On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:25:56 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 17:47:40 UTC+2:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:26:17 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, 12. September 2022 um 23:42:37 UTC+2:
> > > >
> > > > No "Build another room".
> > > >
> > > X guests have completely occupied all rooms. With a new guest there are X+1 guests
> > >
> > Yeah, where X = aleph_0 and hence X+1 = X.
> >
> X+1 is more than X.

No, you blithering idiot, X+1 is NOT "more than" - read: larger than - X, since X+1 = X (and not X+1 > X).

Man, you are dumb like shit!

Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 21:03:00 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:25:56 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:

> > > Yeah, where X = aleph_0 and hence X+1 = X.

X is many and X+1 is many, but that does not mean that X = X+1.
> > X+1 is more than X.
> X+1 is NOT "more than" - read: larger than - X, since X+1 = X (and not X+1 > X).

X+1 is larger and more than X since it denotes one more guest.

Regards WM

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:12:45 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:

> X is many and X+1 is many, but [...]

Geh scheißen, Mückenheim!

Fuck off, Mückenheim!

On 9/13/2022 2:12 PM, WM wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 21:03:00 UTC+2:
>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:25:56 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
>
>>>> Yeah, where X = aleph_0 and hence X+1 = X.
>
> X is many and X+1 is many, but that does not mean that X = X+1.

WM has been doing that a lot lately in here

a man has two legs
a monkey has two legs
therefore all men are monkeys

Swell logic for a Professor of a Math course

>
>>> X+1 is more than X.
>> X+1 is NOT "more than" - read: larger than - X, since X+1 = X (and not X+1 > X).
>
> X+1 is larger and more than X since it denotes one more guest.
>
> Regards WM
>
>

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:12:45 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 21:03:00 UTC+2:
> >
> > We have X = aleph_0 and hence X+1 = X.
> >
> X is many and X+1 is many, but that does not mean that X = X+1.

Geh scheißen, Mückenheim!

Fuck off, Mückenheim!

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:53:59 AM UTC+2, Sergio wrote:
> On 9/13/2022 2:12 PM, WM wrote:
> >
> > X is many and X+1 is many, but that does not mean that X = X+1.

A keeper! :-)

My car is fast and a rocket is fast, but that does not mean that my car is a rocket!

So true!

On the oher hand, 2 is a natural number and 1 + 1 is a natural number, but that does not mean that 2 = 1 + 1?

> WM has been doing that a lot lately in here
>
> a man has two legs
> a monkey has two legs
> therefore all men are monkeys

tisdag 13 september 2022 kl. 14:26:17 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, 12. September 2022 um 23:42:37 UTC+2:
> > On 9/12/2022 4:50 PM, WM wrote:
>
> > > One fact that you cannot deny:
> > > There is one more person after than before
> > > and every person has his own room.
> > Another fact:
> > Nowhere in the problem description are there
> > instructions to a construction crew.
> > No "Build another room".
> Irrelevant. X guests have completely occupied all rooms. With a new guest there are X+1 guests, i.e., one more guest.
> >
> > Each room is occupied.
> > Each current guest moves to an occupied room
> > There is an empty room for the new guest.
> The magic of potentialinfinity! If there was completed infinity, then no room could become empty. I have proved this by the Mona Lisa. The new guest hands the stolen Mona Lisa to the gust moving from room 1 to room 2. He hands the Mona Lisa to the guest moving from room 2 to room 3. And so does every guest. Finally the Mona Lisa has disappeared. That means finally a guest carrying the Mona Lisa has disappeared.
>
> People who believe in Hilbert's hotel haven't a clue of actual infinity.
>
> Regards, WM
There is no magic, this is just how infinity work!

tisdag 13 september 2022 kl. 14:38:03 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 13. September 2022 um 07:26:02 UTC+2:
> > måndag 12 september 2022 kl. 15:50:27 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > > Gus Gassmann schrieb am Sonntag, 11. September 2022 um 15:41:29 UTC+2:
> > > > On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 10:14:28 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > An infinite set according to Cantor is complete. That means nothing can be added. Hilbert's hotel adds another room [...]
> > > >
> > > > No room is added
> > > A person is added. A room is occupied that before was not occupied.
> > >
> > You clearly do not understand how it works
> It is very easy to understand the sleight of hand.
>
> Regards, WM
Yet you understand fucking nothing

Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 01:04:17 UTC+2:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:53:59 AM UTC+2, Sergio wrote:
> > On 9/13/2022 2:12 PM, WM wrote:
> > >
> > > X is many and X+1 is many, but that does not mean that X = X+1.
> A keeper! :-)
>
> My car is fast and a rocket is fast, but that does not mean that my car is a rocket!
>
> So true!

