By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless. [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]

We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D. Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]

Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D. Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:52:47 AM UTC+1, WM wrote:
> By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless. [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]
>
> We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D. Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]
>
> Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D. Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]

Another demonstration of the Prefosser's habit of falsification by truncated quote. Here is the remainder:

<quote>
Added Dec. 6, 2008: I am very pleased and honored that Wolfgang Mueckenheim quoted this opinion in lecture XI of his fascinating course.
Added March 27, 2011: Read Wolfgang Mueckenheim's fascinating book ! I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113, that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense.

Clarification added Aug. 25, 2011: My endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim's wonderful book is purely philosophical. I have no expertise, or interest, in checking any possible technical claims that he may have made.
</quote>

Apparently the missing context is that Zeilberger doesn't read German and what he mistook for a proof
("once and for all") of something or other is Mückenheim's Donald Duck Fallacy. Then he retracted that,
presumably somebody pointed out that Mücke is a full-time usenet quack..

Zeilberger is a professor at Rutgers, which is the State University of New Jersey. He works exclusively on
combinatorics, which is not a subject very many people are interested in and for good reason. He is on
a crusade against other forms of mathematics, the kind where continuous quantities are considered. He
has a very big mouth and not much discretion. So he stepped into a cow pie when he saw that Mückenheim is
on a similar crusade.

On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 09:02:26 UTC-4, JVR wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:52:47 AM UTC+1, WM wrote:
> > By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless. [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]
> >
> > We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D. Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]
> >
> > Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D. Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]
> Another demonstration of the Prefosser's habit of falsification by truncated quote. Here is the remainder:
>
> <quote>
> Added Dec. 6, 2008: I am very pleased and honored that Wolfgang Mueckenheim quoted this opinion in lecture XI of his fascinating course.
> Added March 27, 2011: Read Wolfgang Mueckenheim's fascinating book ! I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113, that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense.
>
> Clarification added Aug. 25, 2011: My endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim's wonderful book is purely philosophical. I have no expertise, or interest, in checking any possible technical claims that he may have made.
> </quote>
>
> Apparently the missing context is that Zeilberger doesn't read German and what he mistook for a proof
> ("once and for all") of something or other is Mückenheim's Donald Duck Fallacy. Then he retracted that,
> presumably somebody pointed out that Mücke is a full-time usenet quack.
>
> Zeilberger is a professor at Rutgers, which is the State University of New Jersey. He works exclusively on
> combinatorics, which is not a subject very many people are interested in and for good reason. He is on
> a crusade against other forms of mathematics, the kind where continuous quantities are considered. He
> has a very big mouth and not much discretion. So he stepped into a cow pie when he saw that Mückenheim is
> on a similar crusade.

This assessment is spot on, except the evaluation of combinatorics. Pure combinatorics /may be/ mostly a "breadless art", but combinatorial optimization is is a very useful and fruitful field of study with many important applications.

So Moron Geilberger is anal buddy of WM?

Gus Gassmann schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 14:16:45 UTC+1:
> On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 09:02:26 UTC-4, JVR wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:52:47 AM UTC+1, WM wrote:
> > > By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless. [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]
> > >
> > > We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D. Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]
> > >
> > > Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D. Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]
> > Another demonstration of the Prefosser's habit of falsification by truncated quote. Here is the remainder:
> >
> > <quote>
> > Added Dec. 6, 2008: I am very pleased and honored that Wolfgang Mueckenheim quoted this opinion in lecture XI of his fascinating course.
> > Added March 27, 2011: Read Wolfgang Mueckenheim's fascinating book ! I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113, that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense.
> >
> > Clarification added Aug. 25, 2011: My endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim's wonderful book is purely philosophical. I have no expertise, or interest, in checking any possible technical claims that he may have made.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Apparently the missing context is that Zeilberger doesn't read German and what he mistook for a proof
> > ("once and for all") of something or other is Mückenheim's Donald Duck Fallacy. Then he retracted that,
> > presumably somebody pointed out that Mücke is a full-time usenet quack.
> >
> > Zeilberger is a professor at Rutgers, which is the State University of New Jersey. He works exclusively on
> > combinatorics, which is not a subject very many people are interested in and for good reason. He is on
> > a crusade against other forms of mathematics, the kind where continuous quantities are considered. He
> > has a very big mouth and not much discretion. So he stepped into a cow pie when he saw that Mückenheim is
> > on a similar crusade.
> This assessment is spot on, except the evaluation of combinatorics. Pure combinatorics /may be/ mostly a "breadless art", but combinatorial optimization is is a very useful and fruitful field of study with many important applications.

onsdag 8 december 2021 kl. 10:52:47 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless. [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]
>
> We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D. Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]
>
> Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D. Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]
He is a fucking crank

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 2:16:45 PM UTC+1, Gus Gassmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 09:02:26 UTC-4, JVR wrote:
[...]
> This assessment is spot on, except the evaluation of combinatorics. Pure combinatorics /may be/ mostly a "breadless art", but combinatorial optimization is is a very useful and fruitful field of study with many important applications.

