Re: A strange belief

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:44:16 AM UTC-8, j4n bur53 wrote:

Thats an analogy, but not a proof.
>
All these cranks are not able to produce proofs.
>
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 5:29:51 PM UTC+1, Jew Lover wrote:

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:11:28 UTC-5, FredJeffries  wrote:

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 5:45:20 AM UTC-8, WM wrote:
>

It can also be proved that ℕ \ (F_1 U F_2 U F_3 U ... ) = Ø

>
I call your bluff: PROVE IT

>
The proof is simple and is in accordance with your mainstream ideas:
>
There are infinitely many FISONs F_i. All we need to believe is that an infinite process is possible. This is not a problem in your misguided theory because you claim that 3.14159... is the infinite decimal representation of the measure of that size known as pi.
>
Now pi - pi = 0. That is,
>
pi -(3+1/10+4/100+1/1000+...) = 0
>
which is only possible if 3+1/10+4/100+1/1000+... is pi.
>
ℕ - (F_1 U F_2 U F_3 U ...) = {}
>
which is only possible if F_1 U F_2 U F_3 U ...= ℕ.
>
Therefore,  ℕ \ (F_1 U F_2 U F_3 U ... ) = Ø.

>
"Its that simple. Don't apply fallacies if you
don't want to look idiotic. "
>
The crank readily produces "proofs", simply
invalidated theoretically by other relevant
theories (here logical, generally relevant).
>
That the crank maintains that the "proofs"
don't invalidate each other, instead of that
they do beside for example each invalidate
the other, is giving all the mathematical objects
their "true" properties, here that the crank's
objects have however else these.
>
Maintaining the "proofs" invalidating each
other, thus separable into all the classes
of theories where each holds without the
other, then is for usual cases where proofs
exist in the same true universe(s).
>
This is that there are false theories, but,
truth is all one theory, including the truth
of separation of fallacies in terms of belief
or state.
>
Due limits of course the thinker's theory is
among the separation of what must be false (or
incomplete) nonlogical theories, from what among
more or less true theories, as that theoretically
all those maintain their structure in the true
(logical) theory.
>
As mathematical proofs the "crank's" are usually
quite more directly separable and easier to separate
and maintain separated from for example dogma or canon,
then the point of inspiration or doggedness to the point
is for the framework that effectively disambiguates the
crank's point.
>
Of course this is tedious and for uninspiring or vapid
crank planks, not just worthless but according to the
tactic of the crank, a waste.
>