Fine. For the same reason |ℚ| =/= |ℕ|.
Cantor shows that the first elements of the well-ordered sets are in bijection, i.e., of same size, but most of them are following every of his showings.

Why are all matheologians believing that alle elements of these sets are in bijection? Because all elements they can name are in bijection. They forget that always almost all elements would follow. In order to conceal this madness they claim that cardlim differs from limcard. Yes. The reason is the dark elements. But they don't dare to ask for the reason, not even to think about it.
>
> On the oher hand, 2 is a natural number and 1 + 1 is a natural number, but that does not mean that 2 = 1 + 1?

It depends on what you are asking for, the value or the representation.

Regards, WM

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 08:21:31 UTC+2:
> tisdag 13 september 2022 kl. 14:26:17 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> >
> > The magic of potential infinity! If there was completed infinity, then no room could become empty. I have proved this by the Mona Lisa. The new guest hands the stolen Mona Lisa to the gust moving from room 1 to room 2. He hands the Mona Lisa to the guest moving from room 2 to room 3. And so does every guest. Finally the Mona Lisa has disappeared. That means finally a guest carrying the Mona Lisa has disappeared.
> >
> > People who believe in Hilbert's hotel haven't a clue of actual infinity..
> >
> There is no magic, this is just how infinity work!

It is how the brains of matheologians work - or better their malfunction.
Infinity does not work but exist or not exist.

Regards, WM

onsdag 14 september 2022 kl. 17:04:58 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 08:21:31 UTC+2:
> > tisdag 13 september 2022 kl. 14:26:17 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > >
> > > The magic of potential infinity! If there was completed infinity, then no room could become empty. I have proved this by the Mona Lisa. The new guest hands the stolen Mona Lisa to the gust moving from room 1 to room 2. He hands the Mona Lisa to the guest moving from room 2 to room 3. And so does every guest. Finally the Mona Lisa has disappeared. That means finally a guest carrying the Mona Lisa has disappeared.
> > >
> > > People who believe in Hilbert's hotel haven't a clue of actual infinity.
> > >
> > There is no magic, this is just how infinity work!
> It is how the brains of matheologians work - or better their malfunction.
> Infinity does not work but exist or not exist.
>
> Regards, WM
it works the way it works and just because you are too retarded to understand does that not mean it is wrong. You're the one malfunctioning. You are a fucking crank!

On 9/14/2022 10:02 AM, WM wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 01:04:17 UTC+2:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:53:59 AM UTC+2, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2022 2:12 PM, WM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> X is many and X+1 is many, but that does not mean that X = X+1.
>> A keeper! :-)
>>
>> My car is fast and a rocket is fast, but that does not mean that my car is a rocket!
>>
>> So true!
>
> Fine. For the same reason |ℚ| =/= |ℕ|.
> Cantor shows that the first elements of the well-ordered sets are in bijection, i.e., of same size, but most of them are following every of his showings.
>
> Why are all matheologians believing that alle elements of these sets are in bijection? Because all elements they can name are in bijection. They forget that always almost all elements would follow. In order to conceal this madness they claim that cardlim differs from limcard. Yes. The reason is the dark elements. But they don't dare to ask for the reason, not even to think about it.
>>
>> On the oher hand, 2 is a natural number and 1 + 1 is a natural number, but that does not mean that 2 = 1 + 1?
>
> It depends on what you are asking for, the value or the representation.

No. you missed the point entirely.

5 is a natural number and 1 + 1 is a natural number, but that does not mean that 5 = 1 + 1 ?