Yes, that's true. However, my impression was that Zeilberger's area was the search for new combinatorial identities but
I may be wrong.

Ops, its not Moron Geilberger, its Zoron Failberger.
Sorry, my bad.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 14:25:27 UTC+1:
> So Moron Geilberger is anal buddy of WM?
> Gus Gassmann schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 14:16:45 UTC+1:
> > On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 09:02:26 UTC-4, JVR wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:52:47 AM UTC+1, WM wrote:
> > > > By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless. [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]
> > > >
> > > > We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D. Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]
> > > >
> > > > Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D. Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]
> > > Another demonstration of the Prefosser's habit of falsification by truncated quote. Here is the remainder:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > Added Dec. 6, 2008: I am very pleased and honored that Wolfgang Mueckenheim quoted this opinion in lecture XI of his fascinating course.
> > > Added March 27, 2011: Read Wolfgang Mueckenheim's fascinating book ! I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113, that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense.
> > >
> > > Clarification added Aug. 25, 2011: My endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim's wonderful book is purely philosophical. I have no expertise, or interest, in checking any possible technical claims that he may have made.
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > Apparently the missing context is that Zeilberger doesn't read German and what he mistook for a proof
> > > ("once and for all") of something or other is Mückenheim's Donald Duck Fallacy. Then he retracted that,
> > > presumably somebody pointed out that Mücke is a full-time usenet quack.
> > >
> > > Zeilberger is a professor at Rutgers, which is the State University of New Jersey. He works exclusively on
> > > combinatorics, which is not a subject very many people are interested in and for good reason. He is on
> > > a crusade against other forms of mathematics, the kind where continuous quantities are considered. He
> > > has a very big mouth and not much discretion. So he stepped into a cow pie when he saw that Mückenheim is
> > > on a similar crusade.
> > This assessment is spot on, except the evaluation of combinatorics. Pure combinatorics /may be/ mostly a "breadless art", but combinatorial optimization is is a very useful and fruitful field of study with many important applications.

He participated in: The Book "A=B"
https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/AeqB.html

He might not like the technical term undecidable/decidable.
So I guess he invents his own terminology:

tightly targeted machines

“The existence of the computer is giving impetus to the discovery
of algorithms that generate proofs. I can still hear the echoes of
the collective sigh of relief that greeted the announcement in 1970
that there is no general algorithm to test for integer solutions to
polynomial Diophantine equations; Hilbert’s tenth problem has
no solution. Yet, as I look at my own field, I see that creating
algorithms that generate proofs constitutes some of the most
important mathematics being done. The all-purpose proof machine
may be dead, but tightly targeted machines are thriving.”

Which is funny, because Diophantine equations are nevertheless
semi-decidable. So not really an example of undecidable.

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 14:52:23 UTC+1:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 2:16:45 PM UTC+1, Gus Gassmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 09:02:26 UTC-4, JVR wrote:
> [...]
> > This assessment is spot on, except the evaluation of combinatorics. Pure combinatorics /may be/ mostly a "breadless art", but combinatorial optimization is is a very useful and fruitful field of study with many important applications.
> Yes, that's true. However, my impression was that Zeilberger's area was the search for new combinatorial identities but
> I may be wrong.

This one could be more complex, Hilbert 8 and not Hilbert 10:

Yuri Matiyasevich reduced Riemann's hypothesis to the statement
that a certain program (written in the Python programming language) never halts.

Matiyasevich, Yu. "The Riemann hypothesis in computer science." Theoretical Computer Science 807 (2020): 257-265. URL = https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304397519304633

(Seen on science.mathematics.fom, 07.12.21, 00:49)

Whats the conclusion by Toron Heilberger, the problem doesn't exist?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 15:49:54 UTC+1:
> He participated in: The Book "A=B"
> https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/AeqB.html
>
> He might not like the technical term undecidable/decidable.
> So I guess he invents his own terminology:
>
> tightly targeted machines
>
> “The existence of the computer is giving impetus to the discovery
> of algorithms that generate proofs. I can still hear the echoes of
> the collective sigh of relief that greeted the announcement in 1970
> that there is no general algorithm to test for integer solutions to
> polynomial Diophantine equations; Hilbert’s tenth problem has
> no solution. Yet, as I look at my own field, I see that creating
> algorithms that generate proofs constitutes some of the most
> important mathematics being done. The all-purpose proof machine
> may be dead, but tightly targeted machines are thriving.”
>
> Which is funny, because Diophantine equations are nevertheless
> semi-decidable. So not really an example of undecidable.
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 14:52:23 UTC+1:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 2:16:45 PM UTC+1, Gus Gassmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 09:02:26 UTC-4, JVR wrote:
> > [...]
> > > This assessment is spot on, except the evaluation of combinatorics. Pure combinatorics /may be/ mostly a "breadless art", but combinatorial optimization is is a very useful and fruitful field of study with many important applications.
> > Yes, that's true. However, my impression was that Zeilberger's area was the search for new combinatorial identities but
> > I may be wrong.

