A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc. [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest. [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]

I have seen many proofs of Cantor's theorem that the irrationals (or reals) are uncountable, and none is at all convincing. [...] no matter how many irrationals you have to count, you will always have an integer available to count it with. Always. Therefore, the claim that there are more irrationals or reals than integers or rationals is nonsense. [...] All the math that takes place in the transinfinite is quite simply false. Notice that I do not say it is physically baseless, or mystical, or avant garde, or any other half-way adjective. It is false. It is wrong. It is a horrible, terrible mistake, one that is very difficult to understand. It is further proof that Modern math and physics have followed the same path as Modern art and music and architecture. It can only be explained as a cultural pathology, one where self-proclaimed intellectuals exhibit the most transparent symptoms of rational negligence. They are outlandishly irrational, and do not care that they are. They are proud to be irrational. They believe – due to a misreading of Nietzsche perhaps – that irrationality is a cohort of creativity. Or it is a stand-in, a substitute. A paradox therefore becomes a distinction. A badge of courage. [...] If we somehow survive this cultural pathology, the future will look upon our time in horror and wonderment. [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]

I consider Banach Tarsky type results to be far worse than unphysical, they go so far as to be non-mathematical – they should be considered false even as pure mathematics. [...] There is absolutely no mathematical theorem which depends on uncountable choice which is of use to mathematicians, and it is well past the time to scrap this nonsense. [...] It means that you don't need to take the uncountable ordinals seriously. [R. Maimon in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox contradict our understanding of nature?", Physics.StackExchange (2 Feb 2012) & (25 Jul 2013) & (9 Aug 2013)]

Regards, WM

torsdag 25 november 2021 kl. 09:40:49 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc. [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest. [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]
>
> I have seen many proofs of Cantor's theorem that the irrationals (or reals) are uncountable, and none is at all convincing. [...] no matter how many irrationals you have to count, you will always have an integer available to count it with. Always. Therefore, the claim that there are more irrationals or reals than integers or rationals is nonsense. [...] All the math that takes place in the transinfinite is quite simply false. Notice that I do not say it is physically baseless, or mystical, or avant garde, or any other half-way adjective. It is false. It is wrong. It is a horrible, terrible mistake, one that is very difficult to understand. It is further proof that Modern math and physics have followed the same path as Modern art and music and architecture. It can only be explained as a cultural pathology, one where self-proclaimed intellectuals exhibit the most transparent symptoms of rational negligence. They are outlandishly irrational, and do not care that they are. They are proud to be irrational. They believe – due to a misreading of Nietzsche perhaps – that irrationality is a cohort of creativity. Or it is a stand-in, a substitute. A paradox therefore becomes a distinction. A badge of courage. [...] If we somehow survive this cultural pathology, the future will look upon our time in horror and wonderment. [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]
>
> I consider Banach Tarsky type results to be far worse than unphysical, they go so far as to be non-mathematical – they should be considered false even as pure mathematics. [...] There is absolutely no mathematical theorem which depends on uncountable choice which is of use to mathematicians, and it is well past the time to scrap this nonsense. [...] It means that you don't need to take the uncountable ordinals seriously. [R. Maimon in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox contradict our understanding of nature?", Physics.StackExchange (2 Feb 2012) & (25 Jul 2013) & (9 Aug 2013)]
>
> Regards, WM

When are you going to stop being dishonest?
When are you going to understand logic?
When are you going to realise how wrong you always are?

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 3:40:49 AM UTC-5, WM wrote:
> A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc. [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest. [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]
>
> I have seen many proofs of Cantor's theorem that the irrationals (or reals) are uncountable, and none is at all convincing. [...] no matter how many irrationals you have to count, you will always have an integer available to count it with. Always. Therefore, the claim that there are more irrationals or reals than integers or rationals is nonsense. [...]

>All the math that takes place in the transinfinite is quite simply false.

But sir, doesn't this apply to your own work? Or are you merely transfinite? They are awfully close by to each other.

