It's not just that his Diagonal "Argument" is absolute drivel, but he was confined to a sanitarium because he literary was a nutcase.

Some time ago I gave the imbeciles on this forum a quiz:

So how did Cantor get the idea that the set N={1,2,3,4,...} is countable? And what exactly does "countable" mean?

Test your knowledge before we investigate what countable means, by choosing the one correct answer:

1. N is countable because it contains natural numbers.

2. N is countable because you can count the elements.

3. N is countable because each element has a unique name.

4. N is countable because every element has an ordinal value.

So, what do you think is the ONLY correct answer?

And now, I reveal the entire answer.

There is a lot of confusion among many set theorists and topologists regarding what it means exactly for a set to be countable.

I will explain in detail how our delusional Cantor came upon the idea and then show you a very simple way to determine whether a set is countable, by defining it in one simple sentence.

While there are those who try to distinguish between finite and infinite sets, there really is ZERO difference in the definition of countable. For example, http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Countable_set.html tries to distinguish between countable finite and infinite sets.

As you shall shortly see, our young Cantor, being the abstract learner that he was (I can't think of many Jews who are constructive learners! I myself am an abstract learner too), loved to imagine. I love to imagine also, except what I imagine is real, but the same can't always be said for Cantor or his stooges/followers.

Cantor knew that he could name every element of a finite set (duh, because it's finite!), but he fantasized about being able to name every element of an infinite set. The *need to name* each element, was of paramount importance in his mind, for without this ability, he could not well define the concept of set. After all, what use is a set, if its contents cannot be identified? Of course this is perfectly valid reasoning, since Cantor had not yet lost his marbles.

In due time, he experienced an epiphany concerning certain sets. Cantor soon realized that every member of the set of natural numbers already had a NAME! How is this possible? No, he was not thinking of 1, 2, 3, etc as most of you imbeciles would think. You can only count so far, before you run out of names, e.g. what do you call 234, 475, 573, 488, 111, 352 followed by a Googleplex of zeroes?

Well, you call it by the digits that are used in the given radix system, which is always a UNIQUE identifier! Voila! Cantor thought in terms of binary at first, but there is no difference between any radix system that is used, i.e. the representation is always UNIQUE. It is this representation that he adopted as the NAME of each element. (*)

Using this scheme, he could write down as many elements as he desired, by means of their names (not an index). The process of writing down elements or listing them came to be known under many different terms: representation, enumeration, denumeration, etc. However, all he meant was that the elements could be listed!

So now, Cantor had the means to list as many elements of the infinite set of natural numbers as he desired. The realization that he could list the set of integers and rational numbers soon followed. The inevitable happened next: what about real numbers? Could he name every real number? Well, had he known about Gabriel's decimal tree, he would have soon realised that provided one assumes real numbers can all be represented as decimals (as Cantor did foolishly assume!), then it too would be possible to list these also. Unfortunately, he resorted to the use of sophistry, which is clearly evident in his flawed Diagonal Argument.

You see, representation is nine tenths of enumeration (NAMING the elements).. How can anyone name objects that can't be represented? Ludicrous of course! So in our young handsome Jew's mind, the real numbers could not be listed. In fact, the real numbers can't actually be listed for two reasons: (a) they don't exist. (b) not all magnitudes and incommensurable magnitudes can be represented in decimal.

How did the idea of a one-to-one correspondence come about? A little reasoning reveals immediately that the idea was created solely for the purpose of teaching these somewhat complex concepts to constructive learners (read as: idiots like virgil, port563, dan christensen and aliases). See, there is really no need for any set to be in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, in order to be considered countable.

The only criteria, is that a set must contain elements that can be listed, given the importance of using unique names. The word bijection did not even exist until 1963. Did you know that?! :-) However, using the idea of bijection makes it easier to determine whether a given set is countable or not. In other words, making the concepts easier to learn for constructive learners.

To be sure, if all the elements of an infinite set have NAMES, then the set is countable. Another way of saying this, is that if the elements can be listed or written down, the set is countable. In fact, this is the ONLY criteria Cantor uses in his flawed Diagonal Argument. What this means is that his argument is clearly defeated by Gabriel's tree without a further enumeration process as I demonstrated by creating an INDEX set, which I then showed to be of the same cardinality (note that cardinality plays any role whatsoever in a countable set) as the set of natural numbers.

And now let's examine the questions posed in the Quiz:

The first option is FALSE. A set is not countable because it contains natural numbers. It is countable because its members can be listed. For example, the set {knife, fork, spoon} is countable, but none of its members are natural numbers.

