On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:15:39 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 17:55:27 UTC+2:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:41:38 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> >
> > Hint: Intersection is not a "stepwise" process.
> >
> You talk about the dark domain?

No, I talked about the set-theoretic operation called /INTERSECTION/.

EOD

WM <askasker48@gmail.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 01:55:20 UTC+2:
>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
>> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
>> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Montag, 12. September 2022 um 01:56:56 UTC+2:
>> >> WM <mont...@t-online.de> writes:
>> >
>> >> >> You accept my argument that, in WMaths, "the result" of the swaps
>> >> >> (suitably defined) is no Os in any finite position?
>> >> >
>> >> > At the end there is in every case no definable O at any position. In
>> >> > my Mathematics, there are no undefinable O's.
>> >
>> >> You can discuss Cantor with other people, but I posted to show you how
>> >> to get the result you found surprising using only WMaths. If, as seems
>> >> likely, you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Just say you are
>> >> done.
>> >
>> > It seems that you have not yet comprehended the essence of my proof.
>> > Here it is again in few words:
>> > The result of all swaps of X and O in the matrix
>> > XOOO...
>> > XOOO...
>> > XOOO...
>> > XOOO...
>> > ...
>> > according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m is this:
>> >
>> > There is no O at any definable place of the matrix.
>> Of course I don't understand that -- I have no idea what a definable
>> place is.
>
> It is precisely what you wanted to teach me. The result of all
> indexing. Only indexed fractions are visible. You and other
> short-sighted mathematicians thought that were all.

Nonsense. None of that makes any sense in WMaths, and my argument was
in WMaths.

>> If you did, why did you not say it was
>> right or point out where I went wrong?
>
> I did.

So why this:

>> Right from the start, all I wanted was to help you understand how the
>> result you claim for Cantor can be reached using only WMaths.
>
> Okay, now you know that I had this result long ago.

So why did you claim that I'd gone wrong? Give your WMaths argument
that "the result" has no positions with an O in them and we can compare
notes. All this time I thought you objected to my conclusion!

>> Of course
>> you will do anything and everything to distract from that because you
>> hate talking about WMaths.
>
> No. But here I prefer talking about set theory.

Yes, because WMaths is a mess. Since you can't even define set
membership, equality and difference in WMaths, everything you say must
be very cautiously worded!

--
Ben.

tisdag 13 september 2022 kl. 15:41:38 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 03:36:25 UTC+2:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:30:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > > Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Sonntag, 11. September 2022 um 21:18:53 UTC+2:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, intersection is not a "stepwise" process
> > > >
> > > What step cannot be checked?
> > Consider:
> >
> > ∩{E(k) : k e IN}.
> >
> > Where do you see a "step" here
> This is the last step - if it exists. Allother steps are here ∀k ∈ ℕ: E(k+1) = E(k) \ {k}.
>
> Regards, WM
There are no FUCKING STEPS!

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 3:38:32 AM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 01:55:20 UTC+2:
> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> >> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> >> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Montag, 12. September 2022 um 01:56:56 UTC+2:
> >> >> WM <mont...@t-online.de> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> >> You accept my argument that, in WMaths, "the result" of the swaps
> >> >> >> (suitably defined) is no Os in any finite position?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > At the end there is in every case no definable O at any position. In
> >> >> > my Mathematics, there are no undefinable O's.
> >> >
> >> >> You can discuss Cantor with other people, but I posted to show you how
> >> >> to get the result you found surprising using only WMaths. If, as seems
> >> >> likely, you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Just say you are
> >> >> done.
> >> >
> >> > It seems that you have not yet comprehended the essence of my proof.
> >> > Here it is again in few words:
> >> > The result of all swaps of X and O in the matrix
> >> > XOOO...
> >> > XOOO...
> >> > XOOO...
> >> > XOOO...
> >> > ...
> >> > according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m is this:
> >> >
> >> > There is no O at any definable place of the matrix.
> >> Of course I don't understand that -- I have no idea what a definable
> >> place is.
> >
> > It is precisely what you wanted to teach me. The result of all
> > indexing. Only indexed fractions are visible. You and other
> > short-sighted mathematicians thought that were all.
> Nonsense. None of that makes any sense in WMaths, and my argument was
> in WMaths.
> >> If you did, why did you not say it was
> >> right or point out where I went wrong?
> >
> > I did.
> So why this:
> >> Right from the start, all I wanted was to help you understand how the
> >> result you claim for Cantor can be reached using only WMaths.
> >
> > Okay, now you know that I had this result long ago.
> So why did you claim that I'd gone wrong? Give your WMaths argument
> that "the result" has no positions with an O in them and we can compare
> notes. All this time I thought you objected to my conclusion!
> >> Of course
> >> you will do anything and everything to distract from that because you
> >> hate talking about WMaths.
> >
> > No. But here I prefer talking about set theory.
> Yes, because WMaths is a mess. Since you can't even define set
> membership, equality and difference in WMaths, everything you say must
> be very cautiously worded!
>
> --
> Ben.

