Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Ask Marilyn , the female WM?
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 17:10:05 +0200
Message-ID: <vdjnoc$11qud$5@solani.org>
References: <vdht3k$1j1ke$1@solani.org>
 <OnmdnUmMg72tDmH7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 15:10:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="1108941"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nYMx/45j5cpKpwoPtVr/TvWtY7k=
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwDAEBMCVCP8YRyX2H6F3MConnKBjsUQ19htLmJfjbPY+kSj5mi/6SNKSoz7XTj+peLwbSh+9+QNBKRUR
In-Reply-To: <OnmdnUmMg72tDmH7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 4651
Lines: 91

I admit an interesting person.
I wonder what happened here:

A few months after Andrew Wiles said he had proved Fermat's Last 
Theorem, Savant published the book The World's Most Famous Math Problem 
(October 1993),[27] which surveys the history of Fermat's Last Theorem 
as well as other mathematical problems.

Especially contested was Savant's statement that Wiles' proof should be 
rejected for its use of non-Euclidean geometry. Savant stated that 
because "the chain of proof is based in hyperbolic (Lobachevskian) 
geometry",

and because squaring the circle is seen as a "famous impossibility" 
despite being possible in hyperbolic geometry, then "if we reject a 
hyperbolic method of squaring the circle, we should also reject a 
hyperbolic proof of Fermat's last theorem."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant#Fermat's_Last_Theorem

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
> On 10/01/2024 03:29 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>> Holy shit, what would Cantor say?
>>
>> Q: Dear Marilyn:
>> Which is the biggest, an infinite line,
>> an infinite circle, or an infinite plane?
>>
>> A: Dear Reader:
>> I'd say an infinite plane. When comparing
>> only a line and a circle, no matter how
>> large they grow, the circle would have the
>> greater number of points. (For example, a
>> one-mile-wide circular line "straightened
>> out" would be over three miles long.) If
>> the circle were "filled in" as well, it
>> would have an even greater number of points
>> an its surface. An unbounded plane surface,
>> however, would have even more because it
>> could be said to consist of an infinite
>> number of infinite lines, laid side by side.
>> However bad it would be to mow along an
>> infinite sidewalk, it would be worse to
>> mow the entire lawn it bordered.
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/paradesaskmarily00mari/page/184/mode/2up
> 
> There's Katz' OUTPACING,
> I imagine Cantor wouldn't say
> much as he's been six feet deep
> about a hundred years.
> 
> 
> Then when that columnist "greatest IQ
> in the world" gets into either of the
> "material implication" or "Monty Haul",
> now either of those are _wrong_, and
> here it looks to be an intentional aggravation,
> anyways that's not funny on sci.math
> and many might wonder whether it's just plain fake.
> 
> 
> Anyways Katz' OUTPACING simply enough makes for
> a size relation that's "proper superset is bigger",
> then with some naive "points" comprising the things,
> all only one set of them, in "the space".
> 
> Mostly though you'd get "I was in either New Math I or
> New Math II and my thusly modern mathematics has that
> according to cardinals, those all have the same cardinal
> as point-sets, while for example in size relations of
> how they relate inversely matters of perspective and
> projective, I can definitely see how a simple sort of
> logical geometry can result that what relations exist,
> in cardinality, according to functional relations,
> make for furthermore simple size relations based on
> 'logical geometry' and cardinality, so that the fact
> that I was taught transfinite cardinals before I ever
> learned calculus, isn't so embarrassing when it's
> got no applicability".
> 
> 
> Anyways you can just futz a 'logical geometry' where
> some matters of relations of those as then invariant
> makes a simple hierarchy of those that happen to relate
> as whatever's a transitive inequality in infinite sets,
> transfinite cardinality.
> 
> 
> Anyways that's stupid probably and that's merely bait.
> 
>