The second option is also FALSE because 'counting' elements has NOTHING to do with a set being countable.

The last option is FALSE because sets can contain elements that do not have ordinal values. Again, {knife, fork, spoon} is one such set. The example set can be assigned ordinal values, but that does not affect the outcome.

*****************************************************************************
The correct answer is OPTION 3, that is, a set is countable if, and only if, each element has a UNIQUE NAME, that is, each element can be systematically listed or written down.
*****************************************************************************

In an old video (https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4) I showed that the so-called set of reals is denumerable by including a secondary enumeration in the form of an index set. Most of you are absolute imbeciles and would not have seen the result if I had done it any other way. Mark Chu Carroll is a fine example.

Carroll knew that he was being reeled in as a fish from the water. Without realizing it, Carroll had already agreed that all the real numbers were in fact in my tree, and consequently they had ALREADY been LISTED!

Carroll began to flounder, and suggested that 1/3 was not in my tree, which is rather funny because the moron on the one hand claimed that 1/3 = 0.333... and then on the other hand claimed that such a representation could not exist in my tree "because you can't visit the last node" (sic). Somehow in the stupid Jew fuck's brain, 0.333... means the ALL the 3s are there, but not in my tree!

Well, as you can see, this is obviously untrue.

Finally, I hope that you will take a couple of weeks to learn my New Calculus! All you need is a basic high school knowledge of mathematics. In fact, it is better if you have not studied any college math at all.

(*) It is this same realisation that kills his flawed Diagonal Argument. If all the "real" numbers can be represented uniquely in decimal, and a scheme exists to list them, then they must be countable! Tsk, tsk. Poor delusional Cantor!

Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 21. Januar 2022 um 07:03:24 UTC+1:

> Test your knowledge before we investigate what countable means, by choosing the one correct answer:
>
> 1. N is countable because it contains natural numbers.
>
> 2. N is countable because you can count the elements.
>
> 3. N is countable because each element has a unique name.
>
> 4. N is countable because every element has an ordinal value.
>
> So, what do you think is the ONLY correct answer?

It is this one: ℕ is not countable because no infinite set is countable. Countable is a nonsense notion for infinite sets.

> *****************************************************************************
> The correct answer is OPTION 3, that is, a set is countable if, and only if, each element has a UNIQUE NAME, that is, each element can be systematically listed or written down.
> *****************************************************************************

That would be true if every element had a unique name, but that is no the case. The easiest way to show this is the attempted mapping of naturals and rationals by Cantor's attempt:

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

between naturals k and fractions m/n to construct the sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, ... It is Cauchy's approach to start at the corner and serpentine in

1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
....

But we will show that this is impossible. In oder to index all positive fractions by natural indexes, collect all these indexes 1, 2, 3, ... and put them in the first column, indexing the fractions n/1. All other fractions get no indexes. This is expressed by an O's. In oder to keep the Figure clear, the indeXes will be expressed by X's (for the argument the particular numerical values are irrelevant). So we get, as the start position:

XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
....

Now every index is moved to the place which Cantor has prescribed: 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, ... . At this place there appears an X and where the index has been taken from there appears an O. After eight steps for instance we see the following picture: 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, 3/2 are indexed whereas 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1 have lost their indexes:

XXXXOOOOO...
XOXOOOOOO...
XXOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
....

As the result we find that the number of indexes X does never change, i.e., in every finite step (where it only could change) it does not. The number of O's remains constant and much larger than the number of X's. After every finite step!

If, after all, the X's will cover the whole matrix and all the O's will have disappeared, this can only happen during the so-called Matheological Explosion, happening after all finite steps according to the Matheological Syllogism: The O's will have disappeared never. Never we get into the infinite. ==> The O's will have disappeared in the infinite.

Unnecessary Remark: If an O should leave the matrix, this could happen only by going down the drain in the first column. But this drain is blocked as long as X's are sitting there below every O. And if all X's have been issued, then nothing can happen anymore. That's another proof that also in the limit no O can leave the matrix.

Therefore all O's remain there forever, indicating not ijndexed fractions. Alas we cannot find any not indexed fraction. That means they are dark, undefinable, unfindable, not addressable. And of course most natural numbers are dark too. Therefore they are not countable. There is no bijection ℕ --> ℕ.