On 12/8/2021 7:02 AM, JVR wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:52:47 AM UTC+1, WM wrote:
>> By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless. [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]
>>
>> We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D. Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]
>>
>> Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D. Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]
>
> Another demonstration of the Prefosser's habit of falsification by truncated quote. Here is the remainder:
>
> <quote>
> Added Dec. 6, 2008: I am very pleased and honored that Wolfgang Mueckenheim quoted this opinion in lecture XI of his fascinating course.
> Added March 27, 2011: Read Wolfgang Mueckenheim's fascinating book ! I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113, that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense.
>
> Clarification added Aug. 25, 2011: My endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim's wonderful book is purely philosophical. I have no expertise, or interest, in checking any possible technical claims that he may have made.
> </quote>
>
> Apparently the missing context is that Zeilberger doesn't read German and what he mistook for a proof
> ("once and for all") of something or other is Mückenheim's Donald Duck Fallacy. Then he retracted that,
> presumably somebody pointed out that Mücke is a full-time usenet quack.
>
> Zeilberger is a professor at Rutgers, which is the State University of New Jersey. He works exclusively on
> combinatorics, which is not a subject very many people are interested in and for good reason. He is on
> a crusade against other forms of mathematics, the kind where continuous quantities are considered. He
> has a very big mouth and not much discretion. So he stepped into a cow pie when he saw that Mückenheim is
> on a similar crusade.
>

How dare you call Wolfgang Mueckenheim's wonderful book a cowpie ! One can use dryed cowpies to heat huts, or boil rice.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 4:00:09 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> This one could be more complex, Hilbert 8 and not Hilbert 10:
>
> Yuri Matiyasevich reduced Riemann's hypothesis to the statement
> that a certain program (written in the Python programming language) never halts.
>
> Matiyasevich, Yu. "The Riemann hypothesis in computer science." Theoretical Computer Science 807 (2020): 257-265. URL = https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304397519304633
>
> (Seen on science.mathematics.fom, 07.12.21, 00:49)
>
That's a completely trivial statement. I can write a routine that evaluates Integral[f'/f] over an endless sequence
of regions, and halts if and only if the value is > 0.5, i.e. the hypothesis is false.
All that says is that I can't prove a statement for all elements of an infinite sequence by testing each
element individually.

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 17:02:07 UTC+1:
> I can write a routine that evaluates Integral[f'/f]
Doesn't make any sense. The paper is here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuri-Matiyasevich/publication/326247349

The halting problem is Σ_2, the Riemann problem is Π_2.

You need Chebyshev psi function. Functions π(n) and ψ(n) are closely
related but the latter allows simpler (without integral) reformulation
of the Riemann hypothesis. So no Integral there!

I dont know whether Integral[f'/f] = ln(f) is used.

JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 17:02:07 UTC+1:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 4:00:09 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > This one could be more complex, Hilbert 8 and not Hilbert 10:
> >
> > Yuri Matiyasevich reduced Riemann's hypothesis to the statement
> > that a certain program (written in the Python programming language) never halts.
> >
> > Matiyasevich, Yu. "The Riemann hypothesis in computer science." Theoretical Computer Science 807 (2020): 257-265. URL = https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304397519304633
> >
> > (Seen on science.mathematics.fom, 07.12.21, 00:49)
> >
> That's a completely trivial statement. I can write a routine that evaluates Integral[f'/f] over an endless sequence
> of regions, and halts if and only if the value is > 0.5, i.e. the hypothesis is false.
> All that says is that I can't prove a statement for all elements of an infinite sequence by testing each
> element individually.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 6:08:12 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 17:02:07 UTC+1:
> > I can write a routine that evaluates Integral[f'/f]
> Doesn't make any sense. The paper is here:
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuri-Matiyasevich/publication/326247349
>
> The halting problem is Σ_2, the Riemann problem is Π_2.
>
> You need Chebyshev psi function. Functions π(n) and ψ(n) are closely
> related but the latter allows simpler (without integral) reformulation
> of the Riemann hypothesis. So no Integral there!
>
> I dont know whether Integral[f'/f] = ln(f) is used.

The integral around a contour enclosing a simply connected region
within which f is regular gives the number of zeros. The point I am
making is that the connection with the halting problem is nonsense.
Not because it is false, but because it is useless.

