Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: More complex numbers than reals?
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 13:41:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3bcdc0e737dc23dca26ae5c0f854210a2909cf15@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6ihi1$18sp0$6@dont-email.me> <871q40olca.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6n880$23rgt$2@dont-email.me> <87jzhsn4bn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<0_MBIwFUmcbVzDRphAhSXT1Jfqk@jntp> <87sewejgk9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<ONuEZurz8QD0hIPq2Y0YWmtMwpU@jntp> <87h6cskbed.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<GfPAXYt6LT0UDGoEl_i4274F1No@jntp> <87a5ijk38i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<G1mVUkcsH2hxNr2IXtw2WTVL2VY@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 13:41:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3370232"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3598
Lines: 49

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 13:26:25 +0000 schrieb WM:
> Le 15/07/2024 à 00:39, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :
>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> writes:
> 
>>>> You can define equinumerosity any way you like.
>>> And I can prove that Cantor's way leads astray.
>> But no journal will touch it.  I can't remember which crank excuse you
>> use to explain that.
> Simple: The journals are owned by matheologians and stupids. I have
> never tried to address them.
> Further all that stuff including this proof has been published as a
> book.
Standing in the face of the establishment is a sure sign of a crackpot.

>>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> difference and equality once you admit that those in your textbook are
>> only approximations?  Do you present a proof of the "surprising" result
>> that sets E and P exist with E in P and P \ {E} = P?
> There has not yet been any disprove of my simplest proof (that I told
> you recently and that you were wise enaugh to let it uncommented). The
> only daredevil who tried it, Jim Burns, has to assume that by exchangig
> one of the elements can disappear. No reason to pay attention. 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?

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.