So, Ben, have you made any progress?
How much pudding on the wall?
How much on the carpet?
How much still in the kitchen?

Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 03:38:32 UTC+2:
> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:

> >> > It seems that you have not yet comprehended the essence of my proof.
> >> > Here it is again in few words:
> >> > The result of all swaps of X and O in the matrix
> >> > XOOO...
> >> > XOOO...
> >> > XOOO...
> >> > XOOO...
> >> > ...
> >> > according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m is this:
> >> >
> >> > There is no O at any definable place of the matrix.

> > Okay, now you know that I had this result long ago.
> So why did you claim that I'd gone wrong?

You went to the limit. As you can see in the OP this is not the topic. The topic is that never an O is removed.

> Give your WMaths argument
> that "the result" has no positions with an O in them and we can compare
> notes. All this time I thought you objected to my conclusion!

Read the first post of this tread, in particular: In fact by application of (*) all O's are removed from all visible or definable matrix positions. If you deny to read I cannot do any more.

Regards, WM

JVR <jrennenkampff@googlemail.com> writes:

>> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 01:55:20 UTC+2:
>> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
>> >> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)

> So, Ben, have you made any progress?

None (as expected).

> How much pudding on the wall?
> How much on the carpet?
> How much still in the kitchen?

It's a mess! But maybe one of his students will catch a post or two.
You never know.

--
Ben.

Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 13:18:41 UTC+2:
> JVR <jrenne...@googlemail.com> writes:
>
> >> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 01:55:20 UTC+2:
> >> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> >> >> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> > So, Ben, have you made any progress?
> None (as expected).

You cannot read this simple sentence and confess that you attempted to convince me that it is correct? All O's are removed from all visible or definable matrix positions.

> > How much pudding on the wall?
> > How much on the carpet?
> > How much still in the kitchen?
> It's a mess!

Your denial of discussing honestly is really a mess.

> But maybe one of his students will catch a post or two.

Next semester, they will catch the whole topic including what you wanted to show me and, of course, the denial of the matheologians here and elsewhere, to discuss it.

Regards, WM

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 09:20:51 UTC+2:

> So, Ben, have you made any progress?

Like you he denies to be honest. Did you meanwhile find a way to tell us where the O's have gone?

Regards, WM

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 09:20:51 UTC+2:
>
> > So, Ben, have you made any progress?
> Like you he denies to be honest. Did you meanwhile find a way to tell us where the O's have gone?
>
> Regards, WM

I offered to show you how to get rid of the O's, but you didn't respond;
or perhaps I missed your response.

Just tell me how they got into your matrix, and I will tell you how to get them out.

Meanwhile:

"0 O[yster]s, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest O[yster] looked at him,
But never a word he said;
The eldest O[yster] winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head—
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the o[yster]-bed.

But four young O[yster]s hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat—
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other O[yster]s followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more and more and more—
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little O[yster]s stood
And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings."
--Lewis Carroll

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 09:20:51 UTC+2:
>
> > So, Ben, have you made any progress?
> Like you he denies to be honest. Did you meanwhile find a way to tell us where the O's have gone?
>
> Regards, WM

Incidentally, "he denies to be honest" is not a meaningful English sentence.
Normally I wouldn't correct a non-native speaker, since the intent is apparent;
however, in your case I will make an exception, because you are an
overbearing pompous fool.

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 15:28:41 UTC+2:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 09:20:51 UTC+2:
> >
> > > So, Ben, have you made any progress?
> > Like you he denies to be honest. Did you meanwhile find a way to tell us where the O's have gone?
> >
> I offered to show you how to get rid of the O's, but you didn't respond;
> or perhaps I missed your response.
>
> Just tell me how they got into your matrix, and I will tell you how to get them out.

You missed the response or pretended it. They got into the matrix by the assumption that all positive fractions are existing, but they cannot get out by Cantor's instructions.

Regards, WM

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 15:38:44 UTC+2:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 09:20:51 UTC+2:
> >
> > > So, Ben, have you made any progress?
> > Like you he denies to be honest. Did you meanwhile find a way to tell us where the O's have gone?
> >
> Incidentally, "he denies to be honest" is not a meaningful English sentence.

I am not teaching English but the correct dealing with Cantor's theory.