>Notice that I do not say it is physically baseless, or mystical, or avant garde, or any other half-way adjective. It is false. It is wrong. It is a horrible, terrible mistake, one that is very difficult to understand. It is further proof that Modern math and physics have followed the same path as Modern art and music and architecture. It can only be explained as a cultural pathology, one where self-proclaimed intellectuals exhibit the most transparent symptoms of rational negligence. They are outlandishly irrational, and do not care that they are. They are proud to be irrational. They believe – due to a misreading of Nietzsche perhaps – that irrationality is a cohort of creativity. Or it is a stand-in, a substitute. A paradox therefore becomes a distinction. A badge of courage. [...] If we somehow survive this cultural pathology, the future will look upon our time in horror and wonderment. [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]
>
> I consider Banach Tarsky type results to be far worse than unphysical, they go so far as to be non-mathematical – they should be considered false even as pure mathematics. [...] There is absolutely no mathematical theorem which depends on uncountable choice which is of use to mathematicians, and it is well past the time to scrap this nonsense. [...] It means that you don't need to take the uncountable ordinals seriously. [R. Maimon in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox contradict our understanding of nature?", Physics.StackExchange (2 Feb 2012) & (25 Jul 2013) & (9 Aug 2013)]
>
> Regards, WM

On 11/25/2021 2:40 AM, WM wrote:
> A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc. [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest. [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]
WTF are you babbling about ?
>
> I have seen many proofs of Cantor's theorem that the irrationals (or reals) are uncountable, and none is at all convincing. [...] no matter how many irrationals you have to count, you will always have an integer available to count it with. Always. Therefore, the claim that there are more irrationals or reals than integers or rationals is nonsense. [...] All the math that takes place in the transinfinite is quite simply false. Notice that I do not say it is physically baseless, or mystical, or avant garde, or any other half-way adjective. It is false. It is wrong. It is a horrible, terrible mistake, one that is very difficult to understand. It is further proof that Modern math and physics have followed the same path as Modern art and music and architecture. It can only be explained as a cultural pathology, one where self-proclaimed intellectuals exhibit the most transparent symptoms of rational negligence. They are outlandishly irrational, and do not care that they are. They are proud to be irrational. They believe – due to a misreading of Nietzsche perhaps – that irrationality is a cohort of creativity. Or it is a stand-in, a substitute. A paradox therefore becomes a distinction. A badge of courage. [...] If we somehow survive this cultural pathology, the future will look upon our time in horror and wonderment. [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]

Mathis is internet crank, why are you reposting crank crap from 9 years ago ?
>
> I consider Banach Tarsky type results to be far worse than unphysical, they go so far as to be non-mathematical – they should be considered false even as pure mathematics. [...] There is absolutely no mathematical theorem which depends on uncountable choice which is of use to mathematicians, and it is well past the time to scrap this nonsense. [...] It means that you don't need to take the uncountable ordinals seriously. [R. Maimon in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox contradict our understanding of nature?", Physics.StackExchange (2 Feb 2012) & (25 Jul 2013) & (9 Aug 2013)]
more crap posts from stackexchange

>
> Regards, WM
>

you are not reading professional peer reviewed and published in a professional journal Math, you are reading sloppy junk math.

Serg io wrote:

> On 11/25/2021 2:40 AM, WM wrote:
>> A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its
>> central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize
>> the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc.
>> [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest.
>> [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]
>
> WTF are you babbling about ?

you are insignificant.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:08:39 AM UTC-8, Serg io wrote:
> On 11/25/2021 2:40 AM, WM wrote:
> > A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc. [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest. [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]
> WTF are you babbling about ?

He is pursuing his normal hobby of dishonestly cherry-picking misquotations..

What makes this one particularly hilarious is that the 'dishonesty' of 'try and ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc.' to which Dr Magidor refers is exactly what our beloved Professor has been doing these past decades whenever anyone points out an application of or use for transfinite mathematics, such as Cantor's study of the convergence of trigonometric series (to name just the first).

Dr Magidor's Harvard lecture 'Some Set Theories are more Equal' can easily be found

http://logic.harvard.edu/EFI_Magidor.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Magidor

On 11/25/2021 9:41 AM, Brain Gery wrote:
> Serg io wrote:
>
>> On 11/25/2021 2:40 AM, WM wrote:
>>> A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its
>>> central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize
>>> the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc.
>>> [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest.
>>> [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]
>>
>> WTF are you babbling about ?
>
> you are insignificant.
>

that is indoctrinated into all Commies

Serg io wrote:

>>> On 11/25/2021 2:40 AM, WM wrote:
>>>> A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of
>>>> its central problems was shown to be independent is to try and
>>>> ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined",
>>>> "vague" etc. [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat
>>>> intellectually dishonest. [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more
>>>> equal", ResearchGate (2015)]
>>>
>>> WTF are you babbling about ?
>>
>> you are insignificant.
>
> that is indoctrinated into all Commies

in capitalist america the capitalist are teaching students to eat human
flesh, ie kids from capitalist china.

