Re: More complex numbers than reals?

Le 15/07/2024 à 15:41, joes a écrit :

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 13:26:25 +0000 schrieb WM:

Presumably that's why you teach history courses now -- you can avoid
having to write down even the most basic definitions of WMaths sets.

At the end of the course I talk about the present state of the art.

Do you cite the journal that has published your proof that Cantor is
wrong?

"Does Set Theory Cause Perceptual Problems?", viXra 2017-02-26 "Transfinity - A Source Book", SSRN-Elsevier (April 2024)
"Proof of the existence of dark numbers (bilingual version)",
OSFPREPRINTS (Nov 2022)
"Dark numbers", Academia.edu (2020)
"Dark numbers", Quora (May 2023)
"Sequences and Limits", Advances in Pure Mathematics 5, 2015, pp. 59 -
61.
"Transfinity - A Source Book", ELIVA Press, Chisinau 2024.

Cutting down to different platforms, I see only one book and one article.
The others count as selfpublished and haha, quora.

Then I am in good company. Cantor self-published his results too. And he even paid for that.

 

Do you give the "proper" definitions for set membership,

That cannot be done for potentially infinite collections because they
have no fixed membership.

And that is why no one uses it.

You are not aware that you use it?
"there is no single fixed number less than all/every other number. However, every number has a smaller one. Do you understand the difference?"
Do you? That is potential infinity. For every number you _construct_ a smaller one. If it would be there already, then you could have chosen it.

 

And the
nonsense you once tried to sell to my former students has been rejected
by them flatly.

Oh really? What do your students say?

That was some years ago. I don't remember the details, only the result. Probably the idea was discussed that an inclusion-monotonic sequence of infinite terms could have an empty intersection. Every sensible student recognizes that this is impossible. As long as all terms contain an infinite subset of the first set.
Regards, WM