Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:04:46 +0100, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> fed this fish to the penguins:

[snip]

Just one simple question: *honestly* what do you think is the chance
that you will stumble upon an inconsistency proof of ZFC? Literally
thousands of people have gone over the axioms and no one has found a
contradiction, [ ... ]

Perhaps they just haven't digged hard enough ..


That is your honest answer?

....

so what do you think your chances are, [ .. ]

Who cares about chances? The chance that I'm alive is less than one part
in a billion. The chance that HdB solves an outstanding problem with the
Least Squares Finite Element Method, while literally hundreds of people
have been thinking about it, is less than 0 percent, but just _look_:

http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2004/nlrlsfem.pdf

given that your
mathematical skills are poor at best and your knowledge of ZFC is
non-existent?

You sound like people who said to somebody that he should stop playing
his favorite music instrument because there are so many others who have
more talent and better skills. The man I'm talking about was so stupid
that he listened to them, while he played the keyboard much better than
I do. The difference is now that I'm still enjoying making music with my
limitted skills and limited talent while he is sitting back, frustrated
and well. Pursuing that idea further, you may suggest that people should
stop living altogether, because they are not "beautiful" enough ..


Don't be silly. I firmly believe in Chesterton's dictum

"If there are things worth doing, they should be done, even if badly"

We are not talking about a hobby here, but your persistent, delusional
idea that you are going to stumble on an elementary (you have not the
skills or the knowledge for more -- you yourself admit that much)
proof of ZFC's inconsistency.

[snip]

Do you see *serious*
mathematicians of finitist, intuitionist, constructivist, etc.
persuasion, loosing their time in concocting lame ZFC inconsistency
proofs? Stop acting the crank.

Blather! _Anybody_ can come up with something unexpected. But you _have_
to be a bit cranky for that, admittedly ..


I do agree that you share most of the major crank traits.

Regards,
G. Rodrigues
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who believes/believed that set theory is/was inconsistent?
    ... "If ZFC is consistent then PA is consistent." ... An inconsistency in PA could be rewritten using the ... I'm relying here on the assumption that Ed Nelson would ... But I didn't write that doubting the consistency of ZFC ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Proof that ZFC is inconsistent
    ... If you are SINCERE in attempting to prove ZFC ... first definition in precise, rigorous PROPER definitional form. ... possible to prove the inconsistency of ZFC, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Hans startling new set theory.
    ... > and failed to show inconsistency for 70 years". ... > tried so hard to refute ZFC but didn't succeed, ... The fact is that mathematicians have worked in ZF for a very long time ... I'm not sure I'd phrase it quite like Jiri did, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Hans startling new set theory.
    ... Jiri Lebl wrote: ... record of that claim of yours that, concerning ZFC, "people have tried ... and failed to show inconsistency for 70 years". ... tried so hard to refute ZFC but didn't succeed, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
    ... that you will stumble upon an inconsistency proof of ZFC? ... more talent and better skills. ... want to do mathematics why don't you, I don't know, create a "limit ... loosing their time in concocting lame ZFC inconsistency ...
    (sci.math)