Regards, WM

Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 21. Januar 2022 um 07:03:24 UTC+1:

> Test your knowledge before we investigate what countable means, by choosing the one correct answer:
>
> 1. N is countable because it contains natural numbers.
>
> 2. N is countable because you can count the elements.
>
> 3. N is countable because each element has a unique name.
>
> 4. N is countable because every element has an ordinal value.
>
> So, what do you think is the ONLY correct answer?

It is this one: ℕ is not countable because no infinite set is countable. Countable is a nonsense notion for infinite sets.

> *****************************************************************************
> The correct answer is OPTION 3, that is, a set is countable if, and only if, each element has a UNIQUE NAME, that is, each element can be systematically listed or written down.
> *****************************************************************************

That would be true if every element had a unique name, but that is no the case. The easiest way to show this is the attempted mapping of naturals and rationals by Cantor's attempt:

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

between naturals k and fractions m/n to construct the sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, ... It is Cauchy's approach to start at the corner and serpentine in

1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
....

But we will show that this is impossible. In oder to index all positive fractions by natural indexes, collect all these indexes 1, 2, 3, ... and put them in the first column, indexing the fractions n/1. All other fractions get no indexes. This is expressed by an O. In oder to keep the Figure clear, the indeXes will be expressed by X's. So we get, as the start position:

XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
....

Now every index is moved to the place which Cantor has prescribed: 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, ... . At this place there appears an X and where the index has been taken from there appears an O. After eight steps for instance we see the following picture: 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3 are indexed whereas 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1 have lost their indexes:

XXXXOOOOO...
XXXOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
OOOOOOOOO...
XOOOOOOOO...
....

As the result we find that the number of indexes X does never change, i.e., in every finite step (where it only could change) it does not. The number of O's remains constant and much larger than the number of X's. After every finite step!

If, after all, the X's will cover the whole matrix and all the O's will have disappeared, this can only happen during the so-called Matheological Explosion, happening after all finite steps according to the Matheological Syllogism: The O's will have disappeared never. Never we get into the infinite. ==> The O's will have disappeared in the infinite.

Unnecessary Remark: If an O should leave the matrix, this could happen only by going down the drain in the first column. But this drain is blocked as long as X's are sitting there below every O. And if all X's have been issued, then nothing can happen anymore. That's another proof that also in the limit no O can leave the matrix.

Therefore all O's remain there forever, indicating not ijndexed fractions. Alas we cannot find any not indexed fraction. That means they are dark, undefinable, unfindable, not addressable. And of course most natural numbers are dark too. Therefore they are not countable. There is no bijection ℕ --> ℕ.

Regards, WM

WM used his keyboard to write :
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 21. Januar 2022 um 07:03:24 UTC+1:
>
>> Test your knowledge before we investigate what countable means, by choosing
>> the one correct answer:
>>
>> 1. N is countable because it contains natural numbers.
>>
>> 2. N is countable because you can count the elements.
>>
>> 3. N is countable because each element has a unique name.
>>
>> 4. N is countable because every element has an ordinal value.
>>
>> So, what do you think is the ONLY correct answer?
>
> It is this one: ℕ is not countable because no infinite set is countable.
> Countable is a nonsense notion for infinite sets.

Muckymath's 'Axiom of Because I Said So' makes this notion true in
Muckymath.

Everywhere else, not so much.

After serious thinking WM wrote :
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 21. Januar 2022 um 07:03:24 UTC+1:
>
>> Test your knowledge before we investigate what countable means, by choosing
>> the one correct answer:
>>
>> 1. N is countable because it contains natural numbers.
>>
>> 2. N is countable because you can count the elements.
>>
>> 3. N is countable because each element has a unique name.
>>
>> 4. N is countable because every element has an ordinal value.
>>
>> So, what do you think is the ONLY correct answer?
>
> It is this one: ℕ is not countable because no infinite set is countable.
> Countable is a nonsense notion for infinite sets.
>
>> *****************************************************************************
>> The correct answer is OPTION 3, that is, a set is countable if, and only if,
>> each element has a UNIQUE NAME, that is, each element can be systematically
>> listed or written down.
>> *****************************************************************************
>
> That would be true if every element had a unique name, but that is no the
> case. The easiest way to show this is the attempted mapping of naturals and
> rationals by Cantor's attempt:
>
> k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m
>
> between naturals k and fractions m/n to construct the sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1,
> 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, ... It is Cauchy's approach to start at the corner
> and serpentine in
>
> 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> ...
>
> But we will show that this is impossible. In oder to index all positive
> fractions by natural indexes, collect all these indexes 1, 2, 3, ... and put
> them in the first column,

Why? Are you trying to make it "not work"?