PROJECT EAT HUMAN BABIES TO SOLVE WORLD HUNGER- CANNIBALISM TO GO
MAINSTREAM IN SCHOOLS (PURE EVIL)
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=Y6Y313YOYH79
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:40:49 AM UTC+1, WM dishonestly wrote:

> A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc. [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest. [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]

Menachem Magidor (Hebrew: מנחם מגידור; born January 24, 1946) is an Israeli mathematician who specializes in mathematical logic, ___in particular set theory___.

He served as President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was President of the Association for Symbolic Logic from 1996 to 1998, and is currently the President of the Division for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology of the International Union for History and Philosophy of Science (DLMPST/IUHPS; 2016-2019). In 2016 he was elected an honorary foreign member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2018 he received the Solomon Bublick Award.

(Wikipedia)

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:40:49 AM UTC+1, idiot WM quoted:

> I have <bla>. [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]

Ah, the guy who claims that "in all kinematic situations" pi = 4?

"I am analyzing the equivalent of an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4."

Source: http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html

> I consider <bla> [R. Maimon in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox [...]"]

"He has either been blocked from or quit every single website he participates in [...]"

Source: https://cirosantilli.com/ron-maimon

Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:40:49 AM UTC+1, idiot WM quoted:
>
>> I have <bla>. [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]
>
> Ah, the guy who claims that "in all kinematic situations" pi = 4?
>
> "I am analyzing the equivalent of an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4."
>
> Source: http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
>
>> I consider <bla> [R. Maimon in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox [...]"]
>
> "He has either been blocked from or quit every single website he participates in [...]"
>
> Source: https://cirosantilli.com/ron-maimon

It is not the first time that Mückenheim quotes cranks in order
to support his fallacies. Most of the time cranks that also
pretend to refute established theories in physics (classical,
relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)

Well, Mückenheim has no degree in math, but he has one in
physics, so this is quite a desperate move on his part.

The pattern of a crank quoting other cranks is not surprising
though...

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 6:42:25 PM UTC+1, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:40:49 AM UTC+1, idiot WM quoted:
> >
> > I have <bla>. [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]
> >
> Ah, the guy who claims that "in all kinematic situations" pi = 4?
>
> "I am analyzing the equivalent of an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4."
>
> Source: http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
> >
> > I consider <bla> [R. Maimon in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox [...]"]
> >
> "He has either been blocked from or quit every single website he participates in [...]"
>
> Source: https://cirosantilli.com/ron-maimon

Das erinnert mich an den bekannten Spruch: "Wer solche Freunde hat, braucht keine Feinde mehr!"

["Those who have such friends no longer need enemies."]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 6:53:48 PM UTC+1, Python wrote:

> It is not the first time that Mückenheim quotes cranks in order
> to support his fallacies. Most of the time cranks that also
> pretend to refute established theories in physics (classical,
> relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)
>
> Well, Mückenheim has no degree in math, but he has one in
> physics, so this is quite a desperate move on his part.
>
> The pattern of a crank quoting other cranks is not surprising though...

Though you will hardly (if ever) find 2 cranks who agree concerning their own "unconventional theories".

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:40:49 AM UTC+1, WM wrote:

"It is further proof that Modern math and physics have followed the same path as Modern art and music and architecture. It can only be explained as a cultural pathology, one where self-proclaimed intellectuals exhibit the most transparent symptoms of rational negligence. " [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
as well as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Mathematik
and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

"Mathis exhibits blatant anti-semitism in his writings. He has claimed that many non-Jewish individuals are actually Jewish, including Jack Nicklaus, C.S. Lewis, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Pierre-Simon de Laplace."

