Blumschien's very basic mistakes
- From: victor_meldrew_666@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 02:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
On 5 Sep, 22:03, Eckhard Blumschein wrote:
This is not a physics newsgroup.
I see physics affected by mistakes in basics of mathematrics.
Again, you are posting off-topic. This is not a physics newsgroups,
and you have not isolated any "mistakes in basics of mathematics"
that can be profitably discussed by mathematicians.
Charles Francis is a mathematician,
Who? I found no evidence of a mathematician "Charles Francis" on
the web, and no evidence of any mathematical publications
of anyone of that name.
He himself revealed being a mathematician. Most likely he was trained
at university as a mathematician.
So maybe he calls himself a mathematician (or maybe not), but his
website indicates an interest in physics rather than mathematics,
and his contribution to mathematics per se seems invisible.
Archimedes was rather rambling in positive sense as also were Galilei,
Leibniz, Newton, Weyl, Hilbert, v. Neumann and many others.
Aha! Blumshein rambles, but so did all these other great names,
so Blumscheit is their intellectual equal!!!
Fermat was a jurist, Einstein allegedly was a poor mathematician who
skipped Minkowski's lessons. Why do you intend to make mathematics esoteric?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I see it demonstrating that physics depends on possibly questionable
mathematics, not the other way round. Do finitism and deductionism
belong to physics? Didn't misuse of unscrupulously fabricated axioms
spread from mathematics to physics?
Again you can't help yourself. You are talking about physics again.
But the answer to your rhetorical question is no. I neither know
nor care whether physicists use (or misuse) "unscrupulously fabricated
axioms" but since mathematicians do not, the use can't have "spread"
from mathematics.
Aleph_2 is not physical nonsense but mathematical one.
What aleph_2 actually is, is the second uncountable cardinal.
Set theory lacks any tangible basis.
I conjecture that what you mean by tangible is physical,
that is subordinate to the interests of physicists.
If so then it is all to the good that mathematics has no
such basis!
Dedekind admitted that he did not have any evidence for his guess
that the entity of all rational numbers can be split into larger and
smaller ones wrt his cut.
Reference? Do you know what a Dedekind cut is? They are trivial
to construct.
For instance, Buridan's donkey has primarily to do with poorly understood
logical fundamentals rather than with physics.
Buridan's ass has nothing to do with mathematics.
By the way, if you must descend to "argument by name-dropping"
you might at least have the decency to spell the name of your
uncritically admired hero correctly.
I do not understand this hint. I do not uncritically admire Galileo Galilei.
I decided to borrow his synonym Salviati because I would like to stress
that his ultimate conclusion is fully convincing to me and not made
out-dated by Cantor.
Not because all sci.math readers had worked out what an arrogant,
conceited, self-satisfied, ineducable ignoramus "Eckard Blumschein"
is?
Once again: Do you understand why v. Neumann in 1935
did no longer believe in Hilbert space? His famous book
was published just a few years earlier in 1932.
The reason for v. Neumann to abandon his belief was most likely
a paper by EPR.
You will certainly agree that Hilbert space is pure mathematics.
Hilbert space is a topic in mathematics, and a very important
and fertile contribution. But why is it of interest whether or
not one particular mathematician may (or may not) have decided
not to "believe" in it? Again, as with all your anti-mathematical
arguments, you do not isolate any contradiction in the mathematics
but list names of prominent figures who you insinuate (but do not
prove) support your position.
By the way, Hilbert was still alife in Germany until he died in 1943,
and after 1935, v. Neumann did not find back to his former
hoity-toity attitude of understanding all.
And Eckard Bumschein has found his way back to his comfortable
hoity-toity attitide of understanding nothing.
Victor Meldrew
"I don't believe it!"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Very basic mistakes
- From: Salviati
- Re: Very basic mistakes
- Prev by Date: Re: Existance of a distribution
- Next by Date: Re: Number appeal
- Previous by thread: parameterization of like cube power sum number sets
- Next by thread: Re: Very basic mistakes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