FromTheRafters schrieb am Freitag, 21. Januar 2022 um 17:42:37 UTC+1:
> After serious thinking WM wrote :

> > But we will show that this is impossible. In oder to index all positive
> > fractions by natural indexes, collect all these indexes 1, 2, 3, ... and put
> > them in the first column,
> Why? Are you trying to make it "not work"?

No I am showing that it never worked. Shit happens.

Regards WM.

On Friday, 21 January 2022 at 18:37:41 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 21. Januar 2022 um 07:03:24 UTC+1:
>
> > Test your knowledge before we investigate what countable means, by choosing the one correct answer:
> >
> > 1. N is countable because it contains natural numbers.
> >
> > 2. N is countable because you can count the elements.
> >
> > 3. N is countable because each element has a unique name.
> >
> > 4. N is countable because every element has an ordinal value.
> >
> > So, what do you think is the ONLY correct answer?
> It is this one: ℕ is not countable because no infinite set is countable. Countable is a nonsense notion for infinite sets.
> > *****************************************************************************
> > The correct answer is OPTION 3, that is, a set is countable if, and only if, each element has a UNIQUE NAME, that is, each element can be systematically listed or written down.
> > *****************************************************************************
> That would be true if every element had a unique name, but that is no the case. The easiest way to show this is the attempted mapping of naturals and rationals by Cantor's attempt:
>
> k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m

Every natural number has a unique name in a given radix system. The pairing function doesn't change this fact because it uses natural numbers. That mapping is evidence that the rational numbers are also countable.

There is no such thing as an infinite set, so no relevance. The correct answer is indeed OPTION 3.

>
> between naturals k and fractions m/n to construct the sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, ... It is Cauchy's approach to start at the corner and serpentine in
>
> 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> ...
>
> But we will show that this is impossible. In oder to index all positive fractions by natural indexes, collect all these indexes 1, 2, 3, ... and put them in the first column, indexing the fractions n/1. All other fractions get no indexes. This is expressed by an O. In oder to keep the Figure clear, the indeXes will be expressed by X's. So we get, as the start position:
>
> XOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> ...
>
> Now every index is moved to the place which Cantor has prescribed: 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, ... . At this place there appears an X and where the index has been taken from there appears an O. After eight steps for instance we see the following picture: 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3 are indexed whereas 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1 have lost their indexes:
>
> XXXXOOOOO...
> XXXOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> OOOOOOOOO...
> OOOOOOOOO...
> OOOOOOOOO...
> OOOOOOOOO...
> OOOOOOOOO...
> XOOOOOOOO...
> ...
>
> As the result we find that the number of indexes X does never change, i.e.., in every finite step (where it only could change) it does not. The number of O's remains constant and much larger than the number of X's. After every finite step!
>
> If, after all, the X's will cover the whole matrix and all the O's will have disappeared, this can only happen during the so-called Matheological Explosion, happening after all finite steps according to the Matheological Syllogism: The O's will have disappeared never. Never we get into the infinite. ==> The O's will have disappeared in the infinite.
>
> Unnecessary Remark: If an O should leave the matrix, this could happen only by going down the drain in the first column. But this drain is blocked as long as X's are sitting there below every O. And if all X's have been issued, then nothing can happen anymore. That's another proof that also in the limit no O can leave the matrix.
>
> Therefore all O's remain there forever, indicating not ijndexed fractions.. Alas we cannot find any not indexed fraction. That means they are dark, undefinable, unfindable, not addressable. And of course most natural numbers are dark too. Therefore they are not countable. There is no bijection ℕ --> ℕ.
>
> Regards, WM

On Friday, 21 January 2022 at 18:50:26 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Freitag, 21. Januar 2022 um 17:42:37 UTC+1:
> > After serious thinking WM wrote :
> > > But we will show that this is impossible. In oder to index all positive
> > > fractions by natural indexes, collect all these indexes 1, 2, 3, ... and put
> > > them in the first column,
> > Why? Are you trying to make it "not work"?
> No I am showing that it never worked. Shit happens.

Of course it never worked. To make sense of it, one must understand it rationally, ie, each element can be systematically listed or named. Not that all of them can be listed - that is impossible.

>
> Regards WM.

Eram semper recta schrieb am Samstag, 22. Januar 2022 um 02:44:56 UTC+1:

> Of course it never worked. To make sense of it, one must understand it rationally, ie, each element can be systematically listed or named. Not that all of them can be listed - that is impossible.