Regards, WM

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 3:48:25 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 15:38:44 UTC+2:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > > JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 09:20:51 UTC+2:
> > >
> > > > So, Ben, have you made any progress?
> > > Like you he denies to be honest. Did you meanwhile find a way to tell us where the O's have gone?
> > >
> > Incidentally, "he denies to be honest" is not a meaningful English sentence.
> I am not teaching English but the correct dealing with Cantor's theory.
>
> Regards, WM

That's real progress: In the past your response to such criticism has always been
to claim that you, aided by a Google search, know English better than the natives.
In the present case, "he denies to be honest" gives 0 hits.
And "I deny to be honest" give 2 false positives.
ROFL

You do have the audacity, however, to give your idiotic course at the newly re-baptized
'Institute of Technology' in muckmeatical DEnglish, don't you?

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 09:20:51 UTC+2:
>
> > So, Ben, have you made any progress?
> Like you he denies to be honest. Did you meanwhile find a way to tell us where the O's have gone?
>

"You missed the response or pretended it. They got into the matrix by the assumption that all positive fractions are existing, but they cannot get out by Cantor's instructions."

OK then, to get them out, assume that all positive fractions exist and replace the "O" at position (n,m) by k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m.
I guarantee that every O that got in will now have gotten out.
"getting in" and "getting out" are, presumably, valid well-defined operations in Muckmeatics.

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 15:59:59 UTC+2:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 3:48:25 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:

> You do have the audacity, however, to give your course at the newly re-baptized Technische Hochschule Augsburg in DEnglish, don't you?

I do not teach English but the infinite using English if required. That is not ideal. But certainly not as bad as teaching mathematics using Cantor's set theory.

Regards, WM

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 16:11:54 UTC+2:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:

> "You missed the response or pretended it. They got into the matrix by the assumption that all positive fractions are existing, but they cannot get out by Cantor's instructions."
> OK then, to get them out, assume that all positive fractions exist and replace the "O" at position (n,m) by k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m.

That has been done.
> I guarantee that every O that got in will now have gotten out.

No single O can get out of the matrix by exchanging X and O. The O's are no longer visible. Alas, where are they?

Regards, WM

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:15:59 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 16:11:54 UTC+2:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
> > "You missed the response or pretended it. They got into the matrix by the assumption that all positive fractions are existing, but they cannot get out by Cantor's instructions."
> > OK then, to get them out, assume that all positive fractions exist and replace the "O" at position (n,m) by k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m.
> That has been done.
> > I guarantee that every O that got in will now have gotten out.
> No single O can get out of the matrix by exchanging X and O. The O's are no longer visible. Alas, where are they?
>
> Regards, WM

Did you look under the bed?

On 9/14/2022 10:15 AM, WM wrote:
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 16:11:54 UTC+2:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:45:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
>> "You missed the response or pretended it. They got into the matrix by the assumption that all positive fractions are existing, but they cannot get out by Cantor's instructions."
>> OK then, to get them out, assume that all positive fractions exist and replace the "O" at position (n,m) by k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m.
>
> That has been done.
>
>> I guarantee that every O that got in will now have gotten out.
>
> No single O can get out of the matrix by exchanging X and O. The O's are no longer visible. Alas, where are they?
>
> Regards, WM

You screwed up, it is your matrix, your swapparoofest, you have yet to describe a process for your swapadoodles, you were putting X right on top of Os
for a long time, your mutilated your own matrix.

*What did you do with your Os ?* (look underneath your Matrix)

onsdag 14 september 2022 kl. 13:42:34 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 13:18:41 UTC+2:
> > JVR <jrenne...@googlemail.com> writes:
> >
> > >> > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 01:55:20 UTC+2:
> > >> >> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> >> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
> > >> >> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
> > > So, Ben, have you made any progress?
> > None (as expected).
> You cannot read this simple sentence and confess that you attempted to convince me that it is correct? All O's are removed from all visible or definable matrix positions.
> > > How much pudding on the wall?
> > > How much on the carpet?
> > > How much still in the kitchen?
> > It's a mess!
> Your denial of discussing honestly is really a mess.
> > But maybe one of his students will catch a post or two.
> Next semester, they will catch the whole topic including what you wanted to show me and, of course, the denial of the matheologians here and elsewhere, to discuss it.
>
> Regards, WM
I wish you would be fired so you don't spread your lies and misinformation

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 18:45:39 UTC+2:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:15:59 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:

> > > I guarantee that every O that got in will now have gotten out.
> > No single O can get out of the matrix by exchanging X and O. The O's are no longer visible. Alas, where are they?
> >
> Did you look under the bed?

Das nennt man Galgenhumor. Freut mich, dass weiter nichts kommt, vom Pudding.