>
> Regards, WM

google Logical Fallacies

you use these a lot, they make sense to you, they are your crutch,
but we see them as false, and a sign of degeneration of ones intellectual skills

Ad Hominem
Strawman Argument
Appeal to Ignorance
False Dilemma
Slippery Slope Fallacy

Circular Argument
Hasty Generalization
Red Herring Fallacy
Appeal to Hypocrisy
Causal Fallacy

Fallacy of Sunk Costs
Appeal to Authority
Equivocation
Appeal to Pity
Bandwagon Fallacy

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

better list here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You may well try to add morevocabulary of graph theory and type theory ;0

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 19:05:29 UTC+2:

> it works the way it works and just because you are too retarded to understand

Show your superiority! Where are the O's when all X
XOOO...
XOOO...
XOOO...
XOOO...
....
have been distributed according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m?

Regards, WM

Clown WM drivels bullshit as always:

> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...

Boah! Ingeniuos! Great math! IQ 20...

On 9/14/2022 1:44 PM, Tom Bola wrote:
> Clown WM drivels bullshit as always:
>
>> XOOO...
>> XOOO...
>> XOOO...
>> XOOO...
>> ...
>
> Boah! Ingeniuos! Great math! IQ 20...

looks like the USA flag !

|XOOO.......
|XOOO.......
|XOOO.......
|XOOO.......
|...........
|...........
| |
|

Sergio schrieb:

> On 9/14/2022 1:44 PM, Tom Bola wrote:
>> Clown WM drivels bullshit as always:
>>
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> ...
>>
>> Boah! Ingeniuos! Great math! IQ 20...
>
>
>
> looks like the USA flag !
>
>
>|XOOO.......
>|XOOO.......
>|XOOO.......
>|XOOO.......
>|...........
>|...........
>|
>|
>|

Yeah!

onsdag 14 september 2022 kl. 20:41:56 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 19:05:29 UTC+2:
>
> > it works the way it works and just because you are too retarded to understand
> Show your superiority! Where are the O's when all X
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
> have been distributed according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m?
>
> Regards, WM

You are thinking in terms of a step by step process. That is WRONG

The function f: N-> Q and such exist in its entirety already. Your X and O is IRRELEVANT!

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 11:35:18 UTC+2:
> onsdag 14 september 2022 kl. 20:41:56 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 19:05:29 UTC+2:
> >
> > > it works the way it works and just because you are too retarded to understand
> > Show your superiority! Where are the O's when all X
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> > have been distributed according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m?
> >
> You are thinking in terms of a step by step process. That is WRONG

Why?
>
> The function f: N-> Q and such exist in its entirety already.

Every definable natnumber can be reached step by step by its FISON.

> Your X and O is IRRELEVANT!

The cry of a tortured creature.

Regards, WM

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:32:01 AM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 11:35:18 UTC+2:
> >
> > You are thinking in terms of a step by step process [here]. That is WRONG
> >
> Why?

Because a function is not a process, you silly idiot!

Hnt:

> > The function f: N-> Q and such exist in its entirety already.

Hint: f is just a certain set of pairs, you fucking idiot!

On Friday, 16 September 2022 at 04:32:01 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 11:35:18 UTC+2:
[...]
> > You are thinking in terms of a step by step process. That is WRONG
> Why?

Because you are dealing with an *INFINITE* process (of your own demented creation). Infinite processes need to be analyzed through their limiting behaviour, you *FUCKING* *MORON*.

On 9/16/2022 2:31 AM, WM wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 11:35:18 UTC+2:
>> onsdag 14 september 2022 kl. 20:41:56 UTC+2 skrev WM:
>>> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 19:05:29 UTC+2:
>>>
>>>> it works the way it works and just because you are too retarded to understand
>>> Show your superiority! Where are the O's when all X
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> XOOO...
>>> ...
>>> have been distributed according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m?
>>>
>> You are thinking in terms of a step by step process. That is WRONG
>
> Why?

a step by step PROCESS is;

for m = 1 to oo step 1
for n = 1 to oo step 1
k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m
print k
store k on WMs computer using overwrites
next n
next m
end

a function is;

k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m

SO WM cannot tell the difference between a function and a process!

>>
>> The function f: N-> Q and such exist in its entirety already.
>
> Every definable natnumber can be reached step by step by its FISON.

definables are fake math.

>
>> Your X and O is IRRELEVANT!
>
> The cry of a tortured creature.

you wish, your X and Os are irrelevant, and they do not work. Fail.