If it is assumed that the whole matrix

1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
....

exists, then not every element can be indexed. OK?

Regards, WM

On 1/22/2022 2:02 AM, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Samstag, 22. Januar 2022 um 02:44:56 UTC+1:
>
>> Of course it never worked. To make sense of it, one must understand it rationally, ie, each element can be systematically listed or named. Not that all of them can be listed - that is impossible.
>
> If it is assumed that the whole matrix
>
> 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> ...
>
> exists, then not every element can be indexed. OK?
>
> Regards, WM

wrong. use diagonal threading like Cantor showed us all.

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 3:02:25 AM UTC-5, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Samstag, 22. Januar 2022 um 02:44:56 UTC+1:
>
> > Of course it never worked. To make sense of it, one must understand it rationally, ie, each element can be systematically listed or named. Not that all of them can be listed - that is impossible.
> If it is assumed that the whole matrix
> 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> ...
> exists, then not every element can be indexed. OK?
>
> Regards, WM
Don't feed the krank

On 1/20/2022 10:03 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> It's not just that

Shut idiot up.

On Saturday, 22 January 2022 at 10:02:25 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Samstag, 22. Januar 2022 um 02:44:56 UTC+1:
>
> > Of course it never worked. To make sense of it, one must understand it rationally, ie, each element can be systematically listed or named. Not that all of them can be listed - that is impossible.
> If it is assumed that the whole matrix
> 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> ...
> exists, then not every element can be indexed. OK?

Was this ever in doubt? Of course the entire matrix does not exist. It cannot.

While a completely worthless concept, countability makes sense in the way I describe it, that is, we can start at the beginning and systematically name the elements as far as we can go. We'll never name all of them because even if "infinity" were possible, we would be at it forever. There is no last natural number.

>
> Regards, WM

On Sunday, 23 January 2022 at 08:15:27 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 January 2022 at 10:02:25 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > Eram semper recta schrieb am Samstag, 22. Januar 2022 um 02:44:56 UTC+1:
> >
> > > Of course it never worked. To make sense of it, one must understand it rationally, ie, each element can be systematically listed or named. Not that all of them can be listed - that is impossible.
> > If it is assumed that the whole matrix
> > 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> > 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> > 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> > 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> > ...
> > exists, then not every element can be indexed. OK?
> Was this ever in doubt? Of course the entire matrix does not exist. It cannot.
>
> While a completely worthless concept, countability makes sense in the way I describe it, that is, we can start at the beginning and systematically name the elements as far as we can go. We'll never name all of them because even if "infinity" were possible, we would be at it forever. There is no last natural number.

aleph0 is an illusion in the dysfunctional minds of mainstream mathematics cranks.

Imagine if anyone came along today and made a statement like "...over the past 20 years, God revealed the transfinite numbers to me...".

It's the same reaction the cult leader Christ got from the Pharisees and Sadducees when he said "I am the son of God".

I am not dissing Christ because he was in my opinion a good man, but was he the son of God? Hmm. I don't think so. I could be wrong. I mean, after all, who is to say the Creators (whoever they are) could not change from their form of matter into physical matter to experience the human reality they created? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. My IQ is above 160 and I doubt anyone else knows for certain.

In conclusion, the "evidence" is insufficient for me. Josephus Flavius said he was a doer of wonderful works. Hmm. Whatever that means....

But with Cantor, all one needs is common sense (rare in mainstream math academics because they are a cult) to see that he was the father of all mathematical cranks. His diagonal mis-argument is easily seen as quackery. Kronecker was no genius but he had the common sense to state that Cantor's drivel is not mathematics.

https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4

>
> >
> > Regards, WM

Eram semper recta schrieb am Sonntag, 23. Januar 2022 um 07:15:27 UTC+1:
> On Saturday, 22 January 2022 at 10:02:25 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > Eram semper recta schrieb am Samstag, 22. Januar 2022 um 02:44:56 UTC+1:
> >
> > > Of course it never worked. To make sense of it, one must understand it rationally, ie, each element can be systematically listed or named. Not that all of them can be listed - that is impossible.
> > If it is assumed that the whole matrix
> > 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> > 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> > 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> > 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> > ...
> > exists, then not every element can be indexed. OK?
> Was this ever in doubt?

You know that.

> Of course the entire matrix does not exist. It cannot.

You are right. Most are wrong.

Regards, WM