standard mathematical reasoning and derives an
inconsistency.
Tell you what: do the homework yourself.
No, Bruijn. You stop your evasions and answer the question.
The fact is you cannot: Muckenheim has never produced a posting
involving correct mathematical reasoning which has provided
a constsitency in axiomatic set theory. In your heart of hearts
you know this. Have the honesty and humility to admit it.
Victor Meldrew
"I don't believe it!"
.
- References:
- the need for relevance
- From: quasi
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Gonçalo Rodrigues
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Virgil
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: the need for relevance
- From: Han de Bruijn
- the need for relevance
- Prev by Date: Re: the need for relevance
- Next by Date: Re: the need for relevance
- Previous by thread: Re: the need for relevance
- Next by thread: Re: the need for relevance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