>
> Regards, WM

Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes:

> On 9/16/2022 2:31 AM, WM wrote:
>> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 11:35:18 UTC+2:
>>> onsdag 14 september 2022 kl. 20:41:56 UTC+2 skrev WM:
>>>> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 19:05:29 UTC+2:
>>>>
>>>>> it works the way it works and just because you are too retarded to understand
>>>> Show your superiority! Where are the O's when all X
>>>> XOOO...
>>>> XOOO...
>>>> XOOO...
>>>> XOOO...
>>>> ...
>>>> have been distributed according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m?
>>>>
>>> You are thinking in terms of a step by step process. That is WRONG
>>
>> Why?
>
> a step by step PROCESS is;
>
> for m = 1 to oo step 1
> for n = 1 to oo step 1
> k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m
> print k
> store k on WMs computer using overwrites
> next n
> next m
> end
>
> a function is;
>
> k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m
>
> SO WM cannot tell the difference between a function and a process!

WM likes to talk about processes because they don't end, but properties
of functions can be proved using finite arguments. In effect he wants
to deny another part of his book -- the final words in a proof by
induction. He'd be quite happy with "P(1) and P(x) implies P(x+1)" to
be the end of it, but because he needs to sell the book, he concludes
(as does every author)

"so ist sie für alle natürlichen Zahlen richtig"

That's why I got him to confirm that a student of his (reading his own
textbook) could prove that k(m,n) = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m is a
bijection from NxN to N. It is so "für alle natürlichen Zahlen".

>>> The function f: N-> Q and such exist in its entirety already.
>> Every definable natnumber can be reached step by step by its FISON.
>
> definables are fake math.

.... and don't exist in WMaths anyway where k(m,n) is a bijection "für
alle natürlichen Zahlen".

--
Ben.

On 9/16/2022 9:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/16/2022 2:31 AM, WM wrote:
>>> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 15. September 2022 um 11:35:18 UTC+2:
>>>> onsdag 14 september 2022 kl. 20:41:56 UTC+2 skrev WM:
>>>>> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022 um 19:05:29 UTC+2:
>>>>>
>>>>>> it works the way it works and just because you are too retarded to understand
>>>>> Show your superiority! Where are the O's when all X
>>>>> XOOO...
>>>>> XOOO...
>>>>> XOOO...
>>>>> XOOO...
>>>>> ...
>>>>> have been distributed according to Cantor's prescription k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m?
>>>>>
>>>> You are thinking in terms of a step by step process. That is WRONG
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> a step by step PROCESS is;
>>
>> for m = 1 to oo step 1
>> for n = 1 to oo step 1
>> k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m
>> print k
>> store k on WMs computer using overwrites
>> next n
>> next m
>> end
>>
>> a function is;
>>
>> k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m
>>
>> SO WM cannot tell the difference between a function and a process!
>
> WM likes to talk about processes because they don't end, but properties
> of functions can be proved using finite arguments. In effect he wants
> to deny another part of his book -- the final words in a proof by
> induction. He'd be quite happy with "P(1) and P(x) implies P(x+1)" to
> be the end of it, but because he needs to sell the book, he concludes
> (as does every author)
>
> "so ist sie für alle natürlichen Zahlen richtig"
>
> That's why I got him to confirm that a student of his (reading his own
> textbook) could prove that k(m,n) = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m is a
> bijection from NxN to N. It is so "für alle natürlichen Zahlen".
>
>>>> The function f: N-> Q and such exist in its entirety already.
>>> Every definable natnumber can be reached step by step by its FISON.
>>
>> definables are fake math.
>
> ... and don't exist in WMaths anyway where k(m,n) is a bijection "für
> alle natürlichen Zahlen".
>

totally agree. WM wont say the words, so he can fill in the "Gap" or "clulster" or "interval" with his dark numbers...
I think that is his one trick pony, he masks it with stories of Achilles, matrixes, etc...

I think his course is an elective for business types, not mainstream math.

Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes:

> I think his course is an elective for business types, not mainstream
> math.

I imagine anyone can take it as it's a history course in the general
studies faculty. The college does not have a degree program in
mathematics so there is no one there to call him out.

The course is mainly history and as such is mainly unobjectionable.
Sadly, to get full marks the students do appear to have to repeat one or
more of his mantras, but it's all words, I think. They are not forced
to write fake proofs.

--
Ben.