The paper you quote is blather.

What do you mean by connection to the halting problem.
What connection? The halting problem, its negative
judgement usually involve an universal machine, some
diagonal argument.

What do we know, in 2025 Y.M. will post a paper that
shows the Riemann hypothesis has somewhere an universal
machine. He is just enjoying the suspense which
spices up his retirement.

LoL

Alternative scenario: Y.M. bites the dust beforehand.

JVR schrieb:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 6:08:12 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 17:02:07 UTC+1:
>>> I can write a routine that evaluates Integral[f'/f]
>> Doesn't make any sense. The paper is here:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuri-Matiyasevich/publication/326247349
>>
>> The halting problem is Σ_2, the Riemann problem is Π_2.
>>
>> You need Chebyshev psi function. Functions π(n) and ψ(n) are closely
>> related but the latter allows simpler (without integral) reformulation
>> of the Riemann hypothesis. So no Integral there!
>>
>> I dont know whether Integral[f'/f] = ln(f) is used.
>
> The integral around a contour enclosing a simply connected region
> within which f is regular gives the number of zeros. The point I am
> making is that the connection with the halting problem is nonsense.
> Not because it is false, but because it is useless.
>
> The paper you quote is blather.
>
>

What I found a little strange about the paper was his "complexity"
measure in terms of registers of a RAM machine. This is possibly
someting specific to the Diophantine community,

they are fond of reducing the number of natural number variables
further and further for certain problems. Not sure whether this
"complexity" measure would help finding the spot

where the Riemann hypothesis has some universal content, some-
thing I do not propose as a conjecture, but it could have maybe
some usuage in reducing this or that problem from or to the

Riemann hypothesis. Just an idea.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 18:36:05 UTC+1:
> What do you mean by connection to the halting problem.
> What connection? The halting problem, its negative
> judgement usually involve an universal machine, some
> diagonal argument.
>
> What do we know, in 2025 Y.M. will post a paper that
> shows the Riemann hypothesis has somewhere an universal
> machine. He is just enjoying the suspense which
> spices up his retirement.
>
> LoL
>
> Alternative scenario: Y.M. bites the dust beforehand.
>
> JVR schrieb:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 6:08:12 PM UTC+1, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >> JVR schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2021 um 17:02:07 UTC+1:
> >>> I can write a routine that evaluates Integral[f'/f]
> >> Doesn't make any sense. The paper is here:
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuri-Matiyasevich/publication/326247349
> >>
> >> The halting problem is Σ_2, the Riemann problem is Π_2.
> >>
> >> You need Chebyshev psi function. Functions π(n) and ψ(n) are closely
> >> related but the latter allows simpler (without integral) reformulation
> >> of the Riemann hypothesis. So no Integral there!
> >>
> >> I dont know whether Integral[f'/f] = ln(f) is used.
> >
> > The integral around a contour enclosing a simply connected region
> > within which f is regular gives the number of zeros. The point I am
> > making is that the connection with the halting problem is nonsense.
> > Not because it is false, but because it is useless.
> >
> > The paper you quote is blather.
> >
> >

On 08/12/2021 10:52, WM wrote:
> By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless. [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]
>
> We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D. Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]
>
> Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D. Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]

Yet another clueless uber-finitist for the other side of the very same
broken coin.

When Dunning-Kruger is a compliment...

Julio

On 08/12/2021 18:42, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On 08/12/2021 10:52, WM wrote:
>> By hindsight, it is not surprising that there exist undecidable
>> propositions, as meta-proved by Kurt Gödel. Why should they be
>> decidable, being meaningless to begin with! [...] A priori, every
>> statement that starts "for every integer n" is completely meaningless.
>> [D. Zeilberger: "'Real' analysis is a degenerate case of discrete
>> analysis", International Conference on Difference Equations and
>> Applications, Augsburg, Germany (1 Aug 2001) p. 8]
>>
>> We have to kick the misleading word "undecidable" from the
>> mathematical lingo, since it tacitly assumes that infinity is real. We
>> should rather replace it by the phrase "not even wrong" [D.
>> Zeilberger: "Opinion 108" (2010)]
>>
>> Read Wolfgang Mückenheim's fascinating book! {{"Die Geschichte des
>> Unendlichen", 7th ed., Maro, Ausgsburg (2011)}} I especially like the
>> bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113 that prove, once and for
>> all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense. [D.
>> Zeilberger: "Addendum to Opinion 68" (2011)]
>
> Yet another clueless uber-finitist for the other side of the very same
> broken coin.
>
> When Dunning-Kruger is a compliment...

But you WM aren't simply flooding the channel with these quotes? Where
is the research, where is the analysis and the criticism, where is
indeed any learning or even any logic at all here, but the usual battle
of authorities and the fallacies that are gonna get us all to hell??

Julio