Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)

Le 09/12/2024 à 22:50, WM a écrit :

On 09.12.2024 21:07, Python wrote:

Le 09/12/2024 à 20:40, Crank Wolfgang Mückenheim from Hochschule Augsburg aka WM a écrit :

On 09.12.2024 20:18, Python wrote:

Le 08/12/2024 à 23:34, Crank Wolfgang Mückenheim from Hochschule Augsburg aka WM a écrit :

On 08.12.2024 19:01, Jim Burns wrote:

On 12/8/2024 5:50 AM, WM wrote:

>

∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1)∩E(2)∩...∩E(n) = E(n)
What can't you understand here?

>
{E(i):i} is the set.of.all non.empty end.segments.
>
⋂{E(i):i} is the intersection.of.all

non.empty end.segments.

>
∀n ∈ ℕ:
{E(i):i}∪{E(n+1)} = {E(i):i}
Each is "already" in.

>
Not the empty endsegment.
∀n ∈ ℕ: E(n) is non-empty. But not every E(n+1).

>
You could hardly write something worse and more wrong that that.
>
The very core property of N is that if n ∈ ℕ then n+1 ∈ ℕ.

>
That is correct for definable natural numbers and even for almost all dark natural numbers.
>
The very core property of analysis is that equal sequences have equal limits if they have limits at all.

 E(1)∩E(2)∩...∩E(n) = E(n)
 Lim E(1)∩E(2)∩...∩E(n) = {}
Lim E(n) = {}
 The are equal.

 Not in a set theory where every endsegment is infinite.

Nonsense.
I once asked a whole classroom what they think of your claims, providing your posts/site as well as Ben's paper : http://bsb.me.uk/dd-wealth.pdf. I didn't say anything about my position.
100% of students who took time to look at it (~ 15 of them) concluded that you were wrong.
There is NO doubt that any classroom that is not victim of your abuse of authority at Hochschule Augsburg would conclude the same way. Absolutely NO doubt.
You are a shame, crank Wolfgang Mückenheim, from Hochschule Augsburg.
You deserve to give the money German paid you back, more as fees and go to jail.