Source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 04:40:49 UTC-4, WM wrote:
> A typical reaction of a certain mathematical community when one of its central problems was shown to be independent is to try and ostracize the offending problem by labeling it as "ill defined", "vague" etc. [...] I find this kind of reaction somewhat intellectually dishonest. [M. Magidor: "Some set theories are more equal", ResearchGate (2015)]
>
> I have seen many proofs of Cantor's theorem that the irrationals (or reals) are uncountable, and none is at all convincing. [...] no matter how many irrationals you have to count, you will always have an integer available to count it with. Always. Therefore, the claim that there are more irrationals or reals than integers or rationals is nonsense. [...] All the math that takes place in the transinfinite is quite simply false. Notice that I do not say it is physically baseless, or mystical, or avant garde, or any other half-way adjective. It is false. It is wrong. It is a horrible, terrible mistake, one that is very difficult to understand. It is further proof that Modern math and physics have followed the same path as Modern art and music and architecture. It can only be explained as a cultural pathology, one where self-proclaimed intellectuals exhibit the most transparent symptoms of rational negligence. They are outlandishly irrational, and do not care that they are. They are proud to be irrational. They believe – due to a misreading of Nietzsche perhaps – that irrationality is a cohort of creativity. Or it is a stand-in, a substitute. A paradox therefore becomes a distinction. A badge of courage. [...] If we somehow survive this cultural pathology, the future will look upon our time in horror and wonderment. [Miles Mathis: "Introductory remarks on Cantor"]
>
> I consider Banach Tarsky type results to be far worse than unphysical, they go so far as to be non-mathematical – they should be considered false even as pure mathematics. [...] There is absolutely no mathematical theorem which depends on uncountable choice which is of use to mathematicians, and it is well past the time to scrap this nonsense. [...] It means that you don't need to take the uncountable ordinals seriously. [R. Maimon in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox contradict our understanding of nature?", Physics.StackExchange (2 Feb 2012) & (25 Jul 2013) & (9 Aug 2013)]

Is that thread title meant to describe yourself? Well, then it *IS* time to crap on your nonsense.

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 13:53:48 UTC-4, Python wrote:
[...]
> It is not the first time that Mückenheim quotes cranks in order
> to support his fallacies. Most of the time cranks that also
> pretend to refute established theories in physics (classical,
> relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)

Well, Magidor is not a crank. Taking his quote so blatantly out of context is highly dishonest, though.
Mathis is certifiable, and Maimon is a physicist who did not finish a doctoral degree --- for whatever reasons.
What is one to make of the sources, however. All three start with the same letter. I hope we are not going to be subjected more drivel like this for every other letter of the alphabet.

Gus Gassmann wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 13:53:48 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> [...]
>> It is not the first time that Mückenheim quotes cranks in order
>> to support his fallacies. Most of the time cranks that also
>> pretend to refute established theories in physics (classical,
>> relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)
>
> Well, Magidor is not a crank. Taking his quote so blatantly out of context is highly dishonest, though.
> Mathis is certifiable, and Maimon is a physicist who did not finish a doctoral degree --- for whatever reasons.
> What is one to make of the sources, however. All three start with the same letter. I hope we are not going to be subjected more drivel like this for every other letter of the alphabet.
>

Yep, I should have mentioned that Magidor is not a crank. I'm now
reading his paper on Set Theory(ies). The way Mückenheim quoted him
completely out of context suggesting he supports Mückenheimish fallacies
is properly DISGUSTING.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:57:10 PM UTC+1, Gus Gassmann wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 13:53:48 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> [...]
> > It is not the first time that Mückenheim quotes cranks in order
> > to support his fallacies. Most of the time cranks that also
> > pretend to refute established theories in physics (classical,
> > relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)
> >
> Well, Magidor is not a crank.

Note that Python answered to my post which DIDN'T mention (or refer to) Menachem Magidor, of course.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:06:45 PM UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Gus Gassmann wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 13:53:48 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > It is not the first time that Mückenheim quotes cranks in order
> > > to support his fallacies. Most of the time cranks that also
> > > pretend to refute established theories in physics (classical,
> > > relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)
> > >
> > Well, Magidor is not a crank. [...]
> >
> Yep, I should have mentioned that Magidor is not a crank.

Nope. Since you replied to my post which DIDN'T mention (or refer to) Menachem Magidor, of course.

Note that Mückenheim very often quotes CANTOR (!) to support his own rather "unconventional views".

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:52:44 PM UTC+1, Gus Gassmann asked WM:

> Is that thread title meant to describe yourself?

Seems so.

"Dishonest, proud to be irrational[, spilling] nonsense" - fits perfectly!

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 15:21:07 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:57:10 PM UTC+1, Gus Gassmann wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 13:53:48 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > [...]
> > > It is not the first time that Mückenheim quotes cranks in order
> > > to support his fallacies. Most of the time cranks that also
> > > pretend to refute established theories in physics (classical,
> > > relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)
> > >
> > Well, Magidor is not a crank.
> Note that Python answered to my post which DIDN'T mention (or refer to) Menachem Magidor, of course.

ACK. I snipped too much and too fast. My apologies.