Gruß, WM

Clown WM drivels bullshit, as always:

> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 18:45:39 UTC+2:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:15:59 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
>>> > I guarantee that every O that got in will now have gotten out.
>>> No single O can get out of the matrix by exchanging X and O. The O's are no longer visible. Alas, where are they?
>>>
>> Did you look under the bed?
>
> Das nennt man Galgenhumor. Freut mich, dass weiter nichts kommt, vom Pudding.

Sure, JVR is one of your current entertainers...

Le 14/09/2022 à 13:42, WM a écrit :
> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 13:18:41 UTC+2:
>> JVR <jrenne...@googlemail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 01:55:20 UTC+2:
>>>>>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
>>>>>> Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)
>>> So, Ben, have you made any progress?
>> None (as expected).
>
> You cannot read this simple sentence and confess that you attempted to convince me that it is correct? All O's are removed from all visible or definable matrix positions.
>
>>> How much pudding on the wall?
>>> How much on the carpet?
>>> How much still in the kitchen?
>> It's a mess!
>
> Your denial of discussing honestly is really a mess.
>
>> But maybe one of his students will catch a post or two.
>
> Next semester, they will catch the whole topic including what you wanted to show me and, of course, the denial of the matheologians here and elsewhere, to discuss it.

This year again Pr Wolfgang Mueckenheim, crank and students abuser will
"teach" then...

Hello Hochschule Augsburg board of directors! Hello Augsburg University!
Hello German Academy and German honest people! Isn't it time to END this
shame and madness?

On 9/14/2022 1:36 PM, WM wrote:
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 18:45:39 UTC+2:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:15:59 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
>>>> I guarantee that every O that got in will now have gotten out.
>>> No single O can get out of the matrix by exchanging X and O. The O's are no longer visible. Alas, where are they?
>>>
>> Did you look under the bed?
>
> Das nennt man Galgenhumor. Freut mich, dass weiter nichts kommt, vom Pudding.
>
> Gruß, WM

Der Pudding wird aus dem Os hergestellt.

WM <askasker48@gmail.com> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at Hochschule Augsburg.)

> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 13:18:41 UTC+2:
>> JVR <jrenne...@googlemail.com> writes:

>> > How much pudding on the wall?
>> > How much on the carpet?
>> > How much still in the kitchen?
>
>> It's a mess!
>
> Your denial of discussing honestly is really a mess.

You don't think that the fact that you can't define set membership,
equality and difference in WMaths is /not/ a mess? "It's a mess" is a
perfectly fair easement of your mathematics. These are basic operations
without which everything you say has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

>> But maybe one of his students will catch a post or two.
>
> Next semester, they will catch the whole topic including what you
> wanted to show me and, of course, the denial of the matheologians here
> and elsewhere, to discuss it.

Great. Do point out that you were not able to do exercise 1, and that
you bailed out before even trying exercise 2.

How do propose to present my argument since you could not understand it?

--
Ben.

WM <askasker48@gmail.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 03:38:32 UTC+2:
>> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> >> > It seems that you have not yet comprehended the essence of my proof.
>> >> > Here it is again in few words:
>> >> > The result of all swaps of X and O in the matrix
>> >> > XOOO...
>> >> > XOOO...
>> >> > XOOO...
>> >> > XOOO...
>> >> > ...
>> >> > according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m is this:
>> >> >
>> >> > There is no O at any definable place of the matrix.
>
>> > Okay, now you know that I had this result long ago.
>>
>> So why did you claim that I'd gone wrong?
>
> You went to the limit. As you can see in the OP this is not the
> topic. The topic is that never an O is removed.

That's a silly topic because no one disputes it.

>> Give your WMaths argument that "the result" has no positions with an
>> O in them and we can compare notes. All this time I thought you
>> objected to my conclusion!
>
> Read the first post of this tread, in particular:...

So you can't. You said you had my WMaths result long ago, but you can't
give the reasoning. You are just saying stuff to get off the hook.

> In fact by application of (*) all O's are removed from all visible or
> definable matrix positions. If you deny to read I cannot do any more.

Your OP is full of waffle. I had to turn it into maths to explain how
the Os "disappear". You talked of k and swaps and the undefined notion
of the result of an endless sequence of swaps. All anyone can do, faced
with such flannel, is define these things and /then/ produce the proof.

Had you been able to understand the proof, you would have seen that it
is identical in WMaths and in proper mathematics. It both explains the
mystery you see (no O is removed, yet no position in the result has an
O), /and/ shows you that this mystery is in WMaths as well. This is not
surprising because your textbook is all ordinary mathematics.

--
Ben.